2009.11.19 Defense files motion suggesting Kronk as the killer. #3

[BeanE]

He told his co-workers he saw a skull on Aug 11 (it's in my signature). On Dec 11, he told LE he saw a skull back on Aug 11th. I forget when he was on GMA, maybe January.

Correct, and that pisses me off. He told his buddies it was a skull, but wouldn't use that word with the 911 operator. Later (dec/jan) he would tell the cops that he was 99.999% sure it was a skull back in August.

Doesn't matter one whit what words he used or didn't use - the 911 operator knew exactly what he was talking about:

OP: Yes, sir, you can still remain anonymous if they do find a corpse.

Transcripts of Kronk's 911 calls:
http://www.wftv.com/news/18530327/detail.html

:moo:

 

[BeanE]

ITA with your motive...in addition there was a secondary motive...To hurt Cindy with the one thing that KC knew would hurt the most. Get rid of Caylee.

Personally, I think hurting Cindy was her primary motive. No longer having her skanking around and partying hampered by the need for a babysitter was just icing on the cake.

In fact, sometimes I wonder if that flurry of calls to George and Cindy was KC telling them that she was dumping Caylee and taking off, and they'd better get their a@@es home to take care of her. When neither of them, particularly Cindy, didn't respond, she paid Cindy back in the ultimate tit-for-tat game - she killed Caylee.

In any case, I think years of rage at Cindy is the crux of the motive. Even perhaps, psychologically, she was symbolically killing Cindy, rather than Caylee.

:moo:

 

[The World According]

Oh Hot Dogs, how I wish you had found her. But Roy is what he is; no more and no less. And he's what we have. I think malevolent motives are being read into his inadequacies and the defense team is making the most of it.

It just hurts my heart that, no matter how poor of a job he did in his discovery of her, it is obviously bringing him nothing but criticism. Because of what has transpired with him and now the way JB and team are focusing on the searchers, I am positive that I would never, never call in the sighting of a body and never, never participate in another search. And I will advise everyone I know not to do the same.

When things that are meant for good turn into fodder for attack on innocent people ~ the people will withdraw. . . and have already begun.

When hookers or questionable characters discover a murder victim in the streets of Detroit, they walk over them for this exact reason. I think even Baez admitted that the would be dirt he dug up on Kronk is too remote in time and ( clearly with history of crimes of dishonesty, FRAUD by one of the ex wives just for starters) I believe this motion will go by the wayside and be deemed a "Farce" by LDB and the judge will reign this in. These folks, like Joy, are going to blow up in the defense's face, in a colossal way.They got so excited when they heard their claims, but they imo did not go to the next obvious necessary step to look into their backgrouds to question their veracity. People hear of 20k and 200k being paid for photos and stories and that is a huge, life changing amount of money and could clearly motivate some scorned lover to spin a tale. People have sold their soul for a lot less, right? Don't make me name names, LOL! When someone feels cheated out of money, years of money, in child support they develop a very intense real hatred for the person they consider a loser ( of course I wish every person paid their child support and was a wonderful active parent in the child's life). What I am saying is the person who feels slighted and angry may not be the most rational judge of what Roy may have done. If you listen to the interviews closely you will see they are edited, a lot. I am willing to venture a guess these folks seem even more out for revenge and far fetched on the parts we did not hear. My Gram would have told the investigator, son......consider the source very carefully. My teachers would have told the investigator, be sure they swear to their statements under oath. Ethics would have told the investigator caution them they are not to sell their story, it will destroy their credibility. I would have told the investigator to use the common sense God gave him. We have learned Andrea's defense strategy is the end justifies the means, so thus we see the investigator was sent out with a mission and returned with the desired results, no questions asked. When Mark said it would have a "Chilling effect" on folks who volunteer in the future, he was spot on. Who would want their ex's interviewed or folks we have fired or things we did twenty years ago drug up? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? This is just this news cycle, next month they will be ripping in to Tony and I do predict they are eventually get around to Mommy Cindy, God help us all.

o/t GOD BLESS THE TROOPS WHO ARE AWAY THIS HOLIDAY SEASON, WE LOVE, LOVE , LOVE YOU, ONE AND ALL!!!!!:blowkiss::blowkiss:

 

[magnolia]

Doesn't matter one whit what words he used or didn't use - the 911 operator knew exactly what he was talking about:

OP: Yes, sir, you can still remain anonymous if they do find a corpse.

