While researching another topic I stumbled across some information that may throw yet another wrench (aside from the blatantly obvious ones everyone but the defense can see) in the defense’s attempt to implicate Roy Kronk in the disappearance and even murder of Caylee. Some of the discussion that has ensued since the motion requesting Roy Kronk be named a suspect was released involved scenarios of whether Roy Kronk could have targetted Caylee while working his route. Apparently this is impossible. Because August 11th, 2008 was the first time Roy Kronk had ever been assigned to this route. In fact, his co-worker David Dean had to accompany him to show him the route on his first day.
http://www.wftv.com/_blank/18740699/detail.html
From Page 8:
Roy worked the route that included Suburban Drive for the first time starting August 11th.
And this is confirmed in an interview with David Dean, beginning at the bottom of page 9:
“We then spoke with David Dean who was with roy on August 11th when he discovered the suspicious items. He agreed to speak with us and our interview was recorded. David had shown Roy the route since it was Roy’s first time working that route.“
This information, provided by Roy in his interview, and David in his interview, would have been confirmed by OCSO when they reviewed Roy’s timesheet and assignments, which is noted on page 9 as well:
On January 6th, Corporal Edwards and I went to the Orange County Public Works building on Curry Ford road to interview Roy Kronk’s co-workers. Once there, we met with Division Manager Tim Armstrong. He provided us copies of Roy’s timesheet along with a detailed log of when Roy had worked the Suburban Drive Area.
And lastly from page 11:
Roy said August 11th was the first time he ever worked the Suburban Drive route and the first time he was ever on that road.“
This is further supported by Roy’s statement in the interview conducted on January 6, 2009 with OCSO:
YM: Okay. So that was the first time you’ve been on that street, Suburban Drive?
RK: It was the first time I was ever assigned to that route. I didn’t even cover that route in training, so.
YM: Was it the first time you were on, you, were on that street…
RK: Period, yeah (affirmative).
YM: At all?
RD: Period, yeah (affirmative).
Valhall.
________________________________________________
Originally posted Nov 20, 2009 @ 8:08:
Okay, we took a rather irreverent look at the latest defense move in which they have stated Kronk is the possible third party involved in the disappearance and murder of Caylee Anthony. Now let’s look at it seriously, both in what they think they have, and what they don’t have.
Their claims center around statements made by ex-girlfriends and wives, daughters of ex-wives who are now deceased, and a statement by his son. Let’s look at these and how the defense plans to use them.
Mr. Kronk is alleged to have been abusive to his ex-girlfriend/wife Jill Kersley. The allegations include beatings and using duct tape to restrain her during the beatings. Ms. Kersley is prepared to testify to physical abuse, being restrained with duct tape and being kidnapped by Mr. Kronk for two weeks in Maryland. It should be noted that Mr. Kronk was, in fact, arrested on these charges. But when the evidence was presented to a Grand Jury, not only did that jury find there was no probable cause to pursue the charges, but the entire issue was expunged from Mr. Kronk’s record. I’m not sure how this legally will play out considering the state will be able to show that a grand jury found Ms. Kersley’s accusations to not be sufficient to press on in this matter.
There is only one criminal charge listed as being brought against Mr. Kronk in the criminal records from Maryland. It is a CJIS code 1 0972 which is “constructive criminal contempt”. In reading about this charge, this is where an act of contempt has been reported to the judge, but the judge does not have first-hand knowledge of it. This charge appears to have been brought in November of 2006 with court activity as late as April of this year. Then in May of this year the “constructive criminal contempt” charge was dismissed and this case was changed to a status of “closed/inactive”. This contempt charge appears to be connected with a civil action in which Mr. Kronk was accused of not meeting court ordered requirements.
But, to support Jill Kersley’s accusations, Mr. Kronk’s former room mate, Bradley Wright, is prepared to convey that he saw bruises on Jill Kersley and that she told him they were from Roy Kronk beating her. She also told Mr. Wright (probably around the same time as the police report of same) that Kronk used duct tape on her. Crystal Sparks, which would be one of Roy’s ex-wives, also is willing to testify that when he was arrested for the alleged kidnapping charges he had in his possession duct tape, handcuffs and toy gun. Okay. I’m assuming Ms. Sparks is the one who has to testify to this as there must not be any official record of what was in Mr. Kronk’s possession when he was arrested…apparently.
Then we get to other accusations made by Crystal Sparks. She states that Mr. Kronk’s whole family was suspicious of him being around little girls and that his own sister would not allow him to hold his 3 year old niece. Ms. Sparks has a big heart in this matter. She is not only willing to testify on the behalf of arresting officers concerning what was in Mr. Kronk’s possession at the time of his arrest on the kidnapping charge, she will also be willing to speak for his entire family and his sister, Susan, specifically on these matters. No where in the defense motion is it stated any of Mr. Kronk’s family is willing to make a statement of support of these allegations.
Crystal also says that Mr. Kronk “believed in black magic, he believed in wizards, he believed in fantasy, he believed in fairy tales, he believed in demons, vampires.” In addition to these accusations Ms. Sparks is willing to testify that she left him for the abuse, violence and alcohol.
Then we get to April Hensley. April is the daughter of the now deceased Sandy Hensley. April is willing to testify to the fact that Mr. Kronk walked in on her while she was naked. She’s also willing to state Mr. Kronk wanted to video her with animals. She is also willing to speak on behalf of her dead mother and pass on the fact that Mr. Kronk’s addiction to violent video games made him unable to distinguish reality from fantasy and subsequently made him negligent in that Sandy was left in the bathtub too long.
