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

[TrY]

I found Roy Kronk credible. Not only does he call that area around Suburban Drive where Caylee's body was found a swamp, he says it many times on at least one of the August calls to either the police or the tips crimeline. I also had to laugh when the next witness, the meter reader David Dean said that it was his idea and that he told Roy Kronk that there could be a body in that area of Suburban Drive and that he got that idea from seeing Casey saying that Caylee was close to home. He must have seen the jail house videos or heard about them. The meter reader defense witnesses sure make great prosecution witnesses, IMO.

After watching Cheney Mason's direct exam of Roy Kronk, I think it's time he retire. The courtroom theatrics were embarrassing to watch on tv.

 

[Chilly Willy]

Roy admitted that he moved the bag from over the skull, so that part, at least, was altered. I don't think that is a huge deal, but I'm not sure what the jury will think about him poking around at the remains site.

It doesn't change my opinion of Casey's guilt. What's the difference if Roy moved the skull a bit or not? If an animal had moved it a bit just before it was found would that also alter the evidence? There is no question in my mind that Caylee's body lay in that swamp from the day Casey killed her until the day she was found.

 

[Steely Dan]

I thought it was not stuck to the skull ,and that it was established in court it was not stuck to the skull but to the hair mess by a single strand of materiel from the duct tape ,but it is refered to as being stuck to the skull often.

But I could be wrong. I am even begging for correction or confirmation !

No, that's how I remember it too.

Perhaps he called the police because he was 'ugly coping?' :floorlaugh:

:floorlaugh:

They will now call him back to the stand 10x because he didn't say what he wanted. Kronk has to remain calm and concise. The DT should never have set the bar so high against him in their opening. He didn't come across morally bankrupt in the least. Linda was excellent in her cross. She made it clear he didn't have access to Anthony house, etc.

I love how the defense objected to all of those questions but I think she made the best comment by asking him if he needed money in September, October and November too. :floorlaugh:

 

[mitzi]

He lifted it but not off the ground is what I heard him say. Lift was a word he used.

Lifted the bag...pivoted the skull.

 

[mitzi]

Roy admitted that he moved the bag from over the skull, so that part, at least, was altered. I don't think that is a huge deal, but I'm not sure what the jury will think about him poking around at the remains site.

I bet the jury thought, there but for the grace of G-d, go I.

 

[katydid23]

No it makes the evidence less reliable. Which makes reasonable doubt more of a possibility.

HOW is it less reliable? In what way exactly?

Was the baby wrapped in garbage bags and the laundry basket and dumped in the swampy wooded area? I think so and nothing changed that so far.

He did not make the duct tape pull free from the matted hair. And nothing he did made the tape stick there either. It was THERE already.

I think those who want to say Kronk hurt the evidence against Casey are really reaching. imoo

 

[DawnTCB]

Ok I am in I think the second hour of RK's testimony on direct. Feels like the fifth hour. I think this testimony could have been taken in fifteen minutes. And he never asked any of the questions I wanted to hear.


What was the point of this??!?! Did CM think he was going to suddenly blurt out that he was guilty, like those people who give false confessions?

After hearing these same 3 questions in 300 different ways *I* am ready to confess.

 

[mitzi]

It doesn't change my opinion of Casey's guilt. What's the difference if Roy moved the skull a bit or not? If an animal had moved it a bit just before it was found would that also alter the evidence? There is no question in my mind that Caylee's body lay in that swamp from the day Casey killed her until the day she was found.

ITA! And the fact that Caylee's bones were strewn all over that area, and the area had been underwater, tells me that the bags were floating, drifting and shifting position for all those months. Also, a point of contention for many here (not me) was that Roy said the skull 'rolled out of the bag'. When he said today that he lifted the bag and the 'contents shifted' and then he looked down at his feet...he probably at first thought the skull came out of the bag, but it didn't...just some of the bones in the bag 'shifted.' That's why at first he said rolled out of the bag, and then he realized that the skull was no longer in the bag...it was laying on the ground, and had NOT 'rolled out of the bag.' JMO

 

[katydid23]

I bet the jury thought, there but for the grace of G-d, go I.

EXACTLY.

And they kept trying to 'dirty' him up by 'accusing' him of wanting the 250 grand reward money. UMMMMM...I WANT a reward like that. If i came across some remains and there was a huge reward I would want to collect. Who wouldn't?

And if I had a job that required me to walk that neighborhood I would look around for Caylee too. That does not make him a bad person. I don't think the jury is going to accept the bad way he was being portrayed by the DT. imoo

 

[Nova24]

Kronk moving the bag and poking won't change the fact that a dead baby with duct tape was thrown in the woods. I don't see anyone believing Kronk took the body and hid it for months and then dropped it again. Where's the motive for that? Why would he when he could just collect his reward sooner versus later?

The DT is trying to confuse the jury. I'm sure at has worked some but the State has rebuttal and we still have closings on both sides to go. Bottom line I think they will believe baby was given chloro and was in the trunk. The drowning makes no sense because George would do CPR and call 911.

