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

DesSands

Author I'd die for you & White Satin
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
780
Reaction score
0
I doubt it.

Before Caylee's case I had participated in every missing person's search that occurred within a 6 hour drive. If I was reasonably able to. Elizabeth Smart went missing just as I started puking from an unrecognized pregnancy. I searched for 10 days before finally realizing I was not puking because of her disappearance and exhaustion, but from pregnancy. I continued searching as long as searches continued... and she was found when my daughter was a month old.

I searched for numerous other people from 2002 - 2008 when Caylee was found. Kids that got lost in the mountains, homicide victims, anyone who was missing.

After Roy Kronk found Caylee and got the reaction he did?

I completely reconsidered searching at all.

I had numerous ideas of places to look for a couple of missing people. Opportunities to search. But a fear that if I did find them I would somehow be implicated in the case.

I pretty much have reached the conclusion that having an alibi for the time of the disappearance isn't good enough. I could still be accused of moving the body later!

If I ever did go out and search and find something... I have convinced myself that I would report it completely anonymously. (Whether I actually would or not, I am not sure.)

Casey Anthony and her defense team have me SO scared... that is the compromise I have reached so that I still feel comfortable searching.

I know I'm not the only one. I use to be able to get a very large group of people to search with me.
Now it is a handful.

Their accusations have truly affected the searches for people who are really missing.
And that very much angers me.

I'm so glad there are people like you and also grateful. I now feel the same way you do since the DT has made something so good, so bad. Sad and a shame this has occurred. This girl ICA has caused so much grief to so many. She is the worse of the worst, try to rationalize who we are dealing with and hopefully there will be justice served. Thanks again for being you. :tyou:
 

txsvicki

Active Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2003
Messages
14,192
Reaction score
94
Website
Visit site
It is scary to know that calling in a tip or finding something could get an innocent person accused. I'm suprised that Kronk wasn't accused of abducting Caylee.
 

Hali

New Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2011
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
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.

But remember, according to Roy Kronk, he did all this while never being more than 30 feet near the remains/skull.???
 

RANCH

United we stand, divided we fall.
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
15,850
Reaction score
27,487
It is scary to know that calling in a tip or finding something could get an innocent person accused. I'm suprised that Kronk wasn't accused of abducting Caylee.

Your right it's scary. I think things like this happening deters people from helping out . It's a damn shame if you ask me.
 

rossva

George Zimmerman: Innocent until proven guilty.
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
1,804
Reaction score
9
Excellent point!


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.
 

TrY

New Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2008
Messages
331
Reaction score
0
Hell All first time poster.

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


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?

Bobby from Oshawa, Ontario (Canada)

I've clipped the quote for question 2. It's called checkbook journalism and there was a good thread about this issue when the news that Jose Baez cut a deal on Casey's behalf with ABC for $200K for videos and photos of Caylee became public.

The person that the mainstream media wants to get an exclusive with is called "The Get" and mainstream media while they say they won't pay for news will do just about anything to skirt it by paying licensing fees for photos and videos and pay for food and lodging and air fare. That way they can say that they don't pay for news.

Here is my post about the topic from the ABC News - Guilty of Checkbook Journalism? thread

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4956274&postcount=22"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - ABC News - Guilty of Checkbook Journalism?[/ame]

I don't know if any of the jury members would know about Jose's ABC deal on Casey's behalf, but she has probably made the most money of all the players involved in this case.
 

faefrost

New Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2008
Messages
2,285
Reaction score
0
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.

I don't think anyone believes that RK went in those woods in december for any purpose other than to take a look and see if what he thought he saw earlier was really what he saw. It may be a bit self serving to not say his true reasons for going in there. But he is one of thousands in the Orlando area that was doing the same thing. Yeah he brought his poking stick to see if the thing that looked like a skull actually was a skull. GUESS WHAT, IT WAS!

