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

I don't know why Baez is running with this ridiculous Kronk thing. And you just know the fact that Kronk had that snake frozen they are going to allege since he has a habit of freezing dead things, he could have done this to Caylee, and I don't even know why he would do this, but I feel its coming, and its rediculous.

jmo
 
Only time will tell, but I'd be willing to bet this will turn out to be a casual comment made by RK that was misheard, misunderstood or distorted by the son.

Just conjecture, but something like RK said, "I bet I could find that child if I searched" and the kid now claims RK said, "I know where the body is."

some people just like to make themselves sound good. he could have had a good hunch and turned that into I KNOW.

but why sit on the body? preposterous.
 
Also, IIRC, MR's son could not recall if the statements like "I know where the body is" and "watch for me on the news" were before or on December 11th. That should be cleared up pretty quick as soon as he gets on the stand.
 
Yer a smart cookie Dawn.. I like how you are thinking about this.


I mentioned something earlier about RK and how i wondered if he had witnessed something or had been black mailed or blackmailing the A's ...

Now i am seeing that this theory of him being given a tip on where to find Caylee is more likely the case.

I sure hope we get more clarification on this issue.

If he gave or recieved the tip to or from the A family. Wouldn't Prosecution be hip to this by now and blow this whole theory out of the water when Kronk hits the stand?
 
It is interesting to listen to Roy Kronk's second interview with LE. This was on January 6, 2009. Be cautious playing this because there are many expletives (foul language).

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kcVlWmkWa8"]Part 1 of 3[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFjF5f8i1Ns"]Part 2[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTXja4A4O1I"]Part 3[/ame]


Roy states that he was 99.999% sure that he was looking at a skull on August 11th. He makes assurances that what he found on December 11th was the same thing he saw on August 11th. The only significant differences were that in December there was less vegetation, there was no longer water at the specific remains location, and that a plastic bag was covering the skull.

DawnTCB said:
Well, the Crimeline summary says he reported something "little, white. and round". That laundry hamper seems kind of large for that kind of description to me. In my mind I was picturing something more skull-sized.

I don't recall him saying "little" - only round and white. But anyway, I reviewed his second interview and I no longer think he was ever referring to the laundry bag as that round white thing. According to Roy, he was talking about the skull itself. The exchange he had with LE in that interview suggested that he was describing the laundry bag when he said he saw a "grey bag" and "pool cover".

So, unless he is lying to bolster his own credibility, he really did see Caylee's remains (skull) and the canvas bag back in August 2008. Therefore, his assertion that he had 99.999% confidence that what he was looking at on August 11 was a skull turned out to be 100% accurate.
 
I read a few too many criminal profiling books, so feel free to ignore me ;-) but I remember distinctly that body placement is significant in assessing the perp's relationship to the victim.

Couple things I think profilers assume:

Perp places body (somewhat) away from scene of crime b/c of guilty knowledge (not always guilty feelings, that's different -- especially for sociopaths)

BUT: perp wants the body nearby, relatively, so that perp can potentially "control" or survey whether or not there's some potential for discovery.

Anyway, for me, this explains why *Casey* would have done this. The maligning of Kronk in this, is totally off the wall for me, I'm more a believer in Occam's Razor.

Anyway, just my take on it.


I understand what you are saying. But it is still puzzling why a perp would not take special efforts to conceal the body even if they choose to place it nearby. It's just too risky to leave it exposed in a public place and right next to an established footpath going into the woods. I speculated that Caylee was supposed to be relocated/better hidden later but this was prevented when Casey was arrested. Because at some future point Caylee would have to be declared missing (even without an arrest) and a search would be launched. Considering her location and relative ease of discovery, she ought to have been found rather quickly.
 
Thanks for those videos - I will watch them when I get off work.

I don't recall him saying "little" - only round and white.
To my knowledge, we don't know if he actually said "little" - do we have an actual transcript of the Crimeline call? All I have ever seen is the summary written by the Crimeline employee I posted the link to above. That could have been the Crimeline person's assumption, I guess.

And I do think it is very possible that he was trying to bolster his own credibility, FWIW. If he knew the remains were there somewhere but not specifically which bag held them, and had called LE on an incorrect bag in August four times, it becomes very evident that someone told him where to look. If he withheld that information - say, to protect a GF who worked in the jail - he needed to be very clear it was the same place, same items.

