2009.11.19 Defense Files Motion suggesting Kronk as Killer #4

[Searchfortruth]

Originally Posted by notthatsmart

I am compiling a list of the mountain of circumstantial evidence to show that Rk should be investigated. I have about 14 items so far and am looking for the links.

But if you have a link showing that Rk was not the A's meter reader. I need to see that. In his 911 calls he states that he has the Anthony Route. I base my opinion on my interpretation of the fact. Everything I say is of my opinion.

I will be very interested in seeing those "links" whenever you are able to provide them. I am speaking of the links to the mountain of circumstantial evidence to show that Roy K. should be investigated. TIA.

[notthatsmart]

Originally Posted by Harmony2

(Responding to BBM)

On page 7 of the link it says that Roy's timesheet and detailed log of when Roy worked at the Suburban area were acquired from the District Manager for Orange County Public Works, Tim Armstrong.

http://www.momlogic.com/cdn/v3/pdf/c...ves_report.pdf

NTS already knows this information, it was posted on another thread...

I acknowledge that I have this information. I may interpret the facts differently than others though. Rk did indeed state that aug 11th was the first time on suburban. And Ym did indeed state that he acquired Roy's timesheet and detailed log. But Sa has not provided us with that record. So it is still up for interpretation. I find it disturbing when SA holds back information.

[LambChop]

Originally Posted by Harmony2

(Responding to BBM)

On page 7 of the link it says that Roy's timesheet and detailed log of when Roy worked at the Suburban area were acquired from the District Manager for Orange County Public Works, Tim Armstrong.

http://www.momlogic.com/cdn/v3/pdf/c...ves_report.pdf

NTS already knows this information, it was posted on another thread...

NTS, this may be the information you are looking for.

[sleutherontheside]

Originally Posted by notthatsmart

I acknowledge that I have this information. I may interpret the facts differently than others though. Rk did indeed state that aug 11th was the first time on suburban. And Ym did indeed state that he acquired Roy's timesheet and detailed log. But Sa has not provided us with that record. So it is still up for interpretation. I find it disturbing when SA holds back information.

The SA does not have to offer up anything that the defense does not request from them in discovery. I am sure that there is lots of info that both sides have that we haven't seen because the documents are either not going to be used at trial, or the other side has them too. The only thing the SA has to release is discovery requested.

[TorisMom003]

I find it disturbing when the defense tries to throw anyone and everyone under the bus so that the guilty party (IMO) can get a chance to walk free. The defense has made claims that they have "proof" as to Casey's innocence. I find it disturbing that the defense is holding back that information. I'm sure that Casey would much rather prefer to be out of jail if she is indeed innocent and has said proof. The SA is not required to provide us with everything they have until the trial. We may not like it but that's the way it is. Some things are better left to the professionals such as those photos. I don't think that any photos of Caylee's body or remains should be put out in the public.

JMO

[LambChop]

Originally Posted by notthatsmart

I acknowledge that I have this information. I may interpret the facts differently than others though. Rk did indeed state that aug 11th was the first time on suburban. And Ym did indeed state that he acquired Roy's timesheet and detailed log. But Sa has not provided us with that record. So it is still up for interpretation. I find it disturbing when SA holds back information.

I do not believe an interpretation is necessary when it has been stated in a formal criminal investigation that RK's records were reviewed. He is not a suspect. He is under no obligation to provide that information to anyone other than LE. Even the A's don't believe him to be a suspect.

[Novice Seeker]

Originally Posted by RainyGirl

I agree with you, Novice Seeker, and wanted to bump this post in appreciation of your thoughtful words. Thank you!


Please forgive this very OT thought---and remove if neccessary--but I am curious to know how a poster somehow returns to posting after being "banned"???? I have been admittedly busy in sugerplum land (and this question does not relate to me, personally), but how does this happen?? Thanks in advance....

I've been away for the holidays so I'm not sure what or who you're referring to.

Novice Seeker

[notthatsmart]

Originally Posted by sleutherontheside

The SA does not have to offer up anything that the defense does not request from them in discovery. I am sure that there is lots of info that both sides have that we haven't seen because the documents are either not going to be used at trial, or the other side has them too. The only thing the SA has to release is discovery requested.

I am sure the defense asked for the detailed Rk employment records. I understand that Sa does not have to give it out to the public. I am not sure why they have a sunshine law if they don't have to give out records that they have acquired.Moo

[Turnadot]

Originally Posted by Searchfortruth

I will be very interested in seeing those "links" whenever you are able to provide them. I am speaking of the links to the mountain of circumstantial evidence to show that Roy K. should be investigated. TIA.

