2009.11.19 Defense files motion suggesting Kronk as the killer. #3

[cecybeans]

If a witness restating their memory of events in a different way is an automatic indicaction of potential guilt, then lets start at the top with the folks who did it the most - KC's parents, whose stories have changed faster and more often than anyone else. Or the defendant, who came up with two completely disparate and unverifiabale stories about how Caylee, the child admittedly in her own custody, "disappeared".

 

[Woe.be.gone]

Page 3383

I just thought of something. If Kronk saw a skull in August 2008 and the Defense is using that as a reason to blame him for Caylee's murder, then the Defense is not going with the angle that the body had been moved to Surburban Drive long after Caylee had been killed. Am I right? Because I seem to recall that that is a big debate too - that the body had been moved so somehow that meant KC is innocent. We have to start narrowing this down - too many ideas swimming around in my head.

Also, this would lead me to believe that the Defense has determined that the forensic evidence found at the discovery site would be too difficult to dispute - logical? or am I making too many assumptions?

 

[Wudge]

I've said numerous times in the last few days that I do not think Roy killed Caylee.

But he is certainly something for the defense to use to try to raise reasonable doubt.

Your second sentence is certainly true. Reasonable doubt can easily stem from Mr. Kronk's Swiss cheese style story, which is why I hold Judge Strickland must necessarily rule in favor of the motion.

 

[Hot Dogs]

I just thought of something. If Kronk saw a skull in August 2008 and the Defense is using that as a reason to blame him for Caylee's murder, then the Defense is not going with the angle that the body had been moved to Surburban Drive long after Caylee had been killed. Am I right? Because I seem to recall that that is a big debate too - that the body had been moved so somehow that meant KC is innocent. We have to start narrowing this down - too many ideas swimming around in my head.

The defense might say that RK was right about the body being there on Aug 11. Then go on to argue that the body was placed there some time between the day CA called 911 and Aug 11. That is, argue that KC could not have put the body there. Then go on to argue that RK may have been the one to put the body there.

Also, this would lead me to believe that the Defense has determined that the forensic evidence found at the discovery site would be too difficult to dispute - logical? or am I making too many assumptions?

I think they will dispute almost everything. Saying...

1. KC didn't harm Caylee.
2. KC didn't put Caylee in the woods.
3. Nothing found in the woods shows that KC was the person who put duct tape on Caylee.
4. KC has no idea who may have harmed Caylee.
Etc. etc.

Before anyone starts arguing with me... that list is what the defense would probably argue, not me.

 

[ZsaZsa]

I just thought of something. If Kronk saw a skull in August 2008 and the Defense is using that as a reason to blame him for Caylee's murder, then the Defense is not going with the angle that the body had been moved to Surburban Drive long after Caylee had been killed. Am I right? Because I seem to recall that that is a big debate too - that the body had been moved so somehow that meant KC is innocent. We have to start narrowing this down - too many ideas swimming around in my head.

Also, this would lead me to believe that the Defense has determined that the forensic evidence found at the discovery site would be too difficult to dispute - logical? or am I making too many assumptions?

They still can't get their lies straight. Too many to keep track of. They do seem to go in and out of time warps easily enough though. They got caught out on a similar story - Zanny leaving with Caylee in the Silver Ford Focus, which Zanny's father bought her AFTER the wreck which was WEEKS later.:laugh:

 

[Woe.be.gone]

Ask yourself this question, if your mother, father, brother, sister, wife, husband, or best friend was accused of the premeditated murder of a 2 year old child, what lengths do you think are acceptable for the defense to try to gain an acquittal? Prosecution wins and the death penalty is given, the execution is carried out, but even though a mountain of circumstantial evidence resulted in the conviction, in your heart of hearts you knew your loved one did not commit this murder, Ten years pass, modern technology improves, and the new technology exonerates your loved one who has already been executed. The results are the real killer is still on the streets, and your loved one has been wrongfully executed. Where in this scenario has justice been served for the murdered 2 year old? In my opinion, if my loved one was on trial for premeditated murder, I would want the attorney to use any legal means available to defend my loved one. If the attorney is brash, and hurts a persons feelings, sorry, my loved ones life is on the line here.

If RK is completely innocent of any wrongdoing regarding this case, he has nothing to worry about. The evidence will prove him innocent. If, as a result of this motion, he is investigated further by LE, and something comes of it, great. How is it wrong that the defense brought their suspicions of RK to light?

Are we questioning whether this motion is moral or ethical? If you were on trial, presuming you are innocent, how far would you allow your attorney to go to defend you?

