2011.1.21 HHJP: NO to Kronk's prior bad acts!

[LambChop]

I believe you are right. Those are the rules. However, rules and JB are strangers. I look for him to TRY and slip something in, such as "You know alot about duct tape, don't you Mr. Kronk?"
Objection !

And Mr. Kronk should reply, "no." And wouldn't JB, again, be going against the judge's order? Hope he realizes KC is not worth throwing away his career because he is going down that path. And she definitely is not worth it. Because he could just as well find himself at the bus station waiting in line with the rest of her victims. jmo

 

[Psmith]

Isn't it next to impossible to bring a case of defamation, libel or slander against an attorney for things said in even the vaguest inference of good faith in defending their client before the court?

JG would have a strong case against Cindy and the A's. But I don't think RK will ever be able to touch JB or CM.

Yes, I understand that allegations in a legal setting (courtroom or document) are not considered actual facts or utterances that can lead to libel/slander litigation. I was thinking of statements Baez may have made outside that setting, to the news media for example.

Interesting that you should bring up Jesse Grund's situation. There sure is a lot of mud being flung at innocent bystanders in this case!

 

[Psmith]

I missed JVM last night so went to read the transcript:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1101/21/ijvm.01.html

MITCHELL: "Well, that`s according to the prosecution. And by the way, we can tell you that we invited Jose Baez and Shady Mason part of Casey Anthony`s dream team, to be on our broadcast today."

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

HAHAHAHA! That is priceless!

 

[FifthEssence]

The Judge could not have given Roy a better Birthday gift! :great:

We have a thread dedicated to CAYLEE's hero, and anyone wishing to send out BIRTHDAY GREETINGS is welcome to post there.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=78434&page=5

 

[MissJames]

You know, Casey's cat was crapping on Cindy's carpet, right in front of Cindy. I think that cat was really trying to tell her something, like smell the poop, Cindy, Casey's full of it!

Those cats really are smart, lol. They should get together and form a strategy for Baez. I'm just glad Kronk can't be part of it anymore. Happiest of birthdays to you, Mr. Kronk!

and IIRC Cindy was placing the blame elsewhere,until she actually saw it happen! Typical :furious:

 

[seagull65]

:woohoo::woohoo::woohoo:

:great::great::great:

*does happy dance*

Oh thank you Lord and HHJP! No making Kronk the suspect in court! I figured this particular denial deserved it's own thread! The defense is DEFINITELY running out of options everyday it seems!

And Kronk gets to remain the hero that he is in court. I think that is only appropriate. He found Caylee, and now he gets to help bring justice to Caylee in court. I can't wait for that! And I know Kronk must be having a great Friday today!

You're kidding, kept out? (Please don't blame it on the Lord.) I'm sorry, I couldn't disagree more, I will never understand excluding prior bad acts at trial. This kind of "editing" of the facts creates a false picture for the jury. Imagine if you were on a jury and only found out after a trial that a particular witness who gave important testimony in the case had prior bad acts that you had not been informed of that changed your perception of the testimony or even the case? I don't suspect Kronk in particular, but neither would I want to exclude any information such as prior bad acts if there are any. To my mind he's neither a hero nor suspect at this stage, he's just the person who reported finding the remains. (I don't get the whole "hero" thing at all.) His history and/or any prior bad acts if there are any are whatever they are. Nobody's responsible for them but himself. Why stack the deck /give a false picture/ whitewash any witness by keeping certain facts out of trial? It doesn't make any sense to me.

Does prior bad acts only mean convictions? Or does it encompass character testimony etc?

 

[Aedrys]

You're kidding, kept out? (Please don't blame it on the Lord.) I'm sorry, I couldn't disagree more, I will never understand excluding prior bad acts at trial. This kind of "editing" of the facts creates a false picture for the jury. Imagine if you were on a jury and only found out after a trial that a particular witness who gave important testimony in the case had prior bad acts that you had not been informed of that changed your perception of the testimony or even the case? I don't suspect Kronk in particular, but neither would I want to exclude any information such as prior bad acts if there are any. To my mind he's neither a hero nor suspect at this stage, he's just the person who reported finding the remains. His history and/or any prior bad acts if there are any are whatever they are. Nobody's responsible for them but himself. Why stack the deck or give a false picture by keeping certain facts out of trial? It doesn't make any sense to me.