What I would like to see is a map of where his coworkers said he went to take care of business, where he directed LE to on 8/11, as well as where the police officer said he was standing six feet away, and finally where the remains actually were. When I drew this out back when that coworker's testimony was released, I thought the spot the coworker identified (he tells how many feet from the road and from the fence corner) was about fifty feet away from the actual remains site, but only about 5 feet away from where the PIs were. I wasn't able to find the thread about that last night but I will look again. Maybe we can map it again and see if based on all the testimony it still looks like he was in a different spot.

KPCrimeNY said:
If he gave or recieved the tip to or from the A family. Wouldn't Prosecution be hip to this by now and blow this whole theory out of the water when Kronk hits the stand?

Maybe someone else can remember, but I think that there was talk in the beginning that if he got the tip from he GF, who overheard it in a privileged conversation between ICA and JB, that everything found at the crme scene would not be admissable in court. I am not sure what the final decision was on that one, but I think that is what JB might have been referring to when he mention collusion between MR and LE...?
 
To my knowledge, we don't know if he actually said "little" - do we have an actual transcript of the Crimeline call? All I have ever seen is the summary written by the Crimeline employee I posted the link to above. That could have been the Crimeline person's assumption, I guess.

We have recordings of his calls to OCSO as well as transcripts. He doesn't describe the round white thing as being little.

And I do think it is very possible that he was trying to bolster his own credibility, FWIW. If he knew the remains were there somewhere but not specifically which bag held them, and had called LE on an incorrect bag in August four times, it becomes very evident that someone told him where to look. If he withheld that information - say, to protect a GF who worked in the jail - he needed to be very clear it was the same place, same items.

But keep in mind that he told his coworkers at the location that he could see a skull. "Hey guys. I see a skull in here." Why would he say that and summon them over to look if all he could see was a bag?

What I would like to see is a map of where his coworkers said he went to take care of business, where he directed LE to on 8/11, as well as where the police officer said he was standing six feet away, and finally where the remains actually were.

He didn't go into the woods to urinate on Aug 11. He went in specifically to look for Caylee. Within a matter of minutes he announced to them that he could see a skull. Not a bag that might contain a body... he said it was a skull... and that of course must have been visible to him outside of any bag. He later states that it was partially submerged but was exposed enough for him to determine that it was a skull with 99.999% confidence.

I do not think that any coworkers or the officer created any maps.


When I drew this out back when that coworker's testimony was released, I thought the spot the coworker identified (he tells how many feet from the road and from the fence corner) was about fifty feet away from the actual remains site, but only about 5 feet away from where the PIs were. I wasn't able to find the thread about that last night but I will look again. Maybe we can map it again and see if based on all the testimony it still looks like he was in a different spot.

I have no recollection of any coworker specifying an exact location. I do recall people saying that the PIs were searching about 50-150 feet away from the actual location of Caylee. You could look for old threads that are titled including the word "Kronk" or "meter reader".


Maybe someone else can remember, but I think that there was talk in the beginning that if he got the tip from he GF, who overheard it in a privileged conversation between ICA and JB, that everything found at the crme scene would not be admissable in court. I am not sure what the final decision was on that one, but I think that is what JB might have been referring to when he mention collusion between MR and LE...?

I seem to recall Leonard Padilla coming up with the theory that Roy got his location tip from a "Daisy Chain".
 
Where it is described as "little" is not in the OCSO calls, it is the Crimeline summary. That is here.

And the map I am thinking of was not made by anyone official. It is one I made for myself with help of the people here and the testimony which came in.

It was based on this kind of information:

1. MR on Call1, 8/11/08: "there's like two little 'in' areas you can go and there's a big long tree laying down and there's a lot of swamp back there. Well back behind one of the trees down there was a gray bag and then a little bit further up than that, I saw something white."
"Then the road kind of stops and then there's a six foot tall fence on the left hand side of the road and the right hand side is open."
2. MR on Call 2, 8/12/08: "And there was behind one of those trees a gray vinyl-like bag. And then a little bit further up you can tell where someone ran across with a mower but the weeds were still real high in that area. There's a fallen tree that looks like someone had tried to cut on it at one point but there was a white board hanging across the tree and there was something round and white underneath of it."
"It's a little bit down, more towards the school and then the area it's all right in there."
3. MR's coworker DD testimony: MR went to pee at one spot and made the skull comment 40 feet further west.
YM: Real quick, from where he made the skull statement, how far from the fence or the corner of the fence was he? ... Do you remember, if it was like, was the fence right there, five feet away? Was it fifty feet away? Was it within view?
DD: I would say fifty feet. At, I would say the end of the fence was probably, uh,
YM: One truck length?
DD: Thirty...
YM: Two?
DD:Thirty to fifty feet.
YM: OK so he walked about forty feet. Had he walked another thirty to fifty feet he would have been at the corner of that fence that,uh, I guess that corner property right there in the back corner.
DD: Though the way the swamp line goes I believe it drops down like that and then...the fence goes into it like that. I think that's how it curves into.
YM: Okay. So about thirty to fifty feet from where it curves into the fence?
DD: Yes sir.

