Kronk Reveals 1990's Expunged Arrest

[BuzzieCat]

What I am disappointed about is that this forum has several threads discussing how suspicious Mr. kronk is, and how strange it is that he found Caylee, etc. Many people have said that they don't believe him, that he had no business out there, that he was a previous boyfriend of casey.

I just don't understand why so many people have turned on this guy, he told his employer this information, he told LE, he told the whole world his personal private business. He has long since gotten ahead of any bus that jose intends to drive by his house. I believe that he will tell us the truth and nothing but the truth. If I were jose I would be a bit nervous, because that truth just might involve a leak from the defense.

Some things on this forum are not discussed or talked about and if you do bring them up, they will be deleted or moved to the parking lot. Despite how truly suspicious those things are.

My bold. I thought that was usually out-and-out rumors? Maybe I am wrong. There are a lot of things we discuss that we don't know for sure, that is true. I guess it just annoys me a little bit if anyone wanted to tamp down RK's being falsely accused of K/N when it was reported, it was something that happened even though it meant nothing. Maybe I am having the wrong impression, but it just annoyed me when some wanted the thread closed.

I think some people are just more suspicious of things than others. In a way I can see it does look weird that RK just kept going back and back. OTOH, I just really don't think that means anything unless LE says there is reason to believe otherwise, and they haven't. Casey can try to say that maybe RK was the nonexistent ZFG's boyfriend, but I don't see how they could make that stick.

I'm probably way OT by now!

 

[Hot Dogs]

He definitely will be called by the state to say that he located the bag on the date he found it; that he touched it with his foot; that a skull rolled out of the bag; that he didn't further touch or disturb the remains or the area; that he notified a supervisor who placed the 911 call for him, etc.

Doesn't matter that LE then went on to observe the scene themselves -- the state will very precisely lay out for the jury how, when, where the remains were found and, since Kronk found the remains, he no doubt will be called to testify about that.

Also, the state will examine RK about the prior calls he'd made -- what he saw, exactly where and when; to whom it was reported; whether he or anyone else with him touched anything; whether he had any contact with LE on those occasions...and so on.

This needs to be explained to the jury and reasons offered (if possible) via that witness and others why LE didn't locate the remains on those prior call dates since it will most assuredly be brought up by the defense. Better to explain it during the state's own case than not to mention it (risking looking as if they tried to hide that info) and then having to respond to the defense bringing it out.

I don't see any way whatsoever that Mr. Kronk wouldn't be called by the state. The defense may attempt to get what they want from him during cross-exam, but if they don't get it that way, I look for them to also call him in their own case in chief.

The MR also used the term "we" at least once in his August calls. He's talking about another person being with him at the location. Both sides may have interest in the identity of that other person. LE probably has already asked him. But nonetheless, that other person could be a daisy in some tip chain. We don't know.

 

[maur33]

My bold. I thought that was usually out-and-out rumors? Maybe I am wrong. There are a lot of things we discuss that we don't know for sure, that is true. I guess it just annoys me a little bit if anyone wanted to tamp down RK's being falsely accused of K/N when it was reported, it was something that happened even though it meant nothing. Maybe I am having the wrong impression, but it just annoyed me when some wanted the thread closed.

I think some people are just more suspicious of things than others. In a way I can see it does look weird that RK just kept going back and back. OTOH, I just really don't think that means anything unless LE says there is reason to believe otherwise, and they haven't. Casey can try to say that maybe RK was the nonexistent ZFG's boyfriend, but I don't see how they could make that stick.

I'm probably way OT by now!

Well the whole "daisy chain" theory which was authored by LP is a rumor and mere speculation, yet it is discussed at length. So some things can be theorized despite the lack of authenticity but some things that fall into that same group cannot. It is the board mods and the owner of this board who decides which topics can cannot be discussed, so while this is a open board it is privately moderated.

I am fine with discussing Mr. Kronk, just annoyed that the only topic seems to be this past charge and whether or not he knows more than he has told so far. It seems as if the fact that he found Caylee is no longer appreciated.

 

[cajun]

It does for me.....something about him just doesn't sit right with me.

It also really bothered me on the 911 tape about finding a body and then laughing. I know people say it was a nervous laugh, but I don't agree.

If you are talking about the 911 call on 12-11 I believe that was his supervisor that was talking to 911, in fact I think it was 2 different supervisors that spoke to 911.They also told him to relay the msg to the meter reader not to draw any attention to the site and not to touch anything.

 

[bessie]

A past domestic charge isn't relevant to RK's testimony about how he found Caylee and what he saw.

I don't see how or why it would be brought up.

IMO

Why? To create diversion. To turn the jurors' eyes away from the huge stack of evidence against KC. To make them consider other possibilities. Defense doesn't have to prove that RK or anyone else is responible for Caylee's death. They merely have to create doubt. If they can get enough jurors (not sure what the breakdown is in FL) to do this :waitasec:, their client walks.

It's all they've got. Cause this ain't Perry Mason, and Della Street ain't gonna pass a note to JB telling him that Paul Drake just found the nanny.

The "how" is what interests me. I don't have the angle yet, but I promise you, JB has his team looking for one.

 

[Chilly Willy]

I'm not claiming to know if what I'm saying is correct, but based on things I've seen in the past, I don't think the defense can bring up Mr. Kronk's expunged record in court. Oftentimes the prosecution can not even mention the prior convictions of a defendant at trial. I think in this case the prosecution may address the dropped kidnapping charge, with Mr. Kronk's permission, because it's out there in the media and jurors may be aware that he was charged without being aware that the charges were dropped. Unfortunately, the arrest along with LP accusing Kronk of being involved in his "Daisy Chain" theory, both reflect poorly, and unfairly, on Kronk's credibility.

 

[simplesimon]

This case has more twists and turns! What are the chances of this?
It is certainly another odd set of circumstances!

 

[JBean]

bumpity bump