By prior bad acts, does that only refer to convictions? Or what does it encompass?

We're talking about bad acts made up by bitter ex wives that has nothing to do with Caylee's case. There are no prior convictions against Mr. Kronk for kidnapping a child or using duct tape against his ex wives, only their bitter words. And notice, none of them have bothered to be depoed, only Mr. Kronk's son. I guess when it was going to be on record, they didn't want their lies on record, huh?

I know I wouldn't want people making up stories that aren't true and then that being used against me in a trial. That doesn't sound fair at all. The defense cannot just go find any Tom, Dick, or Harry and pin this on them. There has to be proof - solid, tangible proof and not just stories that can't be verified - that someone else did this. There is no proof whatsoever against Mr. Kronk in this case. Caylee never would have been found if it hadn't been for Mr. Kronk. It would be totally unfair to smear this man in court when he had nothing to do with what happened to poor Caylee. That would be a complete injustice to everyone, especially Mr. Kronk. He is a HERO here, not the enemy, not the one who did this horrible crime. That person is sitting in jail right where she belongs.

If I were a jury member, I'd be thankful that Casey couldn't tear apart whomever she chooses in front of me. I'd be thankful that this man found that poor child's body so that there could be justice in this case. And I'd be angry at the defendant and her family for doing everything they can to blame anyone else but the defendant for what happened. But that's just me.

 

[LambChop]

You're kidding, kept out? (Please don't blame it on the Lord.) I'm sorry, I couldn't disagree more, I will never understand excluding prior bad acts at trial. This kind of "editing" of the facts creates a false picture for the jury. Imagine if you were on a jury and only found out after a trial that a particular witness who gave important testimony in the case had prior bad acts that you had not been informed of that changed your perception of the testimony or even the case? I don't suspect Kronk in particular, but neither would I want to exclude any information such as prior bad acts if there are any. To my mind he's neither a hero nor suspect at this stage, he's just the person who reported finding the remains. (I don't get the whole "hero" thing at all.) His history and/or any prior bad acts if there are any are whatever they are. Nobody's responsible for them but himself. Why stack the deck /give a false picture/ whitewash any witness by keeping certain facts out of trial? It doesn't make any sense to me.

Does prior bad acts only mean convictions? Or does it encompass character testimony etc?

I think the false image would be one that painted RK as having prior bad acts. He just found Caylee's remains, nothing more, nothing less. Defense can neither connect him to KC, nor can they prove that he ever did anything wrong or against the law. His arrest was false because someone else filed a false complaint against him. Basically that was what defense was trying to do.

It is very clear what defense's intentions were in this case by JB stating that RK was just as much a suspect as his client. Really now? How is that so? Defense has never stated RK is the real nanny, no evidence what so ever to prove KC even knew him. Put yourself in RK's position because that is what we all have been doing. Imagine being accused of such a horrible crime. He's not a suspect. Never has been as far as LE is concerned. Plus his arrest record was erased which legally means it did not happen. He was the one who honestly came forward with the information when he did not have to share it. jmo

P.S. And the reason they can't use if is because defense did not provide any information of value, nothing, nada....because....they have nothing. We can't say in public what JB has said about RK because he's protected by the law as a defense attorney.....we are not.

 

[strawberry]

You're kidding, kept out? (Please don't blame it on the Lord.) I'm sorry, I couldn't disagree more, I will never understand excluding prior bad acts at trial. This kind of "editing" of the facts creates a false picture for the jury. Imagine if you were on a jury and only found out after a trial that a particular witness who gave important testimony in the case had prior bad acts that you had not been informed of that changed your perception of the testimony or even the case? I don't suspect Kronk in particular, but neither would I want to exclude any information such as prior bad acts if there are any. To my mind he's neither a hero nor suspect at this stage, he's just the person who reported finding the remains. (I don't get the whole "hero" thing at all.) His history and/or any prior bad acts if there are any are whatever they are. Nobody's responsible for them but himself. Why stack the deck /give a false picture/ whitewash any witness by keeping certain facts out of trial? It doesn't make any sense to me.

