In Retrospect-Kronk Believes He Saw Skull In August

[reeseeva]

Mr. Kronk has not claimed that he was drawn to the area where he found Caylee's body based on his prior experience (bounty hunter, bondsman). His story is that finding Caylee's remains was but in the way of happenstance.

As regards my posture that there is insufficient evidence to support the premediated murder charge, it's based what we know to be the evidence; i.e., evidence that is in the public domain. It's possible that highly reliable inculpatory evidence is being kept back by the D.A.'s office. Though I doubt that is the case.

BBM

Wudge, I have always believed that his prior experience of Bounty Hunter, directly relates to his happenstance in this case.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, if the SA has highly reliable inculpatory evidence, and is still being investigated, they would not release this in the discovery, until such is completed, with the "timing" of such evidence being crucial to their case.

 

[lizzysf]

We all know who the murderer was, and it's not Kronk. He had nothing to do with it. He did, however, set himself up for the defense to poke holes in his wobbly story.. Who knows what angle the defense is drumming up when it comes to Kronk. In the end, I do believe the jury will give him a pass. The SA may even know his timeline of events is a fib created for personal reasons, they may even expose the simple truths of why he fudged his storyline, as a way to prove he is innocent of any complicity beyond finding the body. It could work to the SA's benefit to expose his benign mistruths.
The SA may be forced to expose his mistruths as well..once the defense is done with him. But in the end, I think the jurors will get it. Body found, move on. He lied, yes, but for personal reasons.

 

[Wudge]

BBM

Wudge, I have always believed that his prior experience of Bounty Hunter, directly relates to his happenstance in this case.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, if the SA has highly reliable inculpatory evidence, and is still being investigated, they would not release this in the discovery, until such is completed, with the "timing" of such evidence being crucial to their case.

Mr. Kronk's background as a bounty hunter would certainly provide a basis for an experienced based thought process that reflected on certain spots being more favorable than others for dumping a small body. However, he seemed more to distance himself from his bounty hunting days rather than use that experience to explain how he came to find Caylee's remains.

Work-in-process is just what it says; it's not a finished product. Thus, prosecutors could certainly say that Sunshine laws did not yet apply.

Still, as regards high-profile cases (and most other cases as well), my experience is that both LE and the D.A.'s office want to get the spotlights off of them as soon as humanly possible, and to do that, they will release (or leak) any evidence they have at their disposal as soon as possible -- some of which is not ready for prime time or might simply be not true. This produces the added advantage of poisoning the jury pool.

Moreover, my experience also is that as start of the trial date draws ever nearer, the evidence that is released just before the curtain is set to rise tends to be decidely more favorable to the defense than the prosecution.

FWIW

 

[JBean]

BUT, wise Wudge......would it not be plausible for RK to indicate during cross ,that contrary to any conspiracy theorists, as an Orlando resident he was captivated by the story....that his predetermined route as a meter reader placed him in that neighborhood, that his facination with the case and his own instincts told him that the neighborhood may be the dump site, that given the choice of a shade / potty break in that location or elsewhere, he chose Suburban, that his desire to remain annonymous was due in part to not wanting his boss to think he was conducting personal business on company time, that his witness to the abuse innocent parties were subject to was enough to want to remain in the shadows. Perhaps he really did KNOW back in August, but fear of being vilified in the media was his reason for not pushing the issue. One fact that can't be invalidated during cross is that he found her!

This is exactly the point SOS. Is that what he told officers or is that something different than what he said? While his motivation may have been reasonable ,if he truly was dishonest in his statements, what impact can or will that have on the case?
IMO, the defense will capitalize on his dishonesty ( if he was dishonest) to impeach him as a credible witness. "If he was lying then is he lying now" type situation. Now if a witness is not truthful about some of their statements it is reasonable for a jury to assume they are not truthful about any of their statements.

So the question becomes, will that matter? Will it lead to reasonable doubt as to whether the body was always there? will it make jurors wonder if it was moved? Some say yes and some say no.

Again, my posts are not meant to imply that i think kronk had a hand in the murder of Caylee. My posts are meant to address the notion, that many have stated, regarding Kronk possibly fibbing and whether it will have impact on this trial.

 

[BeanE]

My favorite part of the concept of 'reasonable doubt' is the word 'reasonable'.

