In Retrospect-Kronk Believes He Saw Skull In August

[cecybeans]

Thanks for following up. I read in the article that "neighborhood groups" indicated that that area was searched with cadaver dogs.

I guess for me that seems a bit vague, but it is better than nothing. I am curious to know if an organized search was conducted that catalogued all of the items that were located, or were the searchers just walking through the woods looking for a body? Would they have documented the location of trashbags they noticed? Were the dogs actually trained cadaver dogs, were they trained search dogs, or possibly just "neighborhood dogs" as well?

I appreciate the link, but I am still skeptical. Perhaps we will learn the actual details of these searches at trial, but my belief remains that Casey discarded her daughter there in mid-June, where the body remained until being discovered in December. I think the plant evidence will confirm it.

Excellent points all. I imagine that many people searching may have been actually looking for a toddler's body - it took a while for most people to learn that remains would likely be skeletonized at that point. It would be easy to see how informal searchers might be looking at less densely covered areas like paths or clearings and not going directly into very dense underbrush.

 

[BeanE]

I've was not referring to TES. As best I know, apart from whatever searches TES did or did not conduct, other searches of the area were conducted prior to Mr. Kronk allegedly seeing something that caused him to make multiple calls in August so as to try and have LE send someone out to search the area.

As regards TES, the reports I read in the media indicate that TES has not been willing to turn their search records of that area over to Casey's defense team. If that is, in fact, true, it could suggest that TES might not be objective and/or have an agenda and/or a bias.

BBM

I just sure wish we could confirm even one.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

If a woman is ill and goes to four doctors and the first three tell her she's healthy but the fourth one discovers cancer that has already spread through her body ~ does that mean she only had the cancer for one month? No!

The same can be said of the searches. Just because nothing was found when and if the area had been searched before does not necessarily mean that the body wasn't there. All it means is that those early searchers did not find the body.

Look at the autopsy again. It says the skull has most likely been there since decomposition. The medical anthropologist said the pattern in which the bones were scattered indicates that the body decomposed in that area. Throughout the report a period of from 4 to 6 months is referenced as to the time the body may have been in the area where it was discovered.

Which seems a more reliable source? Well intentioned albeit poorly trained search parties or an official autopsy report by respected physicians?

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/06/19/6440.6475.pdf (pages 27 and 28)

 

[Wudge]

BBM

I just sure wish we could confirm even one.

The option would be that neither LE nor anyone else ever arranged or conducted a search or searched that area prior to Mr. Kronk allegedly seeing something that caused him to call in three days running in August so as to get LE to send some out to search the area. You might find it interesting to consider the potential ramifications of this option.

 

[Wudge]

If a woman is ill and goes to four doctors and the first three tell her she's healthy but the fourth one discovers cancer that has already spread through her body ~ does that mean she only had the cancer for one month? No!

The same can be said of the searches. Just because nothing was found when and if the area had been searched before does not necessarily mean that the body wasn't there. All it means is that those early searchers did not find the body.

Look at the autopsy again. It says the skull has most likely been there since decomposition. The medical anthropologist said the pattern in which the bones were scattered indicates that the body decomposed in that area. Throughout the report a period of from 4 to 6 months is referenced as to the time the body may have been in the area where it was discovered.

Which seems a more reliable source? Well intentioned albeit poorly trained search parties or an official autopsy report by respected physicians?

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/06/19/6440.6475.pdf (pages 27 and 28)

For the sake of argument, let's say that LE in Orlando is not grossly incompetent. In turn, let's say that LE in Orlando did search or arranged for the area to be searched prior to Mr. Cain's search in August. Let's also credit LE in Orlando with being smart enough to see to it that dogs also searched the area.

If this is true, what this leaves us with is that prior searchers in that area saw nothing. And dogs used in the prior sreaches neither saw nor smelled Caylee's remains. Moreover, the two men riding in the vehicle with Mr. Kronk said they never saw what Mr. Kronk alleged to have seen in August, nor did they see anything suspicious whatsoever. Plus, LE sent Mr Cain out to search the area and he too saw nothing.

Only Mr. Kronk could see what nobody else could see. And reports indicate that Caylee's remains were, seemingly, but ten to fifteen feet from the road. If that is true, it would suggest that other people should have been able to see what Mr. Kronk saw in August -- no x-ray vision needed. That is, if Caylee's remains were there in August.

 

[The World According]

"Cindy said finding a connection between Kronk and Grund would be "huge." She wrote, "I want him to go down for this if he is involved. I have people that can fly under the radar and make it happen."

