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

Etiana

Truth fears nothing but concealment
Joined
Jun 15, 2011
Messages
487
Reaction score
0
H

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)

Could someone please explain the kidnapping part in RK's past, this is the first I've heard of it.

Thanks a bunch!
 

katydid23

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
62,324
Reaction score
182,303
Could someone please explain the kidnapping part in RK's past, this is the first I've heard of it.

Thanks a bunch!

I think they might be mixing him up with the Vasco guy. As far as I know Kronk has never been charged with kidnapping. There was an ex wife who claims that once when they were 'fighting' he used duct tape on her. But apparently that story was disputed or debunked as lies told by an an angry ex wife and nothing more. IDK though.
 

sorrell skye

Former Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2009
Messages
6,684
Reaction score
7,003
I think they might be mixing him up with the Vasco guy. As far as I know Kronk has never been charged with kidnapping. There was an ex wife who claims that once when they were 'fighting' he used duct tape on her. But apparently that story was disputed or debunked as lies told by an an angry ex wife and nothing more. IDK though.

In his GMA interview, RK admitted that he had been investigated on a kidnapping charge. A Grand Jury convened, but they did not return a true bill, so he was not indicted.
 

larryphx

New Member
Joined
May 29, 2011
Messages
223
Reaction score
3
Kronk didn't come off like the evil monster Beaz told us he was in opening statements. In fact I like Kronk more now after hearing his story.
 

PaperTigers

New Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2011
Messages
68
Reaction score
0
Roy Kronk is a hero, in my opinion. I cannot imagine where we'd be without him. What sort of justice and closure could we have gotten had it not been for him? I don't think anyone of us imagined that Casey could have put THREE pieces of duct tape over Caylee's mouth and nose. I am forever grateful to Roy Kronk. I don't care if all he wanted was money. He did what other people weren't able to. He found Caylee's body when even those working for the Anthony family could not. God Bless Roy Kronk.

I agree. The money was there as an incentive to get more people involved in the search, who might not have done so otherwise. It's because of his clear thinking that lead him to find that body.

Off topic slightly, but you mentioned the 3 pieces of tape. I'm a bit out of the loop. Were the 3 pieces actually found affixed to Caylee's skull or was only one around her mouth and more tape was found near her body? I do recall there having been longer strips of tape that were found close to her.
 

DawnTCB

Taking Care of Business
Joined
Sep 22, 2004
Messages
488
Reaction score
11
I believe the story (that RK tells) involves an ex-girlfriend who asked him to help her move out from her new boyfriend's residence. Apparently the ex-girlfriend was scared. RK went to help her, got her packed up and moved out back to, IIRC, another state. Then someone called foul. I don't think we ever found out if it was the ex-girlfriend or her new boyfriend who charged him with kidnapping, though.

To my mind, they were all adults, so it doesn't mean he has a habit of stealing and murdering toddlers. I'm glad JB was not able to get it in.
 

ami

New Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2010
Messages
3,175
Reaction score
4
No it makes the evidence less reliable. Which makes reasonable doubt more of a possibility.

As far as I recall, the position of the bones was used for 2 things: the proximity of the duct tape to the skull, and the possibility that Roy Kronk newly placed the remains at the discovery site himself.

For the first line of evidence: the more Roy Kronk lifted and moved the skull, the more chance the duct tape had to move away from the skull. The farther the duct tape from the skull, the less likely it would be to appear to have been near the face area. So if Kronk moved the skull upon discovery, it strengthens the State's theory that the duct tape was closely associated with Caylee's skull. Even after tilting with a stick or being lifted with a stick (as the defense was trying to get him to say), the tape was still closely associated with the skull. It lessens the possibility of reasonable doubt that the duct tape was on her face.

For the second line of evidence about the amount of time the bones were at the recovery site: The only thing the bones' positional evidence was used for was to prove or disprove that Roy Kronk himself placed the remains there for financial gain. So if Roy Kronk moved the skull with his metal stick on December 11, he was moving the evidence that was used to assess whether or not Roy Kronk placed the bones in the woods on December 11th. The more he actually moved the skull, the more the (superficial) evidence would point to the remains being newly placed there. The more he moved the skull, the more likely it would appear that he himself put it there more recently than June. Therefore the more he moved the skull, the less amount of time the professionals would find the remains to have been in place at the site. Since a multitude of professionals say that they believed after seeing some of the larger bones buried that the bones had been there for several months, even considering RK's admission that he moved the skull, the more credible it seems for the remains to have been there since June.