Kronk's testimony, should he testify, will not be the only evidence considered by the jury in this case. The jury will not look at Kronk's testimony in a vacuum.

Further, the jury will be instructed on the standard of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that they will apply to this and all evidence presented.

Jurors are permitted to have doubts.

Jurors are permitted to apply logic to the feasibility of alternative explanations.

Clear and convincing simply means a higher probability that something is true than that it is untrue.

Reasonable, logical, probable.

 

[RR0004]

I just went back and read the transcript of the 1st 911 call that Kronk placed...and the interview with LE after he found Caylee...I'm not getting where he was dishonest? He said he threw his lights on his truck to make it look like he was doing something. I think his need to explain why he chose this particular area to urinate is irrelevant. IMO he was trying to kill two birds with one stone. I do think that what he saw the first time was not what he noticed the second time...but whatever it was that he "thought" he saw kept him focused on that area of the swamp. Where's the problem with that?

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/4782192...ronk-Interview-Transcript-released-March-5pdf

 

[reeseeva]

I'm on the fence about the benefit for the prosecution with this one. My concern is that if RK says he saw a skull in August, yet in December basically stated he had to move the bag and a skull fell out, something isn't adding up.

My hinky meter wasn't on alert before, but the needle just jumped.

BBM

This part, Bolded, is also what bothers me:waitasec:

Also, this area seems to be a "dump site" for trash, with many garbage bags, mostly, I would say are black plastic bags, also evidenced by the PI poking in a few in the video..... A big question is, especially the recent photos of the off-white Laundry bag, how did this not stand out from all the other trash in the area?

 

[RR0004]

Mr. Kronk's background as a bounty hunter would certainly provide a basis for an experienced based thought process that reflected on certain spots being more favorable than others for dumping a small body. However, he seemed more to distance himself from his bounty hunting days rather than use that experience to explain how he came to find Caylee's remains.

Work-in-process is just what it says; it's not a finished product. Thus, prosecutors could certainly say that Sunshine laws did not yet apply.

Still, as regards high-profile cases (and most other cases as well), my experience is that both LE and the D.A.'s office want to get the spotlights off of them as soon as humanly possible, and to do that, they will release (or leak) any evidence they have at their disposal as soon as possible -- some of which is not ready for prime time or might simply be not true. This produces the added advantage of poisoning the jury pool.

Moreover, my experience also is that as start of the trial date draws ever nearer, the evidence that is released just before the curtain is set to rise tends to be decidely more favorable to the defense than the prosecution.

FWIW

BBM

That's not exactly true. I found that he was quite honest about his intentions. I just re-read his first 911 call and his interview with LE investigating R. Cain.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/5793951/Casey-Anthony-Roy-Kronk-Interview-part-2-May-1-2009

See page 9 ...he wasn't distancing himself from his past experience IMO.

 

[reeseeva]

This is exactly the point SOS. Is that what he told officers or is that something different than what he said? While his motivation may have been reasonable ,if he truly was dishonest in his statements, what impact can or will that have on the case?
IMO, the defense will capitalize on his dishonesty ( if he was dishonest) to impeach him as a credible witness. "If he was lying then is he lying now" type situation. Now if a witness is not truthful about some of their statements it is reasonable for a jury to assume they are not truthful about any of their statements.
So the question becomes, will that matter? Will it lead to reasonable doubt as to whether the body was always there? will it make jurors wonder if it was moved? Some say yes and some say no.

Again, my posts are not meant to imply that i think kronk had a hand in the murder of Caylee. My posts are meant to address the notion, that many have stated, regarding Kronk possibly fibbing and whether it will have impact on this trial.

BBM

Well, there goes the whole Anthony family! (Couldn't resist)

 

[RR0004]

I was suspicious about RK's stories initially...but I have to tell ya...after re-reading a lot of what he had to say to LE...it was just d*mn fortunate that he did find Caylee. I think he was suspicious of the area and stuck with it. I think he was probably the most shocked of anyone when he actually saw the skull. The description of the area makes it even more clear in my mind that this "drop spot" wasn't as visible as some may think.

 

[sleutherontheside]

BBM

This part, Bolded, is also what bothers me:waitasec:

Also, this area seems to be a "dump site" for trash, with many garbage bags, mostly, I would say are black plastic bags, also evidenced by the PI poking in a few in the video..... A big question is, especially the recent photos of the off-white Laundry bag, how did this not stand out from all the other trash in the area?