But what does that have to do with anything? he was a vanity hero out looking to find the child? I'm not seeing any reasonable path that has him involved in the crime? I am not seeing any way that he could be a true cause of any reasonable doubt regarding the child's murder. He didn't come into play until poor Caylee was fully skeletonized. So in the end we and even worse that poor captive jury have sat through hours and hours of worthless pointless testimony that does not go towards the truth of the matter or the matter at hand.
 

Soulmagent

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
8,180
Reaction score
3,906
Your right it's scary. I think things like this happening deters people from helping out . It's a damn shame if you ask me.

It doesnt or would not detour me from helping out,but of course I would be completely honest if I found myself in the woods with a stick.

If I found something I would call as found it and I would wait there, and make sure it was looked at that day.

My depo would reflect what I did and my court appearance would sound just like my depo , I wouldnt have taken a 15,000 picture of a dead snake nor would I have lied and said it was alive in my 911 since it was already at my co workers house frozen.
 

RANCH

United we stand, divided we fall.
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
15,850
Reaction score
27,487
It doesnt or would not detour me from helping out,but of course I would be completely honest if I found myself in the woods with a stick.

If I found something I would call as found it and I would wait there, and make sure it was looked at that day.

My depo would reflect what I did and my court appearance would sound just like my depo , I wouldnt have taken a 15,000 picture of a dead snake nor would I have lied and said it was alive in my 911 since it was already at my co workers house frozen.

Ok, I'm glad that your an upstanding citizen.Thank you.
 

Ambiance

New Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2011
Messages
156
Reaction score
1
Why is it SO important for the DT to impugn Kronk and make it look like it was he was involved and he dumped/arranged the remains of Caylee?

If it was an accident, what could ICA have done that was better/kinder/nicer than a Kronk disposal of the remains in the woods?

Did they have her respectfully buried with a headstone somewhere? and he found out about it and dug her up? If that was the case, why wouldn't he just take cops to that site and be done with it?

Or, would they say he saw them kill her when he was reading the meter and he said, "Oh, I'll take her and get rid of her, sure."

This seems like the biggest elephant in the room. And, I can't think of a reasonable explanation, can you?
 

PaulaF513

New Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2008
Messages
549
Reaction score
0
I think that they are throwing everything out there and hoping for 1 juror to take a dislike to one of the prosecution witnesses. It only takes one to hang a jury and at this juncture, that's the best they can hope for.
 

Ambiance

New Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2011
Messages
156
Reaction score
1
I get that...but it doesn't make any sense...whatsoever.

are they accusing him of murder? kidnapping?

otherwise, how is what he did worse than what she could have possibly done with her body?

I can see all the other things they threw out kind of fit in...but not this.

Wonder what she told the DT. surely they knew there was a problem with the nexus between the two of them
 

Tuffy

Not really that tough...
Joined
Aug 19, 2008
Messages
6,178
Reaction score
13
Why is it SO important for the DT to impugn Kronk and make it look like it was he was involved and he dumped/arranged the remains of Caylee?

If it was an accident, what could ICA have done that was better/kinder/nicer than a Kronk disposal of the remains in the woods?

Did they have her respectfully buried with a headstone somewhere? and he found out about it and dug her up? If that was the case, why wouldn't he just take cops to that site and be done with it?

Or, would they say he saw them kill her when he was reading the meter and he said, "Oh, I'll take her and get rid of her, sure."

This seems like the biggest elephant in the room. And, I can't think of a reasonable explanation, can you?

Freakin' brialliant, Ambiance! :clap: This point keeps getting lost in all the distractions of Mr. Kronk being thrown under the bus.

To me, it was really touching, and sincere when Mr. Kronk appologized for using the stick to check out the skull. That is how someone sounds who has respect for a person's remains (once he knew for sure that's what they were.) No way he would have desecrated those remains by moving or hiding them! He certainly didn't tape them!
 

Ambiance

New Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2011
Messages
156
Reaction score
1
Freakin' brialliant, Ambiance! :clap: This point keeps getting lost in all the distractions of Mr. Kronk being thrown under the bus.