Transcripts of Kronk's 911 calls:
http://www.wftv.com/news/18530327/detail.html

:moo:

Exactly~I think Kronk did exactly what he should have done. He gave a factual accurate description of what he saw. I doubt 911 was interested in Kronk's speculation on what he, a lay person, thought it was. IMO

 

[LinasK]

Puzzle pieces.
YouTube- Broadcast Yourself.

In August, Keith Williams found a bag of clothes and a child's sandal as well as balloons and stuffed animals. He gathered the items (found across the street on Suburban from where the remains were later discovered) took them to Cindy Anthony's front door and allowed her to dig through them.
He told CA where he had found them, she vehemently denied any familiarity to the items or that they had in fact belonged to Caylee.

She shifted the topic to a "Caylee sighting" she claimed they had gotten a tip on. KW went back to the scene, called LE, was dismissed by Deputy Cain, Cain threw the things back into the woods.

There ought to be a worse penalty for this guy than just being fired for this! If we didn't know better, you'd think he was on Cindy's payroll the way he acted!!!!:banghead:

 

[Just Jayla]

Thanks for the analysis. The portion I bolded above may be one of the strangest things I have read in a case filled with the bizarre.

So the defense is suggesting it is about 50/50 between KC and Kronk. Because Kronk had a feeling about where the body could have been, reported it, and eventually found the remains, he is equally likely a suspect as the mother who had care, custody and control of the victim. The mother who has the scent of decomposition in her trunk. The mother who abandoned said vehicle. The mother who partied for 31 days while her daughter was gone. The mother who lived in the home where the blanket and laundry bag were from. The mother whose family had the rare duct tape that was found on Caylee, the gas cans, and the "missing" posters. The mother that made up a nanny, and a story about the nanny having kept, no wait, kidnapped her daughter. The mother who researched chloroform, only to have high levels of it found in the trunk where her daughter had lain. The mother that wasn't concerned in the least when "bones" were found near the site of the alleged kidnapping, but that needed medical attention when bones were found in a wooded area near her home. The mother that wanted "just one more day" when she was finally located 31 days later. The mother that was upset when all anyone cared about was Caylee. The mother that couldn't tell LE the truth when it could have helped them find her missing daughter.

I don't quite see the likelihood quite as high as 50/50. I can understand that the defense has to say that, but you'll forgive me if I don't buy it. Fortunately for them, Judge Strickland doesn't have to find the percentage equally split to allow the "Kronk theory" to be introduced at trial. I will wait to see how the jury views the theory.

I agree with you regarding the merits of whether RK could be considered a suspect, I obviously find the likelihood to be somewhere around .00001%-

I was unclear regarding the fact that the defense even had to advise the court of their plan to begin with, I guess I kinda thought it was like a toned-down Perry Mason, they could break down RK and tell a narrative leading to RK at trial, without getting 'permission' from the judge first.
I am surprised the defense has to advise the court as to their strategical intent....I guess I gave attorneys the benefit of the doubt that they do not just go into the courtroom and blame people without a story to back it up. Legislatures must have found this to be enough of an issue that the law requires a rule, pretty neat stuff for a non-lawyer amateur legal junkie like me.

 

[amethyst221]

I don't believe for a second that the defense actually believes RK had anything to do with Caylee's murder, or that they believe this 50/50 nonsense. It comes as no surprise that they will blame anyone who moves, as convenient. They've been searching around for a candidate about whom they could dig up a little dirt and now they feel as if they have a good one. The sole purpose of the motion is to garner publicity for their theory (oh, wait, AL says they don't exactly have theories) or "construct" in the hopes it will influence potential jurors and help get their client off. Too bad Mother Teresa, MSRIP, didn't discover poor little Caylee's remains.

 

[Hot Dogs]

Could you please provide a link for the source you are quoting that RK "told his co-workers he saw a SKULL on Aug 11th (source link for your direct quote of RK)?

I still cannot find any documentation of his claims to seeing an actual skull on Aug 11th. Am I missing doc dump records of interviews with RK co-workers?