Does prior bad acts only mean convictions? Or does it encompass character testimony etc?

So I take it then that you agree that all prior bad acts of ICA should be admitted?

 

[faefrost]

You're kidding, kept out? (Please don't blame it on the Lord.) I'm sorry, I couldn't disagree more, I will never understand excluding prior bad acts at trial. This kind of "editing" of the facts creates a false picture for the jury. Imagine if you were on a jury and only found out after a trial that a particular witness who gave important testimony in the case had prior bad acts that you had not been informed of that changed your perception of the testimony or even the case? I don't suspect Kronk in particular, but neither would I want to exclude any information such as prior bad acts if there are any. To my mind he's neither a hero nor suspect at this stage, he's just the person who reported finding the remains. (I don't get the whole "hero" thing at all.) His history and/or any prior bad acts if there are any are whatever they are. Nobody's responsible for them but himself. Why stack the deck /give a false picture/ whitewash any witness by keeping certain facts out of trial? It doesn't make any sense to me.

Does prior bad acts only mean convictions? Or does it encompass character testimony etc?

Prior bad acts can be used to impeach people at trial be they witnesses, experts or defendants. But there are very clearly laid out rules and circumstances for using them. Has the witness been convicted of any crime? A history of perjury before the court or under oath? A history of theft or fraud? Anything PROVEN that may be used to call into account a witnesses truthfulness. But a trial for an unrelated crime is not and never can be the forum for attempting to determine the truth of a third parties separate or prior acts.

In the case of RK, there are no prior bad acts. None. No police reports. No sworn statements. No arrests, no convictions. There is at best unfounded and unsupported hearsay against him on a matter unrelated to the crime or defendant in question. Otherwise the defense is free to say that Caylee may have been murdered by Seagull65 because he or she once kicked a classmate on the playground in kindergarten, and therefore has an obvious predisposition to violence towards children.

 

[Intermezzo]

You're kidding, kept out? (Please don't blame it on the Lord.) I'm sorry, I couldn't disagree more, I will never understand excluding prior bad acts at trial. This kind of "editing" of the facts creates a false picture for the jury. Imagine if you were on a jury and only found out after a trial that a particular witness who gave important testimony in the case had prior bad acts that you had not been informed of that changed your perception of the testimony or even the case? I don't suspect Kronk in particular, but neither would I want to exclude any information such as prior bad acts if there are any. To my mind he's neither a hero nor suspect at this stage, he's just the person who reported finding the remains. (I don't get the whole "hero" thing at all.) His history and/or any prior bad acts if there are any are whatever they are. Nobody's responsible for them but himself. Why stack the deck /give a false picture/ whitewash any witness by keeping certain facts out of trial? It doesn't make any sense to me.

Does prior bad acts only mean convictions? Or does it encompass character testimony etc?

Chief Judge Perry said in his order that purported behavior does not tend to prove or disprove any material fact in this case and is not admissible under the Rules stated in the Order. See Below

http://www.wesh.com/pdf/26573654/detail.html

BBM
Would you then, based on your own post, want ALL of Casey Anthony's prior bad acts(proven and unproven) and convictions be included at her trial? Even if it had nothing to do with the charged criminal act?

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

You're kidding, kept out? (Please don't blame it on the Lord.) I'm sorry, I couldn't disagree more, I will never understand excluding prior bad acts at trial. This kind of "editing" of the facts creates a false picture for the jury. Imagine if you were on a jury and only found out after a trial that a particular witness who gave important testimony in the case had prior bad acts that you had not been informed of that changed your perception of the testimony or even the case? I don't suspect Kronk in particular, but neither would I want to exclude any information such as prior bad acts if there are any. To my mind he's neither a hero nor suspect at this stage, he's just the person who reported finding the remains. (I don't get the whole "hero" thing at all.) His history and/or any prior bad acts if there are any are whatever they are. Nobody's responsible for them but himself. Why stack the deck /give a false picture/ whitewash any witness by keeping certain facts out of trial? It doesn't make any sense to me.

