A Serious look at the Defense’s Motion concerning Kronk – Update

Excellent post Valhall.

Roy Kronk is not on trial. Even if Roy Kronk was on trial, there was never a conviction on these alleged bad acts, so I don’t see how any of this would be permitted into any trial. Can I get a legal take on this?

Isn’t this a bunch of pretrial noise to get this story out there to a jury pool?

Wow, now watch Cindy and George just remember that Kronk is an old family friend and did have access to their home on numerous occasions. They have been under so much stress it just slipped their minds….. I wouldn’t be surprised by anything in this case. It gets worse with every motion that Bozo files. Amazing Post, keep up the good work. I look forward to reading your posts daily. JUSTICE FOR CAYLEE

Thank you Valhall !! It is abundantly clear, in not only this very serious look at the defense strategy and your wickedly sarcastic and humorous portrayal of possible scenario’s, that the only purpose of this defense motion is to pollute the jury pool.

This ain’t no Baby Ruth bar being floated, this is a major turd.

Heapum Bigum Shittum!

Question? How does this motion possibly work? How can the defense ask the judge to name Kronk as a suspect? Isn’t that the job of law enforcement?

Really this just boggles my mind. I can’t recall ever hearing of this kind of legal maneuver before, is this even possible?

I haven’t had a chance to read the motion yet, so my answer may be there, apologies in advance, if so.

The defense is counting on there being a jurist, or two, who are as suspicious as some of the commentors on the blogs were/are of Kronk. They know there was anger over implicating Jesse, his Dad, Amy, Ricardo and Tony. I wonder what those commentors have to say about this concerning Kronk now?

Wow Val – A couple of questions and another compliment on a great post. If you don’t stick with us on this through to the end I will be crushed! Please don’t get too busy with something more constructive than us – your fans! I know it takes a long time to do all of this.

1) I so hope Silver gives an opinion on the questions everyone has raised about how Kronk can legally be named as a suspect by anyone other than LE? This goes back to my question about – can they suddenly come up with a completely different story? I suppose the only way to introduce ‘The Kronk Kronicles’ is because he is a witness and will spend some major butt in chair time on the stand. So the fact that Kronk has some kronk in his past is definitely in Baez’s favor. Man, this is going to be wild.

2) I see the story shaping up as – Kronk and Zanny are boyfriend/girlfriend. Kronk was directing Zanny & Sammy. They had been planning this for months – possibly years. Pretending to live at Sawgrass (only met Casey at the stairs). Collected Caylee items over a period of time (blankets, clothes, laundry bag, etc.). Possibly at different points Casey brought some of Caylee’s stuff over in the trash bags and they saved them. George had 2 rolls of the rare duct tape and at some point Casey brought one of them over for Zanny to borrow. This wasn’t a ransom deal – Kronk thought he would get rich by being the hero in the saga of a major missing kids case (books, media deals, etc.). Setting up Caylee’s mom as the perp was carefully and meticulously planned. The threat to Casey was she had to keep her mouth shut and her behavior had to seem ‘normal’ for a month so that she would then get Caylee back unharmed. Blah blah blah – I know there are holes in this but.

Did anybody see AL this morning? Hair colored darker – lots ‘o makeup. Is it just me or does Baez seem to not be missing many meals lately?

What a bunch of carp! I am sure the defense will throw in that Roy Kronk’s route placed him near the Anthony home, therefore he should be considered a suspect somehow. They are definitely trying to raise reasonable doubt, that is all they can do. I am sure the state has much more evidence than we know. The wonderful
forensic astrologers over on WS have said that “there are prints on the plastic”, what plastic we don’t know, but they were certainly right on as to where Caylee would be found. I can’t wait until the trial when we will see all the evidence the state has. Valhall, I just want to say thank you for such a great forum you have!

Sherry – I am one of those who hasn’t given Kronk a sainthood on blogs just because he found Caylee. Are you implying that it is the fault of those who have pointed out the glaring issues with this guy? The guy is Baez’s dream witness – discoverer of Caylee. Pointing out the obvious things that the defense will use is good solid strategy – and the only way to prevent getting blindsided by any of this is to bring it out in the open. Ignoring his past – doesn’t erase his past.

Don’t get me wrong – I’m very thankful, happy, grateful that Kronk did the right thing. I’m not judging him either – I really do think he’s got some angry ex’s that are going to take a chunk out of his backside if they can. But I’m not going to gloss over his past or what I think his intentions are with his leaving his job are. It is what it is and its not because of blogger’s/commenter’s that he’s being used this way.

And I do not care WHAT the Anthony’s said through Brad Conway. This is all being fed to us in a methodical, tactical, strategic manner. Geo/Cindy are more than happy to drag Kronk through the heapum as the bad guy. After floating out all of Casey’s friends and their families – the defense now knows what the reaction from a jury would likely be.

Okay Jose…

If my ignorant brain deciphered the legal arguments or citations correctly, in my basic ability to understand, They (defense) want the ability to introduce all of Kronks past deeds admitted into evidence as a means to provide a “third party guilt” defense. *IF* They (defense) can prevent the *TAINTED* forensic evidence found at the remains scene, possibly elsewhere, due to Spoilation, being admitted, then They will have the ability to present Kronk as a possible third party and therefore create reasonable doubt.

That was my boiled down take on it and I’m a Lawtard and I ain’t buying it!

I knew it wouldn’t take long before Mr Kronk’s fetiches and preferences would be out in the open-
From the use of these unscrupulous antics, the resentment and hate these folks project on, to the man THAT ACCTUALLY FOUND the childs body, is almost palpable.

Had it not been for his perseverance,we would still be fed with fair amount of details on Zanny, Samantha, Raquel,Zac, Jeffrey and I bet the BS on the “nephilin”…

This being said, I hope MR Kronk understands how both Caylee & the general public are grateful for his actions!

lily, I am saying that out of all the people that have been implied as the one who really killed Caylee by the defense, they saw an opportunity with Kronk because all of the others caused distaste by the commentors. The defense is looking for what a possible jury pool thinks and Kronk was disparaged the worst by commentors who suspecrted he got his info from his girlfriend who works at the jailhouse who overheard Casey, so on and so forth. The defense team saw that and ran with it for their “reasonable” doubt. It was most plausible, in their estimation.

Seems to me Ms. Sparks may be looking for her 15 minutes of fame.

W. Sheaffer has posted his latest article “Why is State Attorney’s office not charging Athonys with perjury?”

Kronk would have been the most likely ’suspect’ by the defense no matter what anyone said. The defense has to come up with a better story than just Zanny the Nanny or they must do something to make that story more believable in order to cast reasonable doubt. Unfortunately for poor Kronk, events unfolded in a way that puts a huge amount of ammo in the dream team’s arsenal. He also has a boatload of history they can embellish. Casey’s friends haven’t lived long enough to have ex’s, and years worth of history to dig through. Closets get bigger the older we get in more ways than one.

I don’t know if Kronk has just had bad luck, bad ex’s, prior bad acts or if he’s an angel and none of the things being said are true. The fact that he found Caylee and did the right thing is what put him in the spotlight. That he had to practically draw a map, send up smoke signals, give GPS coordinates to LE to get them to take his discovery seriously isn’t his fault. Its OSCO’s fault that his discovery looks suspicious. He did the right thing – a very good thing. He was also aware if you believe his son’s statement that this would put him in the spotlight. I commend him for staying on it because he could have easily let it go. I guess we will all make our own judgements about Kronk when everything comes out as evidence. He will always have finding Caylee on his list of good deeds.

I think the most disturbing thing about this is that I have found out that because I have a level 80 Undead Warlock on WoW I could be the first one charged with murder by a defense team if their client lives in my zipcode. Even if I don’t know them and have never spoken to them. And God forbid I have some one in my past pissed at me. I’m sunk!

Wow! Mr. Sheaffer is not mincing any words here!

http://www.wftv.com/news/21668948/detail.html

WFTV legal expert Bill Scheaffer called it a low blow by Baez, who he says appears lost in his own case.

“The defense has continued to have a suspect de jour other than Casey Anthony,” said Scheaffer. “This is beyond a pathetic attempt. This is a despicable act on the part of the defense in this case.”

In other words, Baez and Anthony are walking a fine line with the accusations. So far, the defense has not spoken publicly about the bizarre turn of events.

QB
thax for beeing on top on it!! where I live is 18:00 hrs (6pm) NOW!!
So, hot news are rather cold when they reach me, unless someone tips me off. You Rock!!

Great post and analysis! Baez and LKB were just on InSession being interviewed by Vinnie Politan.

I found it interesting that Baez stated that they were not accusing Kronk of murder, “just” that the State had not done enough investigation on his background.

He then went on to state that the reason for the motion being filed with the Court was that the incidents mentioned therein were so REMOTE IN TIME. Strickland will have to buy into their theory to allow the defense to move on in this vein.

Added to all the other motions pending in the criminal case and the defense’s requirement to provide a witness list for Mr. Macaluso’s “grandstanding” statements, I have a sneaking suspicion that it will be quite the hearing next time.

So the defense wants us to believe that Kronk killed & disposed of Caylee….then why didn’t Casey get on the phone IMMEDIATELY and call police??? She still continued partying for 31 days straight, without mentioning a word to anyone that her daughter wa missing? To the defense, that still makes NO sense!1

My question to him

Would love to hear your thoughts on the latest Roy Kronk being suspect.

__________________________________________________________

Attorney Hornsby responded to my or our question about Roy Kronk

hornsbylaw (2 hours ago)
And while it still does not answer who originally took Caylee, it does raise the significant possibility that Kronk may have planted the body. where it was found to obtain a financial benefit. And if he planted the body, one must question how he obtained the body, why he lied about how he located the body, and notwithstanding the significant evidence suggesting Casey was involved in Caylee’s death and disappearance – a jury would be left with the very real possibility that Roy Kronk was also involved in Caylee’s death. And unless the State explains that sufficiently, it leaves Reasonable Doubt.
hornsbylaw

hornsbylaw (2 hours ago)
This motion filed by Baez is the first legitimate and credible motion his team has filed. From a legal perspective, it correctly states the law regarding similar fact evidence. But more importantly, if he can produce the claimed evidence at trial, it likely be admitted against the State (except for the claims he showed unusual interest in little girls) to cast doubt on Kronk’s veracity, motive, and, thus, his credibility.

It is hard to believe A. Lyon could say with a straight face that there is just as much circumstantial evidence against Kronk as there is against Casey!

But was there really evidence that a cylindrical laundry bag was missing from the A’s home? I must have missed that somewhere. How do they know ? did Cindy really admit that or did they find an receipt for a cylindrical bag? (IIRC these bags are sold separately, and a rectangular version was found in the A’s garage.)

Re Kronk: his having a chequered past IMO helps to explain that combination of persistence and reluctance that seem odd in his tips — things like seeing what he later said he was 99% sure was a skull, but then waiting hours, until that night, when he was out of that area, before phoning in a tip, and wanting to remain anonymous. He would know that the defense if not the media would rake up anything negative in his past and the defense or the A’s might use him as an alternate suspect, so it is no wonder he did not want to get publicly involved. That along with the flooding, and some resentment at Cain, and perhaps some second-guessing about what he had seen, might all have played somewhat into his waiting until December before looking again and calling.

Hold the phone! What did I just read? The Anthony’s have made NO sworn statements, so it’s impossible for them to have committed perjury, by not making material contradictions to the facts? How is that even possible? How is it possible that they did NOT give sworn statements to the Grand Jury, FBI, and Morgan during the depos? And someone PLEASE kick me upside the head to help me better understand this, but as far as I know (and I will most certainly go back and review such things and readily admit if I am mistaken) George’s Grand Jury SWORN testimony, regarding the decomp, did not jive with his Morgan SWORN testimony, regarding the decomp, and the decomp IS key, so wouldn’t that constitute a material contradiction? And if not, why not? Silver! Val! Anyone!

I’m going back to Morgan’s site, to listen to the depo again just to see if not only is he sworn, but what he specifically says about the decompositon, if anything. It’s been so long that I just don’t remember what he said other than refusing to answer.

Willow

“Quite simply in order for a person to be charged with perjury, he must make a material contradiction of the facts to which he is testifying, under oath. In other words, lie from one sworn statement to another. In the case of George and Cindy Anthony, their statements to the FBI, other law enforcement authorities and of course the media, have not been under oath, or sworn to.”

Say, what? Of course, Bill would know far, far better than I; but I am no less than astounded!

Willow

Val
what i get from Shaeffers concerning the Anthony’s/perjury charges, is that prosecuters intend to stay focus on the” real deal” FOR NOW!
…and wont allow the “folklore” to mislead them. Which does not mean, they wont take care of it later on….when their priorities are met.

Are we tuned here, or I’m missing something????

Dumbazz Baez, et al….

There is nothing reasonable about this doubt.

Unless they get this trial moved to Putnam County, and the jury is filled with 12 of the hillbillys in the Croslin clan, no sane, literate person will be able to listen to this crap with a straight face.

Filipa, I think prosecutors are not bringing charges against the other A’s for now so they have to testify at Casey’s trial. If they are under indictment, I believe they would have cause to plead the 5th. This way, the SA can get the A’s on the stand, listen to their latest bit of perjury, and hold it up against their original statements from the 911 calls, the statements from July/August 2008, their recent depos, and all the times they’ve opened their pieholes on TV – from Greta, LKL, to hollering at the press and the protestors. Once it has been established that they are prolific liars and of no use as witnesses for the defense, and Casey has been convicted – it will be game/set/match time. The charges will be brought swiftly againt the A’s at that time.

Clockwatcher!!! “This ain’t no Baby Ruth bar being floated, this is a major turd.” HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!

Valhall, God bless you for putting this into perspective for us. I firmly believe that Baez & Co. are trying this case on Google blogs everyday, trying to determine a jury’s conclusion by first running through the scenario with us. I’m sure they are taking note today of our outrage and/or laughter. Would you agree?

Shyloh

Hornsby had some interesting responses to your questions.

However, even if there is law regarding “similar fact evidence”, isn’t it important first to establish fact? By that I mean, the assertions and allegations put forth by the defense witnesses have not been proven as fact. With no conviction in regard to supposed prior bad acts, doesn’t the defense have to PROVE the veracity of the statements and the credibility of those who made the statements? Otherwise, anyone with an axe to grind, or who sees potential financial reward by coming forward might be motivated to make accusations. Were these witnesses deposed with attorneys from both sides? Or rather were they questioned by a PI who got information from one source and then presented that info as a lead in to the next source in order to achieve corroboration? Does the defense have the obligation to provide the state with unedited transcripts and video tape to back this claim (in the motion) and permit the state to question them, before the defense decides alone that these are indeed facts? On Blink, one poster pasted an arrest record of an ex-wife who forged checks. Does she has a sense of kinship with Casey Anthony?

Doesn’t the defense also have to present in the motion whatever they have concluded was inconsistent testimony made by Kronk? Doesn’t there need to be evidence of duct tape used to bind the woman? So many questions.

BEES KNEES asks:

I’m sure they are taking note today of our outrage and/or laughter. Would you agree?

If their strategy is to make all 12 jurors spot themselves simultaneously in hopes of getting a mistrial due to a viral break-out of mass incontinence, then I think the fix is in.

Okay, scratch some of my last questions, I see that there are attachments to the motion, and that they list what they consider to be inconsistencies. Still, does the state have a right to depose these witnesses before these statements can be entered as FACT?

Great post as usual Valhall, I like the fade in and out on the videos…I like the pauses as the ex tries to think what Kronk had done to her for those four months they were married how long ago? This is a travesty in my opinion, and someone needs to file a bar complaint for deliberate jury tainting in the national media. They know this hearsay evidence will go no where, its just to gauge the temperature in the water when allegations turn to Kronk. Lots uf unlikable people in this case, unlikable PIs, grandparents, lawyers…I think the only likable person in Jesse Grund and the trial judge, Amy because you have to feel bad she was taken in by Casey. If no legal action comes from this move, it will open a very ugly door for the future.

One more note, and I will shut-up. If I accept that the statements provided by the defense are fact, it still isn’t an apple to apple comparison. If Kronk kidnapped adult women who were known to him and intimate with him, it isn’t the same as kidnapping a stranger-toddler. It sounds much more like domestic violence. When prior bad acts were entered into the Spector Case, they were precisely the same circumstances, that being Spector holding guns to the heads of women he was in relationships with. Even with all of these new witness statements, there is nothing to indicate that he had the proclivity for kidnapping toddlers or an unhealthy sexual attraction to them. There is mention of inappropriate situations with the adolescent daughter , if I recall correctly, but if one is a pedophile, aren’t they typically narrow in the age range that they are attracted to? And even if I accept these proclivities, does the defense have any obligation to demonstrate opportunity to actually commit the crime if they are naming a specific subject vs. any or all other unnamed potential strangers?

I would like to know how you verify the facts…and I would like to hear from an attorney how you can have the guts to accuse a man on natl tv, with video you compelled, paste and cut, edited, and from a bunch of ex wives, with probably axes to grind. Fact??? I dont think thats fact. if these women documented sometime in the past about duct tape etc, ok. If they just come up with this recentloy after the findings, and no one in Kronks immediate family is backing up these stories….Sounds like libel and slander tome. Im surprised Hornsby and Bill S have such different takes on this.

Kronk said in a statement issued to Local 6 News that the kidnapping involved a domestic situation with a man who was living with his former girlfriend.

