2009.12.09 discovery docs to be released today

[eaglemom]

My personal opinion is this water report doesn't hurt the SA in any way. It does show that the area was MOST likely full of water during the time period in question which made it inaccesible for appropriate and thorough searching for the BONES of a small child.

In addition, MOO, just because the bag with some of the remains ended up in the high area (Area A) that is not submerged during the time period in Question - from June to December - it does not mean that they started there and stayed there! Items in water do float and they do tend to come to rest on the highest point. We have reliable reports (again MOO) the bones were dispersed over a wide area perhaps from animal activity. The same could hold true for the bag - it, too could have been dragged before being 'opened' . We simply do not know and will never know. We can only surmise with the information given through natural clues:

plant growth through bones
soil dispersion from flooding
leaf and fauna detrious from natural seasons on top of the bones
lack of tissue left on the skeletal remains

I am sure there is more I have forgotten - but I am sure you get my point. I simply do not see how any of the above are 'junk' science. I realize they do not place KC at the scene but nor can anyone place little Caylee in anyone else's care for 31 DAYS so some things must be inferred from common sense and evidence......

I do see, however, WHY JB wants to discredit RK and came out with all these addl searchers that searched the area thoroughly on their own. This report only serves to make those folks look foolish in my eyes - MOO.

 

[Spangle]

I guess I should point out something.

The water level is going to rise and lower. IT's not going to stay the same. It's not going to slowly lower and stay lowered.

I say this because I LIVE in Florida and around areas of woods that are prone to Flood or be used as part of the over all water control. LIKE that area was/is. Place like that are all over, a dime a dozen down here.

The water is going to naturally lower, as it runs elsewhere or is soaked up in the ground.. to eventually the water table. Which is why it isn't sent to a nearby streem, to head down river to the Ocean. Florida needs to fill up it's water table. These areas hold the water in hopes that it will soak down to the water table.

When another rain strom devlops, the new water runs right to these ares that are all ready soggy with water. This will raise the water level again.

2008, it seemed we never dried out. A little rain, and the soggy ditches would be full. Didn't take much to get standing water.

So don't get stuck on a date that the water went down and stayed down. More likely that there was days the water was down, and days that it was high. Which would explain how the animals would be able to have some access to the body at least some of the time.

 

[songline]

But your talking depth not length...12 inches of water (deep) would esily cover a toddler.Add to the disperment water does ...example fill tub its one depth you get it ..it raises the level

I think the bag could have stuck out not completely but enough to see a bag there.Because it is plastic,
part of the plastic would look like it is floating even if there was some weight holding it down.
Just thinking.....But I do remember that the search team did say they could not work there because the water was knee deep.

 

[cyberborg]

My personal opinion is this water report doesn't hurt the SA in any way. It does show that the area was MOST likely full of water during the time period in question which made it inaccesible for appropriate and thorough searching for the BONES of a small child.

In addition, MOO, just because the bag with some of the remains ended up in the high area (Area A) that is not submerged during the time period in Question - from June to December - it does not mean that they started there and stayed there! Items in water do float and they do tend to come to rest on the highest point. We have reliable reports (again MOO) the bones were dispersed over a wide area perhaps from animal activity. The same could hold true for the bag - it, too could have been dragged before being 'opened' . We simply do not know and will never know. We can only surmise with the information given through natural clues:

plant growth through bones
soil dispersion from flooding
leaf and fauna detrious from natural seasons on top of the bones
lack of tissue left on the skeletal remains

I am sure there is more I have forgotten - but I am sure you get my point. I simply do not see how any of the above are 'junk' science. I realize they do not place KC at the scene but nor can anyone place little Caylee in anyone else's care for 31 DAYS so some things must be inferred from common sense and evidence......

I do see, however, WHY JB wants to discredit RK and came out with all these addl searchers that searched the area thoroughly on their own. This report only serves to make those folks look foolish in my eyes - MOO.

BBM.

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

 

[PaddieAB]

Weren't there also area residents that said the area had been pretty much under water most of August?

It seems to me whether the area where the remains were found was underwater or not has been debated on and on. Some say it was, others say not.

The Defense has said it was NOT.

The States Expert Witness now says it was NOT other than the period of time between August 18-28th 2008.

So now both the prosecution and the defense agree on something. Nothing left to debate...unless both are wrong.

 

[RR0004]

I am not surprised by the findings of the water levels at Area A. I had brought this topic up on another thread but I was ignored. LOL j/k

These are the rainfall rates for June, July and August 2008. It is evident that in the early part of August there was little rain.

June 2008
http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KMCO/2008/6/24/MonthlyHistory.html#calendar

July 2008
http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KMCO/2008/7/24/MonthlyHistory.html#calendar

August 2008
http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KMCO/2008/8/24/MonthlyHistory.html#calendar

There was quite a bit of rainy days in June so it would be interesting to know how fast the water recedes.

Here is an excellent graphic by BondJamesBond on how the water would drain:

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Crime Scene Photos #3

I wouldn't go by that website...they're really not great in their reporting.

I did this once before...here was one local site I found...look at the amounts prior to August.

http://www.cityoforlando.net/public_works/Stormwater/rain/rainfall.htm

 

[RR0004]

I don't know if this is the right place to ask this-
In today's updated criminal docket, what does this mean?

12/08/2009---Motion---for Court's Permission to be Seated Forward of the Bar

Thanks,
Katharine

Maybe to accommodate BC?

 

[Muzikman]

I don't know if this is the right place to ask this-
In today's updated criminal docket, what does this mean?

12/08/2009---Motion---for Court's Permission to be Seated Forward of the Bar

Thanks,
Katharine

I went down and got that today (along with a couple others). This is a request for Bill Shaeffer, who had some surgery in October and is still a little disabled, to sit up front so he can cover the hearing for WFTV.

