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

[Woe.be.gone]

Oh that list isn't complete. It's much more wild that that even. Two words...

Sexy Bomb

What am I missing? I don't get it. (okay laugh at me - I'm not this sophisticated I guess.)

 

[BeanE]

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.

I'm not sure how to take that, Hot Dogs. Do you mean that you think the jurors are likely to be less intelligent than you? Less able to reason? Not as logical?

In other words, if it doesn't play for you, how is it you think it's a viable reasonable alternative explanation for the defense to present to the jurors?

 

[Steel]

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.

What if the defense presents it's case, and then the state presents it's case (including LE's detailed investigation of RK), and he makes a determination to dismiss? Does this automatically create grounds for appeal just because the motion was dismissed?

If JS dismisses, it will be because he feels that the items brought in the motion are a) not relevant to the case; b) relevant only to the point that LE did not investigate enough; or c) while the witness statements may be true, they have absolutely no relevance in this trial.

My humble opinion is C.

 

[Steel]

Snipped:
Originally Posted by Leila
If RK is a suspect.................how did the Anthony family know where to send their private investigator to search..........a month before the remains were found?

IMO..............the Anthonys had the information on the general location of Caylee's remains. They obtained that information either directly or indirectly from Casey. They told the PI where to search. They were on a quest to find the remains before anyone else did.

If, and it's a big if, Dominic Casey blows open the search effort in his upcoming deposition, then the whole RK issue becomes moot. Man up Dominic, man up and tell the truth.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

Respectfully snipped by me. This is the real heart of the matter, isn't it? And an age old question, at that.

It reminded me of the judgement of Solomon. To find which of the two women who claimed to be the mother of a baby, he ruled to cut the baby in half and give each woman a fair share. The real mother revealed herself by begging that the baby not be killed but be allowed to go with the other woman.

While Solomon was able to recognize the real mother by her compassion, I don't think that was necessarily the only pearl of wisdom he illustrated. I think it also looks to the eagerness of the false mother to have been satisfied with a dead child. . .

In my eyes, I think it's very possible to stay within the letter of the law but entirely miss the intent. It looks to me that Casey's team will be joyfully "splitting" many "babies" before they are finished. It makes my heart heavy to know that this is not only an accepted legal practice but one that is so successful that there are people who deliver lectures on how to best dissect those babies. Sadly moo.

This is kind of a bad example to apply to this case though isn't it?

Solomon's test and his conclusion that stemmed from it is the exact reason some people have a hard time believing that KC (or any of the other notorious women who are known to have killed their children) could have killed Caylee. It is the reaction that we would hope to see come out of a Mother but, sadly, it is not always the case. :furious:

(I may be missing your point though, if so, I'm sorry.)

 

[Sdavidson11]

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 agree with the funny feeling that I just can't put my finger on about GA. I consider myself hyper-sensitive at times and not trusting people just because they are eloquent speakers. I also wanted to add while discussing folks to throw under the bus, I have been on the old threads placing tags and quite a few sleuth's and one in particular could read kc's thoughts. There were folks who were close with theory and if all of these brilliant minds were in FL Caylee would be found. Maybe the reason JB wants all of Tm's records is to try to figure out who our brilliant posters might be and if they have made a visit to FL within the last 4 years. With them I will not put a thing past them. Maybe even trying to turn up Caylee's dad? I think that would be nice for Caylee, everyone deserves a father.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

The problem is that on August 11th, the skull would have been but 6 to 7 steps from the edge of the road. If Mr. Kronk could see it, others certainly should have been able to see it too.

Obviously, Mr. Kronk could have easily pointed straight to the skull. This includes pointing it out to Mr. Cain and then watching as he walked to it. . But Mr. Kronk did not do that. And after Mr. Cain came back and told him that he found nothing, the skull would have still been right where Mr. Kronk says he first saw it and it would still have been just as visible.

As regards Mr. Kronk saying in December that he picked up a bag and the skull fell out versus saying that I picked up a bag and the skull was underneath it, this notion that Mr. Kronk did not know how to express himself is just more storyline dribble in my mind.

I think Mr. Kronk came to realize, too late, that by saying the skull fell out of the bag (in December) that such could not possibly reconcile with him previously that he saw a skull (in August).

His entire storyline is repete with such irreconciables and nonsense. They exist for a reason. I hold that reason to be that he has not told the truth. Moreover, the continual absurdities throughout his storyline along with his seeming blatant lies should have made him a suspect if not a prime suspect.

Doesn't everyone remember that Kronk and Co. got distracted by the snake. This is when the story got even more convaluted and interesting to me. We know LE went to the guy's house who had the snake and took it out of his freezer and with them as evidence. The snake was sent to a specialist for testing of some sort. There aren't any good studies in existence for comparison about studying snakes so I never was clear (figure the odds) if the snake testing led to any information of importance regarding the case.

My point is - the "team" became distracted by the dead? snake therefore totally turning their attention away from the human skull that only RK could see. :waitasec:

 

[Hot Dogs]

What am I missing? I don't get it. (okay laugh at me - I'm not this sophisticated I guess.)

Go here and read forwards. It's a thread about KW but it gets into some teens who found something odd buried by the school on Suburban. Rumor was that it was a bomb and was sexually-oriented. It's really bizarre and I actually doubt that it is true. I mean, I don't think LE found a bomb.

 

[BeanE]

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

I just don't understand it when people say the defense is just "doing their job" or "doing the only thing they can".

A defense attorney's job is to ensure their client has a fair trial. Not to do anything and everything they can to "win".

This defense team is not doing the only thing they can, not just "doing their job". There are alternatives.

