2009.11.19 Defense Files Motion suggesting Kronk as Killer #4

[Bathbuddys]

I think they did investigate him, but not as an equal suspect with circumstantial evidence. I do not believe they crossed state lines and talked to his ex wives or his son. The defense claims that they never even aquired his phone records. His former kidnapping charge should have been a big red flag for them.

And if they did investigate him, where is the sunshine law discovery of that?

It is just my opinion that they did not investigate him. I base this on the lack of evidence that they did. I really don't believe in my heart of hearts that they ever looked at him as a suspect.

OH I am SURE they investigated him thoroughly as to his way of reporting etc.
The exes were questioned and his phone records were mentioned also. They have all of it. The reason his investigation does not fall into the "sunshine law" is that he was not arrested for murdering this child. The court documents are what is included with the sunshine law.

I am sticking to Caylee (angel) drowning while KC on the phone and then she made up the kidnapping as she could not face her mother.... genuine and typical socio-pathic behaviour.
Or if she did not drown by accident and then the tape placed, she was so angry at her mother and didn't plan on killing her but did in a rage and now happy that her mother is hurting and therefor she (KC) is still in control.

 

[notthatsmart]

What connects Kronk to an alive Caylee? I know how hard it is for some to accept that a mother can kill her own child, but blaming it on someone who has no connection to poor Caylee will not bring her the justice she so deserves. IMO

I don't think anyone is blaming Rk. They are just asking for an investigation in to him as a suspect.

A lot of perps do not know their victims.

Justice for Caylee is to look into this for the defense who is equal respected officers of the court. Anything they say, should be highly regaurded as aslo with SA.

 

[notthatsmart]

OH I am SURE they investigated him thoroughly as to his way of reporting etc.
The exes were questioned and his phone records were mentioned also. They have all of it. The reason his investigation does not fall into the "sunshine law" is that he was not arrested for murdering this child. The court documents are what is included with the sunshine law.

I am sticking to Caylee (angel) drowning while KC on the phone and then she made up the kidnapping as she could not face her mother.... genuine and typical socio-pathic behaviour.
Or if she did not drown by accident and then the tape placed, she was so angry at her mother and didn't plan on killing her but did in a rage and now happy that her mother is hurting and therefor she (KC) is still in control.

Bold 1: All the other interviews were given out in the sunshine law. I can't imagine that these would be held unless they were exculpatory for Kc. I do not believe that SA releases exculpatory evidence to sunshine law. At least I have seen none so far.

ps I like your theories.

 

[notthatsmart]

NTS, you are quite entitled to your opinion and I can respect that. I think we have gone over and over and over this. I think that what I am understanding from you is that you feel that LE did not investigate Kronk to your satisfaction? You have every right to feel that way.

However, LE, sets a standard and determines who is and who is not a suspect and they follow where the case leads. It's not up to you and me. And what they did or didn't do will be held up to scrutiny in the courtroom. I think to resolve this we are going to have to wait and see what comes out in court. On a side note...it is interesting that Jose still has not filed his witness list, with any of these deposed persons listed. I don't think that anyone will be able to answer your questions to your satisfaction.

Sadly, the case and clues led to the mother of Caylee. I know it is upsetting to believe that a mom would kill their child. But, unfortunately it happens. I think you might be taking others posts too literally, when you simplify someone's statement to say..killed someone because they were mad at their mom or killed someone to party. It's like RR said...it was that she wanted a different lifestyle, the "bella vita" if you will.

I certainly agree that it is not up to you or me who gets investigated. But, this thread is about the defense filing a motion to the court to force Le to look at it. Has nothing to do with you or me. I think the defense has made a smart move here.

Okay, I will leave it at that, you believe the motive is that she wanted a different life style. Do you think Sa will use this for a motive? I do.

I also think it is not a very convincing motive for a jury that is listening to both sides equally. The facts that I stated are of my opinion.

 

[Harmony 2]

Evidence shows there was a decomposing Caylee in the trunk of Casey's car. How in the world will the defense tie that to Kronk?
jmo

Moreover, how did Kronk gain access to the Whitney laundry bag kept in the Anthony garage and the Winnie the Pooh blanket? :waitasec:

 

[darnudes]

You haven't seen the enthomology and medical examiners reports? Have you heard or read Rk interviews? I will get those links to you tomorrow.

Ps, wrapped across the face, but not attached to any flesh. I am sure the duct tape did not detach itself from the flesh and then reattach itself to the bone. It was connected to the hair, but could be just flopping around in the water. I really need to see those pics since the defense said they will challenge this part.

Good luck with seeing those pictures, not that I understand why you would want to.

Do you remember Ms Linda Drane Burdick?- She stated: "No, I, actually my position is not to protect the family, my position is to protect the child who is deceased.