“In the early 1990s, while on duty with the U.S. Coast Guard in Key West, Florida, I had a girlfriend who made the decision to discontinue her relationship with me and move to South Carolina to reside with another man. At some time after her departure, she called me and asked me to come to South Carolina and help her move away from that individual. I travelled to South Carolina to assist her. Upon my arrival in South Carolina, the man she was living with engaged me in a confrontation. As a result of that confrontation, I was arrested based on false allegations that I had kidnapped my former girlfriend. The matter was submitted to a grand jury in South Carolina. The grand jury determined that there was no probable cause to bring charges against me. In recognition of the falsity of these allegations, all records relating to this arrest were expunged by the South Carolina court.

“When I applied for employment by Orange County, since the records of this arrest had been expunged, I would have been within my rights to not disclose this incident. However, I chose to disclose this arrest and the expungement of the records because I had nothing to hide and have a personal policy of openness and honesty about events in my life,” the statement said.

Local 6 News has confirmed that the information is included in the criminal background check conducted on Kronk prior to his hiring with Orange County.

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/18448218/detail.html

That is an old article by the way. So LE must of investigated Roy. January 9, 2009

I am new to this site but have followed this case since the beginning and am so glad that I have stumbled upon this forum – it is great. The insanity of this case with all of the stories and lies and make believe just keep my head spinning. This is more of a rhetorical question – not only because I am just so disgusted with the renewed insanity that each new day brings but more importantly because I know for a fact that Sindy A. reads the blogs – WHERE THE H*** IS ZENAIDA AND WHY HAVEN’T ANY OF THESE HIGH PRICED “INVESTIGATORS” BEEN ABLE TO FIND SO MUCH AS THE SLIGHTEST INDICATION THAT SHE EXISTS?” Despite having dug up so much dirt (hearsay) on RK, I have yet to see anything to indicate that he or Dominic Casey have even TRIED to locate Zenaida the abductor. Nope, instead they are just coming up with every other hairbrain theory and dragging innocent people through the mud without a moment’s hesitation – Tony L. is a drug runner and manages a prostitution ring – he might be the culprit, Amy is a heroin addict – she might be the culprit, Jesse sent Caylee a card and loved her so he is VERY suspicious, now it is Roy Kronk [slight edit here].

Shyloh

Well there you go. Thank you. I don’t see, even though the kidnapping was admitted, how that prior bad act has any relevance to the abduction of a toddler. It was clearly an act of domestic violence and not for the purpose any financial benefit, I might add.

They are trying to claim that he was looking for money, which indeed, he might have been, but how does that tie him to disposal of the body or a kidnapping? Jose Baez made money through the selling of images (purportedly)
the Anthonys made money from selling images (admittedly so); so how does Kronk have more motive to commit this crime more than Baez or the Anthonys? Surely they have benefited more financially from Caylee’s death than Kronk has.

After I picked my jaw up off the floor at the defense team’s extremely desperate and underhanded attack on Roy and after watching the video interviews of his ex’s I was flabbergasted that THIS was what Baez and team are basing their accusations on.

The thing that stuck out the most to me was Crystal’s interview … she not only talked about her experiences with Roy, but relayed things his father said, her son said, his sister said, and some other family member said … I couldn’t believe that this crap is what these motions are based on … ummm … I thought you couldn’t base accusations on here say???

IMO their deliberate and planned attack of Kronk and pre-scheduled media blitz is not going to be received well, even by people not so well informed about the case … it reeks of name calling and dirt digging with no substance … even Matt and Maggie seemed a little taken aback …

One of the biggest questions that pops out IMO is why now? Why not a year ago? Why didn’t they go to LE with their suspicions and have Roy investigated? They offered no new info on Roy that they didn’t know last year, so why now?

You are welcome WSH. Something I thought also was once something was expunged from your record. It could not be used against you. Not sure how that works.

I usually don’t say this but here goes. My God, my God. This case is such a mess, that they are all going down! Casey, Cindy, George (perhaps not Lee) HoZay, Andrea (what in the world is she thinking? Notoriety?) Brad. This whole case and near every testimony, sworn to by the way, is just chocked full of inconsistency and contradiction that one would wonder who’s advising them? Mickey Mouse? But then, it’s probably Cindy and what does Jose care? He’s making a mighty fine dime, so well knowing that in time next to no one will remember. I just finished the depo George gave to Morgan, and the only thing he was consistent about was the decomp. He didn’t alter what he’d told OCSO. But that just makes it all the more sad.

This will not ever fly with Kronk. I can’t wait to see what Strickland will have to say about it. What allegations were made against him were tossed by the Grand Jury, from what I understand, and the paper trail against him, expunged. That says a lot. This defense team is no less than evil, and I sure would like to know what hold the Anthony’s have that would cause them to so blindly, it would seem, go forth to make such fools of themselves.

Thanks to all for all of the information you’ve provided. It so helps me to keep up.

Willow

denjet
“They offered no new info on Roy that they didn’t know last year, so why now?”

This is probably the brain child of Lyon. They are thrashing in the water and will attach themselves to anything (or the crime to anyone) because they know they are drowning. The want to muddy the waters before trial. They have to provide the court with the “proof” that Mac said he had that Casey was innocent and that someone else placed the body at the dump site.

WSH.,

Desperate times call for desperate measures. They’ve got nothing else.

Willow

Excellent and informative post Valhall. I can see now where the defense is attempting to go but also the loopholes they face. I still feel the evidence against Casey is overwhelming and that she, in fact will be found guilty. Another thought is that Cindy and George would not have cleaned the car inside and out if they thought for one moment that they were protecting Kronk as the murderer. They knew that it was Casey they needed to clean up after.

My latest theory on what Baez may be trying to accomplish with Kronk is to show that there was a flow of information from xfactor (Dominick Casey?) to an OSCO investigator to Roy Kronk. How else could the investigation progress unless SOMEONE found the body? What better guy to pull in than a county employee? Someone who had a reason to a) be in the area b) be in the woods (pee break) c) possibly ‘overhear’ the information ‘on purpose’ in his everyday job.

Of course, this would require that Kronk not know he is being used this way. BUT this would explain why he wasn’t quite sure about what to do when OSCO didn’t respond in the right way. He was second guessing himself all over.

This would allow Baez to say that OSCO was operating dishonestly so therefore how can we trust anything else they have to say?

This is total speculation. I need to get a life this weekend. Stop me.

I don’t know what or how they could have obtained anything to incriminate Kronk, but I hope D. Casey, under Anthony orders, did not see fit to plant something relating to Kronk at the dump site. The mind boggles at what the Anthony family and defense team could have done and will do before this case comes to trial.

Must be a bombshell document release ahead! Such a lot of ado from the defense side must be to counter something big coming out.

Val …love your commentary……just love it.

Baez & Co…..are so desperate they aren’t thinking clearly…..it’s much MUDDY….oh did I say that?
It’s the very same MUD they are slinging at R Kronk. They’re throwing that mud on the wall hoping it
will stick….yes I said hoping. But you see, it won’t….because that was is too slimey for anything to stick.

So….now we have another ‘victim’ added to that long list of ‘CASEY VICTIMS”……those who have been accused of either kidnapping and/or murdering Caylee. I too waited for that ramsom call or letter to arrive and I’m still waiting. But since the REAL NANNY is CASEY……..that ransom is finished and done with.
The have all moved onto Amy and Jesse Grund and even Rev. Grund as the potential kidnapper/murder suspect.
That being said……others filled their shoes as these poor people were dropped from their list.
Roy Kronk is the newest to fall prey to Baez & Co.’s clutches……..and I might add that the defense must have very very deep pockets because I’m sure he either paid these witnesses to come forward to slander Kronk or he promised them FAME AND FORTUNE in the future…..maybe a Book Deal?

I’d like the defense to explain the very thing that you mentioned……the vegetation that was growing under and through Caylees little bones and under the bags she was reported to be in……..PLEASE EXPLAIN THAT ONE MR. BAEZ – GENIUS…..
When Cystal Sparks was describing Kronk’s belief in Black Magic, wizards, fairy tales and fantasy…..I could’ve sworn she was talking about CASEY.

Dream on Mr. Baez…….when Dominic Casey’s deposition comes up next month, I wonder how they will handle him? Will D. Casey be FRIEND OR FOE?

There are a lot of new commenters here that I would like to say welcome to. Thank you all for sharing your kind words and your thoughts on this issue. I look forward to visiting with you all in the future about this case and others that I’m sure will catch our attention after Casey is but a memory.

It’s awful hard to keep up with you guys when I’m at work! There are so many helpful posts made and I’m going to take a bit to re-read them all now that I have time to reflect. One thing that catches my attention is this:

Kronk said in a statement issued to Local 6 News that the kidnapping involved a domestic situation with a man who was living with his former girlfriend.

“In the early 1990s, while on duty with the U.S. Coast Guard in Key West, Florida, I had a girlfriend who made the decision to discontinue her relationship with me and move to South Carolina to reside with another man. At some time after her departure, she called me and asked me to come to South Carolina and help her move away from that individual. I travelled to South Carolina to assist her. Upon my arrival in South Carolina, the man she was living with engaged me in a confrontation. As a result of that confrontation, I was arrested based on false allegations that I had kidnapped my former girlfriend. The matter was submitted to a grand jury in South Carolina. The grand jury determined that there was no probable cause to bring charges against me. In recognition of the falsity of these allegations, all records relating to this arrest were expunged by the South Carolina court.

“When I applied for employment by Orange County, since the records of this arrest had been expunged, I would have been within my rights to not disclose this incident. However, I chose to disclose this arrest and the expungement of the records because I had nothing to hide and have a personal policy of openness and honesty about events in my life,” the statement said.

Local 6 News has confirmed that the information is included in the criminal background check conducted on Kronk prior to his hiring with Orange County.

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/18448218/detail.html

This is VERY un-hinky. This speaks loads to me. This does not support the allegations that Mr. Kronk is the big phat habitual liar that the “ex-wives club” wants us to believe. Like I’ve said before, I’m sure Mr. Kronk has his issues. I’m not going to be surprised if some of those are unsavory or down right unacceptable to me personally. But I’m thinking he’s being villified.

My opinion is that this whole thing will never make it before the jury. The only thing in this mess that even applies to the Anthony case are the inconsistencies in statements made by Roy about his findings in August. The defense team can go to town on that, but I do not believe they will be able to accuse this man of murdering Caylee before the jury.

If that’s possible, then God help us all.

I have a question for Silver if he stops by:

I have read where the defense lawyers, acting as officers of the court, have certain protections against civil suits in matters like this. My question is: Does that protection extend to outside the court room? In other words, when LKB went on the national morning news show and stated what she did about having as much circumstantial evidence against Kronk as there is against Casey as a possible murderer of Caylee, is that statement protected?

It would appear that falls outside the protection of “serving as an officer of the court” – at least to this layperson’s eyes.

W. Sheaffer has posted another article today but this time its on this latest motion. Sorry if this is old news, but I did not see it mentioned in the above posts.
He titles it “Does Casey’s defense have no sense of decency?”
Its pretty strong stuff.
Also, are these interviews that were released to media court approved depositions? Don’t depositions require someone from prosecution to be there?
It will be very interesting to see prosecution’s response to this motion, I wonder if it will come quickly.

Valhall,
Did you see the clip of W.Sheaffer discussing that very issue? Its at WFTV. I believe he did say attorney’s do not have protection against civil suits when they operate outside of the court.

Off to check it again.

Ewww! Thank you, QB. Going to go read Mr. Sheaffer’s blog entry on this and also try to find the video you are referring to.

Holy cow! LMAO

Mr. Sheaffer is my hero

http://www.wftv.com/caseyanthonyblog/index.html

http://www.wftv.com/video/21677312/index.html

Val, this most certainly is the most damning and damaging thing the defense has done, thus far; and though I am most certain it won’t fly with the State, as it hasn’t already, which you so aptly pointed out, or Judge Strickland, I fear that we won’t see justice served, for the sake of Caylee, for another 2-3 years, for after the defense is done with Kronk, they will no move on to the next, from Jesse to George, himself. I am SOOOOO beginning to think that this is personal to Baez now. O, and did you notice that Andrea looked a bit like Casey today? Like it wasn’t bad enough that they wore the same color shirts, now even their hair and make-up are the same. Is Casey rubbing off on her, maybe?

Another thing, before it escapes me, as so much does and I apologize for that, most sincerely, is this not only beginning to stink like a skunk on any potential jury, but also a mistrial? I hope with all that I am that this stays in Orlando, that Judge Strickland sees it through to the end, though I know that Baez will most probably get his change of venue.

Weary, Willow

VAL! QB! Does this mean that Kronk will be able to sue the pants off Baez and Lyons?

Willow

Three cheers for our own Bill!

P.S. Doesn’t this sort of dispicable lawyering serve but to further enflame the public?

Holy moly, I just got through watching Mr. Sheaffer’s interview from last night. Man, he’s downright miffed by this.

I know some people who may be in deep doo-doo from this.

Does anyone have the Lyons and Baez interviews? I saw LKB – she definitely crossed a line in her interview. I would like to view the others.

I hope Kronk sues CBS over the headline they used in the on line article that jumped off the screen at me and I quote ” Meter Reader Roy Kronk Killed Caylee Anthony” … I have not read or watched the news in a couple of days and when I turned on my computer tonite that was the first thing I saw… I almost fell out on my chair !

Baez and his team are desperate … and they hope if they can get this out there , there might be a chance of a hung jury…. I listenened to the full tape of Kronk’s ex where she talks about him beating her in maryland, etc and she sounds as though she is lying… The words do not flow freely and she is searching for what to say. I think Kronk unfortunately has

some bitter and vindictive ex wives, girlfriends,ex step children and a son .

Also looks as though they have cleaned up Andrea ( attorney) quite a bit… Make up and hair is now styled … just wish the stylist would have cut some of it off …
Can’t wait to hear how Baez and his team are going to tie in Casey’s original 2 different stories to Kronk and him being a part of this…. I am sure Cindy is busy thinking up the scenirio as we speak.

This case gets crazier every day. Just when I think the defense couldn’t top their last set of waste of paper motions they amaze me with something even worse. Roy Kronk aka Zanny the Nanny? WTH or did he kill Zanny too?

Wonder if Baez sold those interview videos to the major networks?

Val, I just read the article, having only view the video. Shaeffer answered the question so stating that this indeed angers the public. Good Deal! I hope this all blows up in their faces. The interview from this morning was on the Today Show.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/vp/34059278#34059278

Is this what you’re looking for? There’s another that occurred later today. I haven’t seen it. Will try to find it.

Willow

Yep! Thank you so much, Willow! Lyons crossed that line – got challenged to make sure she wanted to stick with her statement and then stepped up and over the plate.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/20/crimesider/entry5723509.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody

Am I driving you nuts, Val? If the link doesn’t work, I’ll modify it.

Why would you be driving me nuts???

Thank you for the links!

I’m sooooo hyped, I’m soooooo angry!

I just keep posting and posting! This whole Lying-ByAzz stuff is driving me nuts!

ARGH!!!! I keep calling Baden Lyons! Geesh! Did you hear that, Val! “She isn’t guilty of INTENTIONALLY killing Caylee.” INTENTIONALLY? What the heck!

Time to calm down and take a deep breath, and then throw darts at BADEN and BAEZ, and get the names straight. Then, go to bed.

Good night, all.

Mr Sheaffer is correct, this is a dispicable act by Baez. I sincerely hope this comes back to bite Casey on her ever expanding arse.

I have been disgusted by todays events.

Links to the interviews by the defence team.

http://www.youtube.com/user/Sierra1947

Patty has uploaded most of them I think.

I think shaffear is a little wee bit mad becouse he see’s the integrity of the system and law he has practiced for so long under attack and being used improperly and that is excactly what is going on if there is a man with great credibility and character Mr. shaffear buts the whole defense team to shame…how long will they be allowed to come out and make accusations and point the finger at people with hardcore evidence to back it up…INCLUDING Mr. Macaluso next to biazzz he has to affect my blood pressure…OUR CLIENTS INNOCENT…then why do you let her sit in the jail!!! OY VAY!! enough i will get riled by what i type!! lol Godbless all who fight for Caylee Marie♥♥

The duh-fense is still desperate for a plausible alternative theory. Of course none exists. All roads lead back to KC and her babysitter, the notorious ZFG. Val is correct in that KC’s behaviors while Caylee’s missing render scenarios w/o a 30 day script more illogical not less.. and now what’s this about the A’s-holes supporting Kronk? What a crock! I can just see it now, they’re sitting at home wondering: what can we do to bolster this Kronk theory? Told nothings required from them in this scenario they decided to add some spindy to the recipe regardless.. using reverse psychology no less! Feigning support for Roy is no doubt a ploy in a feeble attempt to repair public perception of the family. l’m certain they’re secretly rejoicing at the luck that it was a man with Kronk’s past who found Caylee’s remains. Doesn’t matter how problematic it is as a stategy at trial since it may be the best alternative the duh-fense can muster. Which speaks to how quickly KC will be found guilty at trial. But hey listen, I still have an open mind in this case, however it relates to what the over/under might be on jury deliberations with this kinds of stupidity presented as evidence.

