2009.11.19 Defense Files Motion suggesting Kronk as Killer #4

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Geezy-peezy !

Had KC awaken one morning and claimed Caylee was missing as her bed was empty, then maybe, the defense could have tried to accuse Kronk---But---No Way now----

KC has always maintained she was the last to see Caylee alive and handed Caylee over to the non-existing "Nanny". This does not even come close to planting a doubt in anyone's mind.
They must keep throwing stuff against the wall and pray that something will stick.
 
I can't comprehend how the defense can actually believe the jury would buy this theory. RK had no connection to the A's, their house, Casey's car or more importantly Caylee. Even if RK has a g/f who works in the jail and overheard something, what does that have to do with how Caylee died and how her remains got where he found them? And again, how is the defense going to admit that what Casey told LE (that she left Caylee with ZFG) was a lie and expect them to find her "innocent"? :waitasec: MOO
 
Unless Casey has decided to weave a tale about knowing RK, before Caylee went "missing".
 
Elphaba said:
Unless Casey has decided to weave a tale about knowing RK, before Caylee went "missing".
Click to expand...

Weaving a tale wouldn't make a difference in my opinion. There is no proof at all that the two knew each other. No phone records, pictures, talk of RK by Casey, nothing. The jury would see it for what it really is, Casey trying to place the blame on another innocent person since it didn't work with AH, Ricardo or any of the others.
 
Hope this is the right place to put this, I don't know if it has been posted before. It's an article from Lillian Glass on deception and the Jill K. interview. Plus lots of info on others like Casey, LKB, Roy K....I posted just a part on LKB below, much more at link.

Meter Reader’s Ex Wife, Jill Kerley, Shows Signals of Deception When Discussing Roy Kronk Possibly Murdering Caylee Anthony

"When I heard veteran attorney, Linda Kenny Baden a member of Casey’s defense team referring to Kerely’s accusations about Roy Kronk on the Today Show, I observed via her body language and verbal ”tells” that even she, didn’t believe what Ms. Kerely was saying."

"While the attorney said the right words in her attempt to defend Casey, her body language screamed that she was clearly not buying it. Her lip licks, eye gaze, lack of hand movement, shoulder shrugs and numerous other “tells” while making pertinent statements said it all."

"Once again, it validated my thoughts that Jose Baez’s team was really doing whatever they could to cast reasonable doubt . But it wasn’t working- at least from my standpoint."

http://drlillianglassbodylanguageblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/20/1072/
 
Here is an interesting theory.
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4614807&postcount=258"]http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4614807&postcount=258[/ame]

Expanding only on the theory listed above............perhaps a "failure" to complete a task is motive for this motion. I am not saying I think this to be the case, just offering a presented theory for consideration.
 
Exactly! This area was already searched.
This area that is so close to Lee's house.
It really doesn't matter....

But, why put Caylee in a place where remains could be found?
 
Yeah the only thing that I can think of to make the connection is that he was their meter reader, so he had to be in front of the house at some point.

The Mountain of other evidence against him is just circumstantial, just like Casey. That is probably why he should be looked at as an equal suspect.

The 5 W's really bother me.

We only think we have the who, but we are still missing:
The Why
The Where
The When
The How (oops sorry I guess I meant 4 W's and one H)

Now I understand that SA 's job is to make KC look guilty, but for LE with hind sight, and not finding any smoking gun, it is their job to continue to look for the truth.

Nothing I stated was stated as fact. It is of my opinion only.
 
notthatsmart said:
Yeah the only thing that I can think of to make the connection is that he was their meter reader, so he had to be in front of the house at some point.

The Mountain of other evidence against him is just circumstantial, just like Casey. That is probably why he should be looked at as an equal suspect.

The 5 W's really bother me.

We only think we have the who, but we are still missing:
The Why
The Where
The When
The How (oops sorry I guess I meant 4 W's and one H)

Now I understand that SA 's job is to make KC look guilty, but for LE with hind sight, and not finding any smoking gun, it is their job to continue to look for the truth.