Me too, NTS. I'm very interested in this mountain of evidence against Kronk.

[Turnadot]

Originally Posted by notthatsmart

I acknowledge that I have this information. I may interpret the facts differently than others though. Rk did indeed state that aug 11th was the first time on suburban. And Ym did indeed state that he acquired Roy's timesheet and detailed log. But Sa has not provided us with that record. So it is still up for interpretation. I find it disturbing when SA holds back information.

BBM.

The 'facts' stand on their own, imo.

[LambChop]

Originally Posted by notthatsmart

I am sure the defense asked for the detailed Rk employment records. I understand that Sa does not have to give it out to the public. I am not sure why they have a sunshine law if they don't have to give out records that they have acquired.Moo

Could it be because he is not a suspect and the records have nothing whatsoever to do with the crime?

[BeanE]

Originally Posted by sleutherontheside

The SA does not have to offer up anything that the defense does not request from them in discovery. I am sure that there is lots of info that both sides have that we haven't seen because the documents are either not going to be used at trial, or the other side has them too. The only thing the SA has to release is discovery requested.

Sleuther, I'm not sure about that. It's my understanding that in discovery, the SA has to turn over all documentation to the defense, whether they're going to use it at trial or not, and whether it's inculpatory or exculpatory. And that the defense doesn't request it, because the defense would not know what to request (doesn't know what exactly the SA has).

I think you might be thinking of the media. A member of the media does have to request discovery documents or they aren't released to them (and from them to us).

I think there are a couple posts in Richard Hornsby's thread on this.

[notthatsmart]

Originally Posted by LambChop

Could it be because he is not a suspect and the records have nothing whatsoever to do with the crime?

How do you think the Judge will rule on this motion? I agree he was not a suspect in Dec 08, but now that we have his inconsistent statements and his ex wives and son statements, the judge may rule for the defense here. It appears to me to be a brilliant motion by the defense. It has taken the decision to investigate Rk out of SA hands and put it into the Judges hands. Does anyone have any idea when the Judge will rule on this motion?

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/19341482/detail.html

Also Dec 11th interview and Dec 17th interview.

[sleutherontheside]

Just found this info....BeanE, I may have been too broad. THanks for the reminder I believe this attached snippet regarding SSL covers Kronks timecards as he is a WITNESS and NOT a party in the case.

SSL.JPG

[LambChop]

Originally Posted by BeanE

Sleuther, I'm not sure about that. It's my understanding that in discovery, the SA has to turn over all documentation to the defense, whether they're going to use it at trial or not, and whether it's inculpatory or exculpatory. And that the defense doesn't request it, because the defense would not know what to request (doesn't know what exactly the SA has).

I think you might be thinking of the media. A member of the media does have to request discovery documents or they aren't released to them (and from them to us).

I think there are a couple posts in Richard Hornsby's thread on this.

Question. If it is mentioned that the records were reviewed and nothing was found to discredit RK's statement in the discovery report that was given to the defense does SA have to actually provide the defense with that record or is it up to the defense to ask for it? The discovery document does mention the review of the report so would defense have to subpoena that information or just ask SA to provide the report to them?

[RR0004]

Originally Posted by notthatsmart

I don't think anyone is blaming Rk. They are just asking for an investigation in to him as a suspect.

A lot of perps do not know their victims.

Justice for Caylee is to look into this for the defense who is equal respected officers of the court. Anything they say, should be highly regaurded as aslo with SA.

Well...Jose's PI did look into him...and what did we get...doctored video. I see desperation on the part of the defense and poor Kronk (in their minds) is the fall guy. They're looking for "just enough" to create reasonable doubt...nothing else IMO. I find their claim incredulous. That's why it's fallen with a resounding thud.

[BeanE]

Originally Posted by notthatsmart

I am sure the defense asked for the detailed Rk employment records. I understand that Sa does not have to give it out to the public. I am not sure why they have a sunshine law if they don't have to give out records that they have acquired.Moo

Hi, nts. The defense doesn't have to request - the SA is obligated to turn over all documentation. If the defense comes to find out that the SA has certain documentation, and if they feel the SA is done with their investigation, they can file a motion to compel discovery to force the SA to turn it over. If the SA isn't done with their investigation, they don't have to turn it over to the defense.

The SA does have to release any documentation they have already given to the defense, but only if a member of the media requests it. Of course, the SA is not allowed to release to the media anything that's sealed.