Ms Drane Burdick and the SA office did not want those photos to be leaked to the media/public to protect Caylee.

Hopefully, that part of the trial, where the photos are shown to the jury, will have a media blackout. I am more than happy for the jury to decide what to make of the photos, I don't need to see them.

 

[LC446]

I certainly agree that it is not up to you or me who gets investigated. But, this thread is about the defense filing a motion to the court to force Le to look at it. Has nothing to do with you or me. I think the defense has made a smart move here.

Okay, I will leave it at that, you believe the motive is that she wanted a different life style. Do you think Sa will use this for a motive? I do.

I also think it is not a very convincing motive for a jury that is listening to both sides equally. The facts that I stated are of my opinion.

Yep, the thread is about the defense filing a motion about Kronk as a suspect. They can file whatever they like. We disagree that is a smart move. I think it is a stab in the dark because while they can ask that he be looked at as a suspect they can't and don't provide the answers about Kronk to the "W" and "H" questions that you asked earlier. They don't tell you how it is possible that Kronk had access to Caylee, nor how he had access to the tape, laundry bag, car trunk, etc. Just...hey take a look at this guy cause he found her and he had a kidnapping charge expunged from his record. That is not going to hold up in my opinion.

I do think that her wanting a different lifestyle, Caylee cramped her desire to party, will be used in conjunction with the fact that she had such a strong dislike for her mother that she knew it would be a way to get back at her will be used as motive. Do I think a jury will buy that? Well, two cases come to mind very quickly in which this was used and the jury believed it...Darlie Routier and Scott Peterson. They are both in prison. So I guess we will just wait and see.

 

[cecybeans]

I'd say that CA's mom said it best when she said wondered if KC "hated her mom more than she loved Caylee". When another family member speaks to an obvious potential motive that's been bothering them, it's hard to ignore. Other family members and friends have commented on the competitive relationship between KC and her mother. It sounds very love-hate to me. And I think KC's words and behavior since she was arrested have done nothing but bolster that impression.

 

[PaulaF513]

Originally Posted by notthatsmart

Bold 3: The medical examiners report says they do not know the cause of death. The 3 pieces of duct tape only showed the manner was homicide. Could still be an accident and certainly does not show premeditated murder. I highly doubt anyone Killed Caylee with Duct tape.



That's exactly how I think Caylee died....I think she was put in the trunk either drugged or asleep, duct taped so that she wouldn't be heard screaming should she awaken, and left to suffocate. I think the video of Casey in Blockbusters is going to hang her.

It really doesn't matter if Casey intended Caylee to die. Her depraved indifference for her child's wellbeing caused the death. The tape across the nose area is why the SA is seeking the death penalty. They can argue successfully that any moron knows you cannot seal off a person's airways and not expect their death.

 

[BeanE]

Yeah the only thing that I can think of to make the connection is that he was their meter reader, so he had to be in front of the house at some point.

Did Kronk read the Anthony's meter prior to Caylee's disappearance in mid-June 2008? If your answer is yes, please provide a supporting reference.

Also, please respond to my requests to you in my posts 22 and 24 in this thread for information in support of your contentions.

Thank you, NTS.

BeanE

 

[BeanE]

The following is more deception analysis from Dr. Glass...This on Roy K.

"Before I share my thoughts and observations, I want to say that as soon as Roy Kronk came forward and appeared publically, I scrutinized his body language and communication patterns. I I did not find any “tells” indicated deception or that he was not telling the truth."

"He appeared direct and forthright in his body language as there was a fluidity in his movements with no hesitation in his voice. What he said matched how he moved and comported himself. He appeared genuine to me as he discussed his finding Caylee’s body."

http://drlillianglassbodylanguageblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/20/1072/#comment-706

Thank you, SearchforTruth. This is an interesting assessment.

Roy Kronk is a hero! Thank God for him.

MOO

 

[Tuffy]

I think they did investigate him, but not as an equal suspect with circumstantial evidence. I do not believe they crossed state lines and talked to his ex wives or his son. The defense claims that they never even aquired his phone records. His former kidnapping charge should have been a big red flag for them.
And if they did investigate him, where is the sunshine law discovery of that?

It is just my opinion that they did not investigate him. I base this on the lack of evidence that they did. I really don't believe in my heart of hearts that they ever looked at him as a suspect.

Why would this be a big red flag? The kidnapping charges were bogus, and filed by an adult (angry ex.)

My opinion is that this guy has been investigated to the point of ridiculousness. Have others who have stumpled upon a body been dragged through the mud to this degree?

Sorry, but what's being done to RK just really rubs me the wrong way.

 

[notthatsmart]

Why would this be a big red flag? The kidnapping charges were bogus, and filed by an adult (angry ex.)

