In Retrospect-Kronk Believes He Saw Skull In August

[BeanE]

For reference, this LE document contains, among other things, detailed synopses of interviews with Kronk and the officers who responded to Kronk's calls in August.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/5429204/Casey-Anthony-Deputy-Richard-Cain

 

[cecybeans]

I hope a jury sees through the biased skepticism of the defense and the Anthony family. It apparently extends to everyone else but the defendant, even though the defendant has a well-documented history of deceit and self-serving behavior and others do not. And the defendant and her family have actively obstructed the investigation by providing false testimony and being uncooperative, whereas I have not observed that from others involved. It's one thing to bring an initial skepticism to witness statements, but to give them less credibility than the obvious lies the defendant and her family have told, shows nothing but personal bias, imo. A truly objective viewpoint would be to rate the level of credibility of everyone involved, and I see witnesses and others being held to a much higher standard by some. Which leads me to believe it is a personal bias on their part. Many people do have experiences which leave them biased - and many of them have been very forthcoming about what they are on this forum, which allows us all to understand and factor in how we all choose to view things. I know we appreciate and are circumspect toward those who are honest in admitting subjectivity instead of approaching arguments as if they are simply based on a superior analysis of fact.

If anybody other than KC had been involved, it is hard to imagine they would do something as ridiculous as "framing" her by publicly finding the body, particularly given the unnecessary scrutiny to which everyone who has come into contact with KC has been subject. It's too much of a stretch for reasonable people to imagine in the absence of a personal agenda or viewpoint, imo. It would seem healthy and prudent to maintain a certain level of doubt for all testimony and evidence as long as it is evenly applied and not overlooked when considering the defense. A presumption of innocence is a starting point, but it is not to be maintained regardless, or in spite of, a reasonable analysis of the facts that show otherwise.

If we are going to pick apart RK and the statements of how he remembers encountering what turned out to be Caylee's remains then, to be fair, we need to apply the same level of skepticism to KC and her family because it is obvious from their behavior they have greater ulterior motives and we have many, many instances of them contradicting their own words. I think a reasonable person who observed the dissonance between the defendant's story and even her own family's actions would not easily believe a story that it is clear the Anthonys' own behavior belies. That said, it is harder to subject others to the kind of scrutiny one would use for a defendant who did not repeatedly lie and whose family behaved as if her story was not superficially credible.

While it's true we legally maintain that a defendant is innocent in court until proven guilty, it is an unfair advantage to maintain that presumption indefinitely by assuming all others are guilty until proven innocent.

 

[AZlawyer]

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?

The forensic evidence from the crime scene (root growth, pattern of bone distribution) indicates that the body was dumped (1) at least approx. 4 months before December 2008, and (2) before much decomposition had taken place. So the body could have been dumped in August of 2008 sometime after RK made his phone calls, but only if Caylee was still alive shortly before that. Which means that:

(A) RK either (1) was mistaken about his sighting of the body in August (in which case it is a huge coincidence that the body really showed up later in August right where he mistakenly thought it was) or (2) had control of Caylee or her body and dumped it or arranged for it to be dumped later in August where he had already falsely reported seeing it earlier in August (which is insane); AND

(B) Casey's car smelled of decomp to her father, mother, LE, the tow yard guy, and the cadaver dogs on July 16 for some reason other than a dead body having been in the car (or there was a dead body but it wasn't Caylee).

 

[marspiter]

In terms of searches for bodies its kind of a crap shoot if you will. For example the Elizabeth Olten case in Missouri. The area that her body was discovered in was searched. However her body was not recovered until the POI came forward and told authorities where exactly the body was.

Then you have the case of the Bryant's. Irene was found about a mile from the car during a search of the area by authorities. Her husbands body however wasn't found in that area. A hunter miles away in a couple counties over finds the body of John by pure luck.

There are however plenty of statistics that show that when someone is murdered the body is dumped relatively close to the location of the murder. That or in an area familiar with the murderer. Caylee was found "close to home", and in an area familiar to Casey. Imagine that!

TES was working with authorities and the area that Caylee was found in was slated to be searched if I'm not mistaken once the water levels dropped and it was safe to conduct a search in that area.

Also remember that law enforcement had nothing or little to go on because of the 31 days and Casey's misleading stories. For all anyone knew the body could have been any where. Given Casey's ping locations, the site where her car was found, and all kinds of numerous variables.