Page 3383

When he was about thirty to forty feet away, he said "Hey guys. I see a skull in here".

He saw something white protruding out of the water and said "Look at that... it looks like a skull."

 

[Mendara]

I don't understand Roy Kronk called several times - maybe he DID SEE A SKULL and maybe he did want to remain anonymous and he defintely wanted the area to be searched, he even went to the area and stood around waitng for a deputy to meet him. If he thought he saw a skull and even if he did what does it matter? He tried to get this deputy to listen to him and he tried to get this bag looked at - after nothing came of his calls it is quite possible he doubted himself and gave up - but then it haunted him and he tried again to get it searched.

I just don't see how this makes him so suspicious.

 

[chefmom]

I don't understand Roy Kronk called several times - maybe he DID SEE A SKULL and maybe he did want to remain anonymous and he defintely wanted the area to be searched, he even went to the area and stood around waitng for a deputy to meet him. If he thought he saw a skull and even if he did what does it matter? He tried to get this deputy to listen to him and he tried to get this bag looked at - after nothing came of his calls it is quite possible he doubted himself and gave up - but then it haunted him and he tried again to get it searched.

I just don't see how this makes him so suspicious.

IMO, it doesn't make him suspicious, it just makes him convenient.

 

[AZlawyer]

It's quite simple. The defense considers Kronk to be an equally likely suspect. In essense, Baez's motion asks Judge Strickland to rule on their intended defense.

If Judge Strickland rules in favor of the defense, Kronk will be deconstructed inside the courtroom. If Judge Strickland rules that Casey's attorneys cannot give her the best possible defense, he will have handed her an incredibly strong appeal issue.

Look for Judge Strickland to give the defense enough to proceed as intended.

OK, let's be absolutely honest here. Neither of us is working for the defense, right? What you mean is, "The defense IS PRETENDING THAT it considers Kronk to be an equally likely suspect," for strategic reasons.

 

[Wudge]

When a person sees a skull at a short distance that no other person else can see and it turns out that the skull was inside a bag or bags, which means it could not have been seen by anyone, then the person with the x-ray vision should be considered nothing less than a suspect if not a prime suspect.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

I don't believe for a second that the defense actually believes RK had anything to do with Caylee's murder, or that they believe this 50/50 nonsense. It comes as no surprise that they will blame anyone who moves, as convenient. They've been searching around for a candidate about whom they could dig up a little dirt and now they feel as if they have a good one. The sole purpose of the motion is to garner publicity for their theory (oh, wait, AL says they don't exactly have theories) or "construct" in the hopes it will influence potential jurors and help get their client off. Too bad Mother Teresa, MSRIP, didn't discover poor little Caylee's remains.

You don't think they'd drag Mother Theresa through the mud? She was an advocate for the downtrodden and victims and we know how Ms. Lyon feels about such people.

Anyway, I would have no problem with them using the Kronk did it defense IF there were some reason for it, other than a lack of a different defense. Kronk is just a guy who found a body. He has no connection to the anthonys and no reason to lie.Their defense changes every few months. First caylee was alive, then there was no duct tape, now there is but it doesn't prove anything, then the FBI tainted evidence (supposedly), now, this month it's Roy Kronk. They are so lazy and unable to offer an actual defense, they just attack whatever is out there and whatever is easiest to attack.

 

[Wudge]

OK, let's be absolutely honest here. Neither of us is working for the defense, right? What you mean is, "The defense IS PRETENDING THAT it considers Kronk to be an equally likely suspect," for strategic reasons.

No, the defense did so claim, just as prosecutors claim they have inculpatory evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey committed a premeditated murder.

 

[MyTinkieGirl]

Respectfully snipped from a quoted post by "Hot Dogs" in Post #308

He saw something white protruding out of the water and said "Look at that... it looks like a skull."

IMO....that helps support the reports made by TM and others that the area WAS under water.

I'd also like to bring another recent case....little Elizabeth Olten. I know OT, but relevant, IMO.

I need to get "link proof", BUT....just IIRC, LE and others said they had searched that area TWICE....AND with dogs, yet the murderer had to bring them to the site. They were dumbstruck the body was there....like being so close it coulda bit them.

