In Retrospect-Kronk Believes He Saw Skull In August

[cecybeans]

Oh yeah, I am pretty sure the defense will have something to say about R. Cain, and also about some of the forensic errors made.
I do wish R. Cain had done his job properly that day. I believe if the remains were there at that time, the remains would have had much more to say in early august than they did in December.
It would have been much better for RK if the officer had done his job.

That may be up for debate. Several guest experts on NG type shows have said that in the FL summer, remains could be skeletonized in as early as three weeks. While some soft tissue may have still remained, unless COD was from long-term poisoning or drugs, the body still might not have offered up a specific COD.

However, I agree that if Cain had done his job the evidence surrounding the remains would have been much more intact, being as the storm didn't hit until almost a week later.

I'm not in love with the idea that the remains need to tell us anything. If we can reasonably deduct who put them there, the rest is gravy, imo.

 

[cecybeans]

Wudge - I have a question for you. Since you do not believe the evidence was strong enough to convict Scott P, can you please offer us an instance of a trial we might recognize in which you think the evidence was strong enough to convict? TIA.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

He wasn't mistaken. They have the body. The police were in error. The salient point is that the body was there. It is more logical and reasonable to believe the police officer was lazy and didn't look thoroughly ~ not that Kronk pretended to find the body, was proven wrong (on more than one occasion) and then on the third time, voila!! ~ a body appeared. Now, to me that is not reasonable.

He may have been mistaken. For whatever reason, the police did not see anything, nor did the searchers. Yes, the body was found in that area, but the question when was the body placed there is currently unknown, unless someone has the botonist and entiomologists reports available for us to see. If that evidence is on record that the body was there for at least 4 months then the defense can not go down that line of questioning.

 

[RR0004]

Still looking for Tim M quotes.

I know that Friday wrote about it.

HTH

 

[RR0004]

He may have been mistaken. For whatever reason, the police did not see anything, nor did the searchers. Yes, the body was found in that area, but the question when was the body placed there is currently unknown, unless someone has the botonist and entiomologists reports available for us to see. If that evidence is on record that the body was there for at least 4 months then the defense can not go down that line of questioning.

Exactly.

And as far as I'm aware...there were no searchers in that area.

 

[indicat]

Wudge - I have a question for you. Since you do not believe the evidence was strong enough to convict Scott P, can you please offer us an instance of a trial we might recognize in which you think the evidence was strong enough to convict? TIA.

Yes please, I think it would help alot to know a case Wudge does think meets all the requirements for conviction. Is there one?

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

That may be up for debate. Several guest experts on NG type shows have said that in the FL summer, remains could be skeletonized in as early as three weeks. While some soft tissue may have still remained, unless COD was from long-term poisoning or drugs, the body still might not have offered up a specific COD.

However, I agree that if Cain had done his job the evidence surrounding the remains would have been much more intact, being as the storm didn't hit until almost a week later.

I'm not in love with the idea that the remains need to tell us anything. If we can reasonably deduct who put them there, the rest is gravy, imo.

I am no expert, and I certainly don't claim to be. It just seemed to me that the evidence remaining on the body and in the bags would have had more to reveal, than the remains that were ultimately found in Dec. I just thought that going through a tropical storm and being underwater as well as being ravaged by wild animals would possibly eliminate some of the evidence that would have been available in august had the remains been found then.

 

[The World According]

Still looking for Tim M quotes.

Tim Miller, founder of Texas EquuSearch, a group that looks for missing people, said the area where the body was found was underwater when volunteers attempted to search it in August and November.

"When Caylee disappeared, Florida was in a drought," Miller said. "When we searched that area, a tropical storm had come through, and the water was too high."

More than 4,500 people participated in searches, Miller said.

Miller said he called off the search after a volunteer destroyed a four-wheeler in deep water.

The find gave Miller hope that Caylee will soon have a dignified burial.

"Caylee's one of those little cases that's touched the hearts of everybody and broken the hearts of everybody that's been involved at all," Miller said.


I like, trust and respect Tim, and I believe the jury will too.

 

[indicat]

I am no expert, and I certainly don't claim to be. It just seemed to me that the evidence remaining on the body and in the bags would have had more to reveal, than the remains that were ultimately found in Dec. I just thought that going through a tropical storm and being underwater as well as being ravaged by wild animals would possibly eliminate some of the evidence that would have been available in august had the remains been found then.

I agree. It was an extreme misfortune that so much time went by without finding Caylee. I believe that had she been found sooner it would have to bode well for the prosecution.

 

[Wudge]

Wudge - I have a question for you. Since you do not believe the evidence was strong enough to convict Scott P, can you please offer us an instance of a trial we might recognize in which you think the evidence was strong enough to convict? TIA.

Over the last 18 years, I've posted online against 45 (or so) cases. Amongst the cases that actually made it to trial, I would have voted to convict the following defendants (most of these were murder trials).

The Menendez brothers … Unlike the jury, I would have convicted them of murder one in their first trial.

OJ’s murder trial

David Westerfield

Danny Pelosi

Rae Carruth … Unlike the jury's 2nd degree murderr conviction, I would have voted for murder one. Juror Edward Karst said: “I have to concur that it's illogical. We have convicted him of all elements which are part of the first-degree murder charge. It is not logical in my mind to do that and then walk away," he said. "But, that was the best we could do. And everybody agreed that Rae was involved."

Dr. Dirk Greineder

Rabbi Fred Neulander

Neil Entwistle (DNA found on the gun handle, no 911 call, in his/her bed.)