Our poster Muzikman is able to request documents that have been released. He's been able to get hold of a few pieces of documentation that were either not requested by other media or not published by other media. You could ask him if he could check to see if he has RK's records in in his documentation collection, or search his posts in this forum, or search his docstoc collection on the web.

I'm not an expert on any of that, but I've had to go looking for obscure documentation, and that's my understanding. Hope it helps.

[notthatsmart]

Originally Posted by sleutherontheside

As far as discovery........if it is not used in the case then it is not subject to SSL. If the state were to release every single doc......we would be overwhelmed with fax cover pages and other needless info. If the defense wants it from the SA...it is covered under SSl...if the SA wants it from the defense...it is covered under SSL. If they already have it on both sides, then the purpose and scope of SSL does not apply. The SSL were put into place to ensure a transparent and fair government process, not to satisfy the publics curiosity. I suppose if an individual wanted particular info about Kronk's timecards yet the SA and defense both have them, they could ask, but the request may not be granted until after trial. The round and round about SA holding back evidence is fine if there is a specific theory you have that timecards would support. Without knowing the theory or basis for your concerns about "evidence" being held it just seems like a pointless argument. So regarding the timecards.....what do you think they show that is noteworthy?? In your opinion of course.

Rk stated that he had that route Aug 11th Nov 11th and Dec 11th. Ym stated after acquiring Rk detailed records and time cards that he thought Rk was out there in Sept or Oct. One of them is wrong. Those detailed records could easily clear up this inconsistency for me. I am sure the defense has these records, but I just don't see why we can't have them. I also want to make sure RK was not working that area on Oct 9th when the two 911 calls came in about a screaming child and the witnesses pointed North west directly toward the remains. I came to my opinion after reading the facts. MOO

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/19341482/detail.html

[Kimster]

If anyone has a concern about time outs or banning, please contact a member of the Mod Squad privately and do not disrupt threads.

Thanks!

ETA: Remember we do NOT discuss members with other members either on threads or privately. If you want general info on TOs and Banning, contact us. Just wanted to clear that up.

[thedeviledadvocate]

Originally Posted by JBean

Thank you NTS for gathering back up for your information. I admit do not have a handle on the information that may support RK as a viable suspect and look forward to your compilation.
I consider RK to represent the doubt factor but that is all.

I agree with you that the defense will be trying to use RK to represent the doubt factor in this case.

Do I think RK is guilty of the murder of Caylee? NO. Do I think KC is guilty of the premeditated murder of Caylee? NO. Do I think LE should have thoroughly investigated KC? Yes. Do I think LE should thoroughly investigate RK? Yes
Because LE’s investigation of KC has not provided the answers to the questions Where was Caylee killed, How was Caylee killed, When was Caylee killed, Why was Caylee killed. And although the SA has indicted KC for premeditated murder, the evidence that we know of leaves me with reasonable doubt at this time, so I do not think LE has the answer to Who murdered Caylee, or even if anyone murdered Caylee.(I still think an accidental death is a possibility)

I am fully aware that LE and the SA suspect Caylee was murdered on the 16th of June or soon thereafter, that Caylee had been in the trunk of the Pontiac for around 2.6 days, that KC’s actions for the 31 days prior to the 911 call from CA provides answers to Why Caylee was killed, and the duct tape indicates How Caylee was killed. The media hypes this all to be proven facts, and has been instrumental in persuading the majority of the public to formulate the opinion that KC is indeed guilty of the charges. It is easy to understand why most people believe KC is guilty. However, none of the above has been proven to be fact in a court of law, nor has it been cross examined by the defense team. If one piece of evidence could be definitive, then I would join the majority. One piece of definitive evidence would corroborate the mountain of circumstantial evidence. To my knowledge there are many pieces of evidence that would be that one piece of definitive evidence, if they could be proven as fact, instead of proven to be possibilities. For example, the duct tape, the decomp in the trunk, the smell of death, the hair with the alleged death band, to name a few. An example of what I personally would find as a definitive piece of evidence would be if they had found KC’s fingerprints on the sticky side of the duct tape found on Caylee’s remains, Or if the FBI had said the hair found in the trunk of the pontiac was definitely Caylee’s and definitely had a death band on it therefore Caylee was definitely deceased while she was in the trunk. Or even if the forensic reports would say it was ADIPOCERE on the napkins, or there was Caylee’s blood or human decomp in the trunk. Any one of those would convince me, if any one was definitive, instead of questionable. Yes, each of these are reasonably possible, however, there are other reasonable possibilities to each of these. For example the decomp in the trunk COULD have been from a decomposition event that was not from human origin. My apologies for this long winded explanation of why I think the circumstantial evidence against KC is no stronger than the circumstantial evidence against RK. All of the above is why I think that LE made a good decision in investigating KC. What follows will be why I think it would be a good decision by LE to investigate RK thoroughly.