The real fact of the matter is that Caylee was found. Other major concerns are the state in which Caylee was found. Duct tape on mouth, double bagged, found with items from the Anthony home, items that came from various locations in the home, ect.

In my opinion, what searches where done, when they were done, and who was there is kind of a moot point. Did anyone on those searchers have access to the Anthony home before July? Did Kronk have access to the Anthony home in which to gather items from it? Did someone Kronk knows have access to the Anthony home prior to July? I would seriously doubt.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

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.

Per John J. Schultz, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Anthropology, University of Central FL,:

"It would be expected that decomposition of a small child in Florida that is deposited in an outdoor environment during the summer months would have occurred in less than a month and most likely within two weeks. Therefore, the body must have been dumped at the site during the early stages of decay prior to disarticulation of anatomical units."

". . . considering the environment where the bones were located, a time since death of approximately six months would not be inconsistent with the taphonomy of the skeleton."

Now when I have this report stating Caylee was dead for six months and dumped at the site within two to four weeks after death why should I consider the unfortunate fact that no one found her body more substantial than the facts of the autopsy? I hold scientific facts more reasonable than the effectiveness of any search. I see no reasonable doubts here.

 

[Wudge]

The forensic evidence from the crime scene (root growth, pattern of bone distribution) indicates that the body was dumped (1) at least approx. 4 months before December 2008, and (2) before much decomposition had taken place. So the body could have been dumped in August of 2008 sometime after RK made his phone calls, but only if Caylee was still alive shortly before that. Which means that:

(A) RK either (1) was mistaken about his sighting of the body in August (in which case it is a huge coincidence that the body really showed up later in August right where he mistakenly thought it was) or (2) had control of Caylee or her body and dumped it or arranged for it to be dumped later in August where he had already falsely reported seeing it earlier in August (which is insane); AND

(B) Casey's car smelled of decomp to her father, mother, LE, the tow yard guy, and the cadaver dogs on July 16 for some reason other than a dead body having been in the car (or there was a dead body but it wasn't Caylee).

I wouldn't bank too much on the alleged bone distribution pattern, root growth (through bones), and the alleged rate of decomposition. Moreover, as best I know, the four month figure was released without an accompaning confidence level and precision range.

Did they provide an exact identification as regards which plant or plants they relied on to produce their four month estimate?.

I should note that I haven't been able to find the scientific name for reading bone pattern distribution. Nevertheless, did you know that Witch Doctors toss out mystic bones and then read what those bones tell them?

 

[Wudge]

Per John J. Schultz, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Anthropology, University of Central FL,:

"It would be expected that decomposition of a small child in Florida that is deposited in an outdoor environment during the summer months would have occurred in less than a month and most likely within two weeks. Therefore, the body must have been dumped at the site during the early stages of decay prior to disarticulation of anatomical units."

". . . considering the environment where the bones were located, a time since death of approximately six months would not be inconsistent with the taphonomy of the skeleton."

Now when I have this report stating Caylee was dead for six months and dumped at the site within two to four weeks after death why should I consider the unfortunate fact that no one found her body more substantial than the facts of the autopsy? I hold scientific facts more reasonable than the effectiveness of any search. I have see no reasonable doubts here.

What is the confidence level and precision range of 'expected'. Is the confidence level 99% or is it less?

What level of certainty is attached to 'would not be inconsistent'?

 

[cecybeans]

I can think of nothing more subjective than quantifying "confidence". I am unaware that a consensus about 99% has been reached by this group in determining what is "reasonable" for lay persons or "expected" from SME's who are usually quite conservative in their summary. How would one go about standardizing the semantics of "percentage" in order to arrive at a constant? Since everyone may have a different threshold, it would seem that assigning a percentage point system is simply a way of fabricating a numerical value.

 

[marspiter]

I wouldn't bank too much on the alleged bone distribution pattern, root growth (through bones), and the alleged rate of decomposition. Moreover, as best I know, the four month figure was released without an accompaning confidence level and precision range.

Did they provide an exact identification as regards which plant or plants they relied on to produce their four month estimate?.

I should note that I haven't been able to find the scientific name for reading bone pattern distribution. Nevertheless, did you know that Witch Doctors toss out mystic bones and then read what those bones tell them?

