Motion to Take Deposition to Perpetuate Testimony of Jill Kerley

[RR0004]

Wow...thanks World...glad I said something. LOL

 

[RR0004]

Well, if that's not enough to impeach someone's testimony than I sure as heck don't understand our legal system.

 

[mitzi]

In addition, JK's allegations, which surface so long after the fact, and made solely in response to questioning by a defense attorney for another case, smack of opportunism to say the least.

Actually, JK wasn't questioned by a defense attorney...Mort, AL's PI did the interviewing of JK.

 

[mitzi]

Not only have we not seen it released, Baez dated this document the day before he even deposed him.

I edited my post above ^

 

[JBean]

Didn't Kronks attorney confirm that during his deposition Kronk denied that any of the ex wife abuse stories were true?

I'll look for a link. Even if my memory is off,I don't think it is a stretch to assume he denied abusing anyone. Now whether he was lying or the ex wives are lying we have no idea at all.

 

[mitzi]

I bet when Ms. Kerley is actually deposed, with attorneys from both the defense and the prosecution present to question her, her story will have a few minute changes....ie. no duct taping. :innocent:

 

[Aedrys]

I think the whole Jill Kerley thing is going to be a big wash, especially with her shady past and that she's basing this who suspicion she has on Kronk because of duct tape.

Jeebus, my stepdaughter is obessed with making things out of duct tape right now. If we lived in Orlando, she might be a suspect just because of that! It's stupid and ridiculous, and and JB is just wasting his time trying to go down that road. Kronk may not be the most likable guy, but neither I nor a jury is going to let alleged duct incidents with an adult who may or may not have consented let Casey off the hook for killing Caylee.

I guess you'd have to have be not as smart as the average bear to think that one or two things out of the thousands of things in this case that might have the slightest possibility (not really) of being connected to Kronk would make him look bad or be the person that killed Caylee. Instead, I thank him everyday for FINDING CAYLEE in the first place.

I am so tired of people refusing to the see overall big picture and get stuck on little pieces that add up to NOTHING. You earth logic does not resemble our earth logic!

 

[JBean]

In the motion, lawyers don't say they believe Kronk killed Caylee -- only that he should have been considered a suspect.
snip
Today, the Casey Anthony defense team commenced, but did not complete, the deposition of Roy Kronk in the State v. Casey Anthony case. Shortly after adjourning the deposition, the Anthony defense team filed a Motion, Memorandum of Law,
snip
Meantime, Kronk’s lawyer, David Evans, refuted the Anthony defense team claims.
“I think Roy is a convenient person to point at,” Evans said.
He brushed off the Anthony defense lawyer claims that Kronk allegedly abused his ex-wives, bound them with duct tape and that he has a “thing” for young girls.
“They asked about all that stuff and Roy firmly said, ‘No, there’s no truth to any of that stuff,’” Evans said of Kronk’s testimony during the deposition on Thursday.

http://www.cfnews13.com/News/Local/..._alleged_abuse_in_new_defense_interviews.html

 

[RR0004]

Not only have we not seen it released, Baez dated this document the day before he even deposed him.

So there goes the theory that JB filed after catching him (RK) "denying" anything.


RE: Poster RH...Post 149

"Old Roy made the mistake of denying the underlying allegations by his ex-wife in deposition, probably thinking Baez did not know about his ex-wife. Then right after the depo Baez sprung his motion - Kronk was set up old school style."

 

[JBean]

The realty is we don't know if Kronk abused his wife. As the mother of sons I hate to think that women can casually accuse men like this.
However, just because he found Caylee's remains doesn't mean he is a good guy. Many women do not report spousal abuse and as a woman I am not going to completely discount her story because she may or may not have reported it. Many woman don't report it for fear of not being believed or fear of retaliation.
So, I would need a lot more info before I believe any of these people.

But if this is allowed the jury will decide for themselves if this story is for real and take it from there.

A good defense attorney is always going to try and impeach a witness and try and create reasonable doubt. That is all that is going on here. The jury will be able to see all the evidence and decide if this has any bearing on anything and determine if RK is a credible dude.

 

[JBean]

So there goes the theory that JB filed after catching him (RK) "denying" anything.