Does prior bad acts only mean convictions? Or does it encompass character testimony etc?

The "hero" part respectfully bolded by me for comment.

I believe he qualifies as hero because he had the courage to step out of his comfort zone and make an effort to do what was the right thing ~ not the easy thing. Many people are witness to crimes and the results of those crimes; in spite of being begged by LE to help they do not have courage enough to become witnesses or even share any pertinent information they have. Mr Kronk pulled his courage together no less than three times to report his findings. His open and persevering reporting has been rewarded with the defense's attempt to dig up every hint of dirt about him that they could find. . . All without enough fact to even stand up under legal scrutiny! It has not been an easy thing for Mr Kronk.

His entire life has been changed by this involvement. Mentally, spiritually, financially and security wise ~ he has paid for his heroics!!!

And, please ". . . he's just the person who reported finding the remains," ~ How can this fact be denigrated to this level when there were over 4,000 volunteers out there looking for Caylee?

Besides, Casey's prior bad acts that are not deemed germane to the case are also not being admitted (ie some of her sexual escapades and preferences) so it seems pretty fair handed to me.

 

[The World According]

http://www.wftv.com/video/26576911/index.html

 

[Schmerty_Jones]

GREAT THREAD!!!!!
HHJP made my day!!!
ALSO THANKS TO Expecting Unicorns., Intermezzo,faefrost,Strawberry,Lamb chop,Aedrys &to Kronk & Casey's jail mate & Cindy's cat!!!:floorlaugh::great::great:

 

[strawberry]

GREAT THREAD!!!!!
HHJP made my day!!!
ALSO THANKS TO Expecting Unicorns., Intermezzo,faefrost,Strawberry,Lamb chop,Aedrys &to Kronk & Casey's jail mate & Cindy's cat!!!:floorlaugh::great::great:

BBM So funny...I was just rereading an old thread as I often do these days and someone...I forget who but someone who is still here said they think the only members of the A house who can tell the truth are the dogs and cats and I thought, so true; how prophetic!

ETA: It was.....Zoey!

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3021547&highlight=cats#post3021547

Post 929: I'm starting to think that perhaps the only truthful informer in that household could be the dogs and cats...

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

I agree with you all about RK's prior "bad" acts...He has never been arrested much less convicted of any crimes...Wasn't he once a Bounty Hunter in Kentucky as well as a PI?

As far as him being hailed a hero, he so deserves to be called one, IMO...he followed his gut instincts. He listened intently to ICA's own words and words of KioMarie...he followed his gut, many days. Had ExDeputy Caine, did his job right back in August, the defense would have nothing to cry about. How is that fair to want RK's "prior bad acts" put out there when it's only out of the mouth of a bitter exwife. She has nothing to back this up with, no police reports, no restraining orders...nothing...

If the defense team tries to besmirch his good name, I do believe the jury will automatically loathe the defendant, rightfully so, IMO...this prisoner has no problems bringing up innocent people and it will go against HER if they try, so let them try. How contradictory is the defense, they want nothing of this prisoners "prior bad acts" divulged in court but with RK it's okay??? Dispicable!:maddening:

Then the other feat will be, how do you connect RK to the invisinanny? All over ICA's statements with police, the nanny didn't return her. How do you connect RK to ZFG??? You don't because the "real" nanny is nonexistant...and then there's the 31 days....JMHO

Justice for Caylee

 

[LambChop]

LOL. I think one of his bad acts was trying to control his wife at the time, JK, habit of writing bad checks. Seems she still continued after they divorced. Why would a man want to stay with someone who would do something like that? This may be why they were only married a short time. She has no credibility and SA would have brought that to the jury's attention. Waste of time to go down that path when the focus is really on who killed Caylee. Who had the opportunity and motive. Clearly a mother who NEVER reported her child missing and on the very day her daughter was last seen Mom rents two movies about kidnapping. And what about RK. Just someone doing their job. By focusing on RK defense has made a stronger case against their client. jmo

 

[ThinkTank]

Dr. G - Sept 28, 2010 depo done - transcript granted Oct 12, 2010
Roy Kronk - July 30, 2010 depo done - transcript requested Sept 27, 2010
Gary Utz - Sept 28, 2010 depo done - transcript granted Oct 12, 2010


Looks like the Defense is back to blaming Kronk.
Mysteriously InSession claims to have copies of (3) deposition transcripts, Dr. G., Gary Utz Medical Examiner, and Kronk ... which have NOT been filed with the Clerk of Court. How does InSession have the transcripts?