IMO, both lines of evidence that the duct tape was associated with her head and the bones had been there for several months are only strengthened the more RK moved the skull.
 

txsvicki

Active Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2003
Messages
14,192
Reaction score
94
Website
Visit site
Kronk moving the skull is a worry since it could create doubt about the duct tape, but there's still the fact that the mandible was in articulation. I guess it will come down to the jury deciding on what kept the jaw in place from time of death, and hope the state can make it very clear. Kronk needing money and having problems with a son and exwife help show that almost everyone has problems and maybe even dysfunction in their family. I think he went back in December to try to actually search a little or find the spot, and don't understand why he can't admit it.
 

LiveLaughLuv

New Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2008
Messages
4,721
Reaction score
27
Kronk didn't come off like the evil monster Beaz told us he was in opening statements. In fact I like Kronk more now after hearing his story.

Nor did he appear to be 'morally bankrupt"...that's what his client appears to be...

The State did not call RK due to him not being part of the charges against ICA. Why would they muddy the waters? No one is charged with dumping Caylee's remains...No one is charged with abuse of a corpse/improper disposal of a corpse...ICA is charged with premeditated murder of her precious child.

The accidental drowing theory is another fabulous mistruth and I just can't believe Baez and team would fall for it..for they didn't tie all the evidence together. ICA's accidental drowning doesn't match the evidence..They should have investigated that further...

It appears ICA is now backing off the claims of LA yet, TonyL and JGrund only knew of ICA saying LA had fondled her (never mentioned GA), that she woke up one night to have him on top of her and he felt her up..far cry from GA's blanketyblank in her mouth. It's a dispicable defense to use as a reason why ICA couldn't tell anyone of Caylee's demise.

ICA doesn't want to be seen for the monster who left her baby in bags in the woods to decompose. She wants nothing like that attached to her so why not implicate innocent people! It's absurd and it's truly disheartening that this premediated murder of an innocent child has turned into a GA/RK somehow held onto Caylee for a bigger reward. That reward, $225,000, not $255,000 as CMason told it, was for a living, breathing Caylee...not a deceased Caylee so that ship sailed in June, 2008...

I only hope those jurors can see through the smut and go with the evidence, not the lies of the defendant...I believe she will be found guilty for her defense is one based on (more) lies...JMHO

Justice for Caylee
 

ami

New Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2010
Messages
3,175
Reaction score
4
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.

I totally agree. I can completely understand how RK could have exaggerated his story a bit for dramatic effect... I mean until then no one had listened to him, no one had taken his calls seriously, no one thought his story had any merit, and now here he is with LE, finally able to have his discovery acknowledged. So he tells them an excited version of the discovery...until he realized he was not only talking about crime scene evidence whose position and condition were of top importance to the case, but that he himself could be accused of having involvement with the child's remains in a nefarious way.

Then he admits that it wasn't quite as dramatic as picking up the bag and the skull rolling out, but was more like he picked up the bag and shook it, felt bones shift, started to understand what he was holding, looked down and saw a skull next to the bag, tilted it, confirmed human remains, was promptly in shock at the realization that he had found a small human skull (which he previously saw and kind of believed but also kind of doubted were the very remains the entire state was searching for - right there in front of him). He felt disbelief and belief at the same time.

I mean human nature being what it is, and having exaggerated a few stories myself for dramatic effect in the course of my lifetime, this rings true to me.

People are rarely perfect. People rarely report something that happened to them in their greatest moments of shock perfectly accurately. And this was a person living a life in which finding a dead rattle snake was the most dramatic thing that could happen in the course of a day. So what he says rings all the more true for his admission that he exaggerated a bit the first time he got to tell his story of finding the missing child.
 

Tuffy

Not really that tough...
Joined
Aug 19, 2008
Messages
6,178
Reaction score
13
I bet the jury thought, there but for the grace of G-d, go I.

I know! I mean really what would any reasonable person expect?! Mr. Kronk didn't call the police because he saw part of a hefty bag in the woods. He saw there was something more there, and used his stick to move the bag and see what it was. He was probably horrified to be looking at a tiny child-sized skull!

That's when he called. I honestly don't see that he disrupted the crime scene in doing that. He didn't touch anything with his hands. He didn't pick anything up. He apparently just moved it enough to identify what it was. Sorry, folks, I'm just not getting anything nefarious from this.:waitasec:
 

Doodlelover

New Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2009
Messages
210
Reaction score
1
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.

I think the state didn't call Roy first because if they called him, the DT would get to Cross Examine him which allows way more leeway in the questioning. Like leading questions. They would have been even more relentless (is that possible after Mason's repeating of questions) in a cross examination.

This way the DT had to ask limited questions and the State got to come up and ask whatever they wanted to clear it all up for the Jurors. Plus the state would have the final word.

It was a GREAT strategy by the State. Worked like a charm.