This motion is the result of a team of lawyers, one of which has been called in because the states attorney reinstated the DP, doing a lot of work together. Anyone thinking this is a frivolous motion, or wishful thinking by the defense, is probably mistaken in my opinion. At the very least, should JS dismiss this motion, it will be used in the appeal, should the jury convict, IMO.

No, I would not like for anybody or myself to be falsely accused (when we are not guilty and there is no evidence against us) in order to save someone else's arse. There must be a better way. As far as saying that, if he is "innocent of any wrongdoing regarding the case, he has nothing to worry about", I don't think that is a fair assessment of the toll it would take on someone who is falsely accused. Two wrongs don't make a right and I would really be upset if I was used as a pawn offered up to create reasonable doubt. As a matter of fact, I would want to sue the Defense Lawyers. Is that allowed? Isn't there a law against false accusation, defamation of character and slander and all kinds of related topics such as these?

 

[Hot Dogs]

FWIW, here are a couple of news articles from February when Kronk was threatening to sue Padilla. Leonard was saying that RK was suspicious and probably part of an information daisy chain.


Roy Kronk Threatens To Sue Leonard Padilla

Meter reader who found Caylee's remains wants bounty hunter to back off

Kronk's attorney, David Evans, sent Padilla a letter last week to put the bounty hunter on notice: Be quiet or prepare for a potential legal fight.

"We are cataloging each and every false and defamatory statement you have made concerning Mr. Kronk and will be thoroughly reviewing your public statements," Evans wrote in the Feb. 20 letter.

"Even though your public statements are pure speculation, with absolutely no factual basis . . . they are taken by many who do not know better as being true," the lawyer wrote.

Orange County hired Evans to represent Kronk. Evans is earning $225 hourly -- about $100 less than his normal rate, according to the terms of his agreement with the county. The fee is capped at $10,000.

Padilla doesn't understand why his talk of Kronk is such a big deal.

It's no secret what he is doing, Padilla said.

He's simply looking into the circumstances of how Caylee's remains were found. He has spoken to some of Kronk's co-workers and relatives.

"Things just don't add up," he said about how Kronk discovered the remains.

See my bold. I didn't realize or had forgotten that way back in February LP had already talked to Kronk's co-workers and relatives.

 

[lisalei321]

Not literally, and it's only based on the way you worded your question.

Roy Kronk had already found Caylee Anthony on August 11th and he knew it. He knew it 99.999%.

I fully blame him for not doing enough to bring that fact to the attention of LE. I understand the problem that Cain caused - but yet I still blame Kronk for not doing more until December 11.

These are my opinions and feelings based upon everything I've read and heard so far.

BBM,

I fully believe that the majority of people out there will believe what LE tells them.

I grew up in a LE family, I know that most LEO are real people.

Most will not doubt when LE tells them that "this has been cleared", I also know that questioning a LEO will do nothing but tick them off (LEO).

I searched for Caylee, I hoped we would find her, am I the best witness for the SA, NO, I have issues, along with most of the real world population.

I think we are beating the dead horse again.

JMO, MOO, IMHO, etc...

 

[Just Jayla]

Thanks for the compliment. But I was not able to express my opinion adequately.

I don't see anything wrong with introducing such evidence in court. I think it was unnecessary to file a motion in limine to do it, in that such a motion I believe is used to exclude information to begin with. It was opportunistic, because it gave JB a hasty way to get this info out into the public instead of waiting until he had qualified immunity to do so in court, or until he had presented his "discovery" to the SA and they had the requisite time to review before it could be petitioned by the media per FL's Sunshine Law. It also circumvented the SA's own investigation and the chance to have had the opportunity to submit their own discovery on these "witnesses" who came forward to conduct a character assassination. Most people would agree that an angry ex might have a bone to pick with their former significant other that might include a murder allegation. I think it would have had more impact if the source had been more credible. It's hard to discredit a witness using a source even less reputable, imo. In court that would have been made apparent.

Be that as it may, the truly unethical element, to me, is that JB seems to have used filing this motion as a springboard to getting this into the news media by giving it an official stamp rather than admitting it was simply muckraking and an attempt to poison the jury. That is where I find the most fault in the action. Simply filing a motion saying RK was now a murder suspect is one thing - going on national TV within 24 hours to play the interview tapes - which look like simulated evidence to me - is totally another.