 

[Hot Dogs]

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!).

Dec 11 according to RK: he said he came upon a black plastic bag with something dome-shaped concealed beneath it. He struck the dome shape with his meter rod tool. It made a hollow sound. He then used the tool to lift the bag. Beneath was the skull. It was next to a (fallen?) tree.

 

[BeanE]

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

BBM

Nope. See my last post above.

:moo:

 

[Rlaub44]

The difference is who has the burden of proof. The State has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey killed Caylee. On the other hand the Defense does not have to prove Kronk killed Caylee beyond a reasonable doubt, they do not even have to convince the jury that Kronk killed Caylee.

Rather they only have to raise the reasonable possibility Roy Kronk did (or was involved) and they acquit Casey. And the more the defense digs, the more they are finding dirt and inconsistency about Kronk...

Just so you don't misunderstand, I was replying to Wudge's declaration that defense considers Kronk an equally likely suspect. (Equally likely suggests 50/50) As I indicated later in the post, the burden is nowhere near that high to persuade Judge Strickland to allow the defense to present that alternate theory at trial.

In other words, I agree with you.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

...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.

That's funny! :crazy:

 

[Woe.be.gone]

Heck my old friends could say the same thing. It's not so uncommon for kids to have a "special place" to bury their pets. The problem I had with this friend is her credibility about other things...but not the pets.

And if they did, I would want details! We're not talking about you - Kidding!

Seriously, for Kio to be believable I would have liked to hear a few substantiating questions asked - it's harder to lie when you're asked about the details imo.

 

[Steel]

I just don't understand it when people say the defense is just "doing their job" or "doing the only thing they can".

A defense attorney's job is to ensure their client has a fair trial. Not to do anything and everything they can to "win".

This defense team is not doing the only thing they can, not just "doing their job". There are alternatives.

I must respectfully disagree BeanE.

The job of the defense IS to create reasonable doubt - within reason. The defense cannot and will not say that RK killed Caylee. But they are within their rights to defend their client by questioning the motives and past of RK.

Do I believe it has any bearing on this trial? Abosutely not! Do I belive that one juror may think it does? Who knows. That is the point I was making.

 

[Hot Dogs]

I'm not sure how to take that, Hot Dogs. Do you mean that you think the jurors are likely to be less intelligent than you? Less able to reason? Not as logical?

In other words, if it doesn't play for you, how is it you think it's a viable reasonable alternative explanation for the defense to present to the jurors?

The juror experience will be entirely different from the Websleuths experience. They won't be exposed to even half of what we have. Many here will simply be amazed (and probably angered) at the amount of evidence from doc dumps that is not even brought into court by the prosecution. And... there may be more evidence that we have not seen yet.

I'm not sure that I would qualify to be a juror in the Casey Anthony trial. Putting aside my location (wrong state), I would hope that my participation on WS would actually disqualify me. Why? Much too familiar with the case and the things that may not even be allowed in court. It's kinda weird really. Those Sunshine Laws and the blitz media coverage could disqualify many potential jurors. I don't mean any disrespect to any WS members or the forum itself. But I wonder if we would bring bias into the court if we were jurors. I think it's an interesting question for its own thread.

Would a devoted Websleuther be a good or valid juror for the Anthony trial? Don't they generally want people who aren't very familiar with the case and the issues?

Anyway, I'm not sure I could answer your question without seeing everything the prosecution has - and everything the defense has. I need to hear the expert witnesses that will be brought from both sides.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

Back on Dec 11, nearly all the media was saying "fell out of the bag" or "rolled out of the bag" because that is what Kronk said on that day. He was wrong.

That OCSO interview can serva as a link of sorts. You hear the cops talking to Roy about the "falling out" bit and he tells them he was wrong and why he was wrong. He told them he initially said it because he was excited and nervous. He even posed a hypothetical in the interview challenging anyone to keep their mind and story straight after seeing a human skull in the woods.

Don't you remember all the talk about a meter reading wand or stick or ? (there's a specific name that I'm searching for). He claimed he used that to poke or lift or something to the bag. LE took it and tested it eventually iirc.

 

[Rlaub44]

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.

I guess I don't understand. Kronk's story (Swiss cheese or not) will come in regardless of Judge Strickland's ruling on this motion, as he will certainly be called to testify and be cross-examined.

The difference, as I understand it, is that if this motion is denied, Baez and team will just not be able to raise the suggestion at trial that Kronk could have killed Caylee.

So Baez can poke holes in his story, but may not make the wild leap from unbelievable witness to suspected murderer.

Am I understanding correctly?

 

[cecybeans]

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.

Not precisely. I believe that the legal world might think that JB's ruse of filing a "motion" as a shield to disseminate unverified information does more than cross ethical lines. More than one attorney has suggested that JB using the motion as a vehicle to spread vicious rumors in the media is simple defamation and worthy of civil action.

JB has no qualified immunity outside the court and his attempt at making this look official by filing an unnecessary motion (what evidence does it limit? what "prior bad acts" of the defendant in this case are mentioned?) is pretty transparent, imo. Does JB think this filing a motion confers amnesty from publicly defaming a witness in the media before the trial starts? This goes beyond bad tactics, imo. Impeaching credibility is something that is limited to the courtroom, hence the "qualified immunity", correct? How does this fall within those parameters?

 

[Hot Dogs]

Don't you remember all the talk about a meter reading wand or stick or ? (there's a specific name that I'm searching for). He claimed he used that to poke or lift or something to the bag. LE took it and tested it eventually iirc.

Of course I remember that. Is there something that is confusing you or are you not understanding something? No disrespect meant by me asking that, BTW.

ETA: See post 410.