To me, it was really touching, and sincere when Mr. Kronk appologized for using the stick to check out the skull. That is how someone sounds who has respect for a person's remains (once he knew for sure that's what they were.) No way he would have desecrated those remains by moving or hiding them! He certainly didn't tape them!

I agree ....but, I just went back and read Kronk's ex-wife testimony. I wonder why the DT didn't bring these people in since it establishes a nexus on the duct tape:

"One of Kronk's ex-wives, Jill Kerley, was interviewed by Casey’s defense team and says he “…duct taped my hands one time.” She said he called it the “…100 mile per hour duct tape… nothing can get through it.”

Another of Kronk’s ex-wives, Crystal Sparks, said she once bailed Kronk out of jail at his father’s request after he was arrested for kidnapping a girlfriend. Sparks said Kronk’s father told her “Crystal, there were handcuffs, duct tape and he used a plastic gun he bought at a drugstore.”




Continue reading on Examiner.com Casey Anthony case: Roy Kronk's ex-wives talk to accused murderer's defense team - National Crime | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/crime-in-na...accused-murderer-s-defense-team#ixzz1QlJYiABJ
 

Hot Dogs

New Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2008
Messages
1,780
Reaction score
1
I agree ....but, I just went back and read Kronk's ex-wife testimony. I wonder why the DT didn't bring these people in since it establishes a nexus on the duct tape

Some of your questions seem to reveal that you are unfamiliar with the defense's opening statements and their theory.

They do not claim that Kronk had anything to do with, nor witnessed, Caylee's death. They are saying that George applied the duct tape to Caylee after she accidentally drowned because he wanted to frame Casey for murdering Caylee. It seems that they also suggest that George put Caylee in the woods. Then Kronk found her and "kept" or moved her. They have not specified when or where Kronk did the moving, only that he did.

Please don't think that just because I am exlaining the defense theory that I believe it or think it's logical or plausible.
 

Soulmagent

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
8,180
Reaction score
3,906
I am only saying that the fact RK did tell two different stories about what happen after he found Caylee shows reasonable doubt the position of the skull at the scene and the duck tape under the mandible can be used establish the duct tape was the murder weapon. There would and is no way to tell due to RK moving the skull (and skulls dont set themselves upright nor do they set themselves on duct tape to hold mandibles up)

Based on what I have heard in court I believe RK did move the skull and I also believe with the evidence presented from more then one witness that RK set the skull back on its Mandile at the scene before he called . Which is why that DNA was on the tape. The SA know it was moved and this is why he had so many depo's.

This issue wont matter on the jury deciding on murder if they believe she did murder Caylee ,it will only matter to the people who think there is doubt on if she did or not.
It is a lean to issue, you cant rely on the duct tape to assure a confirmation of the state proving their case agaisnt her.

Unless the state plans to get him back and clean him up some. They cant due so much wth him due to the expert saying the skull was buried to the eyes and since the skull came to rest there after flooding and animal activity it is hard to believe the mandible would have stayed intact in position thought all of that when it should not have been in an upright position at all. IMO.

Why Baez made his defence so complex is beyond me, He really started with a good case and crippled his client on for his grand opening statement and weak court room skills.
 

DawnTCB

Taking Care of Business
Joined
Sep 22, 2004
Messages
488
Reaction score
11
Some of your questions seem to reveal that you are unfamiliar with the defense's opening statements and their theory.

They do not claim that Kronk had anything to do with, nor witnessed, Caylee's death. They are saying that George applied the duct tape to Caylee after she accidentally drowned because he wanted to frame Casey for murdering Caylee. It seems that they also suggest that George put Caylee in the woods. Then Kronk found her and "kept" or moved her. They have not specified when or where Kronk did the moving, only that he did.

Please don't think that just because I am exlaining the defense theory that I believe it or think it's logical or plausible.