Someone on another site has exposed this:

She wants her 15 min of fame and enough money for a Big Mac Meal!Go checkout her criminal record in Walsdorf Maryland,she has been arrested several time for theft and alot for forgery/bad check charges.Type in Jill Kronk.
******************************
Defendant Name: KRONK, JILL RENEE
Race: WHITE, CAUCASIAN, ASIATIC INDIAN, ARAB
Sex: F
Height:
Weight:DOB:03/09/1957
Address: 3038 CHAMPIONS DRIVE
City: MARYVILLEState:TNZip Code:37801 – 0000

FORGERY-PRIV DOCUMENTS
UTTERING FALSE DOCUMENT
THEFT:$300 PLUS VALUE
THEFT:LESS $300 VALUE
THEFT:$300 PLUS VALUE

WHAAA??

I knew it wouldn’t be long before someone started digging up garbage on those ex’s and possible the entire family. Geesh. The defense knows how to pick em.

Baez and Lyons keep switching up. Which is it? Is she guilty? Is she neglectful? Is she innocent? Is she innocent of intentionally killing? Was it a kidnapping gone bad? Was it an accident? Is she mentally incompetent? Have you no conscience? Is there a Nanny? Was there a ransom demand? Are you kidding me?

Why not just focus on getting her a deal????? The state isn’t buying it, the public isn’t buying it, Caylee isn’t buying it.

Deal with it.

Oh trust me. The Anthony’s are going to remember some bogus time when the meter reader came to their house and took an unnatural interest in little Caylee. Its going to be vague – but it will be just enough. OMG I can’t take anymore of this.

lily, re: 9:39 comment ROTFLMBO!

Thanks Sherry. I think this blog makes me work harder than I ever have for a laugh. The competition is fierce. I like your comments too.

Its like . . . tap tap tap . . . is this thing on? Too many funny smart people.

I agree, lily!

Lily! HA! You crack me up=D
“tap tap tap…is this thing on?”!!!!!!!!

I posted on the previous thread about this nonsense motion, but to save you the time…
I reiterated, in conclusion, what I stated upon initial impression, which is that the defense is DESPERATE.

If anyone believes that Casey is HELPFUL to them in their defense of her, you might reconsider your opinion. (I highly doubt anyone HERE believes that she has been helpful, but just wanted to thrown a glass of cold reality on the head of anyone who might have considered it to be so).

In their OWN desperation to appear to be working hard on the case/effectively assisting her..
they make a huge mistake, IMO, via the filing a this motion–and their media cruise to publicize it.

Just WHEN are they saying that Caylee’s body was placed at the scene???
Their theories on this are now so easily blown apart.
This current fiasco of a “strategy” totally contradicts what they have asserted in the not-so-distant past…

Was Caylee’s body there by early August (thereby allowing them to claim that LE failed to properly investigate)??
Was Caylee’s body placed there later?? (thereby disregarding the FORENSIC evidence discovered at the dump site, particularly the vines/roots which GREW through some of her remains)????
Was…..Ughhhhhhhhhhhh.

I should have just left it at what I wrote on the previous thread and called it a night! I am exhausted, and this?
This is a waste of time/concern.

D E S P E R A T E and O F F E N S I V E.

I hope one and all go to sleep soundly tonight, because this is nothing to truly be even given much thought (unless you are a)Roy Kronk and or his friends/loved ones–who have to read/see/hear this garbage, or b) Judge Strickland, who eventually has to issue a ruling on it).

Thank you Silver. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ it worked!!! I am not worried, just saddened that the Defense could sink so low as to blame another… Ms. Lions knew of a man and innocent man sitting in prison for what 23 something years I believe. And held her tongue. I guess it was ok for that to happen. Night to you and everyone.

Let’s not forget Casey’s OWN STATEMENTS TO LE about when/where/with whom she “left” Caylee on 6/9/08– OOPSY– excuse me– on 6/16/08.
Yeahhh.. Right.. 31 DAYS, not 38.

She never said that Caylee was taken by a stranger.
She never said that she handed Caylee off to Roy K– or any MAN for that matter.
She actually said she left Caylee with someone whom she TRUSTED; someone who had watched Caylee for a long time, blahblahblah.

There is a boatload of POWERFUL circumstantial evidence against Casey ONLY (and let’s get this clear now: circumstantial evidence is EVIDENCE, and is frequently far more probative and powerful and RELIABLE than what is known as “direct” evidence.

If you go to sleep on, say, XMAS eve… and there is NO SNOW on the ground.. but there are clouds in the sky…
and you wake up the next morning to see the ground covered in snow, a foot deep…
There is circumstantial evidence of the FACT that it SNOWED OVERNIGHT WHILE YOU WERE ALSEEP.

Direct evidence –which would be equally admissible, but perhaps NOT as probative– would be that you, perhaps, stayed awake a little later, and watched some snow fall, but perhaps you then turned into RipVan Winkle and slept til it was summer–no snow on the ground when YOU woke up months later.

Either way though.. the you who slept during the snowfall–and the you who stayed awake a bit longer– could both truthfully testify that it snowed overnight on XMAS eve of that year.

Not the best example, but hopefully the notion that “circumstantial” evidence is somehow weaker than direct evidence has been debunked to a degree.

G’Night

Silver – thanks for reeling it back in. You don’t know how many times you’ve cleared things up. Whether its good bad or ugly – it will all come out. Its the process that’s infuriating. Maybe because we (me) don’t understand it. And the real people that get thrown right under all 10 wheels of the greyhound bus – I’m sure they didn’t know what was gonna hit them either.

Thanks for your help.

‘Nite guys.

After this most ridiculous move by this defense team, I most assuredly will not be surprised by anything they do in the future. My jaw would not even drop to the floor should they next point their accusing fingers at a one-eyed, one-horned, flying purple people eater. That would be no more outlandish than the accusation they have just made against Kronk, the man the defense team and the whole Anthony family should be profusely thanking for locating the body of Caylee Marie Anthony allowing it to be respectfully laid to rest.

Val,
Shaeffers latest post is spot on. Never before Halloween was taken so litterally…
defense is on a witch hunt.
More than pathetic, I find it preety sad ,actually…

lily
November 20th, 2009 – 9:39 PM

Baez and Lyons keep switching up. Which is it? Is she guilty? Is she neglectful? Is she innocent? Is she innocent of intentionally killing? Was it a kidnapping gone bad? Was it an accident? Is she mentally incompetent? Have you no conscience? Is there a Nanny? Was there a ransom demand? Are you kidding me?

Oh, I did laugh right out loud…this was so good…ahhh…it’s been this way all along, hasn’t it? Decomp to pizza to cold cuts to rotten food in the refrig. Squirrels killed by Casey-by-George-by Casey plastered under the car. (“My father must have run over a squirrel or something.” Could this be a prime job? You know, because, apparently the car didn’t stink until George took it for an imaginary spin.) 911 call about bad girl and stolen car to missing child to only talking about dead body smell to get police out there quickly. Zani to Jesse (Sr and Jr) to Tony to the other Tony to Amy to Kronk the meter reader…so many suspects and so little time.
When are they going to go after GEORGE?? No cozy breakfast. No cooking show. No kiss on the cheek and skipping happily out the door with smiles and sun-glasses on. Horse pucky!
Come on, Lyons and Baez. Don’t make me wait any longer. Go after George. He had access to everything…computer searches, Caylee, the car, all equipment (blankets, trash bags, tape, ect)…he had the time (home until 3pm on June 16)) and the motivation if you want…ie; George did the deed by accident and the tape made it look like a kid-napping and Casey helped cover it up by agreeing to get rid of the evidence.
It’s very easy to fit it like a glove into the whole thing. You have a good shot at it. It’s the best reasonable doubt you have and a lot less crazy than the road you’ve traveled so far. So much easier to believe than Kronk. What’s wrong? The CEO won’t give you the go-ahead and you can’t do it without her.
I don’t believe any of this happened this way. I just believe that the defense would be happy to paint it this way if Casey would go along with it. It’s her best bet.

What on earth has Casey been telling her defense team to help them, if anything? She cannot be sticking to the Zanny Nanny tale be it a happening at Sawgrass or JBP. One of her high-priced help must have said, “Let’s get real, here, girl. Give us something to go on! Was Kronk ever your boyfriend? Did you ever write Casey Kronk in your notebook? Think!”

O, darn. I wish I wouldn’t have put my over-taxed emotions, which took precedent over common sense, to bed, last night, before our beloved and illustrious Silver made an appearance. I, too, just couldn’t take anymore, for as much as I was envisioning shrub and scrub roots growing through little bones, and clear through to the marrow, as well as sketchings of teddy bears hanging from nooses, while little girls looked on so forlornly; “Everyone lies. Everyone dies.”

Cindy, pass this one along through either Baez or the media which you have so well admitted is the means through which you communicate to the public that which Casey wants you to. (See her Morgan depo), Casey you lied, and if justice is served you will, in fact, die.

I bled for Zenaida, and the horror she’s been through. Roy Kronk’s life will now be on display and shattered. It’s really no big deal that his attorney is representing him, pro bono. He knows the lawsuits that lay ahead, from which both he and Kronk will most likely prosper, or as Val said, the defense had crossed the line with Kronk, by going so public. They aren’t due their just protections, as attorney’s, under the law. Thank you Val and Shaeffer and Silver, for making this clear. Those so adversely affected by all of this most certainly deserve to be compensated. It will give me great pleasure to see the Anthony’s have to relinquish, for what little true concern they have shown the most innocent of them all. Caylee.

And I wonder: Will Jesse’s life ever be the same? Jesse, who was specifically named a suspect by Cindy, in her Morgan deposition, which was also taken under oath, as was George’s. I don’t envision a mistrial so much anymore, but an early impeachment. Though I believe that the longer they are on the stand the better, regardless of direct or cross. Let the jury see just how twisted their thought processes are, and to what extent neither of them concern themselves with such things as truth, and how it is that when it comes right down to the nitty gritty, how little they care about Caylee. Just impeach them before the feigned tears start rolling, and if it’s at all possible keep the courtroom cameras focused upon Casey as the 4×4 and 5×5 full color displays of Caylee’s remains are secured to their easels. I’m sure the defense will attempt to keep such evidences out. It’s their job. It’s what they do. It’s like, protocol. But of course, they haven’t a coon’s chance of succeeding. They know that. They still have to try, lest Casey go for their throats shrieking, “You did not do all that you could do!” Oh, oh.

And so I was just thinking about all of the fortunes that were made in the wake of the O.J. trial. Thing is, not even O.J.’s team was near as exploitive, lest I have forgotten, and such fortunes weren’t made until after all was said and done. CBS, MSNBC, ABC, you should be utterly ashamed for so much as giving these Baez bimbos so much as the time of day. I for one, don’t watch, but selectively, via You Tube or provided links to weed out all of the hoopla and advertising. So there you go.

My apologies for having gone on so. Common sense having returned after having been so utterly ravaged by such allegations as “Kronk’s behavior was oftentimes inappropriate around children”. I wonder if the charge of providing false documents/information, regarding his ex-wife, had anything to do with the duct tape incident, and if that might be why the Grand Jury tossed the charges and the record was expunged. These doo-doos have stooped to a new low, the Anthony’s credibility is zero, and there is NO way that any of them can get Casey out of this one. As Silver so aptly stated, circumstantial evidence is still evidence and there is a whole lot of it!

I will conclude this by sharing a tidbit of opinion on the gas can and duct tape. Of course George didn’t put it there. Casey did, when she was taping Caylee, realizing that particular piece was a bit too short to serve her purpose. Should that scenario have any validity at all, then it stands to reason that even as the gas cans were in the trunk of the car, so was Caylee, and it was there that she died, in 107 degree heat, unable to breath, and after a horrifying struggle.

O, I also summize that as Hollybrook’s turds hit the fan, and Baez’s efforts become sails full of holes, Casey will be screaming “Misrepresentation!” and the saga will continue. O, and hey, just where are my Tums?

Sorry to have been so long, but I know all of you so well understand. Special thanks to Val for being so smart and for caring so much.

Willow

P.S. I’ll be making a cheetload of chili come trial, and you’re all invited. Of course, I might be in a tent pitched somewhere near to the courthouse. Are tents allowed at Blanchard Park?

Dear Friends,

I have to go into work today, and, for the most part, will be away from my internet tubes…so you guys have a good day. I know I’ll probably have a wealth of new information to read when I get back!

Silver,

Once again, thank you so much for your input. You have no idea how valuable it is to me.

See you cats later!

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2009/11/casey-anthony-wftv-takes-withering-look-at-defenses-latest-move.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+entertainment%2Ftv%2Ftvguy+%28TV+Guy%29

WFTV takes withering look at defense’s latest move

EXCERPT:
Reporter Kathi Belich said, “His bitter exes have accused Kronk of almost everything but the Kennedy assassination and the 9-11 attacks,” Belich said. “But they were not questioned under oath. And the defense did not provide any evidence to support any of the allegations.”
Belich said, “Sheaffer points out that if the defense team repeats unsubstantiated allegations like this outside of court, they could be sued. They didn’t during their morning network blitz, which tells him they have no evidence to back them up.”
Kronk’s attorney told Belich that the defense team never raised these allegations during a deposition yesterday. Sheaffer sees that as another sign of a media stunt.

***I’m posting this because it answers the questions that I had posted yesterday.

WSH, thanks for this post/link. One has to wonder, though, why isn’t one time enough times to merit a defamation lawsuit in such a matter as this? It concerns me that, in light of the liberties the defense has taken, by going so far as to violate a law of evidenciary procedure, which this seems to be to me, they will continue to do so until they are stopped, either by gag order, or suit filed.

Also, perhaps someone can fill me in on what I seem to be lacking here, in understanding what they mean by such things as “they were not questioned under oath”, when I have scoured the depo’s, from OSCO to Morgan and all clearly indicate that the Anthony’s were indeed sworn/under oath. I have to be missing, or misunderstanding something. HELP!

If you like, to help clarify, I can post particular instances of the same.

Thanks, all.

“Also, perhaps someone can fill me in on what I seem to be lacking here, in understanding what they mean by such things as “they were not questioned under oath”, when I have scoured the depo’s, from OSCO to Morgan and all clearly indicate that the Anthony’s were indeed sworn/under oath. I have to be missing, or misunderstanding something. HELP!”

Willow,

They are referring to the defense witnesses in the recent motion; Kronk’s ex-wives, etc., not the Anthonys.

Let’s look at the rules of evidence in question, set forth here, in relevant part:

90.404 Character evidence; when admissible.–

(1) CHARACTER EVIDENCE GENERALLY.–Evidence of a person’s character or a trait of character is inadmissible to prove action in conformity with it on a particular occasion, except:

(a) Character of accused.–Evidence of a pertinent trait of character offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the trait.

(b) Character of victim.–

1. Except as provided in s. 794.022, evidence of a pertinent trait of character of the victim of the crime offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the trait; or

2. Evidence of a character trait of peacefulness of the victim offered by the prosecution in a homicide case to rebut evidence that the victim was the aggressor.

(c) Character of witness.–Evidence of the character of a witness, as provided in ss. 90.608-90.610. (see below)

(2) OTHER CRIMES, WRONGS, OR ACTS.–

(a) Similar fact evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is admissible when relevant to prove a material fact in issue, including, but not limited to, proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident, but it is inadmissible when the evidence is relevant solely to prove bad character or propensity.

90.608 Who may impeach.–Any party, including the party calling the witness, may attack the credibility of a witness by:

(1) Introducing statements of the witness which are inconsistent with the witness’s present testimony.

(2) Showing that the witness is biased.

(3) Attacking the character of the witness in accordance with the provisions of s. 90.609 or s. 90.610.

(4) Showing a defect of capacity, ability, or opportunity in the witness to observe, remember, or recount the matters about which the witness testified.

(5) Proof by other witnesses that material facts are not as testified to by the witness being impeached.

90.609 Character of witness as impeachment.–A party may attack or support the credibility of a witness, including an accused, by evidence in the form of reputation, except that:

(1) The evidence may refer only to character relating to truthfulness.

(2) Evidence of a truthful character is admissible only after the character of the witness for truthfulness has been attacked by reputation evidence.

90.610 Conviction of certain crimes as impeachment.–

(1) A party may attack the credibility of any witness, including an accused, by evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of 1 year under the law under which the witness was convicted, or if the crime involved dishonesty or a false statement regardless of the punishment, with the following exceptions:

(a) Evidence of any such conviction is inadmissible in a civil trial if it is so remote in time as to have no bearing on the present character of the witness.

(b) Evidence of juvenile adjudications are inadmissible under this subsection.

(2) The pendency of an appeal or the granting of a pardon relating to such crime does not render evidence of the conviction from which the appeal was taken or for which the pardon was granted inadmissible. Evidence of the pendency of the appeal is admissible.

(3) Nothing in this section affects the admissibility of evidence under s. 90.404 or s. 90.608.

*****
Briefly, in both civil and criminal cases, evidence of a person’s character or character traits, as evidenced by specific instances of behavior or by reputation, is inadmissible FOR THE PURPOSE OF SHOWING THAT A PERSON ACTED IN CONFORMITY WITH THAT CHARACTER OR REPEATED TYPE OF BEHAVIOR ON A PARTICULAR OCCASION. A person’s character, as evidenced by either reputation or specific conduct–whether unlawful or admirable–is not admissible to prove present conduct. That is the general rule.

There are several EXCEPTIONS to this rule–see above.

