In Retrospect-Kronk Believes He Saw Skull In August

[noonie]

I must agree KC is Guilty. Proove otherwise!!!!!!!!!! Where is there proof????????????????

 

[RR0004]

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.

I've been where you are at.

 

[nobull]

None of what you've written here provides evidence that Casey committed a premeditated murder. If you add all the evidence that Mr. Kronk brings to the State's party, there is still insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the State's murder one charge, and no conviction on the murder one charge, means no conviction for murder.

HTH

You forget, however, defense attorneys won't be sitting on the jury. There will be no fast talking, smoke and mirrors, or 3 card monty going on in the jury room. Just regular folks that hate seeing 2 year olds being thrown out in black plastic trash bags 20 houses away from her mother's home while her mother "parTAYs" down not giving a toss about said child's whereabouts for 31 days.

 

[The World According]

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.

Long before there was a Kronk on the scene, we have Grandma seeming to understand that the baby indeed may be gone, remember this letter from Cindy on Facebook? "Thursday, July 03, 2008
my caylee is missing
Current mood: distraught
She came into my life unexspectedly, just as she has left me. This precious little angel from above gave me strength and unconditional love. Now she is gone and I don’t know why. All I am guilty of is loving her and providing her a safe home. Jealousy has taken her away. Jealousy from the one person that should be thankfull for all of the love and support given to her. A mother’s love is deep, however there are limits when one is betrayed by the one she loved and trusted the most. A daughter comes to her mother for support when she is pregnant, the mother says without hesitation it will be ok. And it was. But then the lies and betrayal began. First it seemed harmless, ah, love is blind. A mother will look for the good in her child and give them a chance to change. This mother gave chance after chance for her daughter to change, but instead more lies more betrayal. What does the mother get for giving her daughter all of these chances? A broken heart. The daughter who stole money, lots of money, leaves without warning and does not let her mother now speak to the baby that her mother raised, fed, clothed, sheltered, paid her medical bills, etc. Instead tells her friends that her mother is controlling her life and she needs her space. No money, no future. Where did she go? Who is now watching out for the little angel?"

This put the veracity of Casey in much more light than the motives of who found the baby.In my opinion.:banghead:

Also, Cindy eventually said to Yuri on a phone message , I am paraphrasing here , no matter what scenario you have, Casey had to have had help. George also admitted early on in a video taped FBI interview, if I have lost my grand daughter, I have lost my daughter , George says he caught a glimpse of laundry in Casey's trunk that day of the gas cans incident and Caylee was found in a laundry bag!!
__________________Those admissions on top of the voluminous lies they have been caught in, in interviews with police, depos and media will all be compelling against Casey, imo.

 

[The World According]

Where do you put KC in this whole fiasco? If what you've been saying holds up? -- that means lots of young mothers will just happen to "lose" the babies they don't want with no accountability. I don't get how you are getting past the non existent nanny, not reporting her daughter missing, lying to police and the dead body smell in the car, I could go on and on but won't. I just can't figure how you get to doubt. We know it was a dead body smell by the simple fact that her daughter turned up dead and several people testified that's what it was in their opinion. So by simple deduction = Caylee. Unless you have a theory about a different dead body in her trunk that I'm unaware of. Just so I understand you, are you saying you believe the smell wasn't from Caylee?

:furious:

J:banghead:
MOO

I wonder what everyone thinks about Lee's depo where he recounts that Casey told him she had Tony help her remove two dead squirrel from her engine area of the Pontiac. There is no reason for her coming up with all of these detailed lies about animals decomposing in her car, other than she knew that smell was so very very distinct she had to say something died there. In case anyone missed that part of his depo, he added that Tony said no way, never happened. This makes Kronk peripheral to the story.The jury can believe him or not, I do not think it changes the overall decision.

 

[MissJames]

If the botonists and entemologists have presented accepted evidence that the remains had been in the spot they were found in for at least 4 months, then the defense will not be able to question along these lines. Are these in the evidence docs somewhere, I have not seen them?

We haven't seen them yet,but supposedly they were released to the defense more than a week ago ,I believe.Someone correct me if I'm wrong . Hopefully they will be released to the media soon. The ME describes some of the plant evidence.