Reply to your bold. My explanation would be that when he noticed something "white" if he was in fact seeing the laundry bag, it had only been there 2 months. As rain continued, more mud and the elements would have rendered the bag less noticable as it would be dirty, wet, picked over by animals, covered in foliage and debris...The photo of the laundry bag shows just how dirty it was when it was found. As far as the skull rolling out....I think that comment may have been a bit exaggerated. Many statements in this case have been. It doesn't make them less true, just more "sounbite" worthy. KWIM??

 

[justsaying]

Reply to your bold. My explanation would be that when he noticed something "white" if he was in fact seeing the laundry bag, it had only been there 2 months. As rain continued, more mud and the elements would have rendered the bag less noticable as it would be dirty, wet, picked over by animals, covered in foliage and debris...The photo of the laundry bag shows just how dirty it was when it was found. As far as the skull rolling out....I think that comment may have been a bit exaggerated. Many statements in this case have been. It doesn't make them less true, just more "sounbite" worthy. KWIM??

I so agree with this theory. I had thought, too, that the laundry bag could have produced a mound of sorts to look like a skull. And from differing vantage points what one sees can change. I also saw "kittens" in the pictures of the crime scene. Our eyes often fool us or our brain interprets what we see under different lighting and shadows differently. I think Mr. K was honest in what he thought he was seeing. He didn't say initially that he saw a skull. He said he saw something white and round. He didn't say skull until he moved the bag and uncovered the skull. I agee also on the soundbites theory. The skull literally rolling out of the bag sounds so much more horrid than just being "uncovered". The man just had a hunch. And as it turns out, it was a hum dinger and he didn't let it go. Applause to Mr. K.

 

[whiteangora]

This is exactly the point SOS. Is that what he told officers or is that something different than what he said? While his motivation may have been reasonable ,if he truly was dishonest in his statements, what impact can or will that have on the case?
IMO, the defense will capitalize on his dishonesty ( if he was dishonest) to impeach him as a credible witness. "If he was lying then is he lying now" type situation. Now if a witness is not truthful about some of their statements it is reasonable for a jury to assume they are not truthful about any of their statements.

So the question becomes, will that matter? Will it lead to reasonable doubt as to whether the body was always there? will it make jurors wonder if it was moved? Some say yes and some say no.

Again, my posts are not meant to imply that i think kronk had a hand in the murder of Caylee. My posts are meant to address the notion, that many have stated, regarding Kronk possibly fibbing and whether it will have impact on this trial.

bbm
My answer to the bolded portion of your post would be:
I do not think it will matter to the jury because the plant and insect
scientists will show that the body had been there for approx. 6 months.

 

[lizzysf]

Defense: Mr. Kronk has a history of kidnapping and also was a bounty hunter previously.
State: Mr. Kronk, were you afraid by finding the body, that you might be implicated in the crime if the defense miscontsrued your history?

 

[sleutherontheside]

Defense: Mr. Kronk has a history of kidnapping and also was a bounty hunter previously.
State: Mr. Kronk, were you afraid by finding the body, that you might be implicated in the crime if the defense miscontsrued your history?

Or in the unique dialect of the A family MISCONSTHRUE.

 

[Wudge]

BBM

That's not exactly true. I found that he was quite honest about his intentions. I just re-read his first 911 call and his interview with LE investigating R. Cain.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/5793951/Casey-Anthony-Roy-Kronk-Interview-part-2-May-1-2009

See page 9 ...he wasn't distancing himself from his past experience IMO.

If a person driving along in a vehicle knew that a swampy area was infested with rattlesnakes, as Mr. Kronk did, that's not a place they would choose to park their vehicle, walk off the road and venture back into the water, brush and undergrowth to relieve themselves.

 

[Imbackon]

I know this will sound crazy, but I honestly couldn't sleep last nite trying to figure out these questions.
Was Caylee wrapped in black plastic bags, then they were in the laundry bag or was it the other way around.
Transcript from Kronk says bag was not open, if not then how did anything fall out. The detectives during questioning did not seem to suprised by this, so maybe the TOP was not open, but there was a break in the seam?
Was a black bag ONTOP of the laundry bag, thus the white circle seen underneath?