RE: Poster RH...Post 149

"Old Roy made the mistake of denying the underlying allegations by his ex-wife in deposition, probably thinking Baez did not know about his ex-wife. Then right after the depo Baez sprung his motion - Kronk was set up old school style."

<< Today, the Casey Anthony defense team commenced, but did not complete, the deposition of Roy Kronk in the State v. Casey Anthony case. Shortly after adjourning the deposition, the Anthony defense team filed a Motion, Memorandum of Law,>>

 

[RR0004]

<< Today, the Casey Anthony defense team commenced, but did not complete, the deposition of Roy Kronk in the State v. Casey Anthony case. Shortly after adjourning the deposition, the Anthony defense team filed a Motion, Memorandum of Law,>>

I believed the document was dated prior...now will have to go and search...but the truth be told...it's like you said...it's their job. They had the video and were going to do what they were going to do no matter what.

ETA: IMO RK would have most definitely known that the defense would know all about the ex-wife...or at least the girlfriend. That came out immediately. I believe that RK answered the questions truthfully. As far as trying to impeach him as a witness...what was he witness to? Coming upon Caylee in his search for her? I think they're trying to cast him as the villain here...which regardless of what transpired in his personal life, he is not. There is no connection between him and Caylee...except for having found her. IMO...none!

 

[JBean]

I believed the document was dated prior...now will have to go and search...but the truth be told...it's like you said...it's their job. They had the video and were going to do what they were going to do no matter what.

Hi RR. What is the significance of the document being dated earlier?

 

[RR0004]

In the motion, lawyers don't say they believe Kronk killed Caylee -- only that he should have been considered a suspect.
snip
Today, the Casey Anthony defense team commenced, but did not complete, the deposition of Roy Kronk in the State v. Casey Anthony case. Shortly after adjourning the deposition, the Anthony defense team filed a Motion, Memorandum of Law,
snip
Meantime, Kronk’s lawyer, David Evans, refuted the Anthony defense team claims.
“I think Roy is a convenient person to point at,” Evans said.
He brushed off the Anthony defense lawyer claims that Kronk allegedly abused his ex-wives, bound them with duct tape and that he has a “thing” for young girls.
“They asked about all that stuff and Roy firmly said, ‘No, there’s no truth to any of that stuff,’” Evans said of Kronk’s testimony during the deposition on Thursday.

http://www.cfnews13.com/News/Local/..._alleged_abuse_in_new_defense_interviews.html

...and thank you for providing a link.

 

[RR0004]

Hi RR. What is the significance of the document being dated earlier?

Just like you said...they knew what their job was. I don't think it was a matter of tripping Kronk up. He was being truthful. Even if he told them exactly what they wanted to hear, they wanted the video out there and testimony taken. It still- IMO- has no direct bearing on Casey's guilt. Just a side show for some folks' amusement.

 

[JBean]

I believed the document was dated prior...now will have to go and search...but the truth be told...it's like you said...it's their job. They had the video and were going to do what they were going to do no matter what.

ETA: IMO RK would have most definitely known that the defense would know all about the ex-wife...or at least the girlfriend. That came out immediately. I believe that RK answered the questions truthfully. As far as trying to impeach him as a witness...what was he witness to? Coming upon Caylee in his search for her? I think they're trying to cast him as the villain here...which regardless of what transpired in his personal life, he is not. There is no connection between him and Caylee...except for having found her. IMO...none!

I agree with your ETA, except whether Kronk was truthful because I have no idea if he was or wasn't. I am not saying he was dishonest at all, I am just saying I have no clue.

I think the defense's whole point is that Kronk should have been investigated as a suspect and the fact that he apparently wasn't is questionable. To support their contention that LE did not do a thorough job of investigating others they are pointing out the potential flaws in Kronks character which include accusations from different people about deviant behavior .Coupled with his unusual story surrounding finding the remains it could lead one to think that perhaps he should have at least been throuroughly investigated.

But suppose for a minute that all the stories about Kronk were true, it doesn't mean that him finding Caylee was anything less than wonderful and his background has nothing to do with his discovery.
By that same token, just because JK has a questionable background, it doesn't mean she might not have been abused.