Here, the defense has announced (via the mis-use of a pretrial evidentiary motion in limine and a press tour) that it intends to create the much needed “reasonable doubt” as to Casey’s guilt, because–they argue–there is an equal amount of circumstantial evidence against:

a) the man who discovered and notified LE of Caylee’s remains, and
b) their client, who was the last person known to have been in Caylee’s presence while she was alive and breathing/ failed to report her child as “missing” for 31 days–and would have waited longer, had she been given “one more day”…and probably many more/somehow had managed to get evidence of Caylee’s death into the trunk of her car–not just a hair with death band, but decomp, grave wax, attendant insect activity–but also in her own back yard/items from her home found with the remains, including a signature heart sticker, etc, etc, etc.

Right away, one can see how the summary allegation that there is somehow an EQUIVALENT amount of circumstantial evidence TYING both of these individuals to this horrific crime is an outright falsehood.

Next–
They say they intend to show that he is just as likely to have committed this crime via what they refer to as “reverse-Johnson” evidence– which we can see is reflected/codified in the actual Rule of Evidence 90.404 (2)(a).

Note that they do not quote the rule itself, which —while creating the prior bad act exception to prove, among other things, the only two items they have selected, i.e. MOTIVE and OPPORTUNITY, they have (not-so) slyly glanced past the last portion of the rule here, to wit: ” but it is inadmissible when the evidence is relevant solely to prove bad character or propensity. ”

Had they not pulled this motion/press tour publicity stunt, and simply attempted to cross-examine/impeach Kronk on the stand with the unfounded/biased allegations from people who were in his life YEARS and YEARS ago, the State would have objected on the grounds that this evidence is INADMISSIBLE, because it is being used SOLELY in an attempt to prove “bad character or propensity”. The Judge would likely require an “offer of proof” as to what BASIS the defense sought to have the Court properly admit the evidence.. and they have tipped their hand here to say that the PURPOSE for which they are offering this otherwise inadmissible character evidence is to prove “motive” and “opportunity”.

Really.

Well…not so fast.

Let’s take a look at each one.

MOTIVE:
Motive provides the REASON FOR INTENDING TO DO THE CHARGED ACT, and from this MENTAL STATE, it is inferred that the person thus COMMITTED THE ACT.

For the defense to get the Court to admit these “colorful stories” from people in Kronk’s past in under this exception, it is generally held that evidence of the alleged prior bad acts MUST GIVE SUFFICIENT GROUND TO BELIEVE THAT THE CRIME CURRENTLY BEING CONSIDERED “GREW OUT OF OR WAS IN ANY WAY CAUSED BY THE PRIOR SET OF FACTS OR CIRCUMSTANCES.” (quoting from a Pennsylvania case, Commonwealth v. Schwartz, 615 A.2d 350 (Pa. Super. 1992)). (because I know it offhand and don’t want to bother searching for a Florida case just to make this point).

Let me give you examples:

Evidence that a defendant has made repeated and harassing phone calls (prior bad acts) to his victim, before he broke into the victim’s home, were admissible to demonstrate his escalating anger, which was thus, probative of his MOTIVE. (Same case as above. Comm. v. Schwartz).

A report that a murder victim had complained to someone that the defendant had been harassing her and also assaulted her, because she was cooperating with authorities in a homicide investigation was offered and admitted into evidence to establish the defendant’s MOTIVE for killing the victim to SILENCE HER/prevent her from cooperating with LE. (Comm. v. Fisher, 741 A.2d 1234 (Pa. 1999)).

Do you see where I am going with this?
What in the world is the causal nexus between what someone claims (and apparently on highly suspect grounds) that Roy K did SEVERAL YEARS AGO, with what they are claiming he did to Caylee in 2008???
They are saying, he did these bad things, SEVERAL YEARS AGO, and that was his “MOTIVE” for murdering this baby girl in 2008???

That is not motive, my friends.

Their intention to use these stories is precisely for the reason such evidence is proscribed, to wit: for the improper purpose of solely attempting to prove “bad character or propensity”.

OPPORTUNITY (their second exception basis for seeking court permission to admit this evidence):

Opportunity addresses a person’s PHYSICAL AVAILABILITY to commit a crime or act.

For example, evidence that a defendant escaped from prison would be admissible to show his presence in a particular area.

Opportunity can also be established hen an individual has a SPECIAL CAPACITY, ABILITY, OR KNOWLEDGE that would enable him or her to commit the crime. So..evidence that a defendant had avoided customs procedures in an unrelated case would be admissible to prove that he had the ABILITY to have done the same in the charged offense.

These tales from the past do not address Kronk’s physical availability to have killed Caylee, so scratch that.
And what “special capacity or ability or knowledge” are they going with here? That he knows how to use uct tape???

*****
My point is that the reasons they are asserting that this nonsense from the past should be admitted into evidence under one of the enumerated exceptions to the general rule against admissibility of this character evidence in the form of “prior bad acts” are TENUOUS and SPECIOUS, at best.

(My goodness… based on their logic, I guess Roy K could be charged with murder anytime a woman or female child was killed and duct tape was used in connection with the killing–and he was –oh–I don’t know– in the same CITY).

Even if the Judge allows it at trial based on the Constitutional considerations they are suggesting apply? The State will have additional weapons in their closing argument, because not only is what Casey is accused of a HEINOUS, ATROCIOUS, and CRUEL crime, but her counsel will colored themselves in that same light by bringing such utter claptrap to the jury for consideration.

Imagine the folks on the jury being asked to imagine if THEY had been dealt the bad hand of having found Caylee’s remains… and what kind of heinous, atrocious and cruel attacks on their character that THEY could look forward to from this defense team.

This little campaign is not going as they planned.

Silver & WSH Where’s the icon depicting female smacking herself in the forehead with the heal of her hand?

Thanks. I was baffled on that one. Duh, and double Duh. Will read the rest of the post, now, Silver, thanks.

BTW-
Just to clarify, the defense admits that this evidence would be inadmissible under the Florida Rules of Evidence (even under the exceptions regarding prior bad acts). They are asking the Court to IGNORE the Rules of Evidence, and allow it based upon her Constitutional rights to a fair trial pursuant to case law.

It will be interesting to read the State’s reply.

Silverspnr! I have long admired your post’s over at Blink’s and I’m glad to see you here as well!

So? In essence, are ya sayin’ that this is nothing but a SNOW JOB, from the defense?

Willow!

I love you!

Silverspnr

Thanks for the breakdown. Really helpful, as usual.

So then, when will the bar complaint be lodged ? (lol)

OK. I just looked up the two US Supreme Court cases the defense cited for the proposition that they should be permitted to introduce this bunk, and am sadly not surprised to see that they have misrepresented the HOLDINGS of those cases.

Here is a synopsis of the first case, taken directly from the actual Supreme Court opinion:

Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973)

Chambers v. Mississippi

No. 71-5908

Argued November 15, 1972

Decided February 21, 1973

410 U.S. 284

Syllabus

After petitioner was arrested for murder, another person (McDonald) made, but later repudiated, a written confession. On three separate occasions, each time to a different friend, McDonald orally admitted the killing. Petitioner was convicted of the murder in a trial that he claimed was lacking in due process because petitioner was not allowed to (1) cross-examine McDonald (whom petitioner had called as a witness when the State failed to do so), since, under Mississippi’s common law “voucher” rule, a party may not impeach his own witness, or (2) introduce the testimony of the three persons to whom McDonald had confessed, the trial court having ruled their testimony inadmissible as hearsay. The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed.

Held: Under the facts and circumstances of this case, petitioner was denied a fair trial, in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 410 U. S. 294-303.

(a) The application of the “voucher” rule prevented petitioner, through cross-examination of McDonald, from exploring the circumstances of McDonald’s three prior oral confessions and challenging his renunciation of the written confession, and thus deprived petitioner of the right to contradict testimony that was clearly “adverse.” Pp. 410 U. S. 295-298.

(b) The trial court erred in excluding McDonald’s hearsay statements, which were critical to petitioner’s defense and which bore substantial assurances of trustworthiness, including that each was made spontaneously to a close acquaintance, that each was corroborated by other evidence in the case, that each was in a real sense against McDonald’s interest, and that McDonald was present and available for cross-examination by the State. Pp. 410 U. S. 298-303.

You can clearly see that the Supreme Court was addressing the Constitutionality of a Mississippi rule– known as the “voucher” rule– which is not at play here (in Florida, which has no such rule), and then of a basic hearsay ruling by the trial court.

NEXT-

Holmes v. South Carolina:

The defense also misrepresents the holding of this Supreme Court decision in its Memorandum of Law.

In that case, the Supreme Court was addressing the constitutionality of a South Carolina ruling which directly prevented the defendant from introducing evidence of 3rd party guilt BASED ON AN ASSESSMENT OF THE STRENGTH OF THE PROSECUTION’S CASE AGAINST THE DEFENDANT. (Strickland has done no such thing– because he has not ruled on the admissibility of this–or any other evidence–for/at trial yet; and Strickland will properly evaluate these putative charges of prior bad acts under the Constitutionally sound Florida Rule of Evidence I cited above, as he should).

What the Supreme Court said on that point in the Holmes decision was this:

“While the Constitution thus prohibits the exclusion of defense evidence that serve no legitimate purpose or that are disproportionate to the ends they are asserted to promote, WELL-ESTABLISHED RULES OF EVIDENCE PERMIT TRIAL JUDGES TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE IF ITS PROBATIVE VALUE IS OUTWEIGHED BY CERTAIN OTHER FACTORS SUCH AS UNFAIR PREJUDICE, CONFUSION OF THE ISSUES, OR POTENTIAL TO MISLEAD THE JURY.” (emphasis supplied). (<– fyi–that means that I CAPPED the part of the quote I wished to emphasis)

The rule of evidence at play here is a rule that is well established, not just in Florida, but in many–if not all states–and in the Federal Rules of Evidence.

In other words, the case does NOT stand for the proposition that the Constitutional guaranty of Due Process requires the Court to admit evidence of third party guilt–as the defense would suggest. The defense just glossed over that key point.

It was the REASON that the trial court excluded the evidence that was at issue in Holmes.
There was no blanket holding about evidence of "third party guilt" as they have suggested in their (audacious) Memorandum of Law.

*****
They finally bring it back to the rule I posted above (which they call "reverse-Williams" evidence). Call it what you like, the rule is the rule, and as I explained earlier, the arguments they are making for the admissibility of this attempt to trash Kronk are ludicrous.

BTW-
It’s nice to “see”/”hear” some familiar “faces”/”voices” here as well–Lily, ClockWatcher, WSH, Willow, et al=)

And Val-
I have to compliment you, once again. You were lightning quick on this one, and you were right on target.

I truly appreciate the collective intelligent insight expressed here, not to mention the sharp wit which (necessarily) gets expressed.

*****
On a final note, (I swear I will stop posting about this motion after this one!) I had to LOL when I read the defense citing their own, absurd spoliation motion in support for their claim in this motion in limine for the proposition that the State’s forensic evidence is somehow tainted.

HUH??!
OK. Is THAT how you PROVE something in their alternate universe?! You say 2+2=5 on one piece of paper.. and then you refer to THAT piece of paper as PROOF of your claim that 2+2=5 on a second piece of paper?! What’s next? Another piece of paper where they claim that 5-2=2, citing the first and second pieces of paper??!

The more times one reads that motion… the more one sees them blowing what little they have to go on in terms of creating REASONABLE doubt.

There was/is much with which to cross examine/discredit Roy Kronk, simply based on the inconsistencies in his statements about what he saw, and even how he came to be there in the first place (was it simply due to his work route? or was he the former brilliant bounty-hunter cum super sleuth he insinuated he was on his GMA appearance last January, for example).

They should have just stuck with the actual relevant evidence, i.e. the statements he has made, and argued from there that the crime scene could have been compromised such that the jury should be suspicious of evidence obtained from it.

Talk about a lack an appreciation for the word REASONABLE in relation to the DOUBT they need to create.

They are lost in their case. Lost in it. They cannot see the forest for the trees.

It’s as though they have convinced themselves (or Casey has snake-charmed Baez into believing) that SHE is the victim. (I imagine her saying that she cannot tell him what REALLY happened with “Zanny”, because… HIS LIFE is in danger… and has been since June 9th.. or, excuse me, June 16th.. and she will LIE, STEAL, DO WHATEVER SHE HAS TO in order to NOT TELL ANYONE the “truth”… because HE was featured in the script too, somehow.. because… hmmmm… because Zanny can PREDICT THE FUTURE… and just like Caylee was going to be home by her 3rd birthday, Casey will be spared the DP. (Maybe THAT is what they mean when they call her defense the “dream team”, because someone over there is D R E A M I N G).

Baez jumps from proclaiming her “innocence” .. to stating that accepting a plea deal is “up to Casey”… to refusing to comment on the entomology evidence, because “I might as well cash it in now”. HUH???!

It is becoming apparent to me that he is trying to gage how he should be defending the case and presenting himself/his case in the media by watching what other legal analysts are saying about the case. BAD MOVE. This guy does not know what he is doing, and in my own estimation, his greatest ethical violation to date was taking on a case which is WAY above his professional experience and ability.

BTW-
It was Roy Kronk, himself, who brought up his past. He is the one who first mentioned that someone has tried to charge him with kidnapping, and that the Grand Jury ( who are famously accused of being so incapable of discretion that they will “indict a ham sandwich”) did not indict him, etc. (So not some super-sleuthing on the part of Casey’s defense team here either. He dropped it like it was hot; they just picked it up and ran with it).

But they have really done themselves in with the claim that he is so into violent/fantasy games, etc that he is out of touch with reality. They must have been looking into a mirror when they came up with that one. He may have stupidly pat himself on the back about his personal powers of deduction during that GMA interview, but he has never appeared to be out of touch with reality in the slightest. (And they base it on the claim of some person that he didn’t hear someone calling him to assist her to get out of a tub in the early 1990s–or something like that? Absurd.)

The person who appears most out of touch with reality… is Casey Marie Anthony. Running for second place are: Cindy, Lee, George (ok–he may have 3rd or 4th sewn up)… and then we have the whole “[day]dream team”.

Silver

“OK. Is THAT how you PROVE something in their alternate universe?! You say 2+2=5 on one piece of paper.. and then you refer to THAT piece of paper as PROOF of your claim that 2+2=5 on a second piece of paper?! What’s next? Another piece of paper where they claim that 5-2=2, citing the first and second pieces of paper??!”

I haven’t read the rest of your quote yet , but will. Just wanted to let you know how much I appreciated the above. It made me snort in laughter. Sorry for the rough visual, but that was pretty hilarious.

“It is becoming apparent to me that he is trying to gage how he should be defending the case and presenting himself/his case in the media by watching what other legal analysts are saying about the case. BAD MOVE. This guy does not know what he is doing, and in my own estimation, his greatest ethical violation to date was taking on a case which is WAY above his professional experience and ability.”

Well though, he’s got the “dream team”, are none of them paying attention to the direction(s) that the case is going in? Otherwise, why he didn’t get a spanking from any of them? They are ALL blinded by the light, er, I mean studio lights.
Lenamon (sp?) was the sharpest tool in the shed, as far as I can tell. Or the most realistic.

“The person who appears most out of touch with reality… is Casey Marie Anthony. Running for second place are: Cindy…..”.

I beg to differ on that one, it’s a close tie with Casey and Cindy neck & neck. And Casey could never have been who she has become without Cindy.

Thanks once again Silver. I had an aha moment when you described Baez’s behavior in the media. The guy is using the reactions of his own professional community to figure out what he’s doing wrong and where he should go next. A death penalty case. For real.

I have to ask you your opinion on this, Silver: Do you think that ~if~ ~when~ this goes to trial that it will be a fiasco procedurally for the defense which will set up an endless number of appeals and challenges to evidence, proper representation, inadequate defense, etc. that could ultimately either end up in working in Casey’s favor? She could be released in between new trials. I mean if the first case were thrown out – Dream Team II could start all over and the money train just never ends. They would have the advantage of knowing what did and didn’t work the first time. I see this as a possible never ending 3-Ring Circus. Thanks for everything.

Poor Roy …. condolences on the “EX’s” attack … it won’t work, but you shouldn’t have been put through this BS … you WILL be exonerated and the defense WILL (unfortunately) move on to another victim …

Baden on The Early Show got the biggest gasp out of me as I watched this team’s media blitz …

When Maggie question the validity of statements mad by the ex-wives, LKB with her nauseating flare for drama says “one ex-wife is dying of cancer I mean this is like a a death bed statement, and it’s incredible”
Whaaaa ???

First of all, Jill wasn’t stating or confessing anything, she was talking chit about Roy … second of all, the defense’s own video of her doesn’t show her on her “death bed” … or withering away to nothing … as a matter of fact the people in my family that died from cancer looked more like skeletons in their terminal stages of it … I’m finding it hard to believe she’s “on her death bed..

Jill, who’s Roy’s 2nd ex-wife, of 4 months, told Baez about Kronk taping her hands with duct tape on 2 occassions and that he kidnapped her and held her in a hotel in Maryland … blah, blah, blah … guess a lot of chit happened in those 4 months !!

IMO Jill seems to have been less than truthful and embellished HER story, a whole lot, with what she had heard about in the news about Roy and an ex girlfriend … And I’m sorry, but, restraining and kidnapping Jill looks to be at least a 2-man job …

Just wondering if anyone caught that? … I was flabbergasted that Baden would use such a cheap shot analogy …

There are emails from or about about Crystal Sparks, Brandon Sparks, April Hensley, and Sandy Hensley’s brother and sister-in-law in the September 29, 2009 discovery (WKMG discovery sets 1 and 2).