Nothing I stated was stated as fact. It is of my opinion only.
Click to expand...
Happy New Year NTS.
IMO, there is no mountain of evidence against Kronk, there is only the suggestion of it in an attempt to create reasonable doubt. His testimony may or may not create that doubt, depends on how well the defense presents it or what information they have to back it up.
Also, it is not the job of the SA to make anyone look guilty, it is their job to reveal the facts. If those facts reveal guilt through their mountain of evidence against KC, then so be it. It is a subtle distinction but an important one.
 
notthatsmart said:
Yeah the only thing that I can think of to make the connection is that he was their meter reader, so he had to be in front of the house at some point.

The Mountain of other evidence against him is just circumstantial, just like Casey. That is probably why he should be looked at as an equal suspect.

The 5 W's really bother me.

We only think we have the who, but we are still missing:
The Why
The Where
The When
The How (oops sorry I guess I meant 4 W's and one H)

Now I understand that SA 's job is to make KC look guilty, but for LE with hind sight, and not finding any smoking gun, it is their job to continue to look for the truth.

Nothing I stated was stated as fact. It is of my opinion only.
Click to expand...
BBM.

The mountain of other evidence ? The only mountain of evidence I'm aware of is the one sitting on Casey. Had Roy any involvement in this crime, why would he call the cops when he found the remains ? The thought that he is involved is ridiculous when all the arrows point to Casey.
 
The following is more deception analysis from Dr. Glass...This on Roy K.

"Before I share my thoughts and observations, I want to say that as soon as Roy Kronk came forward and appeared publically, I scrutinized his body language and communication patterns. I I did not find any “tells” indicated deception or that he was not telling the truth."

"He appeared direct and forthright in his body language as there was a fluidity in his movements with no hesitation in his voice. What he said matched how he moved and comported himself. He appeared genuine to me as he discussed his finding Caylee’s body."

http://drlillianglassbodylanguageblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/20/1072/#comment-706
 
notthatsmart said:
Yeah the only thing that I can think of to make the connection is that he was their meter reader, so he had to be in front of the house at some point.

The Mountain of other evidence against him is just circumstantial, just like Casey. That is probably why he should be looked at as an equal suspect.

The 5 W's really bother me.

We only think we have the who, but we are still missing:
The Why
The Where
The When
The How (oops sorry I guess I meant 4 W's and one H)

Now I understand that SA 's job is to make KC look guilty, but for LE with hind sight, and not finding any smoking gun, it is their job to continue to look for the truth.

Nothing I stated was stated as fact. It is of my opinion only.
Click to expand...

The State is not required to provide the Jury with the three W's or the H. They only have to prove she did it. IMO, the State is confident they have their smoking gun. It is called circumstantial evidence that points to no one but KC.
 
The Why I think has been answered already.......Casey didn't want Caylee and she interrupted her party time, time with men and it would tick Cindy off if Casey kept Caylee from her.

The When I think has been answered already........Casey claims she hasn't seen her daughter in 31 days. 31 days from the time she said this would be June 15 or 16. George said he saw both of them in the early afternoon (?) but then that same night we have Casey on video with no Caylee at Blockbuster. Caylee had to have died between those two times (IMO).

The How I think has been answered already..........3 pieces of duct tape across a childs mouth and nose will cause death.

As far as RK having any evidence that points to him? Well I would love for someone to point that out to me because I have yet to see ANY.
 
magnolia said:
The State is not required to provide the Jury with the three W's or the H. They only have to prove she did it. IMO, the State is confident they have their smoking gun. It is called circumstantial evidence that points to no one but KC.
Click to expand...

Well I will agree the only smoking gun they have is circumstantial evidence.

As far as the W's, I was referring to me. I need to know when who where why and how especially if we are going to execute this young lady. That being said, I am not a potential juror because I don't believe in the death penalty.