InSession publishes an article that implies that the Defense thinks Kronk tampered with Caylee's remains (Defense slant much?)

Defense depositions show glimpse into possible strategy

http://insession.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/08/defense-depositions-show-possible-glimpse-into-strategy/

excerpt:
"At this point in the deposition, Baez keeps pushing Kronk seemingly seeking to discredit Kronk’s story and possibly suggesting that he may have tampered with the body. A break is called in the deposition so that Kronk can compose himself after Baez’s accusations."

Couple the fact that InSession is the only entity to have these (3) depo transcripts, with what Amil reported hearing when she attended the Hearing on March 7th.

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6194447#post6194447"]2011.03.07 Motions Hearing - Page 41 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

excerpt:
Amil said: "The attorney for the As came in after the hearing began and asked both CA and GA when they would like to come to his office and sign an affidavit. GA said ASAP. They've been walking away from the parking garage when I've seen them leaving the courtroom lately. I think they found a free parking spot - perhaps at the attorney's office. InSession said to CA they would not show up unannounced and it would be around March 22. They'll call the attorney's office and set it up. I don't know what they were talking about."

 

[Intermezzo]

Dr. G - Sept 28, 2010 depo done - transcript granted Oct 12, 2010
Roy Kronk - July 30, 2010 depo done - transcript requested Sept 27, 2010
Gary Utz - Sept 28, 2010 depo done - transcript granted Oct 12, 2010


Looks like the Defense is back to blaming Kronk.
Mysteriously InSession claims to have copies of (3) deposition transcripts, Dr. G., Gary Utz Medical Examiner, and Kronk ... which have NOT been filed with the Clerk of Court. How does InSession have the transcripts?

InSession publishes an article that implies that the Defense thinks Kronk tampered with Caylee's remains (Defense slant much?)

Defense depositions show glimpse into possible strategy

http://insession.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/08/defense-depositions-show-possible-glimpse-into-strategy/

excerpt:
"At this point in the deposition, Baez keeps pushing Kronk seemingly seeking to discredit Kronk’s story and possibly suggesting that he may have tampered with the body. A break is called in the deposition so that Kronk can compose himself after Baez’s accusations."

Couple the fact that InSession is the only entity to have these (3) depo transcripts, with what Amil reported hearing when she attended the Hearing on March 7th.

2011.03.07 Motions Hearing - Page 41 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

excerpt:
Amil said: "The attorney for the As came in after the hearing began and asked both CA and GA when they would like to come to his office and sign an affidavit. GA said ASAP. They've been walking away from the parking garage when I've seen them leaving the courtroom lately. I think they found a free parking spot - perhaps at the attorney's office. InSession said to CA they would not show up unannounced and it would be around March 22. They'll call the attorney's office and set it up. I don't know what they were talking about."

Who was the Reporter that Baez forwarded emails to? Was she from InSession?
Seems like Baez and his Agents, the Anthonys IMO, have some sort of arrangement or agreement
:twocents:

 

[ThinkTank]

Who was the Reporter that Baez forwarded emails to? Was she from InSession?
Seems like Baez and his Agents, the Anthonys IMO, have some sort of arrangement or agreement
:twocents:

Yes, Baez sent emails between Cindy, NeJame, Conway to reporter Beth Karas of TruTV, even before the Motion with the emails was filed in the case, and before the Motion was heard in a Hearing.

And ... I wonder what Mr. NBC TODAY Show Producer, Jim Lichtenstein (who always attends the Hearings) thinks of InSession getting a scoop from "his friends", the Anthonys?