Sandy Hensley was the girlfriend of Roy Kronk for 15 years. She died of breast cancer in July 1997. Her daughter is April Hensley, defense witness who claims Roy Kronk walked in on her naked when she was a teen and made ugly comments to her about taping her with animals.

There is no testimony from April in the discovery, but the wife of Mike (brother of Sandy Hensley and uncle of April Hensley), is in the discovery. Mike’s wife (name unknown) sent several pages of typed testimony against Kronk in an email attachment to Dominic Casey, who forwarded the attachment to Cindy Anthony on April 4, 2009. It’s clear that the wife doesn’t like Kronk although she definitely got some facts wrong in her typed testimony. Her testimony is in the discovery (minus the last page), and I’m not typing it all out, but she did report this about April Hensley:

“Mike also told me at one point that Sandy’s oldest child April was calling Roy asking for money or that she was going to run her mouth on Roy. I don’t know if any money was ever giving (sic).” (discovery page 8051, September 29, 2009 discovery release).

Mike, brother of Sandy Hensley and husband of the woman who sent the testimony to Dominic Casey, left three comments on Scared Monkeys (copied from discovery page 8050 from the September 29, 2009 discovery release).

http://scaredmonkeys.com/2008/12/19/roy-kronk-meter-reader-utility-worker-who-found-caylee-anthonys-remains-to-have-news-conference/

“Mike on December 20th, 2008 7:19am:
I am Roy’s Bro n Law from his last relationship. Roy was with my sister for 15 years until she passed away of Breast Cancer in July 2007. Roy loved her very much as it showed while he stood by her till the last minute. Roy has been through a major loss of Love and know how hard it is. He is a very intelligent person and does care for others in his own way. He and I worked together in Tenn as Bondsman/Bountyhunter and I totally respect Roy. I know that he is a hero in this case because many would have simply went on and not followed up as he did. Thank God he did before the body was totally destroyed by the environment.”

“Mike on December 20th, 2008 11:42am:
I think it equally strange that people just show up to indict a person for some wrong doing, or leave the implication of such, for trying to do the right thing. Why did he do as he did when reporting the sighting? Why would he assume “a word to the wise would be sufficient” calling them and telling them the location all the while trying to do so anonymously? Makes ya wonder why anyone would get involved even after the plea for help from officials doesn’t it. I believe when the officials received the tips for this area they just had the preconceived notion that equusearch had been over the area and nothing could at that point have been overlooked so they just went through the motions of following up. There we can see how preconceived notions can be.”

“Mike on December 20th, 2008 4:26pm:
No Roy is not associated with Padilla. Roy worked in this Profession about 8 years ago when He, my sister, and I owned a Bonding Company in Tri Cities Tn. Roy was always Professional and dependable. He is just like the other thousands there in Orlando that was concerned and wanted to be helpful. The only difference is he had the correct tip and tried to do it and remain anonymous so as not to have to go through this grief but the Sheriff’s department would not take the tip and check it out. They just assumed all had been searched so why bother. He felt that even the reward at that time wasn’t worth all of this trouble.”

Mike’s wife claimed in her typed testimony to Dominic that Mike only left those comments because Kronk hinted that Mike would receive some sort of benefit from Kronk in return, and Mike stopped posting when Kronk didn’t give him anything. Her claim seems doubtful, however, since Mike only left three comments, all on December 20 (the day after the remains were positively ID’d and Kronk’s identity was revealed to the public).

Moreover, Kronk was only looking at a $5,000 reward at that point – a reward that Orange County was initially not going to give him. Mark NeJame didn’t offer Kronk his $5,000 fee until December 29. Kronk did not appear on Good Morning America until January 13 and received a reported $20,000 for licensing the photo of the dead rattlesnake but that has never been confirmed. Kronk accepted NeJame’s $5,000 on January 15. Kronk was not given the $5,000 Crimeline reward until June 30, 2009.

**

Crystal Sparks posted on the same Scared Monkeys thread that Mike did (comments copied from discovery page 8123 from the September 29, 2009 discovery release):

“Crystal on December 19th, 2008, 3:47pm
Roy deserves his moment of Glory – Please give it to him. I used to be married to him and I will be the first to say – his perseverance and his thought process as a “tipster”, doesn’t surprise me at all. That his who he is!! I will also say for the sake of Caylee’s family, thanks for bringing her home.
- Thanks for being YOU – ROY !!
Take care of yourself – x-wife”

“Crystal on December 21st, 2008, 2:41pm

Roy doesn’t live in that neighborhood. The voice you heard on the recording to the dispatcher was the dispatcher referring to Hopespring, the street I lived on. Stop trying to make something bad out of something good. Mile – you obviously know Roy as well as I do and we know why he chose to get involved and follow his gut. He has always had a keen eye and interest in investigative work and it goes to show he is definitely good at it. It sad to think this “overpaid Bounty Hunter – Television actor, Padilla” is out there sucking people dry with hopes and dreams and only wants his few minutes of glory – enough to rope in the next victim. He should take a few lessons from You and Roy. I was sad to learn about Sandy’s passing – I know Roy loved her very much. I myself lost my little Brother this Feb. Let’s keep fighting for Roy. There are some bad people out here. To all the others – thanks for your kind words and standing up for Roy. God Bless you all. Crystal”

Two months later, Crystal was stabbing Roy in the back and lying to Roy’s sister, Susan Cecil, to help the overpaid bounty hunter/television actor Leonard Padilla. The emails were forwarded to Cindy Anthony from tracydawn2@yahoo.com. Tracydawn had them because Leonard Padilla had forwarded them to her, so tracydawn2 is likely Tracy McLaughlin. Whether Leonard knew they were being shared with Cindy (who shared them with Jose Baez and Dominic Casey) is unknown.

Email from Crystal Sparks to Leonard Padilla, February 9, 2009 at 10:50am (discovery pages 8081-8082 released September 29, 2009):

“Hello Leonard. I wanted you to know that I spoke to Roy’s sister yesterday evening and she seemed receptive to speaking with you. But, with that said, she also seemed hesitant because she is very concerned about her parents and the headaches Roy is causing them. Which may in fact put her in the protect role with Roy – regardless of what she thinks of him. Blood is pretty you know?

In order to protect myself and the info/communication flow with her, I told her that it was my first communication (yesterday) with you. I asked her to speak to you in hopes of closing some loop holes that Roy may be keeping to himself, which could potentially help the entire case. I don’t want her to know that you and I talk on a regular basis and that I share info which has come directly from her. This will hopefully keep the dialog open and I can continue to hear what her parents are saying which is coming directly from Roy . . . .

Please let me know how it goes!

Home Phone – (301(392-3505
Susan Cecil

YNCS Crystal A. Sparks
Master Chief Petty Officer Coast Guard Office
2100 Second Street, SW (G-MCPOCG)
Washington, DC 20593
Office: 202-372-4432
Cell: 202-906-0500”

Email from Crystal Sparks to Leonard Padilla, February 23, 2009 at 9:32am (discovery pages 8087 released September 29, 2009):

“Unbelievable! Is there anything I can do to help? It appears words got back to him that you spoke to us. But, with that said, I told Susan I’d only spoken to you once and she will not know anything different (before or future comms) . . . In other words, you and I speak on a confidential level – I am determined to see this thing through too.’

I saw on Nancy G. about the PI (Anthony’s) group that supposedly went out to the recovery area 3 times before Roy did . . . What gives ???? There is more info out there Lou, don’t give up. So you recommend I just sit tight and stay in the game? I can do that . . . tell what I can do to help?

YNCS Crystal A. Sparks
Master Chief Petty Officer Coast Guard Office
2100 Second Street, SW (G-MCPOCG)
Washington, DC 20593
Office: 202-372-4432
Cell: 202-906-0500”

Well, I think it’s safe to say Susan Cecil knows now how duplicitous Crystal Sparks is.

That was a rather complete turnaround for Crystal Sparks. I can’t forget that on December 29, Leonard Padilla said he would give Kronk a $15,000 reward if Kronk and his lawyer would sit down with Leonard and tell him everything they knew. I don’t believe Kronk did sit down with Leonard, so is it possible that Leonard tried to get that information by offering money to Kronk’s ex-wife? An ex-wife who was still talking to Kronk’s sister and would be able to use that friendship to indirectly collect the information Padilla wanted? An ex-wife who had been stiffed by Kronk for $10,000 in child support? I would very much like to know when Crystal Sparks started helping Leonard Padilla and why.

Wow. I’m speechless. There are so many of you to thank, and from the bottom of my heart. Thank you WSH for setting me straight on the “it wasn’t the Anthony’s it was Kronk’s X-wives” without making me feel so utterly stupid. I owe you for that one.

And Lily, dear, sweet Lily, you’ve been such an inspiration! Thank you. A dozen times over.

And Clockwatcher? What can I say to you, but wow. What a compliment! Though I doubt that I deserve it.

And Val. Dearest, dearest, Val. What, exactly can I say to you, and to our amazing Silver, as both of you so patiently, and graciously, walk us through even the most complex so that we might all understand, without “lording” your far greater knowledge/expertise over us, and in spite of the fact that you both must have 1,000 other things you could and should be doing. This speaks volumes about the truly great people the two of you are; and I think that I speak for every one of us, here when I say thank you, from the absolute depths of our hearts, that truly must be filled with so many of the same compassions, lest we would not be here sharing both laughter (Neccessarily so, indeed, Silver) and tears, as together we struggle for a better understanding as well as for justice, but not only for Caylee, for all who are murdered so senselessly.

Silver, again I say wow! for lack of a better word. I can’t imagine how long it took you to compile the wealth of information you presented to us but I (as one of so many, I am certain) am most grateful for it, and not only because you certainly proved the foolheartedness of the Anthony defense team, but because you so well reminded me of some of the reasons why I so LOVE the law. I’ve never looked upon as a hindrance as much as the means through which we might be free from all that/who would strive to cause us irrepairable harm or great difficulty, to include we, ourselves. If we’d only comply. But we don’t, do we? And not even I, all of the time. But don’t tell anybody that I’ve been accused of having a lead foot (but only on occassion) o’kay?

You have fully and completely restored my belief that we will indeed see justice for Caylee, and perhaps even sooner than we dare think? I mean, the defense has just about admitted if through misspeak (okay, that might not be a word) that Casey is guilty. What else would unintentional murder mean? Or as you said, “A plea deal is up to Casey” among a dozen other things, so they OBVIOUSLY know that she is GUILTY, and how would they have arrived at that? By her privileged admission, right? Though God only knows what sort of reason she gave them! It was certain to be “poor me”, again as you said, she has made herself the victim! Also, how do you suppose they might throw her under the bus in order to save their own behinds?

My apologies that this is again, so long. I’ve but a few more questions, if you don’t mind, and please forgive my ignorance. Do you suppose that one of the next things we’ll see is Kronk’s attorney filing suit against the “daydream team”? Would they have to wait until after the trial to file suit? How many more times can Dominic Casey evade the deposition? Is there a possibility that he could escape it, entirely? One last thing and then I’ll be quiet, but don’t you ever, Silver, not ever be quiet! We need you! and thank you, a thousand times over!

O, and here’s one for you Val, before I forget. What’s the chemical composition of sweat, as in perspiration, say in extreme hyperthermia, and would it have been at all possible to have found this composition in the trunk of Casey’s car?

Sleep well, all.
Willow

Thank you, Willow for an amazing post. I read here daily and admire you all greatly

Thanks for posting this, Maura!

I’ve had a hard time reading the pdf with the emails from discovery …

It’s pretty obvious that Crystal was up to no good, she contacted Padilla and was trying to get info about Roy and the case from Sandy and Roy’s parents … What a mess … emails from her to Padilla to Tracy who forwarded them to Cindy … I truly think Crystal’s motivation is money and she saw an opportunity to get some …

Which just makes her video interview and statements to Baez even more confusing … doesn’t read the discovery and know her emails and scheming are in it ????

I was scratching my head over this passage on page 26 of the November 18, 2009 defense motion:

April Hensley “describes times my mom would tell me that she would be in the bathtub, taking a bath, and couldn’t get out of the bathtub and would be screaming for – for hours, for 30 minutes to an hour, and that it would take [Mr. Kronk] that long to take his headphones off and realize that she was stuck in the tub.” Exhibit T at 10:17:23. This evidence of Mr. Kronk’s inability to perceive the reality around him while he was engaged in the violent fantasies of these computer games will be corroborated by the testimony of Crystal Sparks and Jill Kerley.”

Is it a reasonable conclusion from April Hensley’s statement that Kronk was unable to perceive reality when he played computer games, or was it rather that Kronk was unable to hear Sandy Hensley calling for assistance because he was wearing headphones?

At any rate, given April’s testimony that the problem was that Kronk wasn’t paying attention and so did not help Sandy out of the bathtub in a timely manner, Mike’s wife’s testimony implies the problem was rather that Kronk couldn’t help Sandy up in a manner that didn’t hurt her.

“In August of 2007, Mike and I were going to Chattanooga to a [bonding ?] class. He had to drive all the [way?] back to Kingsport around 45 miles to pick Sandy up out of the bathroom floor because everytime that Roy helped her up he would hurt her.” (Discovery page 8051, released September 29)

The first oddity is that Sandy Hensley died in July 2007, so she was not likely needing help getting off the bathroom floor let alone able to request assistance. The second oddity is that this was the only incident of the sort that she mentioned. How did Sandy get around at other times if Kronk was incapable of helping her without manhandling her? And the third oddity is that April Hensley didn’t make any mention of her mother’s complaining that Kronk hurt her when he helped her out of the bathtub – the only complaint April claimed her mother shared was that Kronk left her in the bathtub too long because he became engrossed in computer games while wearing headphones and couldn’t hear Sandy calling to him.

I love “The Hinky Meter!”

I’ve gotta ask, since the question has been raised about WHY Conway is sticking so tightly to the Baez team, is anyone else thinking he’s (Conway) thinking his clients will be next to wake up with tire-prints across their foreheads? And does anyone think he’s (Conway) seriously thinking about following NeJame’s (who was definately thinking ahead) lead & running while there’s still time?

HUMN…

Maura. Thanks for bringing those to my attention. I have to read all of this again. Why does it seem that anyone who touches this case in even the most remote way – becomes infected with greed? I do feel sorry for Roy. You can’t make this stuff up. I don’t understand it.

Willow:

While not Val, I’d like to offer an answer to your “sweaty” question!
Considering that the human body is ~98% H2O and that sweating is a thermoregulating mechanism, it makes complete sense that the major componemt of perspiration is WATER. But not pure water as the human body isn’t pure anything!(okay, no religious/philosophical arguments today, just science!), so also released are diluted solides: sodium chloride, potassium, glucose and amino acids (aka proteins)and trace elements. Since perspiration is also a physiological activity (removing bodily wastes), other disolved toxins are ammonia, urea and lactic acid.

Part 2 of the question: Absolutely these elements/fluids/minerals/ions/enzymatic by-products might have been found in the trunk using the sophisticated methods available to LE/FBI investigators, however of what value might they be if the vehicle was in concatant daily use by many owners/users over a LONG time period and the vehicle’s trunk was utilized as a storage containment(okay, the proverbial “junk drawer”) by Casey.

The unasked question: does sweat contain DNA? NOPE, as noted no celluar componemts present.

To all of you,

Amazing posts here! I thank you so much for you sharing your perspectives on things; the additional information that helps us see the fuller picture (Maura, you are awesome; thank you so much!); and Silver, once again, for helping us understand the legalities of all this.

You people really are great!

Welcome to the first time commentors!

Great information folks…thank you.

In considering a possible appeal based on incompetent or ineffective counsel…is that a possibility considering Baez has all the additional attys on board who are qualified? Is Baez still the lead and decision maker? If the more qualified attys felt that Baez’s actions were not in the best of his client do they simply part ways or is there an ethical obligation on the part of co-counsel to bring that to anyones attention?

Joypath, thanks so much for responding. I know that it seems a senseless question, considering the main component would be water, but what percentage of that would be chorides, methylphenol, cresol, urea. I did a bit more checking into this last night, and it’s not DNA I’m interested in, it’s in getting a firmer grip on the possibility that Caylee died in the trunk, and considering that she would most certainly have suffered hyperthermia, there may be evidences of sweat/severe perspiration.

‘Cuse me. I’ll be right back. Gotta take the dogs out.

Willow

Joypath, all done. You’d DIE if you saw my dogs. I thought of putting them on You Tube, in the beginning of all of this, perchance the Anthony’s would think I’d somehow gotten video of their two, for as exact as they are, and which may have (off chance) created a direct link/opened the lines of communication, but I just couldn’t imagine what nice things I would have had to say to them after the general condolences. But anyway:

The notion seems even to me so way to far-fetched, so I was hesitant to mention it before concluding that there was some, if remote, possibility, but if there was any possibility that the stain on the doll is not urine but sweat, that would place the doll in the trunk of the car with Caylee, though of course, she could have transpired in her carseat, along side the doll, as well, and Casey could have moved her to the trunk, but not the doll.