I think this brings good insight to much of the claims of the searchers in that area swearing they were there numerous times and found nothing!

JMO

 

[Chiquita71]

Hello WS

I am sure this has been said by someone here on WS but this just hit me. Isn't Dominic Casey just as suspicious as RK? DC did more slinking around the area of the remains than RK. If we are to find RK's statements and actions suspicious, what about DC first saying he was on the phone with his sick daughter and then saying it was a psychic? Talk about changing stories! And, on with the suspicious...a psychic? This is the reason he gives for knowing where to look when he was employed by the Anthonys, who could be privy to where their daughter put Caylee, which is more believable than saying a psychic told him, to most people's minds. For the record, I do believe in psychic ability: I just do not think that is why DC knew where to look. And, talk about lies-DC has changed his story about his employment dates with the Anthonys, while under oath.

Maybe DC should be a suspect? Of course I don't really think DC had anything to do with this...I bet you all got that anyway. :innocent:

And, a bit ot but I feel I must say: I go around WS posting that parents have responsibility for how their children turn out. I feel that strongly. But: I just realized that those who have been victims of terrible crimes and are my fellow WSer's might take that I mean to say the person who commits the crime isn't responsible because "mommy and daddy were mean to me."

What I mean is this: the fact that someone was abused as a child, should be taken into account and brought to light in the course of the trial because the fact that children are abused needs to be talked about as much as possible and the outcome of that abuse needs to be shown. But, after it has been said and shown that the "defendant-perp" was abused-they should be held 100% responsible for their OWN actions.

Some children are not strong enough to overcome what was done to them and shown to them-and they grow up to repeat what they have experienced. This is all I want shown, how much abuse is going on-and when the person who is the perp is an adult it is hard to have sympathy for them because they have become the abuser-and I sooo understand that-but my idea is to remember that they were an abused child at one point. And then just to push my point here: they should then be held 100% responsible for their own actions.

As example: Casey Anthony. I feel there is no doubt that the way Cindy and George are as people and parents led to Casey being Casey. That should be said and acknowledged. I feel if when it is not allowed, then the parents get away with their abuse and society has a way to say that abuse should just be "gotten over." When it is not that simple nor that way and helps adults who abuse to have an excuse to not take responsibility for how they treat their children. Then once that is said, we move on to: Casey is responsible for what she did to her daughter.

I just felt that maybe I was seeming to come across like I thought only the parents should be blamed and I was saying that people who do terrible things to people and have been abused have some kind of excuse because they were abused. I don't feel that way at all and after remembering that there are many on WS who are the victims of terrible crimes I thought they would have every right to be offended in thinking that was what I was saying. Not that any of the wonderful people on WS even came close to making me think or feel that way: this was my own revelation.

Sorry for the impromptu tour of my mind...

...jmo...

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

Ask yourself this question, if your mother, father, brother, sister, wife, husband, or best friend was accused of the premeditated murder of a 2 year old child, what lengths do you think are acceptable for the defense to try to gain an acquittal? Prosecution wins and the death penalty is given, the execution is carried out, but even though a mountain of circumstantial evidence resulted in the conviction, in your heart of hearts you knew your loved one did not commit this murder, Ten years pass, modern technology improves, and the new technology exonerates your loved one who has already been executed. The results are the real killer is still on the streets, and your loved one has been wrongfully executed. Where in this scenario has justice been served for the murdered 2 year old? In my opinion, if my loved one was on trial for premeditated murder, I would want the attorney to use any legal means available to defend my loved one. If the attorney is brash, and hurts a persons feelings, sorry, my loved ones life is on the line here.

If RK is completely innocent of any wrongdoing regarding this case, he has nothing to worry about. The evidence will prove him innocent. If, as a result of this motion, he is investigated further by LE, and something comes of it, great. How is it wrong that the defense brought their suspicions of RK to light?

Are we questioning whether this motion is moral or ethical? If you were on trial, presuming you are innocent, how far would you allow your attorney to go to defend you?

This motion is the result of a team of lawyers, one of which has been called in because the states attorney reinstated the DP, doing a lot of work together. Anyone thinking this is a frivolous motion, or wishful thinking by the defense, is probably mistaken in my opinion. At the very least, should JS dismiss this motion, it will be used in the appeal, should the jury convict, IMO.