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/19341482/detail.html
YM said to RK on page 5615 if someone were to ask you why you didn’t call that afternoon while you were standing there if you thought it was a skull, what would your reaction to that be?
RK Well, it, it , like I said it looked like a skull to me. I was like ninety-nine point nine, nine, nine percent sure it was a skull. And but you know, Dave tells me I’m crazy. And honestly, it was a hot day. I just wanted to go home. I just wanted to take a shower. I wanted to you know, like drink a soda, relax, get in the pool.
Page 5620
EE says to RK From the timeframe that you knew you probably saw a skull, to when you went back in there uh, in December……if asked why that big window exists that you didn’t do something else to draw attention to it, what would you say?
RK Uh, I had real things on my mind. My car blew up, I had to replace it, Ok? Uh I had just started a relationship with my son after uh, eighteen years of not seeing him. Alright, I got insurance to pay. I have to pay my parents back. I had to go out and find a car. I think we spent all Memorial weekend, all three days out trying to find me a car. I had real things to do ok.
EE So on a scale of one to ten, and lets even use the percentage. What was the percentage of belief that that was a human skull in there? If you had to go back to when you first saw it, what percentage are we at?
RK A hundred percent.
Page 5622
RK I saw to me what distinctly looked like a skull again under a bag, or you know, in a bag, under a bag, I don’t know. I just saw over top of this thing.
Page 5623
EE Now, lets use the percentage thing again. What percentage do you think that this was the same area where you made the observation back in August?
RK Not fifty, maybe.
Page 5628
RK Uh, you know what, if you want to hear the greedy, materialistic, pig side of me. At the time there was a two hundred and thirty uh five thousand dollar reward. If I thought you know like I said, I thought it was a skull, why the hell would I call anybody and tell them oh, you want two hundred and thirty five thousand dollars? Go over there and pick it up, you know? So…
EE but the same could be asked there as well like If you knew that money was available why wouldn’t you go back there and persist or would you stop
RK Because the cop pissed me off.
These statements from RK are bothersome to me, and make me suspicious of RK. The situation that causes the most suspicion about RK was the situation where the cop pissed him off. At that point in time, with an officer less than 10 feet from where the remains were ultimately found, and RK being 100 percent sure there was a skull there on August 13th, to not just walk over (snakes be damned, water be damned) the 10 feet or less and pick up the bag and PROVE to the officer that you were 100 percent correct and this is a skull, to me is just unbelievably suspicious.

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/21674736/detail.html

Now you take the motion made by the defense, with all their reasoning and testimony they provided, and you add the inconsistencies in the statements that RK made to the police in various interviews. This looks to be quite a bit of circumstantial evidence that RK may be guilty of something. Just as all the circumstantial evidence there is that KC may be guilty of something. I believe the motion made by the defense is valid, not ridiculous. I think the defense will not have a problem impeaching RK on the stand. The defense does not have to prove RK abducted and killed Caylee, they need only prove it may be possible. The question often asked is how did RK abduct Caylee, and although I do not have the answer, I pose this question, How does any abductor who never knew his victim prior to the abduction abduct the victim? The question Why would RK involve himself in the finding of Caylee if he was the abductor? I pose the question Why does any abductor involve themselves in a case where they are the abductor? I don’t know the answers, but I do know it has happened. RK said his car blew up and he had to get a new car. Based on the inconsistencies of his statements to police, and the defense motion, would it not be normal police work to check RK’s story about his car blowing up. The defense may suggest he had to get rid of the car because Caylee’s remains had been in there at one point in time. The testimony provided in the motion suggests RK had used duct tape, had displayed inappropriate behavior towards a minor, and once was accused of kidnapping. By itself, since the kidnapping charge was expunged, and the rest is hearsay, it may not mean anything, but when you add it to RK saying he had reconnected his relationship with his son, had made so many inconsistent statements, and is not the boy scout we once thought he was, then I think there is enough circumstantial evidence to warrant doing a serious investigation on RK.
It is possible, and likely that LE has already done a serious investigation on RK, and we have just not been made aware of it. If they have, that’s great. Then, in court the prosecution will have no trouble shooting down any accusations thrown towards RK by the defense. If, however, the defense manages to convince the jury that it is possible that RK may have been involved and the prosecution doesn’t manage to shoot down that possibility, it will weaken the prosecutions circumstantial case against KC. If I am not mistaken in a circumstantial case like this, if the defense can show circumstances that somebody else could have committed the crime, then the jury will have reasonable doubt, and will not be able to convict KC