 

[Chilly Willy]

ITA! And the fact that Caylee's bones were strewn all over that area, and the area had been underwater, tells me that the bags were floating, drifting and shifting position for all those months. Also, a point of contention for many here (not me) was that Roy said the skull 'rolled out of the bag'. When he said today that he lifted the bag and the 'contents shifted' and then he looked down at his feet...he probably at first thought the skull came out of the bag, but it didn't...just some of the bones in the bag 'shifted.' That's why at first he said rolled out of the bag, and then he realized that the skull was no longer in the bag...it was laying on the ground, and had NOT 'rolled out of the bag.' JMO

I think once Roy realized what it was he was looking at he panicked over the fact that he'd moved it, so he originally said the skull rolled out of the bag rather than admitting that he did it himself. It's really just nitpicking and doesn't change anything. He did not apply the duct tape, he did not remove the duct tape. He didn't place the body in the swamp. Someone above mentioned CSI. IMO, shows like that lead people to expect too much. People are letting those unreasonable expectations overrule their own common sense.

 

[defense101]

I'm curious, being such an important person in this case as I believe RK is, why did the SA not call him to the stand? Do you not think the jury will question that?

 

[Nova24]

I'm curious, being such an important person in this case as I believe RK is, why did the SA not call him to the stand? Do you not think the jury will question that?

I think the Defense wants him to be important but I don't think jurors are going to see Kronk as a criminal mastermind. They want him seen as stealing the body for months and then dumping it for a reward. There's no motive for him to do that. He was just as eligible for the reward in Sept as Dec. State was smart to let them call him. They tried to demonize the guy who found the body which was the goal all along.

 

[katydid23]

I'm curious, being such an important person in this case as I believe RK is, why did the SA not call him to the stand? Do you not think the jury will question that?

First of all, :welcome::fireworks:

Good first post and an important question.

I think it was a strategic decision by the state to allow the DT to call him instead of them. I believe the state is trying to imply that he was NOT that important or crucial to the case. He was just the guy who happened to find the remains before anyone else, but NOT an important person in terms of the crime itself. It is the defense team that is saying Kronk is so very important to the case,and so it makes sense that they would call him, and not the state. imoo

 

[Bobby_]

Hell All first time poster.

Have a few questions in regards to Kronk and his testimony.

Question #1:
On the day Kronk went to the woods to relieve himself (2nd time), it seemed as if he went directly to the woods to find the body, his employer testified that he didn't have any jobs that day. So my question bares this meaning, if he didn't have a scheduled route on suburban drive that day and he testified he went to relieve himself then it's open to question as to why he would go straight to that part of the woods for the purpose of urinating in the woods and see if the body was there again?

Question #2:
What's up with Good Morning American offering him $15K for an appearance on the show? He claims it was because of the rattle snake but I tend to ignore that comment. I thought rattles snakes were common and why is that snake worth $15K?

Question #3:
Was there a reason why Mason did not question the duct tape when Kronk was picking it up with his metal meter stick? Is that question a very delicate one to ask or you think they are planning on mentioning it this week again?

Question #4:
Kronks memory seems to be working only when he wants to remember things. So let me get this straight, he calls in on the 11th (or 12th).. Or even 3 days in a row and police find NOTHING, and for 6 months nothing is found, but it just so happens he goes to the woods on a random day and finds the remains AGAIN... and he calls police? How can it be in those 6 months nothing was found and it just so happens he made both discoveries instantaneously? That has to mean something, and I don't mean coincidence lol. And why didn't he point physically to where he saw something to the officer but in December he made sure he did!

Im speculating he is involved somehow, he comes off as a very secretive person. And he has been charged for kidnapping in the past...

Hope I didn't come out too strong on you all, thanks.

Bobby from Oshawa, Ontario (Canada)

 

[Soulmagent]

HOW is it less reliable? In what way exactly?

Was the baby wrapped in garbage bags and the laundry basket and dumped in the swampy wooded area? I think so and nothing changed that so far.

He did not make the duct tape pull free from the matted hair. And nothing he did made the tape stick there either. It was THERE already.

I think those who want to say Kronk hurt the evidence against Casey are really reaching. imoo

Well first off he did make two different statements under oath about what happened when he found the skull. Is either off them true?

If story one is the true story and Caylee's skull did roll out of the bag ,then according to reports of the officers the way in which the skull was sitting would have had to be staged in order to place the skull and mandible together again and it would or could have shifted the position on the tape.

If story two is true that would lead to questions about how the bag held its contents after being picked up and how if the bone are scattered was he able to move the bag while it was holding any of it contents not to mention he says he first saw the skull from 30 feet away on the first day and never got closer. And why he said the first story.

Also I wondered why he lifted both the skull (but not off the ground) and the bag as all he need was to confirmation of his find.

I dont think I am reaching at all ,this is all court evidence and it does bring into question on the position of the tape and how after lifting the skull was the jawbone attached in it correct position after RK pull it upwards with a meter stick. Which isnt a skilled way of lifting and offers little in the way of delicate movements. It may not make some people question but as a jury member I am sure they are weighting the same things I am. If RK had nothing to hide or feel ashamed off ,the truth would have rolled out of his mouth the very first day making him a non issue. He gave Baez a very good reason to question his actions.