Plus the state thinks Roy is a non issue what better way to drive that home than to not even call him?

While Roy isn't my idea of "man of the year" He did the right thing calling again and again. If it was with the idea of getting the reward, great, that's why they offer rewards, so more people will get involved and help to look. If it was my child missing I'd put a reward as high as I could to help get more people out there looking. Obviously it works.
 

pcrum12

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 26, 2009
Messages
917
Reaction score
992
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.

Thanks was not enough! This is what Ive been saying all along! Why everyone jumps to conclusion that he is credible and also that DT is saying he rehid the body. To me that doesn't matter. What matters is that he moved/touched/changed (doesn't matter which one) the evidence therefore you can't rely on it! You can not in no way say where that duct tape was to begin with period! Also, if the skull was imbeddedin the ground with vines attaching it and growing through it how could he have moved the skull? and if he did how could the SA or ME say it was imbedded? REASONABLE DOUBT IMO.
 

lowens1975

New Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2011
Messages
848
Reaction score
0
I'm sure RK is no angel, but I doubt his 'sins' are worse than being accused of killing a two year old out of spite. If RK's 'motivations' were geared toward the monetary, then so be it. His 'motivations' aren't any worse than some of those pointing their fingers at him. LP, the bounty hunter, is a slave to his his own desire to appear on camera as many times as possible. And he will say anything to make it happen.

The important thing is this: RK FOUND Caylee. RK reported what he found and her body was recovered.

I believe Lee A told the truth on the stand that Cindy is the one who sent the PI's to Suburban Dr. DC spent a lot of unnecessary time and effort 'protecting' the so called psychic who he said directed him to look on Suburban. DC also told the Florida Bar that JB told him if he found the body NOT to call the police.

RK is still the 'hero'. He found Caylee and brought her home.
 

DeadCat

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2011
Messages
421
Reaction score
299
Question #4:
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!

Welcome, Bobby! I wondered about these questions at first too, but have come up with some explanations. 1) unlike others looking for Caylee, RK went into the woods to go to the bathroom, which means he would be looking for a place which was hidden, so that may have caused him to inspect a part of the woods the others had missed. 2) I think RK didn't want to go in and physically point to where he'd seen the "maybe skull" because he knew there were rattle snakes in the woods and probably the grumpy policeman (who I believe was subsequently fired or reprimanded) told him to remain there.
 

ami

New Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2010
Messages
3,175
Reaction score
4
Thanks was not enough! This is what Ive been saying all along! Why everyone jumps to conclusion that he is credible and also that DT is saying he rehid the body. To me that doesn't matter. What matters is that he moved/touched/changed (doesn't matter which one) the evidence therefore you can't rely on it! You can not in no way say where that duct tape was to begin with period! Also, if the skull was imbeddedin the ground with vines attaching it and growing through it how could he have moved the skull? and if he did how could the SA or ME say it was imbedded? REASONABLE DOUBT IMO.

Keep in mind that water and animals also moved the remains. No professional who assessed the remains did so under the belief that they laid in the exact position they were found in from the moment they were placed there. Not one person went on that premise.

Therefore the position of the remains was already assumed to have moved.

The duct tape evidence was specifically presented under the assumption that the skull had moved.

The evidence in this case was presented by both sides with the assumption that the remains had been moved over the months.

Therefore IMO RK moving them upon discovery has no impact on the evidence that has already been presented.
 

Bobby_

Former Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Thanks for the replies guys appreciate it!

Another thing that I just realized was that RK said initially he saw the body around 25 feet from where he was urinating, and in his testimony he stated on the December event he said was quoted by JB that he "looked down" and/or was "6ft-8ft" away. He quickly responded right away that he "doesnt remember" to him being so close the body.

Why, oh why would he not remember and why lie about this!!!! I speculate he is hiding something else that is very very important to the case.
 

legalmania

Verified Paralegal
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
3,642
Reaction score
9
Website
www.websleuths.com
I didn't get to watch the whole testimony, did they have Roy Kronk demonstrate, how he picked up that skull with that meter reader stick? He had to have went out there with the intention to poke around because he took the stick with him. I don't think you need a meter reader stick to relieve yourself, and there is no way that tiny stick is going to protect you from a venomous snake. Another thing I don't understand is why didn't he get a camera and take pictures or binoculars and zoom in on that skull to make sure what it was, before he moved it, potentially disturbing the remains.
 

Soulmagent

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
8,180
Reaction score
3,906
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.

The fact the explaination was revised is a conflict. Maybe he is telling the truth and he did exactly what he said both time and the skull rolled out one and then he set it back on the jaw with his stick tool.

Really no one at all cares the the evidence of the tape ,and the testimony concerning it is an issue?
 
Top