Hear Ye, Hear Ye,
It is time to bring you people back to reality. Perusing your comments, here are some answers to your questions.
1. Jill Kerley's sworn testimony is considered factual information, there does not need to be a corroborating police report.
2. I have reviewed Kerley's "criminal record" and I did not see anywhere that she has been adjudicated guilty of a felony or crime of dishonesty - just arrested for them. And an arrest is not a permissible means to impeach someone.
3. The Motion to Perpetuate Testimony is routinely used to perpetuate (i.e. preserve) a person's testimony in the event that they might die or be too ill to testify. A Deposition to Perpetuate testimony is done in the same manner as if she were testifying in trial. Baez obtains her direct testimony, the state objects if necessary, but the answer is still given. Then the State cross examines her on material issues. From there, the judge rules on the objections and then the testimony is edited to include the permissible testimony. If, when the time comes for trial, Ms. Kerley has died or is to ill to testify, her perpetuated testimony is presented to the jury. If she is not dead or too ill to testify, the State can demand her presence at that time.
4. In any event, if her testimony was not allowed to be perpetuated and she subsequently died - Casey would have one hell of an appellate issue for denial of due process and compulsory attendance of witnesses.
5. The authorization of the perpetuation of Ms. Kerley's testimony does not mean her testimony will be allowed in court. It is only being authorized to prevent an unnecessary appellate issue where Casey could argue that she was denied due process or opportunity to present a defense.
6. Finally, the decision to allow Kerley's testimony to be presented to the jury (whether live or by perpetuated video) will be determined at a later date before trial by the judge. And the standard is not whether Kronk was actually convicted of the crimes, or even whether there is other corroborating evidence supporting Kerley's claims. The issue Judge Strickland must decide is if the evidence is a sufficiently similar to an issue in Casey's case as to point suspicion at Kronk (i.e. the uniqueness of duct tape use on women).
7. In making this determination, the judge does not decide whether he believes Kerley, he only decides whether the evidence would be relevant IF the jury believed Kerley - thus shining suspicion on Kronk. Ultimately, the weight that is given to this evidence is up to a jury - not a judge. If the jury thinks she is full of it, they will disregard it entirely and it would backfire on Baez and Co.
8. Finally, I am so tired of insinuations that Roy Kronk could sue Baez or his ex-wife, Kerley; he can not. While the original allegations may - or may not - be untrue. the fact that the allegations were made by Kerley once upon a time is true. Thus Baez pointing out that Kronk has been accused of similar conduct in the past is a factually accurate claim - thus he has a complete defense to any defamation suit.
Peace out!
I don't usually get involved in these legal threads because I know Jack about this stuff but, I do have a few questions.
It was my understanding that the edited video that we have all seen was not taken under oath. Doesn't she have to take an oath before her statement for it to be a sworn statement or just swear to it afterwards? Also is a sworn statement the same as sworn testimony? I thought that you had to be in court or ,in her case, have both defense and pros there and be questioned by both sides.
I have a feeling that when push comes to shove, she will refuse to give sworn testimony because she is not telling the truth. I did not watch the whole thing but she did seem to give some of the tells of lying or stretching the truth with her eye movements.
Doesn't the tape become unreliable evidence if it has been tampered with such as editing it? Or does that only matter if it is presented in court?
I did not think that Kronk's expunged record of the kidnapping had anything to do with JK unless you are saying that her testifying that it also happened to her bolsters the original accusation of kidnapping made by the boyfriend when Kronk was trying to help he ex girlfriend get away from him. Also did JK actually say that she was kidnapped or did she say that Kronk once duct taped her hands together? Would that be kidnapping?
And even with all that you said above, how does that prove that RK was the one that kidnapped, killed and dumped Caylee? Or is this only for reasonable doubt and they don't really think he kidnapped Caylee but some poor juror might?
I still think that they need evidence that Kronk had access to Caylee during that time, motive aside. So they will have to overcome KC's statements to police about the Nanny having Caylee and how the Nanny got Caylee or is Kronk the nanny or maybe he just is kidnapping buddies with the nanny?
I still don't see how whether Kronk actually did or did not kidnap someone has anything to do with this crime. If true, in both cases (one expunged, the other never reported), it would have been someone he knew and was intimate with and was the person, not a family member, and were older women not young children, so kidnapping Caylee would not be his normal way of operating.
Don't think that you can give Baez any points for this just yet unless it is points for muddying the waters. So far, I see little evidence that this has caused reasonable doubt in the minds of most people. It only takes one but that is in court and I am not sure that any of this will make it into court because it reeks of lies and revenge.
Is JK the ex-girlfriend that was "kidnapped" from the boyfriend she was trying to get away from? I think I am getting confused as to who is who here.
Just MHO as always.