 

[MissJames]

I wonder what everyone thinks about Lee's depo where he recounts that Casey told him she had Tony help her remove two dead squirrel from her engine area of the Pontiac. There is no reason for her coming up with all of these detailed lies about animals decomposing in her car, other than she knew that smell was so very very distinct she had to say something died there. In case anyone missed that part of his depo, he added that Tony said no way, never happened. This makes Kronk peripheral to the story.The jury can believe him or not, I do not think it changes the overall decision.

I remember that,and also that Lee tried to imply TonE was lying. But when you add it to all of KC's other stories it will be obvious who the lier is.

 

[essies]

You forget, however, defense attorneys won't be sitting on the jury. There will be no fast talking, smoke and mirrors, or 3 card monty going on in the jury room. Just regular folks that hate seeing 2 year olds being thrown out in black plastic trash bags 20 houses away from her mother's home while her mother "parTAYs" down not giving a toss about said child's whereabouts for 31 days.

Bingo!! And not only what she did during those 31 days-BUT ALSO-what she did before the 31 days and after those 31 days!! If the jurors are going to have a problem with RK-just imagine the problems they are going to have with KC!!!
I'm not worried-if you hold RK and others to a certain level of accountability then that's a 2 edged sword! Cause KC and the A's will have to be held to the same level of accountability-we'll see who can take the scrutiny!! Bring it on!! :twocents:

 

[JBean]

Topic=Kronk

Guys we are just exploring the possibility of this impacting the trial and Kronks information. Those that think this topic is done or is of little importance, or if this topic is upsetting to you,please go to another thread. thanks.

ETA: ALSO other posters should never be the topic of your posts. If anyone is discussing another poster in their post please self edit now so i don't have to.

 

[affinity]

I have not read this entire thread..I was wondering if Kronk's recent FIRING has been discussed? I saw something about it somewhere (on YouTube, I think) --I am surprised that it is not being discussed. Seems like big news.

 

[JBean]

I have not read this entire thread..I was wondering if Kronk's recent FIRING has been discussed? I saw something about it somewhere (on YouTube, I think) --I am surprised that it is not being discussed. Seems like big news.

yes it is in the thread.

 

[Wudge]

I wonder what everyone thinks about Lee's depo where he recounts that Casey told him she had Tony help her remove two dead squirrel from her engine area of the Pontiac. There is no reason for her coming up with all of these detailed lies about animals decomposing in her car, other than she knew that smell was so very very distinct she had to say something died there. In case anyone missed that part of his depo, he added that Tony said no way, never happened. This makes Kronk peripheral to the story.The jury can believe him or not, I do not think it changes the overall decision.

Don't push Mr. Kronk to the side just yet. He might well be a story inside a bigger story.

The defense probably has a separate storyboard for Mr. Kronk. And certainly one of the core questions at the top of that storyboard has to be or should be: how could Mr. Kronk see something in August that no one else could see?

Mr. Kronk's seeming ability to do so is what first caused my BS antenna to vibrate wildly. It didn't compute when I first heard his story, and it still does not compute. Pour the other irreconciables in Mr. Kronk's story on top of that and the defense will surely spend a long time digging around in his bog.

(Many surprising discoveries have been taken place by mucking around in a bog.)

 

[Harmony 2]

My understanding has been that the area was searched by cadaver dogs. Here's one link.

http://www.rosespeaks.com/rose-blog...has-been-monitored-since-day-one-in-mid-july/

Moreover, I have it in my notes that Caylee's remains were, perhaps, but 15 feet from the road. However, that 'perhaps' is just that. I have yet to hear or read a reliable source that would well corroborate that distance to be true.

(Note: At the 2:00 time stamp of this news video...)

IIRC this search was in the area of Hidden Oaks Elementary, on August 5, 2008, and it was based on the tip from Kiomarie Cruz. I am not sure how extensive the search was or whether it included the area where Caylee's remains were found but it was based on the 'pet burial' info from Kiomarie.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryPNU2v5z9M"]YouTube - Aug 05 2008 - VID00005[/ame]


On July 19th (July 19th as per first statement on transcript- transcribed August 12th) Detective Wells conducts an interview with Kiomarie Cruz while sitting in his vehicle in front of Hidden Oaks Elementary.

http://itsamysterytome.wordpress.com/2008/12/16/kiomarie-cruz-le-interview-transcript/

ETA: From your article:

Hurricane Faye hit this area of Florida with rain on August 18, almost a full 30 days after the search in that area began.

http://www.rosespeaks.com/rose-blog...has-been-monitored-since-day-one-in-mid-july/

For the record, I believe the remains were there since June 18th but I think the defense will use the information posted above to try and create reasonable doubt about the body being there in August as Kronk claims.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

Topic=Kronk

Guys we are just exploring the possibility of this impacting the trial and Kronks information. Those that think this topic is done or is of little importance, or if this topic is upsetting to you,please go to another thread. thanks.