Call it my vivid imagination running amuck, yet again, if you will, but here’s pretty much what’s been nagging at me for a few busy days, now:

1. Decomp in trunk
2. Hair in trunk
3. Chloroform in trunk
4. Gas can in the trunk
5. Rare Henkel brand duct tape in the trunk (attached to the can, that George says he didn’t put there)

So, was the doll in the trunk? I’m not clear on that, and doesn’t it stand to reason that Caylee would have been wearing a pullup, as was found on the scene of the crime, and so what possibility is there that it is not (only) urine on the doll but sweat/evidence of severe perspiration under extreme hyperthermia?

So my friend, there you have it. My most recent nagging thoughts on the matter. And perhaps this matter has been addressed before, but with a houseful down with the flu, I haven’t had time to search much.

Thank you, Joypath. I so greatly appreciate your input.

Willow

P.S. to all: Having grown so rather attached to so many of you, through these so many weeks, I so have to ask you; please refrain from complimenting me about anything! But for those such as Val and Silver and Joypath and Clockwatcher and half a dozen others, I’d not only be so totally lost, I’d be 99.9% confused! I kick out my most nagging thoughts, which make little sense at times, my expertise being limited to emergency (street) medicine, and am left so appreciative of all who respond most respectfully, in spite of my ignorance, as well as most graciously, as well as I so appreciate all who ask the questions I’d not think to ask, but end up learning so much from. I deserve, therefore, no such credit for anything other than my eagerness to learn and to share. Maura, lily, denjet, EVERYONE, thank you for being a part of this forum, within which we can share and learn and grow in knowledge and cyberspace friendship, thanks to Val and all of her hard work, compassions and dedication.

Humbly and most respectfully so,
Willow

Maura, brilliant oddities you have posted, there! Excellent points and cause for action: give this matter the attention it deserves. NONE! Thank you!

Willow

LOVE this site, this case is beyond the pale/pail :0) I am just a lurker, & I so enjoy all of you. The “thrashing in the water” comment left( I believe by WSH) started my day with a Great Visual!!!!.

Granny, WSH is the best — well, too!

Silver

Maybe you can expound on these, and inform how they may or may not apply:

RULE 4-3.6 TRIAL PUBLICITY

(a) Prejudicial Extrajudicial Statements Prohibited. A lawyer shall not make an extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication if the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that it will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding due to its creation of an imminent and substantial detrimental effect on that proceeding.

(b) Statements of Third Parties. A lawyer shall not counsel or assist another person to make such a statement. Counsel shall exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, employees, or other persons assisting in or associated with a case from making extrajudicial statements that are prohibited under this rule.

4 RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
4-3 ADVOCATE
RULE 4-3.1 MERITORIOUS CLAIMS AND CONTENTIONS

A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law. A lawyer for the defendant in a criminal proceeding, or the respondent in a proceeding that could result in incarceration, may nevertheless so defend the proceeding as to require that every element of the case be established.
Comment

The advocate has a duty to use legal procedure for the fullest benefit of the client’s cause, but also a duty not to abuse legal procedure. The law, both procedural and substantive, establishes the limits within which an advocate may proceed. However, the law is not always clear and never is static. Accordingly, in determining the proper scope of advocacy, account must be taken of the law’s ambiguities and potential for change.

The filing of an action or defense or similar action taken for a client is not frivolous merely because the facts have not first been fully substantiated or because the lawyer expects to develop vital evidence only by discovery. What is required of lawyers, however, is that they inform themselves about the facts of their clients’ cases and the applicable law and determine that they can make good faith arguments in support of their clients’ positions. Such action is not frivolous even though the lawyer believes that the client’s position ultimately will not prevail. The action is frivolous, however, if the lawyer is unable either to make a good faith argument on the merits of the action taken or to support the action taken by a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.

The lawyer’s obligations under this rule are subordinate to federal or state constitutional law that entitles a defendant in a criminal matter to the assistance of counsel in presenting a claim or contention that otherwise would be prohibited by this rule.

Here are a couple of cases that appear to involve jury tampering or issues with press and posting online statements:

Comments made on national and local television as well as to local newspapers, the judge wrote, “are specifically and intentionally designed to neutralize and taint any potential jury pool … and creates, if left unchecked, an imminent and substantial detrimental effect on the right of the defendant, the co-defendant and the State to receive a fair trial.”
During the Nov. 6 hearing, Alexander repeatedly challenged NeJame to justify his reasoning that he could publicly refute statements allegedly made about his client.
NeJame, for his part, repeatedly referred to a criminal case out of Nevada.
Each time, Alexander said the circumstances were completely different.
The attorney in the Nevada case wanted to “stop a wave of publicity he perceived as prejudicing potential jurors,” Alexander wrote in his decision.
Gray’s lawyers, the judge continued, assert “a continuing right to taint a jury by responding extrajudicially now and in the future with specific evidence to rebut any motion filed, any tape released.”
Such a tactic, Alexander told NeJame at the hearing, would result in “the court of public opinion (pulling) the court by its nose, not the other way around.”
NeJame also tried to paint the argument as a First Amendment issue, a position Alexander sharply dismissed.
“At no time has a motion been filed to restrict media by any party in any way,” the judge wrote. “The attempt of Gray’s lawyers to seek legal shelter and refuge behind the media is without merit.
“Gray’s lawyers want to respond publicly to every rumor, every innuendo, every motion filed, every video tape released … and further develop in the media any defense they alone assert,” Alexander wrote. “Attorneys Miller and Jancha’s actions so far have violated both the spirit and intent of the limitations on Florida lawyers (through the state’s Rules of Professional Responsibility.)”
Alexander said specifically that he wasn’t issuing a “gag order.”
However, all attorneys involved in the case are prohibited from making out-of-court statements “designed to ‘neutralize’ or taint a potential jury pool including but not limited to disclosing to the media the defendant’s alleged ‘version’ of the events.”
Any violation of the order, Alexander concluded, may result in court “sanctions … including but not limited to contempt proceedings and removal of the offending attorney” from the case.
From Staff
St. Johns Circuit Judge Wendy W. Berger had scheduled Nov. 6 for a hearing on the behavior of Quinn Hanna Gray’s lawyers, but Circuit Judge John M. Alexander presided.
Rick Jancha, one of Gray’s three lawyers, had filed a motion Nov. 5 to have Berger recused from the case.
According to the motion, Gray’s and Berger’s children have attended the same school for about three years and have gone to birthday parties together.
Because of those circumstances, the motion reads, “It is Mrs. Gray’s serious concern that … this Court has formed an opinion concerning the merits of the current allegations against her.”
That issue was not taken up at the Nov. 6 hearing. Alexander did not suggest Berger was planning to recuse herself and said he did not know if he would have any involvement beyond the hearing.

http://staugustine.com/stories/111109/news_111109_25.shtml

Bernard Kerik became the first NYPD commissioner to land in jail Tuesday after a judge revoked his bail for trying to taint the jury pool in his upcoming corruption trial.
Late last night Kerik was taken from White Plains Federal Court to the Westchester County Jail in Valhalla. His lawyers vowed a prompt appeal to try and get him out.
A furious Judge Stephen Robinson threw Kerik in the clink after prosecutors said the former top cop and the head of his legal defense fund engaged in a subversive campaign to sway potential jurors.
The judge blasted Kerik for ignoring his prior warnings to bar Anthony Modafferi, the head of the fund, from posting anti-prosecution rants on on the Internet.
“Mr. Kerik has a toxic combination of self-minded focus and arrogance that leads him to believe that the ends justify the means, that rules that apply to all don’t apply to him in the same way, that rulings of the court are an inconvenience,” Robinson said.
The one-time “hero” of 9/11 was led away by U.S. marshals after handing his red tie, religious medals and a ring to his lawyers, standard procedure for all prisoners.
Kerik had been out on a $500,000 bond and set to go on trial next week on charges of accepting apartment renovations from a mob-linked contractor seeking a city license.
In Tuesday’s unusual and hastily arranged hearing, Assistant U.S. Attorney Perry Carbone revealed that Kerik’s supporters were posting on the Web distorted information designed to “try to taint the jury pool.”
In June, the judge learned that a nonpracticing lawyer affiliated with Kerik was speaking with witnesses.
Kerik acknowledged having retained the man for $1, and Robinson warned it better not happen again.
In recent weeks, prosecutors discovered that Modafferi wrote anti-prosecution screeds on a Web site linked to Kerik’s defense fund site.
They said Kerik was also using Twitter to refer supporters to Modafferi’s site.
In one entry the judge quoted, Modafferi wrote, “In a heavy-handed attempt the government gave Kerik an ultimatum, plead or the government will do everything in its power to destroy Kerik and his family.”
The judge also cited an affidavit in which Kerik admitted sending Modafferi’s a defense motion that included material that was not public.
Modafferi then sent an e-mail to The Washington Times about some of the material. The Times did not publish it.
In court, defense lawyer Michael Bachner called the e-mail “regrettable,” but insisted Kerik was not intentionally trying to “circumvent an order of the court.”
Being assigned a cell in Valhalla is just the latest humiliation in the slow-motion downfall of Kerik, who was appointed by former Mayor Rudy Giuliani and labeled a national hero after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center.
His nomination for homeland security secretary imploded after a series of revelations tainted that image, including the expensive renovation of his Bronx apartment by a troubled contractor who, prosecutors say, wanted Kerik’s help in getting a city license.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/10/20/2009-10-20_federal_judge_revokes_bernard_keriks_bail_extop_cop_headed_to_prison_.html

Professional Conduct
Bar files formal complaint against Fort Lauderdale defense lawyer

March 10, 2008
By: Review staff

Sean Conway

The Florida Bar has filed a formal complaint against a Fort Lauderdale criminal defense lawyer who posted critical comments about Broward Circuit Judge Cheryl Aleman on a popular local Web log.

The Bar claims attorney Sean Conway, who called Aleman an “evil unfair witch” and “seemingly mentally ill” on JAABlog, violated professional conduct rules requiring members to uphold public confidence in the administration of justice.

A Palm Beach County judge will be chosen to hear Conway’s case as a referee.

Conway’s attorney, Fred Haddad, claims the First Amendment protects his client’s online comments. He said he has until March 17 to file a motion to dismiss and is considering filing for a federal injunction or restraining order.

“Lawyers have a right to speak their mind. The state of Florida is slowly losing any semblance of its right of independent freedoms,” Haddad said. “If you read the complaints and reread the law, it’s astounding that they will go forward.”

The state Judicial Qualifications Commission recently recommended Aleman receive a public reprimand for engaging in a pattern of arrogant and discourteous conduct.
http://www.dailybusinessreview.com/news.html?news_id=47524

Awwww Willow! You sell yourself short.

Wow.

Thank you so much to Val for the forum and to all the posters for their input. I am impressed and informed!

I wonder if the judge (or the bar?) can take an attorney(s) to task for filing inappropriate motions and/or if they can find that the holdings in the cited cases were purposefully misrepresented? Can someone pull the plug on them filing more of such motions that seem to be designed purely for the sake of publicity (and tv show opportunities) and that disregard state law and case law?

That Crystal Sparks person disgusts me how happily, eagerly and openly she discusses lying and spying on people who trust her and confide in her. Her flat out lies to ’stay in the game’ – awful, awful human being. And an officer in the Coast Guard! Shame, shame.

Good day, all! I lurk often and always appreciate what I find.

This is my opinion, but the latest motion and actions of the defense really appear to be nothing less than a blatant attempt to prejudice a jury pool.

#1 Kronk’s attorney told Belich that the defense team never raised these allegations during a deposition yesterday. Sheaffer sees that as another sign of a media stunt. Granted the court provides that “The filing of an action or defense or similar action taken for a client is not frivolous merely because the facts have not first been fully substantiated”. But clearly, by INTENTIONALLY not attempting to substantiate facts with Kronk in a depo , having this motion prepared before the depo, and ostensibly having bags packed to embark on a media blitz, how is this anything less than a bad faith action?

#2 “Prejudicial Extrajudicial Statements Prohibited. A lawyer shall not make an extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication if the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that it will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding due to its creation of an imminent and substantial detrimental effect on that proceeding.” Clearly by filing a motion, knowing that the laws stated within it do not apply, being acutely aware that the doc would be released via the FLA sunshine law and embarking on a media blitz STAT, without eliciting testimony from the witness about all the issues in the motion, it is abundantly clear that the defense expected this info to be disseminated and with intentionally not substantiating the statements, it was nothing other than an effort to prejudice the jury pool. If they had merely filed the motion without piggybacking the tour, that might have been left for interpretation.

#3 “What is required of lawyers, however, is that they inform themselves about the facts of their clients’ cases and the applicable law and determine that they can make good faith arguments in support of their clients’ positions. Such action is not frivolous even though the lawyer believes that the client’s position ultimately will not prevail. The action is frivolous, however, if the lawyer is unable either to make a good faith argument on the merits of the action taken or to support the action taken by a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.”

I can’t see that writing an intentionally flawed motion, not fully deposing a witness and then releasing negative rumors about the witness with a clear plan to hit the TV circuit is anything less than a bad faith action. And I know that there weren’t necessarily statements made by the defense in the TV appearances, but they used the tact of putting in in a judicial process, knowing it was flawed, and capitalized on it by allowing the TV interviewers to expound on the written motion and outline details to viewers. That to me is clearly manipulating the system for nefarious purpose.

Apologies if I’ve repeated myself.

Silverspnr writes:
“It is becoming apparent to me that he is trying to gage how he should be defending the case and presenting himself/his case in the media by watching what other legal analysts are saying about the case. BAD MOVE. This guy does not know what he is doing, and in my own estimation, his greatest ethical violation to date was taking on a case which is WAY above his professional experience and ability.”

First, thank-you for all the legal information. That was a huge job you undertook but it is greatly appreciated and almost something I can understand completely! Like Willow, I have always been very interested in Law. This site and it’s members…a great find overall.
Baez, at least at one time, was having his law students at the local college toss ideas and theories around, too. Since I think it’s fair to say that he didn’t hatch this latest plan all on his own it also gives me hope that some of his copilots are also scrambling a bit in the mud…in spite of their superhuman reputations which I am now beginning to doubt they came by honestly or by their own merits. Otherwise; don’t you think they would have seen before they “launched it” that it was a bad idea? I’m amazed most of all that they didn’t seem to see how angry it would make people and how it would turn public opinion against them. My very first thought was that this same thing would have happened to anyone who had found that body. On the surface of things they have turned finding the remains into a terrible thing to have done.
“Why…he’s not a hero at all but he’s a very bad man. There has to be something shady about how he found that body. There’s no way he found it like he says he did. Something verrry suspicious about it all.”
In that case…isn’t it a terrible thing to have ever known any of the Anthonys or be involved in the case in any way…isn’t this intimidating to the other witnesses, as well? I should think so. Everyone has things in their past which can be made to look terrible by leaving this little part or that little part out of the story or by any “just a little bit” of embellishment of the story. Everyone has people in their past that would gladly cut them wide open in the back for a financial profit. The supermarket rag magazines exist and thrive by these rules of human nature and you can bet that you’ll be putting your foods up on the belt next week and see,
“CRAZED KRONK KILLED CAYLEE!”
“EX-HUBBY METER READER TORTURED DYING WIFE”
Aside from the legal aspects, the defense also has to stop short of actually saying he is guilty because they are trying to soften the blow of what they have done to him. (ONLY because he appeared to be the good guy who found the body to a lot of people.) They don’t want to be seen as attacking a witness…oh, no. But the message is clear…another one of the state’s witnesses is a problem. How can we depend on such people to tell the truth?
Jesse Jr wrote that “inappropriate” thing on that birthday card so he must have “loved a little girl” the wrong way. Jessee Sr is a minister but he chases after Satan and ghosts. The ex-boyfriend had a thing for chloroform. Kronk is just the latest monster and it’s time to take him down a whole bunch of notches.
I think they knew already that they wouldn’t be able to present all this information in court. But, their motivation is that many people can’t follow this case as closely as some do. The general public might only recall later that the defense had some good dirt on Kronk and they would have learned what it was all but for the prosecution having it kept out of court.
“Yeah…there was something about duct tape and kidnapping but I forget exactly what it was. Not part of the trial due to a technicality. Damn, what was it? Oh, and that Grund guy worships Satan, ya know and his son wanted the kid because he’s a pervert. I hear that boyfriend used to make chloroform, too.”
I think a good part of the defenses motivation is to drag all non-professional witness through the cow poop and show them to be unreliable witnesses due to their “weirdness.” (I also personally feel that it’s fun for them and that they are enjoying it very much due to anger issues they have but that is just a side benefit I suppose. I just don’t see “nice person away from work” in any of them but, as I say, that’s a “personal-personal” opinion about the characters involved as opposed to that this whole thing I’m writing is a personal opinion. Hope I’m making a little bit of sense!)
I don’t think these tactics will work out well for the defense either. The Anthonys loved the limelight and screamed and begged with little tin cups for attention all along and, oh boy, they GOT it. They wanted to dictate and orchestrate what we were supposed to see and hear and not see and hear but people are not that stupid and didn’t play their game right. It backfired. The witnesses for the state did NOT ask for attention (with the exception of Kio Marie who just had to give in to the chase after the buck I guess.) But ordinary people like their privacy over all and I don’t think this kind of thing will sit well with most people whether they follow the case closely or not. People are frequently voyeuristic and enjoy a good show…but they will stop and think eventually,
“Thank God that isn’t ME but it COULD have been me and this really shouldn’t happen to innocent people even if they haven’t lived the life of a saint. I haven’t either.”
It’s going to backfire on the defense for that good reason. The defense witness HAVE to testify just as we would have to testify is we knew anything about the case. They may not be perfect people but we can all relate to them because we’re not perfect either. None of them killed their own child. None of them drove around with her in their car trunks turning into mush and put her into a garbage bags and threw her into a swamp. That atrocious nightmare is still sitting right where it’s been all along in Casey’s lap and who can relate to HER? No matter what the defense can dig up on anyone they still can’t find a soul (far and wide) who is as dirty as their own client.