 

[cyberborg]

I believed the document was dated prior...now will have to go and search...but the truth be told...it's like you said...it's their job. They had the video and were going to do what they were going to do no matter what.

ETA: IMO RK would have most definitely known that the defense would know all about the ex-wife...or at least the girlfriend. That came out immediately. I believe that RK answered the questions truthfully. As far as trying to impeach him as a witness...what was he witness to? Coming upon Caylee in his search for her? I think they're trying to cast him as the villain here...which regardless of what transpired in his personal life, he is not. There is no connection between him and Caylee...except for having found her. IMO...none!

My prior point was, RK's statements are backed up on the dates he claimed he thought he found Caylee and when he did by calls to LE. So there is corroboration there right?

If they take the route of trying to implicate RK actually dumped Caylee when KC was in jail then, what's the Defense theory as to why RK tried so hard to get LE to check the sighting out if he could be implicated by prints, DNA or, investigation of him? Does not make sense to me.

Another option is to suggest he is further involved in the death of Caylee and there is some middleman connection to KC or the A's, but this fails the smell test when you consider the Pooh blanket, if the heart sticker is true, decomp in the car, etc.

Anyone want to make a list of options as to how going after RK could help the Defense? My main one was to simply point the finger at methods and procedures and LE's investigation, opening the door to SODDI being out there.

 

[RR0004]

I agree with your ETA, except whether Kronk was truthful because I have no idea if he was or wasn't. I am not saying he was dishonest at all, I am just saying I have no clue.

I think the defense's whole point is that Kronk should have been investigated as a suspect and the fact that he apparently wasn't is questionable. To support their contention that LE did not do a thorough job of investigating others they are pointing out the potential flaws in Kronks character which include accusations from different people about deviant behavior .Coupled with his unusual story surrounding finding the remains it could lead one to think that perhaps he should have at least been throuroughly investigated.

But suppose for a minute that all the stories about Kronk were true, it doesn't mean that him finding Caylee was anything less than wonderful and his background has nothing to do with his discovery.
By that same token, just because JK has a questionable background, it doesn't mean she might not have been abused.

Well...how do we know that he wasn't thoroughly investigated? See here is where I'm in the dark. What gets handed over in discovery? If it's investigative reports the defense wants, why don't they ask for them? I agree...until we actually see the defense's deposition of Kronk, everything is speculative. I doubt very much that JK's testimony will be admissable.

 

[LinasK]

I think the defense's whole point is that Kronk should have been investigated as a suspect and the fact that he apparently wasn't is questionable. To support their contention that LE did not do a thorough job of investigating others they are pointing out the potential flaws in Kronks character which include accusations from different people about deviant behavior .Coupled with his unusual story surrounding finding the remains it could lead one to think that perhaps he should have at least been throuroughly investigated.

Usually in the case of a disappearance or murder, LE will start with the persons closest (family-wise) to the victim, as the statistics show they are the most common to harm them. When the family/SO's are cleared, then they work outward to other suspects. Casey was never cleared by LE, in fact she demonstrated directly to them how she lies. And she was the last person known to see Caylee alive. Her alibi of work was blown.
Also, Roy Kronk had no motive, nor opportunity to harm Caylee. There was no valid reason to investigate him, especially when he called in reports of spotting her back in August!

 

[JBean]

Usually in the case of a disappearance or murder, LE will start with the persons closest (family-wise) to the victim, as the statistics show they are the most common to harm them. When the family/SO's are cleared, then they work outward to other suspects. Casey was never cleared by LE, in fact she demonstrated directly to them how she lies. And she was the last person known to see Caylee alive. Her alibi of work was blown.
Also, Roy Kronk had no motive, nor opportunity to harm Caylee. There was no valid reason to investigate him, especially when he called in reports of spotting her back in August!

Happy New year Linas, always enjoy sitting around the table and discussing cases with you. We've discussed our share together. LOL.
I know what you mean , but I think investigating Kronk would be reaonable. I mean if you are going to put someone to death, best look under all the rocks. Don't get me wrong, I don't thnk RK is involved, but checking his cell records and verifying his activities would have been worthwhile.
Now I am assuming they didn't investigate him because the defense is saying they didn't and tha is a pretty big ASSumption