ETA: ALSO other posters should never be the topic of your posts. If anyone is discussing another poster in their post please self edit now so i don't have to.

Can we explore RK's past? Of course, he found the remains of a missing child. Upon a brief exploration of his past, we find he was once indicted for kidnapping. As stated by others, the evidence in getting an indictment must have been compelling. But that charge was expunged. Yes, but the verdict in the OJ trial was not guilty, does that mean you are absolutely sure OJ didn't do it? Roy Kronk, once indicted for kidnapping, found the remains of a missing child. After 3 calls were made a police officer met with Kronk at the site of the remains, but the officer saw nothing. Rk became angry with the officer, then waited 4 months to once again look for the bag that he was 99.999 percent sure contained a human skull. SIDE NOTE A perp often revisits the scene of a crime, and kidnappers often insert themselves into a search for the child they themselves kidnapped (no accusations here, just a couple things I believe to be true). There are many irregularities in RK's statements to police. RK was way behind on his child support payments. Rk sold a picture of the rattlesnake. RK appeared on national t.v. For a person who claimed he wanted to remain anonymous, and wasn't looking for a reward, these actions seem odd to me. Considering the totality of the above, it is my opinion that it is the defense's duty to explore RK thoroughly and pursue the answer to the question; How could Roy Kronk see what no one else could see?

 

[JBean]

Roy Kronk is charged with no crime nor is he even suspected of a crime. his past actions have been documented on this thread and the references to those are sufficient.
Please discuss his activity for this case. If anything comes out in trial that changes that or if anything is released in doc dumps that changes that we can always revist.
but for now he is not on trial and digging into his background any more than has already done won't be allowed to stand.
Thanks.

 

[Wudge]

Can we explore RK's past? Of course, he found the remains of a missing child. Upon a brief exploration of his past, we find he was once indicted for kidnapping. As stated by others, the evidence in getting an indictment must have been compelling. But that charge was expunged. Yes, but the verdict in the OJ trial was not guilty, does that mean you are absolutely sure OJ didn't do it? Roy Kronk, once indicted for kidnapping, found the remains of a missing child. After 3 calls were made a police officer met with Kronk at the site of the remains, but the officer saw nothing. Rk became angry with the officer, then waited 4 months to once again look for the bag that he was 99.999 percent sure contained a human skull. SIDE NOTE A perp often revisits the scene of a crime, and kidnappers often insert themselves into a search for the child they themselves kidnapped (no accusations here, just a couple things I believe to be true). There are many irregularities in RK's statements to police. RK was way behind on his child support payments. Rk sold a picture of the rattlesnake. RK appeared on national t.v. For a person who claimed he wanted to remain anonymous, and wasn't looking for a reward, these actions seem odd to me. Considering the totality of the above, it is my opinion that it is the defense's duty to explore RK thoroughly and pursue the answer to the question; How could Roy Kronk see what no one else could see?

You get what you inspect, not what you expect. A cross-examination is one of the best inspection devices known to man.


....................................................................................................

The Road goes ever on and on
Down from the door where it began.
Now far ahead the Road has gone,
And I must follow, if I can,
Pursuing it with eager feet,
Until it joins some larger way
Where many paths and errands meet.
And whither then? I cannot say.

The Road goes ever on and on
Out from the door where it began.
Now far ahead the Road has gone,
Let others follow it who can!
Let them a journey new begin,
But I at last with weary feet
Will turn towards the lighted inn,
My evening-rest and sleep to meet.

.
.
.

Still round the corner there may wait
A new road or a secret gate,
And though I oft have passed them by,
A day will come at last when I
Shall take the hidden paths that run
West of the Moon, East of the Sun

J. R. R Tolkein

 

[BeanE]

Can we explore RK's past? Of course, he found the remains of a missing child. Upon a brief exploration of his past, we find he was once indicted for kidnapping. As stated by others, the evidence in getting an indictment must have been compelling. But that charge was expunged.