There are more circumstances involving RK that I do not have the links for at hand, however, even without these additional circumstances, based on all of the above paragraphs I have formulated the opinion that this motion by the defense is a valid motion, and that it would be a good idea for LE to thoroughly investigate RK if they have not already done so. As always my entire post is moo.

[RR0004]

Originally Posted by notthatsmart

I acknowledge that I have this information. I may interpret the facts differently than others though. Rk did indeed state that aug 11th was the first time on suburban. And Ym did indeed state that he acquired Roy's timesheet and detailed log. But Sa has not provided us with that record. So it is still up for interpretation. I find it disturbing when SA holds back information.

He's not a suspect...therefore he has a right to privacy.

[LambChop]

Originally Posted by sleutherontheside

As far as discovery........if it is not used in the case then it is not subject to SSL. If the state were to release every single doc......we would be overwhelmed with fax cover pages and other needless info. If the defense wants it from the SA...it is covered under SSl...if the SA wants it from the defense...it is covered under SSL. If they already have it on both sides, then the purpose and scope of SSL does not apply. The SSL were put into place to ensure a transparent and fair government process, not to satisfy the publics curiosity. I suppose if an individual wanted particular info about Kronk's timecards yet the SA and defense both have them, they could ask, but the request may not be granted until after trial. The round and round about SA holding back evidence is fine if there is a specific theory you have that timecards would support. Without knowing the theory or basis for your concerns about "evidence" being held it just seems like a pointless argument. So regarding the timecards.....what do you think they show that is noteworthy?? In your opinion of course.

Thanks sleutherontheside, you answered my question. Isn't RK's timecard private information? I would think defense has already considered RK's timecard and feel there is nothing they can use.

To answer NTS question, RK's past has nothing to do with this crime, nothing. If defense really had something they would not have released the ex-wife's video's to the public, they would have gone straight to SA and done the depositions properly. Every day that passes RK become less "bus worthy". I believe the A's attorney made that statement to the media about RK because the A's realize they will be the next one's defending themselves against their daughter. JMO

[Turnadot]

Originally Posted by notthatsmart

How do you think the Judge will rule on this motion? I agree he was not a suspect in Dec 08, but now that we have his inconsistent statements and his ex wives and son statements, the judge may rule for the defense here. It appears to me to be a brilliant motion by the defense. It has taken the decision to investigate Rk out of SA hands and put it into the Judges hands. Does anyone have any idea when the Judge will rule on this motion?

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/19341482/detail.html

Also Dec 11th interview and Dec 17th interview.

I'm both amused and appalled by Team Beaz, to be quite honest.

All this indicates is that Kronk isn't husband/father/person of the year. Nothing more; nothing less. Team Beaz are clutching for something - anything, and I think the judge will not rule in favour of the defense. Showing that Kronk isn't a saint, doesn't make him a viable suspect.

[RR0004]

Originally Posted by notthatsmart

I am sure the defense asked for the detailed Rk employment records. I understand that Sa does not have to give it out to the public. I am not sure why they have a sunshine law if they don't have to give out records that they have acquired.Moo

Go ahead and request them.

[notthatsmart]

Originally Posted by BeanE

Hi, nts. The defense doesn't have to request - the SA is obligated to turn over all documentation. If the defense comes to find out that the SA has certain documentation, and if they feel the SA is done with their investigation, they can file a motion to compel discovery to force the SA to turn it over. If the SA isn't done with their investigation, they don't have to turn it over to the defense.

The SA does have to release any documentation they have already given to the defense, but only if a member of the media requests it. Of course, the SA is not allowed to release to the media anything that's sealed.

Our poster Muzikman is able to request documents that have been released. He's been able to get hold of a few pieces of documentation that were either not requested by other media or not published by other media. You could ask him if he could check to see if he has RK's records in in his documentation collection, or search his posts in this forum, or search his docstoc collection on the web.

I'm not an expert on any of that, but I've had to go looking for obscure documentation, and that's my understanding. Hope it helps.

Thank you very much. This is very helpful. I will contact Muzikman. Have a good New Years.