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

[AutomaticAuttie]

I agree, there may be no love lost with JB, but Hornsby is the only attorney so far I've heard who thinks this is reasonable or valid. Most have said that the qualified immunity JB would get in court would be a more proper forum. And discussing this on talk shows as if it was fact, is a recipe for a civil suit against JB.

Both a FL attorney and FL judge on JVM basically said that the motion in limine was actually the reverse concept of what was requested and that it was merely covering slime in the cloak of jurisprudence.

Perhaps Hornsby, as some have suggested, is enamored with the idea because it was his own and he is defending the idea of this motion rather than the person who filed it.

(I've suggested earlier there may be professional reasons as well. Hornsby works for a CBS affiliate which competes with WFTV. CBS also produced and aired the recent 48 Hours featuring the case and favorable to the defense in many ways, and also owns the publishing company said to be in negotiation with the Anthonys on a book deal. That might affect his perspective, imo.)

Do you happen to know the name of the judge that stated that on the JVM show?

 

[cecybeans]

Do you happen to know the name of the judge that stated that on the JVM show?

Sorry, I don't remember. It wasn't a quote either, just a paraphrase. She is from Miami and African American, short hair. Is a frequent guest. The other woman I believe is a prosecutor from Miami.

 

[AutomaticAuttie]

Sorry, I don't remember. It wasn't a quote either, just a paraphrase. She is from Miami and African American, short hair. Is a frequent guest. The other woman I believe is a prosecutor from Miami.

The reason I ask is because in one of Hornsbys blog comments he addresses a judge with this to say......"Judge Karen Williams was a county court judge, meaning she only handled misdemeanor cases. And she says that in her 13 years, she has never heard of a defense attorney filing Williams rule evidence.

However, I cited four separate Florida Supreme Court Decisions that authorize the defense to introduce Williams Rule Evidence? See Rivera v. State, 561 So.2d 536, 539 (Fla. 1990). See White v. State, 817 So.2d 799, 806 (Fla.2002). See State v. Savino, 567 So. 2d 892, 894 (Fla.1990). and Simpson v. State, 3 So. 3d 1135 (Fla. 2009)"

 

[ZsaZsa]

Sorry, I don't remember. It wasn't a quote either, just a paraphrase. She is from Miami and African American, short hair. Is a frequent guest. The other woman I believe is a prosecutor from Miami.

She is Judge Karen Mills-Francis. She has a syndicated TV show, much like Judge Judy- and she is VERY good. Plain speaking, no BS taken in her court.
She can see right to the crux of the matter very quickly. Baez doesn't like her...:innocent:

 

[ZsaZsa]

The reason I ask is because in one of Hornsbys blog comments he addresses a judge with this to say......"Judge Karen Williams was a county court judge, meaning she only handled misdemeanor cases. And she says that in her 13 years, she has never heard of a defense attorney filing Williams rule evidence.

However, I cited four separate Florida Supreme Court Decisions that authorize the defense to introduce Williams Rule Evidence? See Rivera v. State, 561 So.2d 536, 539 (Fla. 1990). See White v. State, 817 So.2d 799, 806 (Fla.2002). See State v. Savino, 567 So. 2d 892, 894 (Fla.1990). and Simpson v. State, 3 So. 3d 1135 (Fla. 2009)"

Hornsby is misquoting her. She said she had not heard of a defense attorny filing Williams rule evidence regarding a Witness- not a defendant.

 

[cecybeans]

Here's a transcript from JVM of some of her comments:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0911/20/ijvm.01.html

JUDGE KAREN MILLS FRANCIS, HOST, "JUDGE KAREN SHOW": Well, you know, I`ve been pretty hard on Mr. Baez throughout this whole process. I was a criminal defense attorney for 13 years before I was a judge. I looked at his motion. It`s called a motion in limine. In Florida, a motion in limine is to exclude evidence but his motion is asking the court to allow evidence. There is no such motion in Florida.

Additionally, he`s asking the court to allow evidence of what`s known as prior bad acts. In Florida, it`s called the Williams rule. That`s a prosecution motion. The prosecution can bring in evidence of the defendant`s prior bad acts to show motive, intent, lack of mistake.