Seems we may not exactly know the physical layout of what it looked like at the time of discovery. Am I right or does someone know definitively what the arrangement was like?

I suspect that what Kronk saw in August, looked different in December due to shifting water, mud etc... but just trying to figure out the arrangement here at least where I can get a visual idea and put it together with what Kronk was actually seeing.

ETA, after reading Dr. G's report it SOUNDS like this may be the situation.
one tied, and one non tied black plastic bags were found "intermingled" with the whitney laundry, but these bags are not intact. The whitney bag was intact apparently, but this bag must have been OPEN.

I think parts of the black bag, that contained the remains initially CAME OUT from the inside of the whitney bag, and were partially obscuring the whitney bag. Caylees skull was still in the whitney bag I think. So his depo about moving this black bag and having the skull exposed in December was actually moving the "piece" of the black bag that was now on top of the whitney bag, revealed the skull that was still in the whitney bag.
Back in August, who knows what he was seeing.

 

[sleutherontheside]

If a person driving along in a vehicle knew that a swampy area was infested with rattlesnakes, as Mr. Kronk did, that's not a place they would choose to park their vehicle, walk off the road and venture back into the water, brush and undergrowth to relieve themselves.

BUT....he didn't see the snake until AFTER he parked and got out. Additionally, I don't recall him stating that he ventured into the water but near it. As far as relieving himself, I would argue that he chose to "venture" out of sight to avoid being spotted. If a county employee were caught urinating in public, that would be grounds for termination. After visiting the site personally AND viewing photos of the topography after it had been cleared, it is plausible that the area he used to relieve himself was near enough to see "something" and still remain on dry land.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

Are we shooting the messenger?

Caylee Anthony was missing, foul play suspected.
Kronk located Caylee Anthony’s body within his designated area of work.
Kronk reported the discovery of the body multiple times.
Kronk has purportedly shifted some of the facts attending his discovery.

Are we suspicious that Kronk was given directions to the site by someone else?
Wouldn’t LE be aware of the fact, at this point, if Kronk were involved with others in positioning the body?
Can’t his statements be verified before he testifies?

If he has interfered with the investigation then he will deserve anything the defense team can do. On the other hand, if he has attempted to only present a cleaner image of himself than what is true then I don’t care. That would have no impact on the outcome of the trial.

If the argument is whether or not he found the body then why would the defense team attack him on cross? Would they still be trying to convince the jury that he might have been involved in a conspiracy or something? Is that what the real argument is now? If so, then wouldn’t the prosecution already have this investigated? It seems that information would be equally pivotal for both sides.

I have no taste for a thoroughly cooked pot roast this week. Maybe next week if I hear something different but right now it’s much too early for me. MOO

 

[sleutherontheside]

Are we shooting the messenger?

Caylee Anthony was missing, foul play suspected.
Kronk located Caylee Anthony’s body within his designated area of work.
Kronk reported the discovery of the body multiple times.
Kronk has purportedly shifted some of the facts attending his discovery.

Are we suspicious that Kronk was given directions to the site by someone else?Wouldn’t LE be aware of the fact, at this point, if Kronk were involved with others in positioning the body?
Can’t his statements be verified before he testifies?

If he has interfered with the investigation then he will deserve anything the defense team can do. On the other hand, if he has attempted to only present a cleaner image of himself than what is true then I don’t care. That would have no impact on the outcome of the trial.

If the argument is whether or not he found the body then why would the defense team attack him on cross? Would they still be trying to convince the jury that he might have been involved in a conspiracy or something? Is that what the real argument is now? If so, then wouldn’t the prosecution already have this investigated? It seems that information would be equally pivotal for both sides.

I have no taste for a thoroughly cooked pot roast this week. Maybe next week if I hear something different but right now it’s much too early for me. MOO

BBM
I think that the entire issue with Kronk started with none other than our Leonard Padilla. He spewed theories on NG that Kronk was part of a "daisy chain" of info. He implied that Kronks girlfiend worked at the jail where KC is being held and that it is possible she overheard something and that is why he was so determined. Now, couple the Padilla Spin Cycle with the PI's searching
in that same area, and it seems fishy. I think that the reason the defense will attempt to discredit him is because, if they can paint him into some sort of group of "insiders" with knowledge of Caylees location, then they can argue that all those people knew something and thus SODDI. KWIM?