Mr. Kronk is, unfortunately, not here to speak for himself. I think it's important since the 'kidnapping' has been brought up several times recently in this thread, that a recent post is also included with some sort of explanation.

Here are Roy Kronk's own words regarding the matter:

In the early 1990s, while on duty with the U.S. Coast Guard in Key West, Florida, I had a girlfriend who made the decision to discontinue her relationship with me and move to South Carolina to reside with another man. At some time after her departure, she called me and asked me to come to South Carolina and help her move away from that individual. I travelled to South Carolina to assist her. Upon my arrival in South Carolina, the man she was living with engaged me in a confrontation. As a result of that confrontation, I was arrested based on false allegations that I had kidnapped my former girlfriend. The matter was submitted to a grand jury in South Carolina. The grand jury determined that there was no probable cause to bring charges against me. In recognition of the falsity of these allegations, all records relating to this arrest were expunged by the South Carolina court

 

[RR0004]

(Note: At the 2:00 time stamp of this news video...)

IIRC this search was in the area of Hidden Oaks Elementary, on August 5, 2008, and it was based on the tip from Kiomarie Cruz. I am not sure how extensive the search was or whether it included the area where Caylee's remains were found but it was based on the 'pet burial' info from Kiomarie.

YouTube - Aug 05 2008 - VID00005


On July 19th (July 19th as per first statement on transcript- transcribed August 12th) Detective Wells conducts an interview with Kiomarie Cruz while sitting in his vehicle in front of Hidden Oaks Elementary.

http://itsamysterytome.wordpress.com/2008/12/16/kiomarie-cruz-le-interview-transcript/

ETA: From your article:



For the record, I believe the remains were there since June 18th but I think the defense will use the information posted above to try and create reasonable doubt about the body being there in August as Kronk claims.

I trust LE...to my knowledge that specific area was not searched. I don't generally put stock in a blog. It will be interesting to see/hear OCSO's version.

 

[RR0004]

Mr. Kronk is, unfortunately, not here to speak for himself. I think it's important since the 'kidnapping' has been brought up several times recently in this thread, that a recent post is also included with some sort of explanation.

Here are Roy Kronk's own words regarding the matter:

In the early 1990s, while on duty with the U.S. Coast Guard in Key West, Florida, I had a girlfriend who made the decision to discontinue her relationship with me and move to South Carolina to reside with another man. At some time after her departure, she called me and asked me to come to South Carolina and help her move away from that individual. I travelled to South Carolina to assist her. Upon my arrival in South Carolina, the man she was living with engaged me in a confrontation. As a result of that confrontation, I was arrested based on false allegations that I had kidnapped my former girlfriend. The matter was submitted to a grand jury in South Carolina. The grand jury determined that there was no probable cause to bring charges against me. In recognition of the falsity of these allegations, all records relating to this arrest were expunged by the South Carolina court

I'm beginning to think we'll hear a lot of trashing of searchers before all is said and done. G-d bless TM!

 

[RR0004]

Can we explore RK's past? Of course, he found the remains of a missing child. Upon a brief exploration of his past, we find he was once indicted for kidnapping. As stated by others, the evidence in getting an indictment must have been compelling. But that charge was expunged. Yes, but the verdict in the OJ trial was not guilty, does that mean you are absolutely sure OJ didn't do it? Roy Kronk, once indicted for kidnapping, found the remains of a missing child. After 3 calls were made a police officer met with Kronk at the site of the remains, but the officer saw nothing. Rk became angry with the officer, then waited 4 months to once again look for the bag that he was 99.999 percent sure contained a human skull. SIDE NOTE A perp often revisits the scene of a crime, and kidnappers often insert themselves into a search for the child they themselves kidnapped (no accusations here, just a couple things I believe to be true). There are many irregularities in RK's statements to police. RK was way behind on his child support payments. Rk sold a picture of the rattlesnake. RK appeared on national t.v. For a person who claimed he wanted to remain anonymous, and wasn't looking for a reward, these actions seem odd to me. Considering the totality of the above, it is my opinion that it is the defense's duty to explore RK thoroughly and pursue the answer to the question; How could Roy Kronk see what no one else could see?

This has been done. Not sure if the threads are still around.