I have never heard of a defense attorney filing a Williams rule motion to show prior bad acts of a witness. But let`s say for the sake of argument it`s a legitimate motion. Under the Williams rule, he has to be able to show that there`s sufficient elements in the prior bad acts that fit with the elements in this case, and I don`t think he has that here.

He`s got...
(later)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, I mean, you just heard -- you were just ripped, actually by Judge Mills. So what`s your response to their criticisms that perhaps maybe you`re -- I don`t want to interpret -- but grandstanding, perhaps?

MILLS FRANCIS: Grandstanding, that`s a good one.

-------------
I am unclear now about where I heard about the civil suit stuff - that may have been the same day on HLN. I remember Mark Eiglarsh and Mike Brooks were on that Friday.

 

[ZsaZsa]

Here's a transcript from JVM of some of her comments:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0911/20/ijvm.01.html

JUDGE KAREN MILLS FRANCIS, HOST, "JUDGE KAREN SHOW": Well, you know, I`ve been pretty hard on Mr. Baez throughout this whole process. I was a criminal defense attorney for 13 years before I was a judge. I looked at his motion. It`s called a motion in limine. In Florida, a motion in limine is to exclude evidence but his motion is asking the court to allow evidence. There is no such motion in Florida.

Additionally, he`s asking the court to allow evidence of what`s known as prior bad acts. In Florida, it`s called the Williams rule. That`s a prosecution motion. The prosecution can bring in evidence of the defendant`s prior bad acts to show motive, intent, lack of mistake.

I have never heard of a defense attorney filing a Williams rule motion to show prior bad acts of a witness. But let`s say for the sake of argument it`s a legitimate motion. Under the Williams rule, he has to be able to show that there`s sufficient elements in the prior bad acts that fit with the elements in this case, and I don`t think he has that here.

He`s got...
(later)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, I mean, you just heard -- you were just ripped, actually by Judge Mills. So what`s your response to their criticisms that perhaps maybe you`re -- I don`t want to interpret -- but grandstanding, perhaps?

MILLS FRANCIS: Grandstanding, that`s a good one.

-------------
I am unclear now about where I heard about the civil suit stuff - that may have been the same day on HLN. I remember Mark Eiglarsh and Mike Brooks were on that Friday.

Bill Sheaffer stated on video that Kronk may well have grounds for a civil suit against Baez et al.

 

[KenoshaKid]

http://blog.richardhornsby.com/2009/11/22/in-defense-of-the-casey-anthony-defense/

Wow, wow, wow! You all must read this blog by Richard Hornsby, attorney who provides legal analysis for WESH.

He thinks Baez's motion about Kronk is right on legally and stragically. He also totally slams WFTV's Bill Sheaffer. Here's a sample:

"So I am posting this in direct response to Mr. Sheaffer’s comments regarding the Motion and openly questioning his knowledge of the law, his objectivity, and his own “sense of decency.”

I think it is time that someone puts WFTV-ABC reporter Kathi Belich and her sidekick Mr. Sheaffer to task for their Pro-Prosecution pandering to the anti-Anthony sentiment"

Later on he also basically accuses Sheaffer of getting inside information from the State Attorney's office through Belich who he says used to date Jeff Ashton.

The article is long (I'm still trying to get through it all) but it's very informative about FL law and why Hornsby thinks this motion might work.

He sure has taken off his gloves when it comes to Sheaffer though and I will interested to see if Sheaffer comes back with a response on his blog. It could get pretty interesting.

I really hate it when people publish stuff without proofing it first:

"From the defense perspective, this evidence would tend to prove that Mr. Kronk was interested in young girls as well as fantasy role playing. Putting two and two together, it would advance a theory that Mr. Kronk was some type of deranged person who prayed on girls." (my underline)

If you pray on someone I'd guess that would make you a minister, priest or rabbi. If you PREY on someone then you'd be the deranged person.
I found his whole rant juvenile.