My opinion is that this guy has been investigated to the point of ridiculousness. Have others who have stumpled upon a body been dragged through the mud to this degree?

Sorry, but what's being done to RK just really rubs me the wrong way.

Do you have a link to the kidnapping charges and who filed them? How do we know they were bogus? How do we know it was an angry adult or ex? is there a news report? I mean I saw what Rk had to say about it, but I would like to see an actual document of it. thanks

 

[hroark2112]

I thought I read something about RK stating that one of his first days on that particular meter route was August 11, which was the first day he called 911 about seeing something suspicious. I might be off on my exact date, but that's what I recall reading.

If that is the case, then asking police to investigate him as a murder suspect is without merit. He didn't hit that road until after the date of death, and I think the police know this.

It is correct that they don't have to show motive for RK, but they would have to show opportunity. If he never had the opportunity to see Caylee alive, there's no way he could have killed her. So put motive aside, put his past transgressions aside, and focus on whether he even had the opportunity to do it. I don't believe he did, and I think the police don't think he did either.

 

[coco puff]

I think they did investigate him, but not as an equal suspect with circumstantial evidence. I do not believe they crossed state lines and talked to his ex wives or his son. The defense claims that they never even aquired his phone records. His former kidnapping charge should have been a big red flag for them.

And if they did investigate him, where is the sunshine law discovery of that?

It is just my opinion that they did not investigate him. I base this on the lack of evidence that they did. I really don't believe in my heart of hearts that they ever looked at him as a suspect.

Why on earth should LE have investigated him equally?

KC - Mom of child, last seen with child, did not call 911 to report child missing, lied about last time she was with child, partied while child gone, did NOT attemp to find child, stole money to keep party life going, NOT to find child.

Kronk - looked for child along with hundreds of others, found child, called 911 to report finding

Nothing equal about these two suspects.

 

[magnolia]

Bold 1: Killed her because she wanted to party. I have never heard of such a thing in real life. Do you believe there are other cases where someone actually killed someone so they could party?
Do you believe that SA is going to use this as the motive?

Bold 2: The 15th or 16th. Tough one to prove. She was on the phone most of the night and most of the next day. Jt says he saw her on the 16th in the afternoon at Walmart with Caylee. That leaves a very small window of time to do this while being on the phone at the same time. Did I miss something? Did SA say the 16th? Do you really think they will go with the 16th? I don't.

Bold 3: The medical examiners report says they do not know the cause of death. The 3 pieces of duct tape only showed the manner was homicide. Could still be an accident and certainly does not show premeditated murder. I highly doubt anyone Killed Caylee with Duct tape.

Nothing I have stated is stated as fact. This is only my opinion. This is my opinion and please don't interpret it as fact.

Have you ever heard of a mother waiting 31 days to tell someone that her child is missing? Yes, I believe there are cases where people kill because a spouse or child cramped their lifestyle. Scott Peterson is one.

How long, in your opinion, does it take to kill a two year old child?

 

[notthatsmart]

Are you saying that you believe it could still be an accident although KC and her attorneys have stated more than once that there was no accident? Do you know something that KC and her attorneys do not?

Please help me understand what you're thinking.

Thank you, NTS.

BeanE

No, I don't believe it was an accident by Kc. The defense is way too confident to call it an accident. They are going for the ghusto here. Not guilty of premeditated murder. I think when Jb said to Kb that she wasn't there, your in fairy land, that was the end of the accident theory for the defense. As far as I know, it is just a theory floating around out there. The facts that I stated are of my opinion.

 

[BeanE]

Is this thread to discuss the efficacy (effectiveness as strategy) of this defense motion? Or what?

Sorry, I've lost track.

Thanks,
BeanE

Mods: Please do delete my off-topic posts, or let me know if you'd like me to delete them, and I apologise for them. I got distracted.

 

[notthatsmart]

I think this thread is about Rk. Some want to compare Rk circumstantial evidence to Kc circumstantial evidence. I am trying to sleuth Rk circumstantial evidence, because that is what the motion is about. To compare it to Kc circumstantial evidence is not to investigate Rk. It is my opinion that since the Sa has no rock solid physical evidence that points to Kc, perhaps Le should look at other avenues.

 

[BeanE]

I think this thread is about Rk. Some want to compare Rk circumstantial evidence to Kc circumstantial evidence. I am trying to sleuth Rk circumstantial evidence, because that is what the motion is about. To compare it to Kc circumstantial evidence is not to investigate Rk. It is my opinion that since the Sa has no rock solid physical evidence that points to Kc, perhaps Le should look at other avenues. The facts that I stated are of my opinion after reading thousands of documents.

Perhaps we should stick to what the defense considers RK circumstantial evidence as listed in their motion so we stay on-topic?

Maybe a mod could clarify. I get lost sometimes.