WSH, I award you the Super Sleuthing Award of the Day! Super posts! Exceptional research! Thanks, WSH! You would’t happen to be a lawyer, would you? If not, you should be.

For the rest of us more than rusting muddlers, I offer this:

http://www.floridabar.org/TFB/TFBResources.nsf/Attachments/BDFE1551AD291A3F85256B29004BF892/$FILE/Criminal.pdf?OpenElement

of which I am siftly through now.

willow

MiMi, wow. Between you and WSH you guys will be keeping me busy reading and researching all day! In which case, it may be tomorrow before I get back.

Have a super day and thanks, all, for all of the information!

WSH, no apology needed but quite the opposite. They have gone to a lot of trouble to think this one up as a team, huh? The message is loud and clear to me…they have all the time in the world to be sitting around brainstorming these kinds of things because there is absolutely no sense in preparing a REAL defense for Casey. Having nothing but her lies and her guilt to deal with, they know what a waste of their time that would be and their time is much better spent with this kind of game. Reading what you just wrote answers one of my own questions so thank-you. The glaring, unspoken answer would be…Baez is sitting quietly in the last desk in this classroom row…this is way over his head…but he IS learning some new tricks from some very nasty people. I so hope they pay a price for this. This “dream team” has not one thought in the world about a little dead girl other than using her as their springboard to further themselves. I see them as no better than vermin who continue to feed off of her body. If there is any right or justice in the world at all…

Willow, thank-you for your comment. I just got back from my rant about what worms the defense lawyers are to find your words. I enjoy reading and learning from your posts, too.

Silver, should you pop in today, how many “points” will Casey receive if she is convicted on all of the forged check/identity theft charges? I’m reading through the latest Rules of Criminal Procedure, and am just curious.

Thanks,

Willow

Maura.. Thanks to you for your detective work on finding the goods on Kronk’s ex…. When I saw her video knew there was something about her I didnt like …..

Saw an article where Anthony’s lawyer just made a statement that cindy and george did not know Baez was going to come out with this against Kronk …… Another untruth, as Cindy would say…… As I read above that she had rec’d email about him from Dominic and they were looking for dirt on him….. Also, just a few days ago a statement was made from the Anthony’s that they hoped Baez would take it easy on Kronk… when I heard that, knew something was up because they were doing a complete 360 and I had no idea why …. Now I know why…

I have 2 questions for you folks, since it is very apparent you know so much about this case. I am overwhelmed by everybodies knowledge.

Why on earth would David Dean pick up the dead snake and put it in his freezer??? (why would anyone autopsy it?)
What was the story with the imaginary co-workers string of imaginary emails? To what end were these composed?

Ok, that’s more than 2. I just finished reading the Library on this case. I took me hours and hours. I tried not to get sidetracked into looking at the videos etc. My brain is going to pop.

Kudos to you all. Val, I don’t know how you do it. Thanks so much for the Hinky Meter!

Everyone what do you think of this article from R Hornsby against Bill Scheffer. He is not nice on this response to Mr Scheffer and his articles at Wftv. Just curious. http://blog.richardhornsby.com/2009/11/22/in-defense-of-the-casey-anthony-defense/

tob,

Dean probably picked up the snake thinking he would get it skinned and then sell the skin.

They autopsied it in case it had digested any of Caylee’s remains or some substance left with Caylee’s remains – note they talked of doing toxicology tests on it.

Cyn57,

It appears to be more toward Mr. Sheaffer than to prove the motion to be a wise move on the part of the defense. If you read all of Mr. Hornsby’s post it pretty much points out that the majority will fall under impeachment of the witness, which Hornsby, himself, shows in the Florida statutes to not require a prior motion on.

I think the defense will still have to make some connection between Kronk, an alleged prior use of duct tape, World of Warcraft and Caylee’s death…At least, as a citizen who has used duct tape before and has played hours of World of Warcraft, I would hope that would be the case. I would hate to think that because of those two facets of my past I could be accused in court of murdering some one I had not prior met, or even knew their name.

Maura-
Thank you for enlightening us all.

At first glance, i.e. when that portion of the discovery was released and made public, I concluded that it was Tracy M who sent that email to Cindy (or should I call her “Rosebud”, a la Baez).

I was entirely unaware, however, of the fact that certain individuals (identified in the recent defense motion in limine re: Kronk) had posted on line on another site about Kronk/events of the past, etc.

Excellent work on your part to pull that all together.

******
Willow-
I do not practice in Florida– and this system is unique. The best I can do is provide a link to the Florida Criminal Punishment Code worksheet, etc. Perhaps this is what you were looking at when you posed your question. (And it will not make much of a difference if she is convicted on the murder charge).

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0921/Sec0024.htm

*****
I briefly scanned posts above, and I know there were questions, but the Eagles game starts in a half hour and I need to clean up from dinner and walk the dogs, get my husband comfy with decaf and fresh fruit! (And no.. I am not at all complaining about it, because I sometimes love just being a happy housewife and forgetting about all of the sadness and tragedy in the world!)

(I also want to read Val’s latest, if I have time before the game begins=)

I read the Hornsby blog. Since I am not a lawyer, I can’t attest to his opinion of the law. The filing may have been “pitch perfect” . The timing & motive, however, remains suspect to me: the fact that it was filed before the depo- to be released directly after (for maximum effect), that Brad Conway announces prior to the depo that essentially something will come out about Kronk’s past ” blowing the horns” to the media ( if you will, before the announcement), but especially the fact that the defense scheduled a rapid media blitz to directly follow. Whether that motion was legally correct, still does not discount that the real intention was to disseminate, further this information along to get headlines of Kronk’s “involvement” in the murder and capitalize on it before the judge could even rule on admissibility, thereby ensuring that ALL of the country heard about it, even if the judge MAY rule against it. Therefore they wanted the jury pool to have this slant regardless of the legal standing of the motion: that is not intentionally tainting a jury pool? That Hornsby goes on to ascribe a motive for Belich ’s reporting based on who she has dated, seems to be the same tactic that was used by C Anthony’s defense. If you don’t like what someone is saying or how things are being reported, dig up personal things about people to discount them. I’m not saying that she doesn’t have a bias toward a prosecution position, but why does Hornsby feel that it is HIS place to reveal private relationships? Isn’t his opinion of the law strong enough to stand on it’s own that it doesn’t require name calling and dirt digging? Rather than simply arguing law, which I appreciate hearing about in depth, he resorts to calling Sheaffer “Mr Suspenders” and then goes on to mock his age. Classy.

Silver, good for you! Enjoy your hubby and your game and I wish you much warmth and laughter.

Willow

WSH,

I too read Hornsby’s post, in passing through Shaeffer’s blog. It will be most interesting to see what he will have to say; though I am a bit surprised by Hornsby. I thought he had more professional finese than this display of absolute arrogance.

I think baez created the animosity or dislike at WFTV when he kicked them out of his office right before casey was indicted since then he has been nothing but rude to kathy..while she ASKES GOOD QUESTIONS…baez started the love hate relationship with them not WFTV…what is so wrong about Kathy asking Great questions which biaazzz usueally cowers behind.

CYN57 where you from open discovery board?

Whaa….. Not sure if you noticed this or not ….but the info you have above on Roy’s ex wife Jill shows a different birthdate from what she says it is during the interview that is online….. In the interview when the lawyer asks her birthdate she states it is April 21 and I forgot the year , but it was not what is listed above……

Wonder if Jill Renee Kronk and Jill Kerley are one and the same ??????? or is she lying about her birthdate on the video?

If anyone knows, please let me know.. Thanks in advance

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-1168-Crime-Examiner~y2009m11d22-Casey-Anthony-case-Interview-with-Roy-Kronks-exwife-Jill-Kerley-video

Here is the link to the full interview…

I just checked and she states it as -4-21-69

Bryan, No, I just read this at another place and since there are great minds here just wanted their take. I agree with WSH and Willlow on their comments. I think Mr Hornsby response could have been given without the arrogance which is how it came across.

The motion that was filed by JB with regard to RK will be denied by Judge Strickland. The reason is the prosecution must be the one to file such a motion. So, here we go again another incorrect motion by yours truly JB.

Oh Lordy!!! the good samaritan finds the tot’s remains …and now ,he’s considered a Nacional Threat!!!!
Send him to the dungeons!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WSH, you are absolutely correct in all of your opinions so stated, above and I so well think it high time the Court stopped the bus, and slapped a gag order on the defense and the Anthony’s, exclusively! ENOUGH of all of this (excuse me, please) whoring about that both parties are so doing, be it for personal/financial gain or in an orchestrated attempt to in fact taint a potential jury, though not only locally but nationally, and even so that no matter where it is that the trial is held, when desperate the defense can always file another motion (or deam it cause for apppeal) five minutes after having appeared on camera, bellyaching, “This case needs to be dismissed! Our client cannot receive a fair trial anywhere! There’s been too much media attention. The jury is tainted.” No matter that it was of their own doing, and I dare to say, most deliberately so.

I so truly hope that the State addresses this matter of Kronk, today. And I hope that in their so doing they counterpoint by bringing some of the dirt that’s been documented regarding the ex-wives to the attention of the court, and the public in general, for the purpose of not only destroying their credibility but showing, beyond anyone’s reasonable doubt, to what new lows the defense will stoop, or to coin an age old adage, “Scrape the bottom of the barrell.”

Just in the year 2009, alone, there have been numerous cases in which the presiding judges have silenced the defense and other related parties, such as the Anthony’s, while not limiting any one else, to include the media. Hand me the duct tape please, and make certain its Henkel brand and fire resistent and let me have at the Baez team and the Anthony’s! I would be most honored to be made the newly accused in order to help reduce the lot of them to no less than fools.

Willow

I think these motions are coming out, cause Mrs Kenney-Baden, is busy picking up a full wardrobe to present in court, in a what seems to promise a long,long trial.
Miss Lyon, is on a full make-over,trying to look more appealing to the jury
Miss Anthony, is probably withdrawing all those peanut butter snaks she binged on, while her account allowed her to do so
which…leaves Baez & the interns all by themselves. (to elaborate on the motion’s contents)
Baez: “What should I write down, here?
There’s a Gloria Stefan song that I love!…can I just write the lyrycs down???
I’’s really emotional!!!!
Interns: “Wait!….
I got an idea! Let’s say it’s Kronk!!!”
Baez: “Kids, you rock!!!!!!!”

I agree with you for sure, no connection between Kronk and Caylee.
I want to point out that on the defense’s Motion they state that George SAW Caylee on June 16, 2008 and HE WAS THE LAST ONE TO BE SEEN CAYLEE ALIVE besides Casey, of course. On Casey’s sworn statement she said she left Caylee with Zenaida on JUNE 9, 2008, notive that “casey, the mother of the year-NOT” doesn’t know WHEN she dropped off Caylee (LOL). George should be considered a SUSPECT, the items found with Caylee’s remains belong to his home right? So, George is primarily a suspect if the defense intends to go into that direction, it’s more believable to a jury than this dirty attempt to ruin Mr. Kronk’s life.
Justice For Caylee!!!

…and btw, I love “junk science”!!
I heard the snake (Tob?) mentioned above, was carefully processed, because it might have swallen some “evidence” , while in woods. WHERE’S THE SNAKE AUTOPSY????

(we might get a “gift” from the inside, like those “kinder surprise” chocolate eggs!!!)
We need the snake to come out of the closet!

Okay. Eew. If I found that next to my pork chops and ice cream I would have issues with my husband. Then we would have destroyed evidence and one less slithering suspect. If the snake had taken a bite, would Baez be on GMA with a new theory? Would the “no thumbs for duct tape” facts stop him?

I am really amazed at how much of Casey’s life revolved around keeping that phone glued to her person at all times. Much of the stolen money seems to have gone to her phone bill. The reality is that so much of this story would be less comprehensible without those phone records. I would bet that many of these friends and aquaintences would never have been touched by this case, much less be impelled to come forward with their many anecdotes regarding Casey if her phone had been disconnected for non-payment.

Hornsby (who appears to be reading here!) points out what I have previously pointed out here. The rule at issue is the one which governs the admissibility of character evidence, in particular, impeachment via “prior bad acts”, and ultimately, the judge will make that determination based upon whether or not the alleged prior bad acts are RELEVANT, but even if so, whether the claimed relevance of those prior bad acts is OUTWEIGHED by unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury.

His ad hominem attacks against Scheaffer are unfortunate, as is his attack against University of Florida law professor, Michael Seigel, who appears to agree with the analysis I posted here above (which is that the decision–which ultimately rests with Judge Strickland–will be based on the defense can convincingly argue that a) the alleged prior bad acts are RELEVANT, and even if so, b) would the PROBATIVE VALUE of evidence of the alleged prior bad acts be OUTWEIGHED by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, and/or misleading of the jury. Professor Seigel apparently agrees with my conclusion as well: wouldn’t be shocked if the judge let it in, but it’s a long shot. (Why Hornsby attacks this with his rhetorical, “HAVE YOU NO DECENCY?” is a mystery, since he is similarly commenting on his OWN opinion, although having watched him in other interviews on the case, I am, sadly, not shocked).

As I commented previously, one cannot merely just assert that these alleged prior bad acts are relevant. Rather, one must explain HOW to the Court.

This is no small hurdle for the defense to overcome. (Recall my discussion about the exceptions under the rule they are claiming the Court should allow it–Motive and Opportunity–and where I thought they were really, really, really stretching it on both of those exceptions).

Should they overcome it– and then the second prong of the analysis– remember that they will have to live with the fallout of that strategy.

It is one thing to say that one’s client did not commit the crime. But when the defense strategy is to attack an innocent 3rd party in their zeal to challenge the State meeting its burden of proof, they risk their own credibility (and here, there is ample evidence to suggest that the alleged prior bad acts are not only wholly unsubstantiated, but are the product of manufacture by individuals who have serious credibility problems of their own).

You make your bed; you lie in it.
(Or if you are Casey Marie Anthony, who is unemployed, and so creates imaginary co-workers/emails and an imaginary nanny in order to GET OUT OF THE HOUSE/OUT OF UNDER CINDY’S BIG THUMB, and you drag your 2yr old little girl around to parties and sleep overs with boyfriend after boyfriend, perhaps you LIE in it LIKE YOU MEAN IT;) (referring to that collage Casey made on the laptop during the 31 days which includes her cutting/pasting of the phrase, “LIE LIKE YOU MEAN IT!” and the phrase,”LYING IS THE MOST FUN A GIRL CAN HAVE WITHOUT TAKING HER CLOTHES OFF”, etc).

If Judge Strickland allows evidence of the alleged prior bad acts to attack Kronk’s character, so be it. The State can address the weakness of it, and use it to expose how terribly desperate the defense is (and it removes a defense argument for appeal should she be convicted).

I just wanted to comment on Michael Baden being on Geraldo. For some reason this famous forensic pathologist found it unusual that Caylees remains were skeletonized a mere 4-6 months after being thrown in the woods…excuse me??? Maggots turn to flies how quick, yet he was upset no maggot activity was located over the what, acre and a half the bones were spread over??? Is this man really an expert?? Apparantly he is a bug expert now as well. Most tv evals on the remains by various experts state even in May the flesh would be gone from the remains due to animal activity and the extreme heat in fla. Someone needs to impress upon him you dont throw out your professionalism and objectivity, so your wife can get an acquittal. Its wasted breath and makes him look foolish. JMO.

AHA. I see Hornsby was being somewhat facetious with his “HAVE YOU NO SENSE OF DECENCY” comment (he was referring to Bill Sheaffer’s blog entry title on the defense motion in limine on the prior bad acts).
On that note, he scores an EPIC FAIL. Not comparable in the least. (See below for my final blow;)

*****

Lily asked:
“I have to ask you your opinion on this, Silver: Do you think that ~if~ ~when~ this goes to trial that it will be a fiasco procedurally for the defense which will set up an endless number of appeals and challenges to evidence, proper representation, inadequate defense, etc. that could ultimately either end up in working in Casey’s favor?”

While I, of course, cannot predict the future, I am comfortable offering the opinion that if the case goes to trial (and it appears likely that it will, because Casey has repeatedly stated that she is not going to admit what they are charging her with, ironically even BEFORE she was actually charged with murder, and ironically AFTER she had admitted to LYING to LE, which was truly what she was actually charged with at that time) that Judge Strickland will not permit the case to get away from him at trial.
If Casey is convicted of murder one, and particularly if she is sentenced to death, I also feel confident in asserting that there will be numerous appeals, as there are in DP cases in general.

BTW–and I posted about this months ago at BlinkOnCrime, the majority of DP cases which are overturned on appeal are based on claims of “ineffective assistance of counsel”.