 

[ZsaZsa]

Harmony, let's hope the computer store guy's story checks out. If KC and Caylee were seen later that afternoon, right before she gets to AL's, at that WalMart in Casselberry (which is close to AL's) - then the whole RK defense theory is up in smoke.

KC would be the last person seen with Caylee very very close to when she probably was killed.

I'm thinking it has been validated ( hope so) already by in store video- I couldn't figure out the relevance at first, not sure if I believed him, but now it seems of vital importance...

 

[3doglady]

It IS correct that the maggot evidence shows that Caylee's remains were where flies couldn't get at them for a period between when decomposition started but before the remains were found.

What Dr. Baden didn't talk about was the evidence (fly cases/cocoons & dead pupa found in the dirt under and around the bones) also shows that the body was dispersed on SUBURBAN BEFORE the period when the flies couldn't get to her. Which is consistent with Caylee's remains and bug remains being UNDERWATER for a time. (http://www.clickorlando.com/download/2009/1106/21539770.pdf)

The autopsy report and the entomology report go hand-in-hand and are chock full of evidence that Caylee was dumped on Suburban shortly after she died (most likely before June 27) and that while decomposing her body units were scattered by animals. Sometime after that the area was flooded.

How do we know that?

• In Florida's tropical cllimate it would take approximately 2 weeks for Caylee's body to completely skeletonize. (Page 29 http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/06/19/caylee.anthony.autopsy.pdf) Dr. Michael Baden, himself said, (in an interview) it would take 2 weeks for a body in a tropical climate to skeletonize. ('ve posted the link to the interview before, I'll edit and add the link to this post after I find it again.)
• The dispersal pattern of scattered bones shows that Caylee's remains were dispersed in body units. This dispersal pattern could only have happened IF there was still tissue to hold sections of the body units together. So Caylee's body units were scattered before decomposition was complete and her body had skeletonized. (Pg 27 and throughout the report http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/06/19/caylee.anthony.autopsy.pdf)
• There was sand and SILT in the laundry bag. (page 7, http://www.clickorlando.com/download/2009/1106/21539770.pdf)
• Most of Caylee's bones other than those with the skull and bags were buried under leaves & muck. Caylee's left ileum was buried deep in muck and showed signs of having been moved by water from summer storms. (Page 28, http://www.clickorlando.com/download/2009/1106/21539770.pdf)
• Minimal adipocere formation, consistent with a moist environment was found on the some of the bones. (Page 28, http://www.clickorlando.com/download/2009/1106/21539770.pdf)
• In December the bones were free of soft tissue, odor or any evidence of recent death. They weren't greasy. (Page 28, http://www.clickorlando.com/download/2009/1106/21539770.pdf)

NONE of this takes it to account the plant evidence or the bug evidence.

I've got to go...but in brief to sum up what I want to say:

• Plants couldn't start growing through and into and on the bones until AFTER the bones had been scattered and settled. According to Dr. Hall some of the roots showed 4 months of growth. (http://www.clickorlando.com/download/2009/1106/21539770.pdf)
• Based on the development or the presense of eclosed (hatched) puparia of Diptere:Calliphoridae; Sarcophagide;Diptera: Muscidae, Fannia sp,; Diptera: Phoridae; Megaselia scalaris;; and Diptera: Stratiomyidae; Hermetia illucens recovered either from the remains at autopsy or from the scene where the remains were deposited is consistent for death and insect colonization occurring in the later portion of june 2008 and into July 2008. (FROM THE BUG REPORTage 24 http://www.clickorlando.com/download/2009/1106/21539770.pdf)

Thanks Jolynna for explaining everything in detail. You did a much better job than I could have. I was just trying to point out how the defense will try to spin things at trial. LKB uses her husband to spin on Fox. What's the point in Fox employing a Dr. to give impartial information on medical evidence if his wife is on the defense? Also, makes me wonder how exactly Ted Williams came to represent Crystal Sparks and her son. He used to be on GVS, Dr. B (LKB's husband) is on Fox frequently. I see a daisy chain. LOL. From what I saw of Williams on GVS, he would not be my first choice in attorneys. (I'd take Bernie) But I guess maybe you take what you can for free. JMO

 

[marspiter]

I guess JB is buying stock in industrial adhesives. Sure is gonna take alot of glue to attach those wing on this hog.

