The Roy Kronk Connection- Opening Statements-Kronk takes the stand 2011.06.28

New Posts

Hot Dogs said:
There was quite a bit of wooded areas near the house. I've attached an area map showing some landmarks. I believe that Florence Harbor Drive (directly behind the Anthonys) and its homes didn't exist at the time or was in the early stages of development. Click twice for full enlargement.
Click to expand...

I've never really bothered to take a good look at the ariel pics of the area.

This picture... makes me laugh.

Why you may ask, does this arial picture make me laugh..

Cause it shows me how completely LAZY and STUNNED ICA is. LOOK AT ALL THE GREEN SPACE! And How CLOSE does she leave that poor baby.. well right there on the same BLOCK almost.

This almost reaffirms my idea that ICA was trying to have LA move her.
She was clearly NOT far enough away from the road or from anything to actually be hidden. There is no way ICA figured she would never be found. I think she was trying to get LA to move her....

thats what that says to me. I mean.. there are MILES of Green space back there, and it looks like the road south of the school heads right in towards that green space. No houses.. middle of summer, no school kids... Just seems lazy or planned.


How i Abhor her
 
Hot Dogs said:
I will just restate what I said earlier. IMO, Kronk knew that there was a body in the woods even before August 11th because he saw it with his own eyes. Not a maybe or something suspicious... the real deal. He knew that if LE would go where he tried to direct them then he would see it on the news. On Aug 12th, he knew that LE must have made a mistake because there was no network news about the body.
Click to expand...

I am totally with you except I don't think he knew it was there because he saw it with his own eyes. One constant in all his reports and interviews was that this was the first time he had ever been in this area, first time on this street, first time in these woods. He could be lying, but with all the protestors and people reporting strange persons wandering around, I think someone would have said if they knew he had been there previously. I think this was his first time and he just thought he was in the right place. :) It is very troubling to me that his coworker reports he said he saw a bag, then walked back up to the truck, past the truck, and then said he saw the skull. Why would he do that if he really knew where it was? No sense in pointing out two odd things. :waitasec:
 
Interesting. A potential hostile witness in the defense case in chief.

:waitasec:
 
MADJGNLAW said:
Hmm...I thought the judge had given the state and the defense a dead line. :waitasec:
Click to expand...

I am sooooooo confused. Is this a new subpoena that the DT gave Kronk?

Does this mean he is coming in as a hostile witness?
 
Hot Dogs said:
I will just restate what I said earlier. IMO, Kronk knew that there was a body in the woods even before August 11th because he saw it with his own eyes. Not a maybe or something suspicious... the real deal. He knew that if LE would go where he tried to direct them then he would see it on the news. On Aug 12th, he knew that LE must have made a mistake because there was no network news about the body.
Click to expand...

Someone suggested to me today that Roy kronk might have seen someone placing Caylee's body somewhere. I thought it was interesting.
 
Soulmagent said:
Someone suggested to me today that Roy kronk might have seen someone placing Caylee's body somewhere. I thought it was interesting.
Click to expand...

I'm not buying it. Kronk was aware that the entire nation was looking for little Caylee Anthony. If he'd seen someone hiding the body he wouldn't have sat on that information for 6 months. No way. Not when he could be the hero who solved the case.
 
Soulmagent said:
Someone suggested to me today that Roy kronk might have seen someone placing Caylee's body somewhere. I thought it was interesting.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the DT will suggest the same thing. The only problem will be that it's a suggestion and not fact. There is no evidence to back it up. IMO.
 
RANCH said:
I'm sure the DT will suggest the same thing. The only problem will be that it's a suggestion and not fact. There is no evidence to back it up. IMO.
Click to expand...

I hope everyone assuming there is no evidence to support any defence of Casey Anthony is correct. The DT does not have to share info with the state.

IMO I believe the SA has put on a flimsy case. I do not think it would be a great task for a reasonable ,decent lawyer to win this case.

So I really think the SA should be happy they have Baez.
 
Soulmagent said:
I hope everyone assuming there is no evidence to support any defence of Casey Anthony is correct. The DT does not have to share info with the state.

IMO I believe the SA has put on a flimsy case. I do not think it would be a great task for a reasonable ,decent lawyer to win this case.

So I really think the SA should be happy they have Baez.
Click to expand...

You said the DT does not have to share info with the state. I thought that this was a reciprocal discovery case. Maybe I'm wrong.
 
Hot Dogs said:
I think that the "round white something under the fallen tree" in his August 911 call was the skull under this log that we are talking about. Back in August, there wouldn't have been the fallen leaves which accumulated up to the eye sockets. All you would have had is some water.

I think that back in mid-August the water at the remains was really quite shallow. Probably more shallow than the knee-deep I spoke of previously. Maybe only just 3-4" deep. He would see the body bag(s) in this water and the skull would be partially exposed. The bags and the skull are sitting on the ground and the water isn't deep enough to fully hide them beneath the surface.
Click to expand...

There was a pretty big Hurricane that came through in Mid-August, the water was probably relatively deep. I agree with you that he could see the top, probably the eye sockets by the way he described thinking it was a novelty skull.
If there is a lie in there somewhee, I am with other posters who note that maybe RK sleuthed out the area around their house prior to being dispatched there. He is, after all, a former bounty hunter. He is also not the only person that looked in that area. And I have to say, other than you guys and my family, I don't go around telling people that I have driven by the Anthony's house and the remains site, cause people that don't follow this case as closely may think it a bit morbid and weird, considering I'm from Virginia (I did not just happen to be in the area, I drove to Orlando from grandma's in Daytona with purpose). It's not necessarily an announcement you make unless you do find something. Look at KeithW's experience-he came off as kind of a weird one, and I think the people at HOES thought his behavior/him being out there was "off." But he's no different than anyone else that cared about the case.
I hope JB does call RK as a witness. RK is the epitome of "quite frankly"-Frank is all he knows how to be! His tone and his bluntness are almost endearing, if it weren't for the fact that he was ticked off about an officer that FAILED TO DO HIS JOB.
 