Dendrochronology is a pretty exact science. Yes for our purposes it would be nice to know what plant species were used to determine the dates. However any skilled botanist is going to be able to determine the time line based on the plants growth in the area and other factors. I'm sure many of these details will be released at trial or closer to the trial date. Suffice to say that I'm sure it's a pretty safe bet that the 4 month figure is going to scientifically proven in court for the jury.

One can try and confuse a jury all they want with smoke and mirrors but certain species of plants grow at regular intervals that can be measured and a timeline can be determined from that growth. That is what the jury is going to hear and the defense experts aren't going to really be able to deny that. Either the plant grows at a regular interval or it doesn't. If it doesn't then dendrological research is a waste or "junk science" even though it's been proven. :waitasec:

Also decomposition happens in pretty regular and measured stages. Alot of science has been conducted in this field testing many real world varibles in the decomposition process. This is one of the reasons Oak Ridge was called in for this case. The studies conducted at Oak Ridge in their "body farm" are some of the best studies in the world regarding human decomp. They have collected and compiled plenty of data on this subject.

Granted yes more data would be great on these tests for our own quizical knowledge, but the science behind these types of data collection is spot on.

 

[carrie]

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.

Hi Wudge,

I enjoy your posts, they really make me think.

I can't imagine what motive (whether good guy or bad guy) Kronk could possibly have for calling LE to come look/search for something that wasn't there, as you seem to suggest. Why would he do that? It doesn't make sense - to me at least. Ideas?

 

[marspiter]

Also maybe I'm reading the posts wrong. Wudge are you indicating that Mr. Kronk had something to do with Caylee's demise? Are you indicating that it is your assessment that Kronk moved Caylee from one location to the location where she was found?

That or are you just trying to say someone, anyone other then Casey could have dumped Caylee?

What would Kronk's motive be? That and why would poor little innocent Casey sit in jail and not disclose the name of the real killer/kidnapper? To me there is only one answer to that particular question.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

What is the confidence level and precision range of 'expected'. Is the confidence level 99% or is it less?

What level of certainty is attached to 'would not be inconsistent'?

Wudge, certainly I have no precise answer for your two questions. I'm not even sure there is a precise answer. I was under the impression that 'would not be inconsistent' was generally used as a legal precaution and nothing is ever 100% certain. I dunno.

But I know I have much, much more confidence in these truths as opposed to a suspicion of body snatching by unknown persons with unknown motives.

 

[RR0004]

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.

Holy moly! After what I've recently read here about RK...can you blame him for wanting to protect other searchers?

 

[LambChop]

The body would have been a skeleton by August. There would have been no reason for the animal life to scatter the bones in August much less rip open the bag. So ME is correct in saying the body was placed there shortly after death. Don't know if being under water for a period of time would inhibit plant growth? The plant material would not be growing in the first stages of death with a body intact, only when it became a skeleton I would think???

So poor Mr. Kronk is out of a job because he found this child and was placed in an area that caused him to be injured and placed on WComp. Then we have CA who is on a 2 year disability with pay plan and there she is making the TV circuit, cruisin, working on a book and running a foundation. No wonder our insurance premiums are so high!!!!

 

[RR0004]

I wouldn't bank too much on the alleged bone distribution pattern, root growth (through bones), and the alleged rate of decomposition. Moreover, as best I know, the four month figure was released without an accompaning confidence level and precision range.

Did they provide an exact identification as regards which plant or plants they relied on to produce their four month estimate?.

I should note that I haven't been able to find the scientific name for reading bone pattern distribution. Nevertheless, did you know that Witch Doctors toss out mystic bones and then read what those bones tell them?

Witch doctors? Huh?

 

[Wudge]

I can think of nothing more subjective than quantifying "confidence". I am unaware that a consensus about 99% has been reached by this group in determining what is "reasonable" for lay persons or "expected" from SME's who are usually quite conservative in their summary. How would one go about standardizing the semantics of "percentage" in order to arrive at a constant? Since everyone may have a different threshold, it would seem that assigning a percentage point system is simply a way of fabricating a numerical value.

Junk science does not quantify expected results. Junk science has trouble with questions such as yours.

As for a juror assessing what is reasonable, that is not what our system of jurisprudence requires them to do. Rather, it requires them to assess reasonable doubt, which is a much different measure.