I think I am going to back and listen again. I think the "follow the duct tape" theory is trying to say "it was George's duct tape so George put it on Caylee, but not on the skull, no, because she was already deceased, he put it around the plastic bags like he might have with his deceased pets 30 years ago. But RK saw the random duct tape which floated off the bags and as you can see they are DNA-free so clearly they were never touching Caylee on any part of her body. RK just gathered them up and encircled the skull for dramatic emphasis. "

Does that go along with their statement and the defense's case? I need to hear the opening statement again to be sure.

I also don't think it is logical or plausible. :crazy:

And, FWIW, I think she would have had a much better chance at acquittal if she had left GA and RK out of it. If JB had come out and said it was an accident, she spazzed out, went into denial, considered faking a kidnapping and put the duct tape on but couldn't bear to see it on Caylee's face and took it off and left it around her neck instead rather than pull her pretty hair, thought if she put the bag in the woods a miracle would happen, here's all her jail tapes where she is saying she can "feel" Caylee will be back good as new, she clearly was in denial. They even could have let in her video from Dec 11 to say this is when the truth finally hit her. And she's been scared to get out of jail because everyone hates her so she waited for the trial. The state would have still had the chloroform and the lying but I think a compelling story could be given that she was young, flaky, and given to putting off telling people bad news.

All of this about Dad helping and MR having a mysterious role in moving it takes this story so far down the road to insanity I hope no juror has a shadow of a doubt.
 

Hot Dogs

New Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2008
Messages
1,780
Reaction score
1
Ashton essentially confirmed what a few of us have been saying since the beginning. Roy Kronk is not credible. The prosecution did not call him as a witness because he doesn't tell the truth. Ashton used the terms "spinning yarns" and "embellish". He also agreed that Kronk told his son (Brandon Sparks) that he had found the skull even before December 11th.

Kronk's stories just don't make sense as told. Even the State can see that.
 

DawnTCB

Taking Care of Business
Joined
Sep 22, 2004
Messages
488
Reaction score
11
Ashton essentially confirmed what a few of us have been saying since the beginning. Roy Kronk is not credible. The prosecution did not call him as a witness because he doesn't tell the truth. Ashton used the terms "spinning yarns" and "embellish". He also agreed that Kronk told his son (Brandon Sparks) that he had found the skull even before December 11th.

Kronk's stories just don't make sense as told. Even the State can see that.

Yeah, I actually felt a little sorry for RK today. How does it feel to have millions of people around the world know that you tend to exaggerate to the extent that people don't want you to testify to put a murderer behind bars?

Hey, did anyone get to see any of the maps of the area that people marked on during this trial? I have watched DD's testimony twice and I still can't figure out where he pointed to on JB's giant map... which BTW had "Location on Suburban Drive" circled and labeled. :maddening: Leading much?
 

Gnatcatcher

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
1,999
Reaction score
844
I didn't know where else to put this, and it's nothing more than just a thought, but... tonight I was watching Swamp People, or Swamp Wars, or Gators in the House or who knows, some swamp program. Anyway, it was about a guy who wanted to commit suicide, so he wrote a suicide note to his family, and then stuck his arm into the cage he had where he kept an East Diamondback Rattles Snake. He intended for the snake to bite him, and he thought he'd die a peaceful poisoned death, and his family would just find the note and be fine about it. Instead, what he got, was the most agonizing painful death, from the venom ... oh gosh I can't even say it, it was the most tragic sounding death. It kills the red blood cells, causes tissue damage, it must be a most horrible unimaginable pain.

Anyway I got to thinking, wasn't that the same species of snake Kronk found? And can you IMAGINE... this woman throws her child's body (albeit, already deceased) into a bush where this animal lives? Just to know what kind of death COULD have awaited her, if she were still alive that is, and I know she wasn't, I just can't understand how a person does that to a baby.

Geez. Just when I thought I couldn't be even more sickened, all over again... Sorry to bring this up for no good reason. Oh.. this mornign I stopped at a diner for breakfast, they had a little table of paper back books that patrons could read while eating, and guess what was smack, dab in the middle of the pile? "The Shack".

Yeah. It's been that kind of day for me. sad.
 
Top