We have no idea how well LE did or did not investigate RK as we have not been privileged to full discovery on that. The fact JB uses this to claim LE did not is something that remains to be seen; he has already benefitted from making public an unsubstantiated claim, imo.

While you may think that, in the absence of the circumstantial evidence, KC and RK have an equal chance of committing the crime, I think you are overlooking important factors such as motive and opportunity. We have no evidence that RK was ever even near the Anthony home before Caylee disappeared (his first day meter reading was the day he phoned in the tip) or have any connection with KC or her family in any way. That is certainly not true of KC, whose own father was one of the last people who saw her alive and in her mother's company. We have plenty of evidence to suggest that KC had both. If you are basing RK's potential culpability on simply finding the body (and not questionable and unverified claims by biased third parties), then I still don't think that holds up to logic. If two people would be equally suspect in the death of a little girl (and proximity was the same, which it is not) - I would still tend to favor the one who came forward with information over the one who obstructed justice by refusing to be truthful, carried on like she was burden-free afterward, made disparaging remarks about her child before and after she disappeared and whose own parents admitted she lied and stole from family and friends and was ultimately responsible for the well-being of this child. Sorry, I just can't see them on equal footing even without the forensics and other circumstantial evidence. Proximity and access have to count for something and that has not been established for RK in the least.

Cecy, this is why I love your posts....sometimes I ask legal questions and feel I might be getting either the defensive or the prosecutorial spin in the answers that I read here....and I understand that this is probably how lawyers are educated and they are imparting their experienced opinions, and some people are not here to teach me, they are here to state their perspective....but the answer above gives me a more complete picture of the art of the legal sport and the rest of the picture re: this motion.

Since we are sleuthing here and all facts are important, I really appreciate it when our fine counselors just tell us like it is. If you tell me the state is doing something for the purpose of implementing XYZ plan, I think that's great, same for the defense....I don't think the SA or the defense will rely on our atty's to learn law, so I believe it is safe to tell us the real deal on all of these motions.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

BBBBBBBWWWWWWAAAAAAAAHHHAAAAAAAAA.

Sorry, I may have already typed this opinion....we knew this was coming. Next candidate will be DC some of you think?? Hmmm, that could be, although I still think George is a strong candidate. JMO.

I'm just putting this down for the record (mine, I guess) in case anything ever comes of it. Way before I ever joined WS based on the very early T.V. coverage, I have felt this (GA) a real possibility. Once I joined here many other theories and avenues have been explored, and I noticed the majority of people always seemed to think that GA is the most honest, GA is the only A telling the truth, GA is the poor downtrodden soul in the family, I began thinking (as usual) that I am one alternative thinker. I kept asking myself, why do I suspect someone who no one else seems to be looking at closely? I've gone down other paths (CA for one as far as knowing the whole story) but could never shake my ill feelings regarding GA. Obviously, feelings are not a reliable source and do not stand up in court. Just putting my thoughts out here since we are in a conversation about accusing people. Luckily what I say cannot put someone behind bars.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

Thanks for the compliment. But I was not able to express my opinion adequately.

I don't see anything wrong with introducing such evidence in court. I think it was unnecessary to file a motion in limine to do it, in that such a motion I believe is used to exclude information to begin with. It was opportunistic, because it gave JB a hasty way to get this info out into the public instead of waiting until he had qualified immunity to do so in court, or until he had presented his "discovery" to the SA and they had the requisite time to review before it could be petitioned by the media per FL's Sunshine Law. It also circumvented the SA's own investigation and the chance to have had the opportunity to submit their own discovery on these "witnesses" who came forward to conduct a character assassination. Most people would agree that an angry ex might have a bone to pick with their former significant other that might include a murder allegation. I think it would have had more impact if the source had been more credible. It's hard to discredit a witness using a source even less reputable, imo. In court that would have been made apparent.

Be that as it may, the truly unethical element, to me, is that JB seems to have used filing this motion as a springboard to getting this into the news media by giving it an official stamp rather than admitting it was simply muckraking and an attempt to poison the jury. That is where I find the most fault in the action. Simply filing a motion saying RK was now a murder suspect is one thing - going on national TV within 24 hours to play the interview tapes - which look like simulated evidence to me - is totally another.

We have no idea how well LE did or did not investigate RK as we have not been privileged to full discovery on that. The fact JB uses this to claim LE did not is something that remains to be seen; he has already benefitted from making public an unsubstantiated claim, imo.