So, those are the unsavoring allegations against Mr. Kronk.
Now let’s move to something with a bit more significance to the Casey Anthony murder trial. Brandon Sparks, son of Crystal Sparks, is willing to testify that Roy Kronk called him “one night in November” and told him he had found a little girl’s skull and remains in a location and that he (Roy) was going to be on TV. The defense is taking this statement (a legitimate move) to attempt to show that Roy Kronk KNEW the remains were there long before reporting it to law enforcement as a CONFIRMED finding. (Because we all know he tried several times in August – but not as a CONFIRMED finding.) Okay, so they state that Roy’s motive is money.
Let’s look at that. First, in all of Casey’s scenarios, not one time has she intimated that a ransom note demanding money was attached with the “kidnapping” of Caylee. So, apparently, the motive to make money on this kidnapping was not attached with a ransom for return of Caylee. This requires that Roy know before hand that Casey will, in fact, go partying for 30 days instead of reporting her daughter missing thereby whipping up a national media storm that would result in him getting a reward for finding the body as well as a Good Morning America spot, with an undisclosed licensing fee attached. This is most likely where the defense will revisit Ms. Sparks’ allegation of Roy being into black magic, because it’s going to take a crystal ball in Roy’s life for him to see that one playing out as it did.
BUT, that weak spot aside, they then go on to use the alleged phone conversation with Brandon Sparks in November to intimate that Roy Kronk placed the body there in the first place – as early as August – or possibly even June. This allegation, along with alleged inconsistencies the defense states are in various statements made by Mr. Kronk, points to him being involved in the placement of Caylee’s body at the discovery location in August 2008 or prior to that. Good move. While we’ll discuss what they have to prove to get there, this at least shows some creativity on the defense’s side. Right up until they “kerflunkel” their own theory.
If they had just left that train of thought pristine, they might be on to something – though they have a significant mountain of connections they have to establish to pull it off. But they didn’t stop there. They now throw in the insinuation that Mr. Kronk took a personal day on December 10th (the day prior to him reporting finding Caylee’s remains) to “stage his discovery of the remains”. Now, I’m not real sure what staging they have in mind here, but they can’t possibly be insinuating that he placed the body in its final location just one day prior to finding it, could they? I mean they have the whole “vegetation growing through bones” issue that is probably going to cause them a bit of trouble on that insinuation. It is very unclear what “staging” would need to take place if the body had already been placed there by Roy Kronk 4 or months prior. In fact, it is unclear why they push the date of Roy Kronk’s final reporting of the remains to December 11th in the first place considering their whole argument that he knew the remains were there as early as August is based on him stating there was a “skull” at the location.
If the remains were skeletonized by August when Roy Kronk states he first reported his suspicious finding, what would be the reasoning behind waiting 4 more months to report the finding? It’s not like there is some goal of ensuring evidence has been destroyed on Mr. Kronk’s behalf. Considering he was willing to have law enforcement find the remains as early as August. It’s not his fault Richard Cain is an incompetent buffoon.
So – to wrap up the defense’s motion, their argument is that because of ALL OF THE ABOVE, it is apparent that Mr. Kronk could have just as easily been involved in Caylee’s death as Casey Anthony and therefore, because he wasn’t investigated as a suspect, the whole thing is messed up. That’s layman’s terms for what they are arguing.
Here’s a serious review of what they need to establish for this to create “reasonable doubt”:
* Roy Kronk has to have access to Caylee…period. This either has to be while Caylee is in the possession of Casey, her legal guardian. UNLESS, the defense is going to try to stick with Caylee being with Zanny the Nanny and Roy gaining access to Caylee via a kidnapping from a kidnapper (I guess, I don’t know).
* Roy Kronk has to have access to the Anthony home to get the cylindrical laundry bag that is missing from the home, but was found with the remains. He also has to get the Winnie the Pooh blanket that is missing from the home, but was found with the remains. He also needs to be shown to have some stronger affinity to Henkel brand fire resistance duct tape than George Anthony appears to have. That or he stuck an extra piece on George’s can…which brings us to…
* Roy Kronk has to have access to Casey Anthony’s trunk. Because he’s got to place Caylee’s dead body in the trunk of that car some where between June 16th and June 21st in order for it to be taken back out of the trunk (I guess by Roy) by the 27th of June when it is towed from the Amscot parking lot. That, or he has to have access to the impound lot so that he can stick Caylee’s dead body in the trunk of the car for 6 days while it is there and then remove it sometime before July 15th when the car is picked up by George and Cindy.
Lastly, even if they were able to pull all of the above off, the defense has still got to address (now that they are apparently abandoning the “script-writing Zanny story”) why Casey Anthony did not report her daughter missing for 30 days, partied like it was 1999, and worked hard to “hide” from her parents so that the disappearance of Caylee would not be discovered.
Serious.
Valhall.
Defense’s motion:
http://media.myfoxorlando.com/photogalleries/111909memorandum-kronk/1/lg/Kronk-2.htm
Related posts:
- Kronk, Damn it, Kronk!
- Caylee Anthony case: The de-Kronking of Roy Kronk
- How Kronk could be a Suspect
- Caylee Anthony case: Defense’s Motion to restrict publication of witnesses
- Caylee Anthony case: Prosecution files motion to compel discovery
Click here to join the discussion