I'll go out on a limb and say these motions aren't gonna fly. I'm no legal expert but then again it's doesn't really take a legal expert to see the flaws in the defenses case and these motions.

 

[Soju]

Long post, sorry in advance...

As far as I can tell, the Hornsby blog is wrong, legally speaking. Apart from the fact that he's using Wiki. He seems to be misinterpreting the very laws he's citing to prove his argument. Check out where he notes the Reverse Williams Rule:

“Reverse Williams rule” is evidence of a crime committed by another person that a defendant offers to show his or her innocence of the instant crime. See Rivera v. State, 561 So.2d 536, 539 (Fla. 1990). To be admissible, the defendant must demonstrate a “close similarity of facts, a unique or `fingerprint’ type of information.” See White v. State, 817 So.2d 799, 806 (Fla.2002). And “if a defendant’s purpose is to shift suspicion from himself to another person, evidence of past criminal conduct of that other person should be of such nature that it would be admissible if that person were on trial for the present offense.” See State v. Savino, 567 So. 2d 892, 894 (Fla.1990).

The problem with this, as I see it, is that the RW Rule is discussing "evidence of a crime" and "evidence of past criminal conduct". Regardless of the rest of the rule, Baez's motion offers NO evidence of a crime on the part of Kronk. Therefore, none of the rest would even apply. IMO.

The 'evidence' offered is hearsay based on the 'testimony' of what appear to be clearly bitter exes who jumped at the chance to smear him. Further, the only crime alleged by these exes is wife-beating. Sorry but the case against casey has nothing to do with spousal abuse, therefore I don't think it will be even remotely applicable.

The rest of their testimony is just 'hunches' and 'weird feelings'. Highly suspect, imho.

The biggest thing I got out of their statements is that Kronk played some nerdy computer game, got caught up in his level 3 fireball wizard action, and as a result, his wife got pruney in the tub.

Please. If he REALLY wants to villify the man who found Caylee, Baez might as well say that he's also got evidence that Kronk causes cancer. One ex has it, another one died from it. Sheesh.

First post, btw. Been lurking forever. Thanks to Tricia and Chicoliving for helping me register.

 

[whiteangora]

Long post, sorry in advance...

As far as I can tell, the Hornsby blog is wrong, legally speaking. Apart from the fact that he's using Wiki. He seems to be misinterpreting the very laws he's citing to prove his argument. Check out where he notes the Reverse Williams Rule:

“Reverse Williams rule” is evidence of a crime committed by another person that a defendant offers to show his or her innocence of the instant crime. See Rivera v. State, 561 So.2d 536, 539 (Fla. 1990). To be admissible, the defendant must demonstrate a “close similarity of facts, a unique or `fingerprint’ type of information.” See White v. State, 817 So.2d 799, 806 (Fla.2002). And “if a defendant’s purpose is to shift suspicion from himself to another person, evidence of past criminal conduct of that other person should be of such nature that it would be admissible if that person were on trial for the present offense.” See State v. Savino, 567 So. 2d 892, 894 (Fla.1990).

The problem with this, as I see it, is that the RW Rule is discussing "evidence of a crime" and "evidence of past criminal conduct". Regardless of the rest of the rule, Baez's motion offers NO evidence of a crime on the part of Kronk. Therefore, none of the rest would even apply. IMO.

The 'evidence' offered is hearsay based on the 'testimony' of what appear to be clearly bitter exes who jumped at the chance to smear him. Further, the only crime alleged by these exes is wife-beating. Sorry but the case against casey has nothing to do with spousal abuse, therefore I don't think it will be even remotely applicable.

The rest of their testimony is just 'hunches' and 'weird feelings'. Highly suspect, imho.

The biggest thing I got out of their statements is that Kronk played some nerdy computer game, got caught up in his level 3 fireball wizard action, and as a result, his wife got pruney in the tub.

Please. If he REALLY wants to villify the man who found Caylee, Baez might as well say that he's also got evidence that Kronk causes cancer. One ex has it, another one died from it. Sheesh.