While you may think that, in the absence of the circumstantial evidence, KC and RK have an equal chance of committing the crime, I think you are overlooking important factors such as motive and opportunity. We have no evidence that RK was ever even near the Anthony home before Caylee disappeared (his first day meter reading was the day he phoned in the tip) or have any connection with KC or her family in any way. That is certainly not true of KC, whose own father was one of the last people who saw her alive and in her mother's company. We have plenty of evidence to suggest that KC had both. If you are basing RK's potential culpability on simply finding the body (and not questionable and unverified claims by biased third parties), then I still don't think that holds up to logic. If two people would be equally suspect in the death of a little girl (and proximity was the same, which it is not) - I would still tend to favor the one who came forward with information over the one who obstructed justice by refusing to be truthful, carried on like she was burden-free afterward, made disparaging remarks about her child before and after she disappeared and whose own parents admitted she lied and stole from family and friends and was ultimately responsible for the well-being of this child. Sorry, I just can't see them on equal footing even without the forensics and other circumstantial evidence. Proximity and access have to count for something and that has not been established for RK in the least.

So, basically in a nutshell, in words not so much used in the legal world, it is your opinion that the defense is playing dirty pool, you think its unethical, and you don’t like the way they are playing. Also it is your opinion that the evidence against Casey is far greater than the evidence against RK. If this is your opinion in simple terms, then I think I understand what your opinion is, if I am incorrect I do apologize and ask you to correct me. I do like the way you express yourself, and your arguments are very good.

Keeping the terms simple, the motion is valid, in my opinion, and since I think it is valid, I don’t believe the defense is falsely accusing RK of anything.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

No, I would not like for anybody or myself to be falsely accused (when we are not guilty and there is no evidence against us) in order to save someone else's arse. There must be a better way. As far as saying that, if he is "innocent of any wrongdoing regarding the case, he has nothing to worry about", I don't think that is a fair assessment of the toll it would take on someone who is falsely accused. Two wrongs don't make a right and I would really be upset if I was used as a pawn offered up to create reasonable doubt. As a matter of fact, I would want to sue the Defense Lawyers. Is that allowed? Isn't there a law against false accusation, defamation of character and slander and all kinds of related topics such as these?

I agree that two wrongs don't make a right, but it is my opinion that the defense has a valid motion here. Since I feel they have a valid motion, I don't think they are falsely accusing RK.

 

[Just Jayla]

I'm just putting this down for the record (mine, I guess) in case anything ever comes of it. Way before I ever joined WS based on the very early T.V. coverage, I have felt this (GA) a real possibility. Once I joined here many other theories and avenues have been explored, and I noticed the majority of people always seemed to think that GA is the most honest, GA is the only A telling the truth, GA is the poor downtrodden soul in the family, I began thinking (as usual) that I am one alternative thinker. I kept asking myself, why do I suspect someone who no one else seems to be looking at closely? I've gone down other paths (CA for one as far as knowing the whole story) but could never shake my ill feelings regarding GA. Obviously, feelings are not a reliable source and do not stand up in court. Just putting my thoughts out here since we are in a conversation about accusing people. Luckily what I say cannot put someone behind bars.

I was with you, until I listened to his jail visit with KC....He is a good actor if he is lying, cause he seems to be concerned about Caylee, though not all together comfortable having a one on one with his daughter. I just got the feeling that he really did care about Caylee, that part was easy for him to do emotionally...but being alone with the daughter he does not see eye-to-eye with was weird for him. I just didn't see any wink-wink relationship between him and KC.

 

[Just Jayla]

I agree that two wrongs don't make a right, but it is my opinion that the defense has a valid motion here. Since I feel they have a valid motion, I don't think they are falsely accusing RK.

In order for this motion to pass muster, does the defense need to get into such detail as how RK got a living Caylee in his custody? What are the elements that JS will be looking for to grant this motion?

 

[Kentjbkent]

FWIW, here are a couple of news articles from February when Kronk was threatening to sue Padilla. Leonard was saying that RK was suspicious and probably part of an information daisy chain.


Roy Kronk Threatens To Sue Leonard Padilla

Meter reader who found Caylee's remains wants bounty hunter to back off




See my bold. I didn't realize or had forgotten that way back in February LP had already talked to Kronk's co-workers and relatives.

Link to actual document of letter sent by attorney to Leonard Padilla

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/4453889...yers-Letter-to-Leonard-Padilla-on-Feb-20-2009

An identical letter is in docs from attorney to Jose Baez.