Chilly Willy said:
I'm not buying it. Kronk was aware that the entire nation was looking for little Caylee Anthony. If he'd seen someone hiding the body he wouldn't have sat on that information for 6 months. No way. Not when he could be the hero who solved the case.
Click to expand...

He didn't sit on it for 6 months. He called the police in August.
 
RANCH said:
You said the DT does not have to share info with the state. I thought that this was a reciprocal discovery case. Maybe I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

You're right. The DT & the State have to provide each other with discovery, to prevent the "ambush" of either side.
 
crucibelle said:
He didn't sit on it for 6 months. He called the police in August.
Click to expand...

He's sat on the info for three years now if that happened. AFAIK he still hasn't testified that he saw someone hide the body.

If he's after fortune and fame he sure missed his chance to become the star witness in the case against Casey Anthony or George or whoever the heck it was he was supposed to have seen.
 
Hot Dogs said:
The problem with that is that if you went to the place where Casey and her friends buried their pets and hung out, you would not have found Caylee. She was placed in a completely different area.
Click to expand...

Thank you so much for pointing this out. I see so many people STILL saying that Caylee's remains were placed at the pet burial ground/hangout, and that is just not true.
 
Donjeta said:
He's sat on the info for three years now if that happened. AFAIK he still hasn't testified that he saw someone hide the body.

If he's after fortune and fame he sure missed his chance to become the star witness in the case against Casey Anthony or George or whoever the heck it was he was supposed to have seen.
Click to expand...

Donjeta -- I was talking about the fact that he found the body and I think that is what the poster I was replying to was talking about -- because he/she said that Kronk sat on the info for six months. Well, the only thing he did in six months was report seeing the remains again... he certainly didn't say anything about seeing someone dump the body. So, what I was saying in my post was that he did not sit on that info for six months, as he reported seeing the remains in August. I said NOTHING about him seeing someone dump the body. Respectfully, I don't mind when somebody disagrees with me on something, but it would really help if one could read my posts carefully before replying to me.
 
Sorry for offending you, it was never my intention but I read your post and the quote you included in your post talks about RK finding the body and refers to that info as being sat on. IMO it'd be huge if he'd sat on that info for any amount of time and it would absolutely sink JB's claim that RK was after fame.

Quoting Chillywilly again:
If he'd seen someone hiding the body he wouldn't have sat on that information for 6 months. No way.
Click to expand...
 
Soulmagent said:
I hope everyone assuming there is no evidence to support any defence of Casey Anthony is correct. The DT does not have to share info with the state.

IMO I believe the SA has put on a flimsy case. I do not think it would be a great task for a reasonable ,decent lawyer to win this case.

So I really think the SA should be happy they have Baez.
Click to expand...

I do not see this as a flimsy case. The state has shown the jury that Caylee was DEAD in Casey's car trunk for a few days, while Casey was driving around in the car, and even using the trunk for other belongings. So she KNEW her dead child was decomposing in her trunk.

AND they have proven that she showed no grief or remorse, and in fact, behaved in a carefree, happy go lucky fashion within hours of the child's death. She admitted to being THERE while the child died, and within hours was on a movie date.

Her 'story' that her Dad took over the disposal will make no sense to the jury. WHY would he tell her that ' he would take care of it' ---and then put the body in Casey's car trunk? No one is going to believe that, imo.

So I do not see this case as being flimsy at all. They might not get the DP, but I do not think they expect to anyway. I think they are going to be happy with LWOP, which they can easily get with Aggravated Child Abuse ending in Death.

I looked at the Defense Witness list and it seems like it is going to be a 3 ring circus, centering on Roy Kronk and the Tes volunteers. NONE of that will have any impact upon that dead child rotting in her mommy's car trunk.

And the only way they can hope to 'prove' their lie about the child abuse is if they put Casey on the stand. They might just do that, but it is the fastest way to Death Row, imo.
 
RANCH said:
You said the DT does not have to share info with the state. I thought that this was a reciprocal discovery case. Maybe I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

No, you're correct Ranch. If the DT had some evidence that they wanted to use at trial, the time for that has passed. It would not be allowed in since they did not offer it as discovery. Both sides have the right to examine evidence, or question witnesses that are to be used in a trial.

Jose couldn't just walk into court with some evidence that only he knows about.
 
Jose and team took a three hour deposition from RK which is not in discovery. Won't it be difficult for Jose to question him without referring to that? :waitasec:

Seems like if they are planning to call him they would want all those allegedly incriminating details from that deposition on the record? I am confused how this will work for them. After that depo JB did make some comments that RK's stories were inconsistent... but if he doesn't have that depo in evidence I guess he can't use those inconsistencies...?
 
Just Jayla said:
There was a pretty big Hurricane that came through in Mid-August, the water was probably relatively deep. I agree with you that he could see the top, probably the eye sockets by the way he described thinking it was a novelty skull.
Click to expand...

The hurricane had no bearing on Kronk's personal observations in mid-August. It came later.

According to him, he did not think it was a novelty skull. He only offered that as a possible alternative but not one that he himself believed. If he did think that it was a novelty skull then he lied to OCSO. He told them that he had 99.999% certainty that it was a genuine human skull.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 157 more.
Total: 2,678 (members: 158, guests: 2,520)

Online statistics

Members online
158
Guests online
2,520
Total visitors
2,678
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,126
Messages
17,963,599
Members
228,689
Latest member
Melladanielle
Back
Top