First post, btw. Been lurking forever. Thanks to Tricia and Chicoliving for helping me register.

Welcome Soju, nice first post.:takeoff:

 

[TorisMom003]

Welcome Soju!

I think that you bring up some good points. Baez really is grasping at whatever straws he thinks he can at this point.

 

[cecybeans]

Hi Soju - welcome! You obviously have a handle on this! I hope you'll enjoy it here. We all need a 12-step program, it's so addicting - but it sure feels like home!

 

[Soju]

Thanks all for the welcome! I've been following this case from the beginning and have been lurking so long I feel like I know you all! It's nice to finally be a member. Happy Thanksgiving to you Americans!

 

[cecybeans]

Thanks all for the welcome! I've been following this case from the beginning and have been lurking so long I feel like I know you all! It's nice to finally be a member. Happy Thanksgiving to you Americans!

Thanks - I think of us all as Americans (if you are a northern cousin), and I guess those of us in the middle of the continent enjoy ours a little late, lol.

 

[MADJGNLAW]

How ridiculous, they haven't shown how or if Kronk knew Casey or Caylee. They also have to prove if Kronk ever had access to Caylee...... I can't wait for his phone pings for Dec, 10th. The Defense has stuck to ZFG kidnapping Caylee and Kronk is no female, nor is he a 10 as Cindy said....Casey did not describe the kidnapper to be male. I guess the defense is just doing what ever they can to taint the jury and create reasonable doubt.

 

[TotallyObsessed]

How ridiculous, they haven't shown how or if Kronk knew Casey or Caylee. They also have to prove if Kronk ever had access to Caylee...... I can't wait for his phone pings for Dec, 10th. The Defense has stuck to ZFG kidnapping Caylee and Kronk is no female, nor is he a 10 as Cindy said....Casey did not describe the kidnapper to be male. I guess the defense is just doing what ever they can to taint the jury and create reasonable doubt.

Let's hope Kronk is not a cross-dresser.....I guess he could have fooled KC all those years by dressing as ZFG....:turkey:

 

[marspiter]

Also looking at this motion. Clause number 3 states that the area in which Caylee was found was searched by a "Third Party Agency" (TES) and OCSO. To my knowledge (if I'm wrong please correct me) no one other then DC and the LE officer who was fired for not doing a proper investigation are the only ones that checked that exact location. Even DC to my knowledge wasn't in the "exact" location.

From what I understand Joy drove by the area but that is not the area they searched with their dogs. So isn't that statement in the motion just plain incorrect? That area was indeed not searched until Caylee was found.

Also they mention Holmes v. South Carolina "The State must prove a case that is completely incompatible with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence."

As to that statement the defense in my opinion has yet to show any reasonable hypothesis for Casey's innocence. First it's an invisa nanny, then the sippy cup gang, then Jessie Grund and his Demon worshiping Father, the Crack Addict Amy. Now the defense is saying Kronk did it.

A man who has had no prior contact with Casey or Caylee other then the misfortune of finding the poor little girls body. Personally I'm glad the body was found but I wouldn't wish that and whats going to happen to the poor soul that discovered her on anyone.

In clause 9 I love how JB says equally as responsible....gee could he make his client sound even more guilty. Might as well have just said umm yeah she did now just prove it.

My question is what evidence? They have evidence that could show RK is guilty? Where was this evidence? Why wait present it now so your client doesn't have to sit behind bars any more. The defense keeps pulling the we have evidence card and then when the bluff is called it ends up being all smoke and mirrors. Like the our client is innocent based on our interpretation of the states evidence they pulled awhile back. That and they even say in the motion that the circumstantial evidence points strongly to Casey in a round about way.

That and wouldn't all this "evidence" the defense has be hear say evidence? Where are the police records for the alleged beatings and indecency with minors? I would seriously doubt any of this "evidence " would be admissible. To me this is just the defense using the Sunshine Laws to taint the jury pool and make civilly liable statements about RK in a way that is legal. I guess they learned their lessons with Zenaida and Jesse.