 

[Steel]

I just thought of something. If Kronk saw a skull in August 2008 and the Defense is using that as a reason to blame him for Caylee's murder, then the Defense is not going with the angle that the body had been moved to Surburban Drive long after Caylee had been killed. Am I right? Because I seem to recall that that is a big debate too - that the body had been moved so somehow that meant KC is innocent. We have to start narrowing this down - too many ideas swimming around in my head.

Also, this would lead me to believe that the Defense has determined that the forensic evidence found at the discovery site would be too difficult to dispute - logical? or am I making too many assumptions?

No assumptions from where I sit. In reality, the defense is doing the only thing they can - muddy the waters. Is it right? No. But remember, they still only need one juror to question any one of the many things the defense will throw out there, and they will have done their job. Sad...really

 

[Steel]

So, basically in a nutshell, in words not so much used in the legal world, it is your opinion that the defense is playing dirty pool, you think its unethical, and you don’t like the way they are playing. Also it is your opinion that the evidence against Casey is far greater than the evidence against RK. If this is your opinion in simple terms, then I think I understand what your opinion is, if I am incorrect I do apologize and ask you to correct me. I do like the way you express yourself, and your arguments are very good.

Keeping the terms simple, the motion is valid, in my opinion, and since I think it is valid, I don’t believe the defense is falsely accusing RK of anything.

The defense is doing what the defense is supposed to do. Whether the motion is valid or not will be decided in court by Judge Strickland.

But....JB and AL taking the road to promote these conspiracy theories borders on dirty-pool (aka jury tainting).

However...there is slim chance of any juror, upon hearing the actual evidence, believing that the circumstantial evidence regarding RK is as compelling as the circumstantial evidence surrounding CA.

IMHO, of course

 

[BeanE]

...but just curious as to what this has to do with him being the killer?

And we'll never know if he was 100% sure it was Caylee so I guess we can only hope the next time he'll do it better.

We know, RR. We know he was not 100% sure. Even on Dec 11, none of us were 100% sure. Even LE was not 100% sure.

And Roy wasn't even 99.9999% sure in August. Because listen to his interview with LE regarding Dec 11. He was praying it wasn't Caylee. Heck he was praying it wasn't a skull. It wasn't until he saw the eye sockets he even knew it was a skull. But he still didn't know it was Caylee. Nobody did. Except Casey.

ETA: I linked to the wrong darn document. Here is the document I meant to link to:
http://www.cfnews13.com/uploadedFiles/Stories/Local/gibson and kronk.pdf
Page 19, beginning at line 2

:moo:

 

[Woe.be.gone]

Wudge, I'll give my opinion on this matter FWIW. Nobody can accuse me of not paying attention to the Kronk thing, as probably 20% of my posts were/are about him and the details of the August discovery and the December one.

I think Kronk said he saw a skull sticking out of the water on August 11th because he did see that. The skull was no longer inside any bag at this point in time. I think he called a black plastic trash bag a "grey bag" because he couldn't tell exactly what color it was in the water.

On December 11th, he came upon the same remains which were now arranged differently. One of the black bags was now covering the skull, but the skull was not inside the bag. When he initially said that the skull fell out of the bag, he was using a figure-of-speech and it was not literally correct. The CSI examined the disposition of the skull and declared that it could not have fallen out of the bag because it could not have been inside the bag. At that point everyone (including Kronk) learned that he was wrong concerning the "fell out" part. In his OCSO interview (linked above) he even says that he knew it didn't fall out but that his nervous anxiety caused him to say that in error.

IMO: On Aug 11 the skull was outside of any bag and was visible to the naked eye from 4-6 feet away. On Dec 11 the skull was still outside of any bag, but was concealed beneath a bag.

Wait a minute - I could swear that on Dec 11 the skull was at the base of the tree in section ? (4) facing something west and NOT covered by any bag. I will research and correct or confirm my memory later as I want to catch up with this thread if it is humanly possible (for a slow reader such as myself!).

 

[Kentjbkent]

In order for this motion to pass muster, does the defense need to get into such detail as how RK got a living Caylee in his custody? What are the elements that JS will be looking for to grant this motion?

That is a very good question! Can these allegations by ex-wife, son, step daughter, actually be considered "prior bad acts" if there is no proof that they actually occurred??

As of right now, without police reports, convictions, etc aren't they simply allegations that have not been deemed as actual "prior bad acts" but instead a he said/she said situation?

If a prosecution witness states during the trial that KC told them that she has beaten Caylee in the past, can that be considered a "prior bad act" (simply because the witness states it as so) even though there has been absolutely no evidence that KC was physically abusive to Caylee?