You have one guy at the scene who move things arround and he has told conflicting stories.

The jury has both versions I am pretty sure if this is the first time we had heard these two versions we would be putting some thought into them.

What I dont understand is how people are calling RK credible. Just the changing from the depo until today point towards that being false.IMO

Now that said I dont know where the duct tape was in the first place and neither does the SA's ,the ME or any other witness.(stated in court) It may not have started out in the hair mess and moving the evidence arround could have impacted that.

 

[twall]

Kronk's GMA interview, yes, he did get paid for the snake photo. To keep their word saying they don't pay for interviews they licensed the snake photo to pay him for the appearance.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEvhZkDxuF0"]YouTube - ‪Roy Kronk Good Morning America Discovering Caylee's Remains : HE SAYS WE!‬‏[/ame]

 

[Donjeta]

Hell All first time poster.

Have a few questions in regards to Kronk and his testimony.

Question #1:
On the day Kronk went to the woods to relieve himself (2nd time), it seemed as if he went directly to the woods to find the body, his employer testified that he didn't have any jobs that day. So my question bares this meaning, if he didn't have a scheduled route on suburban drive that day and he testified he went to relieve himself then it's open to question as to why he would go straight to that part of the woods for the purpose of urinating in the woods and see if the body was there again?

I got the impression that the other man said he had to do Kronk's route that day and that he in fact had something scheduled but the skull discovery kept him from doing that.

Question #3:
Was there a reason why Mason did not question the duct tape when Kronk was picking it up with his metal meter stick? Is that question a very delicate one to ask or you think they are planning on mentioning it this week again?

Maybe they will get another day's worth of testimony out of that yet... I don't know, maybe because his answer wouldn't have backed up the defense case and they did not anticipate he would admit that he duct taped Caylee's skull. They have seemed to be dancing around the other pivotal points in their opening statement, the abuse and George finding her etc.

Question #4:
Kronks memory seems to be working only when he wants to remember things. Is there proof whatsoever that he called the non-emergency number and is there a call log to reference this? His testimony as to calling initially on the 11th of August can only be certain as much as JB's opening statements against Kronk. For all we know Kronk lied about the Aug 11th call and just called in December when he wanted the body to be found??

Hope I didn't come out too strong on you all, thanks.

Bobby from Oshawa, Ontario (Canada)

It was apparently tape recorded:

After the mid-day lunch break, the trial resumed with the playing of two 911 calls Roy Kronk made on Aug. 11 and 12, 2008. Kronk described finding an unknown, suspicious white object and described exactly where he was.

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/28379304/detail.html

 

[wallflower67]

I'm curious, being such an important person in this case as I believe RK is, why did the SA not call him to the stand? Do you not think the jury will question that?

They probably decided not to call him themselves after JB's opening statement. They wanted to let the DT hang themselves. They can always call him on rebuttal if they need to.

 

[katydid23]

Well first off he did make two different statements under oath about what happened when he found the skull. Is either off them true?

If story one is the true story and Caylee's skull did roll out of the bag ,then according to reports of the officers the way in which the skull was sitting would have had to be staged in order to place the skull and mandible together again and it would or could have shifted the position on the tape.

If story two is true that would lead to questions about how the bag held its contents after being picked up and how if the bone are scattered was he able to move the bag while it was holding any of it contents not to mention he says he first saw the skull from 30 feet away on the first day and never got closer. And why he said the first story.

Also I wondered why he lifted both the skull (but not off the ground) and the bag as all he need was to confirmation of his find.

I dont think I am reaching at all ,this is all court evidence and it does bring into question on the position of the tape and how after lifting the skull was the jawbone attached in it correct position after RK pull it upwards with a meter stick. Which isnt a skilled way of lifting and offers little in the way of delicate movements. It may not make some people question but as a jury member I am sure they are weighting the same things I am. If RK had nothing to hide or feel ashamed off ,the truth would have rolled out of his mouth the very first day making him a non issue. He gave Baez a very good reason to question his actions.

You have one guy at the scene who move things arround and he has told conflicting stories.

The jury has both versions I am pretty sure if this is the first time we had heard these two versions we would be putting some thought into them.

What I dont understand is how people are calling RK credible. Just the changing from the depo until today point towards that being false.IMO

Now that said I dont know where the duct tape was in the first place and neither does the SA's ,the ME or any other witness.(stated in court) It may not have started out in the hair mess and moving the evidence arround could have impacted that.

I don't see any of his statements as being in conflict. He already said he was mistaken in the way he described it the first time. And I think the evidence shows he was correct in his revised explanation.

As for the tape, imo, it does not really matter exactly how it was found on Dec 11th. Because of the way she was dumped and the way the elements were [,wind/rain/typhoon/heat/swamp/animals/insects,] it really does not matter if he kicked it or poked it or what he did. There is no VALID reason for there to be tape ANYWHERE on that child's head. It does not matter if it was on or off her mouth or nose or eyes or forehead or where ever. There is NO GOOD REASON for it to be any where near her face or head. So nothing that Kronk did has any impact upon the juror's decision, imo.