I'll put it up tonite, WFTV did a quick piece on these motions and may have it u before I do.

 

[cyberborg]

It seems to me whether the area where the remains were found was underwater or not has been debated on and on. Some say it was, others say not.

The Defense has said it was NOT.

The States Expert Witness now says it was NOT other than the period of time between August 18-28th 2008.

So now both the prosecution and the defense agree on something. Nothing left to debate...unless both are wrong.

Except this is not Black or White, it is shades of grey -- as in lots of water, less water but, always some water in areas. DC was video'd searching in mud and poking in the mud with a stick. The actual remains were lodged under a palmetto leaf in heavy undergrowth and the rest of the remains were spread over an acre!! They were remains, not a 'body' as you'd expect to see.

We are over-simplifying the conditions and focusing on one data point (nit picking) when you need to look at everything holistically, it isn't one fact --- it is the combination of all facts.

 

[1SweetNov]

I don't know if this is the right place to ask this-
In today's updated criminal docket, what does this mean?

12/08/2009---Motion---for Court's Permission to be Seated Forward of the Bar

Thanks,
Katharine

Katharine, the bar separates counsel tables from the public seating in the courtroom. Only parties to the suit and their attorneys may sit in front of the bar. Usually this request (motion) comes from someone close to one of those attorneys, perhaps a paralegal or investigator who may be assisting the attorney on a particular issue.

 

[Searchfortruth]

I'm not sure 12 inches of water would do that. Matter of fact since I ride,I know it would not!

Tim also stated that a reason he couldn't search was because of the damage it would do to the evidence, body, if it was out there. I believe an ATV was lost, broken during a search, can't remember if it was the first search or the second one.

 

[RR0004]

More info about the weather...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/index.php?report=national&year=2008&month=aug

Most of Florida and Alabama, as well southern Georgia, central North Carolina and portions of southern Virginia received more than 150% of normal precipitation for the month.

They did attribute a lot of the rain in parts of FLA due to Fay. It hit landfall 3 separate times. But, it does sound like the cold front that passed through and got things started occurred during the 2nd week in August. So, RK could have spotted something then....but not again until the water receded.

 

[RR0004]

I went down and got that today (along with a couple others). This is a request for Bill Shaeffer, who had some surgery in October and is still a little disabled, to sit up front so he can cover the hearing for WFTV.

I'll put it up tonite, WFTV did a quick piece on these motions and may have it u before I do.

MM...you've surfaced. Thanks for the info about BS.

 

[s1rebecca]

I'm not sure 12 inches of water would do that. Matter of fact since I ride,I know it would not!

I think it could, there are shallow areas and stumps and who knows how muddy it would be. You don't really want to ride an ATV in an area like that especially if you don't know the terrain. My husband and I ride all the time and we can cross the creek but not when the waters a foot deep.

 

[RR0004]

I'm not sure 12 inches of water would do that. Matter of fact since I ride,I know it would not!

You ride in swamps?

 

[Searchfortruth]

"The new documents also show that a study was done of the water levels in the wooded area (read study) where Caylee was found and that the lower-lying areas would have been under water during the six months she was missing, which is consistent with what Texas-based EquuSearch said about the inability to search because of water."

"The study showed that the exact spot where Caylee's remains were found would not have been under water the whole time, which is consistent with why Orange County meter reader, Roy Kronk, was able to find what he believed were Caylee's remains in August in the higher-elevated areas."

http://www.wftv.com/news/21909754/detail.html

 

[mydailyopinions]

I'm not sure 12 inches of water would do that. Matter of fact since I ride,I know it would not!

12 inches of standing water may not submerge a 4 wheeler, however 12 inches of water with 12 inches of mud beneath it would..
I ride too..:crazy:

 

[RR0004]

It seems to me whether the area where the remains were found was underwater or not has been debated on and on. Some say it was, others say not.

The Defense has said it was NOT.

The States Expert Witness now says it was NOT other than the period of time between August 18-28th 2008.

So now both the prosecution and the defense agree on something. Nothing left to debate...unless both are wrong.

Who's debating? I merely stated a fact as we know it. I'll wait till someone with experience can intrepret these charts for me 'cause that's something I'm really not that good at.

 

[PaddieAB]

What was he a witness of besides locating the body in December? I think the location of the remains would have shifted considerably from June to December, especially with the conditions (ie., tropical storm). He was also confused-IIRC- about the color of the bag(s). We've discussed at great depth what would have accounted for the discrepencies...but ultimately he DID discover Caylee. Other than that, I'm not sure what he "witnessed".

Kronk discovered the remains, and his truthfulness in that discovery will certainly be brought forward at trial. As far as "shifting remains" in Discovery documents please give a link, but I seem to recall mention of ground indentation that was thought to represent where the bags/body had been been originally placed to prove they were there for the entire duration of time. If the remains shifted, you open the door to the defense who believes they were not there during the duration.

If there was no water to shift the remains, which through this release of Discovery the State appears to be acknowledging, then Kronk lied about the water. If there was no water in August, then WHEN did the remains get placed there and by whom? The prosecution will have one tough job ahead.

 

[RR0004]

"The new documents also show that a study was done of the water levels in the wooded area (read study) where Caylee was found and that the lower-lying areas would have been under water during the six months she was missing, which is consistent with what Texas-based EquuSearch said about the inability to search because of water."

"The study showed that the exact spot where Caylee's remains were found would not have been under water the whole time, which is consistent with why Orange County meter reader, Roy Kronk, was able to find what he believed were Caylee's remains in August in the higher-elevated areas."

http://www.wftv.com/news/21909754/detail.html

Ok...that's what I had interpreted...but was it a reporter who surmised this or a person who has actual knowledge of water levels? Gotta go look.