 

[MyTinkieGirl]

It's quite simple. The defense considers Kronk to be an equally likely suspect. In essense, Baez's motion asks Judge Strickland to rule on their intended defense.

If Judge Strickland rules in favor of the defense, Kronk will be deconstructed inside the courtroom. If Judge Strickland rules that Casey's attorneys cannot give her the best possible defense, he will have handed her an incredibly strong appeal issue.

Look for Judge Strickland to give the defense enough to proceed as intended.

You see, Wudge...it's words like "deconstructed" that makes these motions by the defense even MORE absurd and heinous, to say the least. IMO...it's NOT about the total annihilation of someone's reputation in court that points to RK as a "suspect".....it's in what DIDN'T happen.
Everybody and their uncle was roaming every inch of Orlando looking for Caylee...with TM's group....with those G.St.J people....everyday citizens. Most of the searches were going off of KC's phone pings. Probably why not too much effort was spent on those areas. BUT....RK has a "past", a duct tape incident...as told, BTW, by a woman who couldn't even remember what year she was married to RK. Also...apparently RK's room mate came home and took the tape off her....haven't heard from him...maybe because I honestly haven't looked:blushing:....someone can correct me, please.
I kinda know guys...if this was such a big thing, I can almost be sure that guy would be all over the place telling the boys what a whack job RK is.

KC and RK had never been friends/acquaintances/or probably never met, even in the beer aisle in Target. She said she gave Caylee to a "nanny"....NOT RK. She's NEVER even uttered his name...even AFTER Caylee was found. Like to say..."he's been at the nanny's house".....or "he's the guy who I've seen at our house reading the meters"....NOPE....just Zanny, 30 day notes, and lies. Maybe if he "stole" KC's car...borrowed it....SAT in it....

 

[Horace Finklestein]

Ask yourself this question, if your mother, father, brother, sister, wife, husband, or best friend was accused of the premeditated murder of a 2 year old child, what lengths do you think are acceptable for the defense to try to gain an acquittal? Prosecution wins and the death penalty is given, the execution is carried out, but even though a mountain of circumstantial evidence resulted in the conviction, in your heart of hearts you knew your loved one did not commit this murder, Ten years pass, modern technology improves, and the new technology exonerates your loved one who has already been executed. The results are the real killer is still on the streets, and your loved one has been wrongfully executed. Where in this scenario has justice been served for the murdered 2 year old? In my opinion, if my loved one was on trial for premeditated murder, I would want the attorney to use any legal means available to defend my loved one. If the attorney is brash, and hurts a persons feelings, sorry, my loved ones life is on the line here.

If RK is completely innocent of any wrongdoing regarding this case, he has nothing to worry about. The evidence will prove him innocent. If, as a result of this motion, he is investigated further by LE, and something comes of it, great. How is it wrong that the defense brought their suspicions of RK to light?

Are we questioning whether this motion is moral or ethical? If you were on trial, presuming you are innocent, how far would you allow your attorney to go to defend you?

This motion is the result of a team of lawyers, one of which has been called in because the states attorney reinstated the DP, doing a lot of work together. Anyone thinking this is a frivolous motion, or wishful thinking by the defense, is probably mistaken in my opinion. At the very least, should JS dismiss this motion, it will be used in the appeal, should the jury convict, IMO.

Depends on the situation. There should never be a standard operating procedure of blaming the person who finds a murder victim's body as a possible murderer UNLESS there is something to back it up. Let's get real here - the guy has ex wives that don't like him and he plays online games...so what? So do millions of people. If he knew the anthonys or babysat for caylee or had some connection to this, it would be a different story. Unless they can show how he had access to the car, etc, this is frivolous and it harms society at large.

As one poster previously stated - BEWARE if you volunteer to search for a missing child, and beware if you report finding a body...because you will be scrutinized and accused by lazy defense attorneys with no better defense for their client.

 

[TakeNote]

the only thing i have seen so far to link kronk to caylee is the 911 call...period


now think of everything the state has to link the death of caylee to her mother
*sorry i dont have enough time to list them all*