It is factually incorrect that Texas Equisearch is refusing to do anything. They, have, can and will do whatever they are ordered to do by the Judge, whatever he deems as reasonable, which is of course worlds apart from the fishing expedition Baez was on . In fact, just for your edification today, they went so far as to allow the Anthony's lawyer, Mr. Conway to inspect the records, BEFORE Nejame did, and even he opined there was a very high possibility one could have missed seeing something even one foot away, the vegetation was so thick. He even opined that even fewer folks were in the general vicinity of where the baby's body was found than what Nejame was suggesting were the 32 the court may deem relevant. I know everyone has their own opinions, and I respect the vigorous debate, but it is offensive for anyone to disparage Texas Equisearch. If there is going to be any morality contest, the defense better pick a lesser opponent than an organization that is made up of volunteers that search through muck and mire and woods and trash dumps for missing children. That isn't even a close call for me, it is wrong. Unequivocally . Baez has been brought up on ethics charges, the Anthony's and the defendant have been caught in lie after lie after lie. The jury is going to hate these people if the defense gets up there attacking the good people that volunteer to search. Is nothing sacred?

 

[ChasingMoxie]

I've was not referring to TES. As best I know, apart from whatever searches TES did or did not conduct, other searches of the area were conducted prior to Mr. Kronk allegedly seeing something that caused him to make multiple calls in August so as to try and have LE send someone out to search the area.

As regards TES, the reports I read in the media indicate that TES has not been willing to turn their search records of that area over to Casey's defense team. If that is, in fact, true, it could suggest that TES might not be objective and/or have an agenda and/or a bias.

BBM. I think this statement is somewhat misleading. According to Nejame's filed response to the defense's motion to compel TM, their objection was to the broad language used in the motion's request, and their primary goal was to protect the identities of searchers, not to conceal information on search locations.

 

[Rlaub44]

For the sake of argument, let's say that LE in Orlando is not grossly incompetent. In turn, let's say that LE in Orlando did search or arranged for the area to be searched prior to Mr. Cain's search in August. Let's also credit LE in Orlando with being smart enough to see to it that dogs also searched the area.

If this is true, what this leaves us with is that prior searchers in that area saw nothing. And dogs used in the prior sreaches neither saw nor smelled Caylee's remains. Moreover, the two men riding in the vehicle with Mr. Kronk said they never saw what Mr. Kronk alleged to have seen in August, nor did they see anything suspicious whatsoever. Plus, LE sent Mr Cain out to search the area and he too saw nothing.

Only Mr. Kronk could see what nobody else could see. And reports indicate that Caylee's remains were, seemingly, but ten to fifteen feet from the road. If that is true, it would suggest that other people should have been able to see what Mr. Kronk saw in August -- no x-ray vision needed. That is, if Caylee's remains were there in August.

So for these assumptions to be correct, the medical anthropologist must then be incorrect in stating that the skull was most likely there since decomposition.

Is that your position, or can you find a way to reconcile your assumptions with the scientific findings released with the autopsy results?

 

[Kentjbkent]

I've was not referring to TES. As best I know, apart from whatever searches TES did or did not conduct, other searches of the area were conducted prior to Mr. Kronk allegedly seeing something that caused him to make multiple calls in August so as to try and have LE send someone out to search the area.

As regards TES, the reports I read in the media indicate that TES has not been willing to turn their search records of that area over to Casey's defense team. If that is, in fact, true, it could suggest that TES might not be objective and/or have an agenda and/or a bias.

That is not my recollection, and I believe it was discussed at length during a court hearing. TES was not willing to turn over ALL records, to include personal information of every single person who has volunteered for TES (in order to protect the privacy of those who searched in areas not relevant to Caylee's body recovery, but in fact, wanted to limit the information to ONLY those searchers who may have searched nearby where she was found.

There should still be a video available of the hearing...and the judge agreed with TM and his attorney MN.

 

[Wudge]

BBM. I think this statement is somewhat misleading. According to Nejame's filed response to the defense's motion to compel TM, their objection was to the broad language used in the motion's request, and their primary goal was to protect the identities of searchers, not to conceal information on search locations.

The identity of TES searchers needs to be protected (allegedly) from what?

 

[MD MOMMY]

I've was not referring to TES. As best I know, apart from whatever searches TES did or did not conduct, other searches of the area were conducted prior to Mr. Kronk allegedly seeing something that caused him to make multiple calls in August so as to try and have LE send someone out to search the area.

As regards TES, the reports I read in the media indicate that TES has not been willing to turn their search records of that area over to Casey's defense team. If that is, in fact, true, it could suggest that TES might not be objective and/or have an agenda and/or a bias.

TES was not willing to give the defense access to ALL of their volunteer searchers information, explcity those who were not even in this general area searching. TES was concerned regarding the PRIVACY of their searchers. They also do not have the man-power to sort through paperwork, they are a non-profit organization. I think you are misunderstanding the reasoning here. TES has nothing to hide; however they were not comfortable with the idenities of ALL their volunteers being made public. Ultimately a comprimise was reached and the defense will get the information they NEED.

 

[ChasingMoxie]

The identity of TES searchers needs to be protected (allegedly) from what?