 

[Wudge]

Wudge, certainly I have no precise answer for your two questions. I'm not even sure there is a precise answer. I was under the impression that 'would not be inconsistent' was generally used as a legal precaution and nothing is ever 100% certain. I dunno.

But I know I have much, much more confidence in these truths as opposed to a suspicion of body snatching by unknown persons with unknown motives.

Just think about it. Who asks jurors to divine legal precautions? What reliability gets assigned to 'would not be inconsistent'? It that answer at all clear? Really, what is it worth?

It's standard junk science talk. This well represents how junk science plays into wrongful convictions.

 

[RR0004]

Junk science does not quantify expected results. Junk science has trouble with questions such as yours.

As for a juror assessing what is reasonable, that is not what our system of jurisprudence requires them to do. Rather, it requires them to assess reasonable doubt, which is a much different measure.

I personally think reasonable and reasonable doubt kinda go hand in hand. If someone doesn't think the defense's arguement is reasonable then they wouldn't have the reasonable doubt necessary for acquittal.

 

[countzero]

WOW, almost 1K worth of debated threads over RK. IMHO, some good, some -- not so good.

I have read this thread with interest only due to lack of a doc dump and it became interesting reading the theories some explain.

What I said before, if RK was involved in any way, shape or form in the murder of Caylee, the transportation of her remains, the placement of her remains and/or replacement of her remains, RK would be sitting in jail without bail and charged with the appropriate crime FL allows.

Being as he isn't, I cannot find any shread of evidence that even gives a glimmer of guilt towards his involvement.

I also said I found RK's actions strange. I see RK as a person who, like thousands of others in Orlando, wanted Caylee found alive and they went searching for her. With the forensics reports released of Caylee's remains, RK couldn't have seen Caylee's skull prior to Dec 11, 08. I think RK had self-doubts after meeting up with LE the first time and being dismissed with nothing being found, yet his conscience kept bothering him. What IF he did see her or maybe there weren't any remains there but trash. It bothered him, he wanted to know, but not enough to follow through. Goodness knows IF RK truly was convinced Caylee was in the woods, he could and should have contacted any of the media outlets in Orlando, KB comes to mind, if he felt LE was "blowing him off". During the first 90 days, this story was buzzing with conflicting stories and evidence gathering. Then there was CA who was out there spouting her carp and cover up stories for KC.

Yet RK did nothing more concrete to notify LE again. Nothing.

I don't know if the man really had to take a leak o/a 9a ish that day in December. Men go in strange places when "nature"calls. Not sure if one of mine would have ventured into the woods; then again, they don't tell me all of what they do or where they go when their "nature call" hits them either.

For the months preceding RK finding Caylee, many people had made and were "paid" for media appearances. RK was and is no different from the rest of them. Media come in all shapes and sizes as we have witnessed. Shoot, my favorite LP is a self-confessed media . So RK instead of being low keyed, he capitalized on the media attention and complained about how LE "blew off" his 911 calls after the discovery. IMO, RK made the wrong choice, but that doesn't make him complicit in Caylee's murder as much as some try to make it.

Personally, I don't see JB & crew even bothering with RK during the trial, other than using his testimony to stall or prolong the verdict.

The evidence the SA will use and drive home in the trial hasn't even been released yet. RK is a small figure in the SA's case if he is even called as a witness. JB & crew are more concerned about the bug forensics, given to them back on Oct 9, 09 and the other evidence released to them o/a Oct 20, 09.

I continue to believe the jury selected will be more than able to distinguish between the truth and a snow job. Even in Florida.

So, continue to debate this, as I have learned some from the posts. But I await without patience for that dang bug evidence and a start of a new thread.

 

[cecybeans]

Junk science does not quantify expected results. Junk science has trouble with questions such as yours.

As for a juror assessing what is reasonable, that is not what our system of jurisprudence requires them to do. Rather, it requires them to assess reasonable doubt, which is a much different measure.

I'm sure that some of our professional colleagues in psychology and sociology and neurophysiology - not to mention linquistics - would think that assigning an arbitrary and highly subjective value as a percentage would also be deemed "junk science". One can quantify things only if the system of measurement is standardized. There is no accurate way to standardize perception. It might seem like a nice way to dress up a personal opinion, but it's still a personal opinion.