4. OCSO summary Report This is key, IMO. This was the real skull. "Just past the end of a wooden fence, was a path leading south to the woodline. Within a short distance down this path and to the west (right) was a black plastic bag and lying next to it what appeared to be a human skull."

There are other spots I had on my map but I think I want to start over anyway since there are so many more documents than when I did this.

In any case I started because I thought these conflicted:

He was fifty feet from the corner of the fence when he made the skull comment. Forty feet west of the truck. The actual remains were "just past" the end of the fence and "a short distance" west.

I remember thinking, if he was in the right place in August, would he not have mentioned that he was "just past" a wooden fence? He mentions a fence in two of the three August calls... the 6' one that lines the other side of the road. On the side of the road in question, I believe the fences were enclosing the yards of the neighbors on either side, but did not block access to this lot. So the remains were just past one fence and a little west. And about 100 feet from the fence on the other side. MR in August was 40 feet west of one fence and 50 feet east of the other... about 50 feet away from the actual remains.

Does anyone think this is worth looking into a little more?
 
Crime scene photo - blue tent

In this picture you can see how close the actual crime scene was to this fence... the fence MR never mentions when directing officers to the scene in August.
 
Roy might have been looking around and found the bag before August 11, but was too afraid he'd be accused of a crime to be without co worker. I don't see why he'd want to risk having to share the reward though. I'll never believe that anyone ever bothered to search that whole area behind the Anthony home and around to the final spot or that it was under water in those first two weeks or after. Roy is the only one who got in there and actually looked.
 
I am still confused about what JB is implying regarding Kronk, he says that he hid the body in an attempt to claim some reward money but has anyone explained HOW HE FIRST CAME IN TO POSSESSION OF THE BODY?
 
One of the MANY questions I was left hanging with after JB was done with his opening statement! I asked aloud "how did he get her body to begin with?" Of course JB used the same answer for this as he did for all the other huge gaping holes in his theory......."we will never know the answer to that question because LE did not do a proper investigation." The fact of the matter is that Kronk had absolutely nothing to gain by keeping the whereabouts of the body a secret!
 
One of the MANY questions I was left hanging with after JB was done with his opening statement! I asked aloud "how did he get her body to begin with?" Of course JB used the same answer for this as he did for all the other huge gaping holes in his theory......."we will never know the answer to that question because LE did not do a proper investigation." The fact of the matter is that Kronk had absolutely nothing to gain by keeping the whereabouts of the body a secret!

Ok, great. I was wondering if I had missed something but it seems this answer was never given in the OS to begin with so I am not lost after all since nobody really knows how Kronk got the body.

Thanks!
 
Ok, great. I was wondering if I had missed something but it seems this answer was never given in the OS to begin with so I am not lost after all since nobody really knows how Kronk got the body.

Thanks!

You didn't miss a thing Pax.......just use the JB generic answer "we will never know the answer to this question because LE did not do a proper investigation" to fill in any & all the gaping holes in the DT theory & you're good to go!
 
It was never explained. I don't even know why Roy Kronk was mentioned at all in Baez's opening statement. I don't think it has much to do with proving if Casey murdered her child or not...which is the main purpose of the case. Even if Kronk had found the body and moved it in order to claim the reward money how does this help whether or not Casey had killed her daughter. I'm baffled that JB brought RK up at all.
 
He said that Kronk "had control of" Caylee's body (I think that was the wording) from the first call in August to December 11.

Now, that could just be because the call in August establishes on the record that he was aware of the location. But Jose doesn't seem bothered by using information that is not established as fact. So I think he is going to claim that Kronk found her in the area hid her for 4 months and then called again.

Which makes NO sense. Why not all again in September instead of waiting until December? If you are just looking for money, you wouldn't think you'd be so patient.

I think Caylee was originally placed in that area near her house. Maybe not right where she was found, but in that general area.
 
Baez has no idea how RK found the body or where GA left the body or at what time Caylee allegedly drowned. Really compelling theory :)
 
Baez has no idea how RK found the body or where GA left the body or at what time Caylee allegedly drowned. Really compelling theory :)

Or why George found it necessary to hide a "drowning victim".
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
99
Guests online
3,387
Total visitors
3,486

Forum statistics

Threads
592,496
Messages
17,969,866
Members
228,789
Latest member
Soccergirl500
Back
Top