Public release, media firestorm, rampant Internet supposition, all of those, any of those. It doesn't matter. It's immaterial. What does matter is that people signed up to help with the understanding that the information they provided would be kept secure and private. TM is attempting to honor that agreement.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

For the sake of argument, let's say that LE in Orlando is not grossly incompetent. In turn, let's say that LE in Orlando did search or arranged for the area to be searched prior to Mr. Cain's search in August. Let's also credit LE in Orlando with being smart enough to see to it that dogs also searched the area.

If this is true, what this leaves us with is that prior searchers in that area saw nothing. And dogs used in the prior sreaches neither saw nor smelled Caylee's remains. Moreover, the two men riding in the vehicle with Mr. Kronk said they never saw what Mr. Kronk alleged to have seen in August, nor did they see anything suspicious whatsoever. Plus, LE sent Mr Cain out to search the area and he too saw nothing.

Only Mr. Kronk could see what nobody else could see. And reports indicate that Caylee's remains were, seemingly, but ten to fifteen feet from the road. If that is true, it would suggest that other people should have been able to see what Mr. Kronk saw in August -- no x-ray vision needed. That is, if Caylee's remains were there in August.

Most respectfully bolded by me. I agree this is what should have happened but what should happen is not always what does happen.

 

[Wudge]

So for these assumptions to be correct, the medical anthropologist must then be incorrect in stating that the skull was most likely there since decomposition.

Is that your position, or can you find a way to reconcile your assumptions with the scientific findings released with the autopsy results?

I have no idea what evidence the medical anthropoligist relied on to build their premises that would validly support a conclusion "that the skull was most likely there since decomposition." I will note that 51% reliability satisfies "most likely". Obviously, even if the premise or premises they used are true, the reliability level of their premises would, seemingly, not come close to approaching proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

My holding is and has long been that there is insufficient evidence (highly reliable evidence is lacking) to support a verdict of guilty on the murder one charge.

As regards your asking me if I can find a way to reconcile my (alleged) assumptions with the autopsy results, you will need to be more specific.

 

[Wudge]

Most respectfully bolded by me. I agree this is what should have happened but what should happen is not always what does happen.

You are correct. Still, as best I know, it seems that Caylee's remains were found not far from the road (ten to fifteen feet?). Thus, I certainly think it would be 'reasonable' to expect other people and/or dogs to be able to see or smell what Mr. Kronk alleges he could see. As such, I see this going to support reasonable doubt.

 

[Wudge]

Public release, media firestorm, rampant Internet supposition, all of those, any of those. It doesn't matter. It's immaterial. What does matter is that people signed up to help with the understanding that the information they provided would be kept secure and private. TM is attempting to honor that agreement.

It does matter, and it's certainly not at all immaterial. TES does not get to decide if what seachers know represents exculpatory and admissable evidence. That's for the Court to decide.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

So for these assumptions to be correct, the medical anthropologist must then be incorrect in stating that the skull was most likely there since decomposition.

Is that your position, or can you find a way to reconcile your assumptions with the scientific findings released with the autopsy results?

In the autopsy report Dr. Hall determined a minimum period of APPROXIMATELY 4 months for the largest roots. Roy Kronk made his first 911 call exactly 4 months before discovering the body (interesting). Using Dr. Halls findings of approximately is it fair to say that it is possible that the body may have been placed there on August 15th? Does August 15th qualify as a minimum period of approximately 4 months?

 

[ChasingMoxie]

It does matter, and it's certainly not at all immaterial. TES does not get to decide if what seachers know represents exculpatory and admissable evidence. That's for the Court to decide.

The court decided that the identities and information of the searchers *should* be protected, and sided with Nejame on the motion. Only searchers in the immediate vicinity will have information exposed to the defense team.

As an aside, I meant that the reasons for protecting the identities of the searchers was immaterial to your assertion that TM was withholding search location data toward the benefit of his bias or agenda.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

In the autopsy report Dr. Hall determined a minimum period of APPROXIMATELY 4 months for the largest roots. Roy Kronk made his first 911 call exactly 4 months before discovering the body (interesting). Using Dr. Halls findings of approximately is it fair to say that it is possible that the body may have been placed there on August 15th? Does August 15th qualify as a minimum period of approximately 4 months?

Yes. The body would have to have been there at least since Aug 11th and up to as much as two months earlier than that.

 

[Wudge]

The court decided that the identities and information of the searchers *should* be protected, and sided with Nejame on the motion. Only searchers in the immediate vicinity will have information exposed to the defense team.

As an aside, I meant that the reasons for protecting the identities of the searchers was immaterial to your assertion that TM was withholding search location data toward the benefit of his bias or agenda.

I did not so 'assert'.

Moreover, as I said, Courts decide on what is exculpatory and/or admissable evidence, not TES or any other seach organization.