Nothing I said was stated as fact. It is my opinion only.
 
TorisMom003 said:
The Why I think has been answered already.......Casey didn't want Caylee and she interrupted her party time, time with men and it would tick Cindy off if Casey kept Caylee from her.

The When I think has been answered already........Casey claims she hasn't seen her daughter in 31 days. 31 days from the time she said this would be June 15 or 16. George said he saw both of them in the early afternoon (?) but then that same night we have Casey on video with no Caylee at Blockbuster. Caylee had to have died between those two times (IMO).

The How I think has been answered already..........3 pieces of duct tape across a childs mouth and nose will cause death.

As far as RK having any evidence that points to him? Well I would love for someone to point that out to me because I have yet to see ANY.
Click to expand...

Bold 1: Killed her because she wanted to party. I have never heard of such a thing in real life. Do you believe there are other cases where someone actually killed someone so they could party?
Do you believe that SA is going to use this as the motive?

Bold 2: The 15th or 16th. Tough one to prove. She was on the phone most of the night and most of the next day. Jt says he saw her on the 16th in the afternoon at Walmart with Caylee. That leaves a very small window of time to do this while being on the phone at the same time. Did I miss something? Did SA say the 16th? Do you really think they will go with the 16th? I don't.

Bold 3: The medical examiners report says they do not know the cause of death. The 3 pieces of duct tape only showed the manner was homicide. Could still be an accident and certainly does not show premeditated murder. I highly doubt anyone Killed Caylee with Duct tape.

Nothing I have stated is stated as fact. This is only my opinion. This is my opinion and please don't interpret it as fact.
 
notthatsmart said:
Yeah the only thing that I can think of to make the connection is that he was their meter reader, so he had to be in front of the house at some point.

The Mountain of other evidence against him is just circumstantial, just like Casey. That is probably why he should be looked at as an equal suspect.

The 5 W's really bother me.

We only think we have the who, but we are still missing:
The Why
The Where
The When
The How (oops sorry I guess I meant 4 W's and one H)

Now I understand that SA 's job is to make KC look guilty, but for LE with hind sight, and not finding any smoking gun, it is their job to continue to look for the truth.

Nothing I stated was stated as fact. It is of my opinion only.
Click to expand...
Equal suspect? Caylee was Casey's daughter and the last known person to be seen with Caylee. Unless you can connect RK to Caylee while she was alive, how do you figure they are equally suspect? I hope you get the answers to your questions, NTS.
 
notthatsmart said:
Bold 1: Killed her because she wanted to party. I have never heard of such a thing in real life. Do you believe there are other cases where someone actually killed someone so they could party?
Do you believe that SA is going to use this as the motive?

Bold 2: The 15th or 16th. Tough one to prove. She was on the phone most of the night and most of the next day. Jt says he saw her on the 16th in the afternoon at Walmart with Caylee. That leaves a very small window of time to do this while being on the phone at the same time. Did I miss something? Did SA say the 16th? Do you really think they will go with the 16th? I don't.

Bold 3: The medical examiners report says they do not know the cause of death. The 3 pieces of duct tape only showed the manner was homicide. Could still be an accident and certainly does not show premeditated murder. I highly doubt anyone Killed Caylee with Duct tape.

Nothing I have stated is stated as fact. This is only my opinion. This is my opinion and please don't interpret it as fact.
Click to expand...
The SA doesn't have to prove motive (Casey's own actions suggest motive) or manner of death. As far as it being an accident...the SA is not taking that route, are they? Will the defense, NTS?

ETA: good that you have never met anyone who would be willing to sacrifice their own child in order to have the life they want, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 113 more.
Total: 2,171 (members: 114, guests: 2,057)

Online statistics

Members online
114
Guests online
2,057
Total visitors
2,171
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,195
Messages
17,964,874
Members
228,714
Latest member
hannahdunnam
Back
Top