Jayson Williams … Unlike the jury in the first trial of Jayson Williams, I would have found him guilty of aggravated manslaughter.

Phil Spector … Unlike the jury in the first murder trial of Phil Spector, I would have found him guilty of murder two.

I would not have convicted Andrea Yates. As with Deanna Laney and her murder trial, I would have voted to send her to a mental institution.

 

[indicat]

Over the last 18 years, I've posted online against 45 (or so) cases. Amongst the cases that actually made it to trial, I would have voted to convict the following defendants (most of these were murder trials).

The Menendez brothers … Unlike the jury, I would have convicted them of murder one in their first trial.

OJ’s murder trial

David Westerfield

Danny Pelosi

Rae Carruth … Unlike the jury's 2nd degree murderr conviction, I would have voted for murder one. Juror Edward Karst said: “I have to concur that it's illogical. We have convicted him of all elements which are part of the first-degree murder charge. It is not logical in my mind to do that and then walk away," he said. "But, that was the best we could do. And everybody agreed that Rae was involved."

Dr. Dirk Greineder

Rabbi Fred Neulander

Neil Entwistle (DNA found on the gun handle, no 911 call, in his/her bed.)

Jayson Williams … Unlike the jury in the first trial of Jayson Williams, I would have found him guilty of aggravated manslaughter.

Phil Spector … Unlike the jury in the first murder trial of Phil Spector, I would have found him guilty of murder two.

I would not have convicted Andrea Yates. As with Deanna Laney and her murder trial, I would have voted to send her to a mental institution.

That helps me understand some of the points of law you talk about.

 

[cecybeans]

Thanks Wudge, that was quite insightful.

 

[RR0004]

(chuckle)

I certainly don't believe, as you say, that the Kronk matter is over. Mr. Kronk might have x-ray vision, or he might have been directed to the area. What Mr. Kronk might reveal on the witness stand is anybody's guess.

As regards the jury in this case, the defense will try to seat as many highly intelligent jurors as possible. The State's case is strong on emotion and extremely weak on inculpatory evidence. The defense will try to have the jurors focus on the lack of highly reliable inculpatory evidence that's required to prove there was a premeditated murder.

By my measure, your comparison of the evidence in this case to evidence in the Laci Peterson trial is fair. In that trial, the State's case was also emotion-based and lacked sufficient evidence to support the 1st degree murder charge, yet Scott was convicted and sits on death row.

To obtain the verdict it seeked, the State was aided when Judge Delucchi removed the original foreman, Dr. Gregory Jackson. Though smart, my call is that he lacked the courage to go against a verdict the community clearly craved.

Like Dr. Sheppard's 1st trial, Scott's trial also created celebrity jurors. I'm an old man now, but that still greatly offends my sensibilities. I hope I live to see an Appellate Court vacate the jury's verdict.

FWIW

You mean in your opinion they lacked evidence to support a Murder 1 conviction, correct?

 

[RR0004]

I agree. It was an extreme misfortune that so much time went by without finding Caylee. I believe that had she been found sooner it would have to bode well for the prosecution.

Yes...even better...Casey should have told LE where she dumped her daughter...then it wouldn't have been left to the general public to find her.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

He may have been mistaken. For whatever reason, the police did not see anything, nor did the searchers. Yes, the body was found in that area, but the question when was the body placed there is currently unknown, unless someone has the botonist and entiomologists reports available for us to see. If that evidence is on record that the body was there for at least 4 months then the defense can not go down that line of questioning.

Per the autopsy report: http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/06/19/6440.6475.pdf (page 27)

"The body most likely was dumped in the woods during the initial stages of decomposition."

And then on page 28:

 

[RR0004]

Per the autopsy report: http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/06/19/6440.6475.pdf (page 27)

"The body most likely was dumped in the woods during the initial stages of decomposition."

And then on page 28:

I had never read the autopsy report...till now. My heart hurts.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

Per the autopsy report: http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/06/19/6440.6475.pdf (page 27)

"The body most likely was dumped in the woods during the initial stages of decomposition."

And then on page 28:

Thank you for the link and page number. You have convinced me. At this point if I were the defense, I would probably look down a different avenue. Baez and his team may continue to argue by asking what do you mean approximately 4 months. Do you mean maybe it was 4 months and a week, or maybe it was 3 months and 2 weeks. I don't know if the defense will go down that road.

 

[RR0004]

In reference to your post in the link provided Excellent post.

In reference to your multiple posts in this thread, you make me think, think again, and then when I think I have figured out what you have said, I rethink it one more time to be sure I have it right. As you have repeatedly tipped your hat to others, I tip my baseball cap to you.

My apologies to all for being off topic.

There is a difference between stating the State did not prove their case (which is not my opinion), and believing the defendent is innocent, don't you think?

 

[RR0004]

Thank you for the link and page number. You have convinced me. At this point if I were the defense, I would probably look down a different avenue. Baez and his team may continue to argue by asking what do you mean approximately 4 months. Do you mean maybe it was 4 months and a week, or maybe it was 3 months and 2 weeks. I don't know if the defense will go down that road.

...and remember...this was four months from the time the body had completely decomposed...if I'm not mistaken.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

...and remember...this was four months from the time the body had completely decomposed...if I'm not mistaken.

On that point I am convinced. I'm still of the opinion though, that the whole Rk portion of this case is a little hinky. I still think there may be opportunities for the defense with RK.