Had Casey’s defense team failed to bring up the alleged prior bad acts at trial to, at the very least, create the specter of 3rd party guilt, –and she were to receive a death sentence for Caylee’s murder, one can be certain that another lawyer–or team of lawyers–would bring them up on appeal to argue that the verdict should be overturned due to “ineffective assistance of counsel” . In other words, these stories about Kronk would have been fodder for her defense, at one time or another. (Although the DECISION to NOT bring up these alleged prior bad acts would have been easily defensible, based on the lack of RELEVANCE, and the lack of TRUSTWORTHINESS of these accounts/the lack of CREDIBILITY of these witnesses from Kronk’s distant past). (So, IMO, Bill Sheaffer correctly posed the question, and I will gladly join in that chorus: HAVE THEY NO SENSE OF DECENCY?)

The fact that his WIFE is part of the defense counsel team in the case should cast an obvious credibility shadow on his opinions. Shame on Geraldo/FOX for bothering to solicit his opinions, and shame on him for attempting to further taint the forensic evidence about the condition of the remains.

Plus–
What is he saying, then? that Caylee was dead even LONGER than is alleged in the charges??? HUH????
Boy does that NOT assist the defense theory that she was murdered AFTER Casey was jailed on July 16th, not to mention that it flies in the face of REASON, since we can see that she could not have been DEAD prior to June 15th (as we can see her singing “You Are My Sunshine” on video tape as of that date).

What’s next? They are going to call a witness to testify that Kronk is actually Yoda, Master of All Space and Time, who actually jumped back to the Winter of 2008 to murder Caylee somehow????

Bruuuuuuuuuuuuuutherrrrrrrrrrr.

Sorry- to clarify– my last post was about Michael Baden.

Silver

“Had Casey’s defense team failed to bring up the alleged prior bad acts at trial to, at the very least, create the specter of 3rd party guilt, –and she were to receive a death sentence for Caylee’s murder, one can be certain that another lawyer–or team of lawyers–would bring them up on appeal to argue that the verdict should be overturned due to “ineffective assistance of counsel” .

This was not a simple approach to get the prior bad acts into evidence. It was a clear and calculated effort to poison the jury pool. Sorry, I don’t see it any other way. File the motion, but then don’t go on tour before the judge rules on it. As I wrote before, Brad Conway “trumpeted” the coming of the revelation before the depo, the motion came before the depo, and there was no interest in questioning Kronk in regard to these allegations. They decided to discuss this motion on NATIONAL news to ensure that it would hit Miami, or where ever else the change of venue might occur. In the process, they don’t care who they destroy. That is not decent. End of story.

This is a comment I left at Blink’s a couple of months ago in response to a) a hope that tire treads from Casey’s car would be found on the snake and b) a theory that someone protecting Casey placed the snake on the grass in front of the woods where the remains were as a deterrent to anyone thinking of entering those woods. I’ve read alternate suggestions elsewhere that the snake (as part of a daisy-chain theory) was a marker so that Kronk would know which section of the woods to look in (I’m not buying that one, either).

*************************************

Photos of the snake in David Dean’s freezer (wrapped in plastic) and then unwrapped were in the March 20, 2009 discovery (discovery page 5204). The snake was the only item in what Dean described as an old refrigerator. It’s very common for people in Florida to have an extra freezer or extra refrigerator in their laundry room or garage. At any rate, the snake was not in a freezer with family food.

The autopsy information was released in the May 1, 2009 discovery beginning on page 5600.

Re: The Rattlesnake Autopsy

Here is the information from the snake autopsy in the discovery:

Species: Eastern Diamond-backed Rattlesnake (Crotalus adamanteus)
Examination Date: March 12, 2009
Body condition: Good
Postmortem condition: Good

EXTERNAL EXAMINATION:

Total length is approximately 132 cm (52 inches). Tail length from vent to tail tip is approximately 15 cm (6 inches), including nine (9) rattles. There is a serosanguinous (blood-colored) liquid discharge from the mouth. The mouth contains bloody mucous. No oral lesions are observed. Two (2) normal fangs are present. The integument (skin) is normal in appearance. A misshapen and slightly flattened area is observed to the body at approximately 2/3rds of the carcass length from the snout. There are no palpable fractures. The vent is normal in appearance.

INTERNAL EXAMINATION:

The carcass was skinned and the body cavity opened along the ventral midline to facilitate an internal examination. The dorsal longitudinal musculature along the vertebral column is torn starting approximately 64 cm (25 inches) from the snout and extending to approximately 84 cm (33 inches). The total width of the tissue disruption is approximately 20 cm (8 inches). The associated tissues are hemorrhagic. No penetrating gunshot wounds are observed. There are adequate mesenteric fat deposits. The musculoskeletal system is normally developed. The skull is intact. The brain was not examined.

“The trachea contains bloody liquid. The right lower lung and air sac are hemorrhagic. The gall bladder, spleen, and pancreas are disrupted and surrounded by clotted blood with evidence of fibrinous organization. The heart is intact, but empty of clotted blood. The liver and kidneys are pale, but otherwise normal in appearance. The upper esophagus contains a small mass of ingested clotted blood. The stomach and intestinal tract are empty. The colon contains a small amount of mucoid brownish-green material and part of a small mammal toe nail. Nothing human in nature was observed. No lesions suggestive of an infectious disease process are apparent.”

COMMENT:

Based on the gross pathological findings, it is my opinion this rattlesnake died of blunt force traumatic injuries sustained from compression with a solid structure, such as a vehicle tire. The observed misshapen and slightly flattened area observed to the body at approximately 2/3rds of the carcass length from the snout with associated hemorrhagic disruption of the dorsal longitudinal musculature along the vertebral column with a total width of disruption of approximately 20 cm (8 inches) would be consistent with this type of trauma. The hemorrhage of the associated right lower lung and air sac likely resulted in blood loss into the mouth, which was subsequently ingested as the clotted blood observed in the upper esophagus. The presence of the ingested clotted blood and organizing clotted blood surrounding the disrupted gall bladder, spleen, and pancreas suggests the snake lived for unspecified amount of time after being run over. In my opinion, the snake would not have been immediately immobilized. The extensive internal blood loss was the subsequent cause of death.”

Above information from discovery pages 5600-5604, released to the public on May 1, 2009.

**

What strikes me when reading the veterinary medical examiner’s report is that the snake carcass was in such good condition that every internal organ was easily identified and observed as normal in appearance (other than traumatic injury), so much so that the ME was able to observe bloody mucous in the snake’s mouth and ingested clotted blood in the esophagus. The ME did not once observe that the snake’s internal organs showed signs of decomposition. The only reasonable conclusion is that the dead snake had barely begun to decompose by the time David Dean spotted it on the afternoon of August 11, 2008.

In other words, that snake could not have been run over by Casey Anthony back in June 2008. It couldn’t even have been run over by Casey on July 15, the day before she was arrested, and still been in such good shape 25 days later. Had Casey run over the snake at any time between June 16 and July 15, the snake would have been in a state of advanced decomposition when David Dean found it on August 11. Yet none of the OC Public Works supervisors and meter readers who got near the snake on August 11 noted so much as a faint smell of decomposition. That snake had to have been fresh roadkill when it was spotted around 1:30-2:00pm on August 11, 2008.

The ME also noted that the snake had not died on impact but had lived for an unspecified amount of time after being run over. The likely conclusion is that the snake was run over when crossing Suburban Drive and then crawled into the woods before dying of blood loss. The snake had not been able to crawl very far because David Dean said the snake was in the grass not far from the road, so the snake had not made as far as the woods.

So who ran over the snake? The eastern end of Suburban Drive dead-ends at Hidden Oaks Elementary School, so it was not a thruway and for that reason would not have been heavily traveled. Despite that, the media coverage of the case drew many people to the Anthony neighborhood, people who often ended up on that section of Suburban Drive because it was around the corner from the Anthony residence. We know about Keith Williams, the TV news crew he ran into, Joy Wray, Gale St. John, etc., and there were without question many more curiosity-seekers in that area either looking around the neighborhood or just turning around on Suburban after driving by the residence.

Moreover, the Orange County Public School 2008-2009 calendar indicates the first day of school for students was August 18, and the prior week (August 11 through August 15) was marked for teacher and administrator pre-planning days and staff meetings in preparation for the return of the students.

It could very well be that one of the school employees (administrator, teacher, maintenance person, etc.) ran over that snake early on the morning of August 11 while driving to the school, and the snake died hours before David Dean spotted it later that same day. Dean put the snake in his truck, drove to the OC Public Works building, and told the people in his department about the snake. The employees (some supervisors and all the meter readers according to Alex Roberts) went out to the parking lot to see the snake. Either that same day or soon after, David Dean took the snake to his home and put it in his freezer.

Another thing that occurred to me is that OCSO learned on January 6 that the snake was in David Dean’s freezer, but the snake was not sent to the National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory for another two months. From David Dean’s OCSO interview, LE intended to pick up the snake fairly soon from Dean, but the snake was not received by the examining laboratory until March 10. The snake had to be shipped frozen or refrigerated, so I would guess it was sent via overnight shipper on March 9.

Why wait so long? Maybe they weren’t sure until March that they wanted to have it autopsied. The report of Dr. David Hall, forensic botanist, is dated February 9, 2009, and Hall noted in his report that the largest of the roots growing through Caylee’s bones “could indicate a minimum period of approximately four months.” Hall made his observation from photos taken when the remains were discovered, so four months earlier would have been approximately August 11. Maybe they were still waiting for the report of Dr. Neal Haskell, the forensic entomologist, to see if Haskell could be more specific about the length of time Caylee’s remains were in those woods. I cannot recall having seen any post-December 11 report by Dr. Haskell regarding the bugs found at the crime scene (the only things I’ve seen referred to the bugs found in the trash bag that was inside the Pontiac trunk).

At any rate, by early March, LE decided they wanted the snake autopsied. From the ME’s report, she looked for wounds consistent with a gunshot; we know a bullet casing was found in the woods surrounding the remains, so one reason for the examination was perhaps to account for the bullet casing. The ME also examined the contents of the snake’s stomach, intestinal tract, and colon to see what the snake had eaten, and she noted that the snake’s colon contained an animal toenail, but it was not human.

So I think the snake was autopsied 1) to attempt to account for the bullet casing, and 2) to see if the snake contained human bone anywhere in the intestinal tract or soft tissue in the stomach. LE knew the snake had been found on the same day that Kronk believed he saw what could have been a human skull. From the forensic reports, a human body left outside in the summer in a tropical climate could completely skeletonize in as little as two weeks, perhaps even sooner for a small child. If soft tissue had been found in the snake’s stomach that proved to be Caylee’s, then the presence of that soft tissue as late as August 11 would have required a major revision of the timeline and assumptions. If a bone from Caylee had been found in the rattlesnake’s digestive tract, the condition of the bone would have helped establish the timeline because rattlesnake digestion is very slow, and bones are usually dissolved in the process. If any human bone had been found in the snake’s colon that could be DNA-matched to Caylee, then the degree to which the bone had been dissolved would have been another indicator of the length of time Caylee’s body had been in the woods.

Silver

I didn’t mean for my post to sound as if I was “yelling ” at you. I hope you took it in the spirit in which it was written.

Silverspunr

I’m not an expertee in Fla law,but in ref Hornsby opinion and the “prior bad acts” BS that they allude:

Does Baez still “scream for achange of location” for the trial, cause the public opinion is already against his client?
Well, IMO, Orlando inhabitants are TRUE SWEETHEARTS! (as it was proven in the Ward murder)
Please tell me,
Where else, can one shot a spouse in the face, fall asleep during interrogation that same evening, come up with 3 different versions of what happen, laugh and do funny faces on taped visits, while encarcerated, and come out with bail & permission to attend the funeral?????????????????” WAIT!!……there wasn’t a single person that had a bad word to say about him/his prior behaviour!!!!…………………….

I guess that is a small “detail” to Mr Baez.
Whatever the trial moves to,WITNESSES & FACTS will follow….

What I mean is, the problem is not as much in the public/jury, AS IT IS IN HIS CLIENTS DEMEANOUR!

The most critical variable in decomposition rate is temperature above ground and moisture below ground. As one of the forensic anthropologists noted in the autopsy discovery, human decomposition is rapid when the body is above ground in the warm months of a tropical climate. He used the example of a 12-year-old Mississippi girl who went missing in August. When her body was found 10 days later, it was almost completely skeletonized.

34-month-old Caylee Anthony was about three feet tall and 35-40 pounds when she disappeared on June 16, 2008 in Orlando, FL. During the period June 16 to July 15, 2008, the average daily temperature was around 80F. Her body was decomposing in conditions similar to the 12-year-old Mississippi girl, but her body, being tiny, would have decomposed more quickly because of its smaller size.

I’m not sure if I explained myself clearly….the context for the above post, was the Defenses concern, with ones “prior bad acts”. Do you think they’ll get what I’m saying? (truly hope so! LOL)

Well, Silver, once again, I’d like to voice my gratitude to you. I’m learning so much from your posts.

I’d like to share what I see about Hornsby’s blog entry (from a layman’s point of view):

Okay, he does a good job of showing us that this motion agrees with Florida statutes and could have value in future appellate procedures. BUT, he also does a good job of proving this was for media coverage and not for any legal reason.

The reason I say that is that he shows us in Florida statutes that to IMPEACH a witness in no way requires a pre-trial motion requesting permission. So all matters centering around materials that could be used for the purpose of impeaching the witness’s credibility did not require this motion in the first place.

Then we get to the fact that the MAJORITY of what is being alleged against Mr. Kronk is in the form of hearsay, so it won’t even be admissible.

Not to mention that the whole argument given about prior bad acts being in reference to past CRIMINAL acts that show sufficient commonality to what the evidence shows happened to Caylee (i.e. duct tape) is based on an assumption there was a past CRIMINAL act in Mr. Kronk’s history. However, as the record shows, there is no CRIMINAL act in Kronk’s history. A grand jury heard the accusations of Jill K., looked into the evidence, and not only ruled lack of probable cause, but the entire event was expunged from Mr. Kronk’s record. Which this layperson understands to mean, from a “record standpoint” “IT DIDN’T EVER HAPPEN”.

So, I think while Mr. Hornsby made his point that the statutes allow this motion to be filed, he provided significant evidence that a lot of it was unnecessary (i.e. for another intent which would be jury pool tainting, as Mr. Sheaffer speculated), a good part will be inadmissible, and I wonder if the whole “prior bad act” issue will even be admissible.

That’s my less than knowledgable read on it.

You know, if Andrea Lyons would let an innocent man who she knew was innocent and was her own client sit in jail/prison for 20 or 25 yrs. I wouldn’t put anything past this woman. I can just look at this woman and Baez and tell that they are just as big a crook as the people they defend. they have no feelings for the innocent people they are trying to hang for what they know their client has done. I WONDER WHO THEY ARE GOING TO THROW UNDER THE BUS WHEN THIS FAILS THEM. they just had to come up with proof that someone other than Casey threw caylee away in the woods like trash, when the judge gave them a dead line to prove their theory that she was placed there after Casey was in jail. now they do have a right to defend their POS client but, they don’t have a right to ruin the lives of innocent people. the judge should really admonish them for this one.

Silverspnr
Thanx for the above post. I did like it.

I think Hornsby problem, is that Shaeffers opinions, give WFTV greater shares than he does to WESH himself.
I bet his boss told him : “You go and challenge that guy’s blog, or ask Baez for a leg working the case!”
What can a man do., when our bread is gaining wings???? go and bark, I guess….

Silver, so, first of all, who won the game?

Silver and Lily: Just a couple of comments, anyway, perchance you don’t mind:

1. By the time this goes to trial (and it will. Narcissists never admit to anything) Casey will have a long list of prior bad acts to contend with, because she ain’t gettin outta the check charges! Caught on tape and all that.

2. It seems to me, but you’re the expert and I’m not even half a novice, there is no cause for Strickland to agree to a change of venue, considering all of the national media appearances made by the Anthony’s and the defense, and that the Anthony’s/defense has brought upon themselves. Though I will concede that Strickland may grant a venue change to avoid future conflict. Please, I’d so appreciate your input on this.

3. Humm. Caylee dead longer than … what does that mean? She died on the 9th? (gag me with a tuna on rye).

4. I am willing to bet my grandma’s quilt that Kronk’s bad acts will be found irrelevant. How does taping a grown adults hands, one time, upteen years ago, under entirely different circumstances relate to anything other than that? And which of us hasn’t been walked in on while bathing or dressing by one of our parents, siblings, or peers, at one time or another?

5. No. They don’t have any sense or semblance of decency, and I will be up in that attic searching for my book on Legal Procedures and Ethics.

6. You bet your sweet bippy that Casey will be screaming bloody murder (sorry about that) when she’s found guilty as charged. “Ineffective, incompetent, bumbling, assistance of counsel!” But who the heck is she going to find to represent her on appeal? O, I know. Hornsby! Or Geraldo. Is he still licensed? Can he practice in FL? Is he DP qualified? Is Hornsby? To me, Hornsby just seems a bit “green”.

7. As I understand it, appeal on DP’s is standard procedure, and near immediate. Correct me if I’m mistaken.

8. This is sure to go on much longer than O.J.

Argh. So much for my lunch break. Back to the tuna fish. Is Val doing another article now? Can’t wait!

Have a super day!

Willow

Valhall,

Most excellant response to Silver’s post! You can’t imagine how grateful I am for all that I learn from the two of you!

Back to work I go.

O, darn, I just can’t stand it. I have to say this, for as common as it is among media folk. Stir up trouble and up the ratings go, and Shaeffer has had it all over Hornsby from the get go.

Okay, that’s all. Really.

And Baden’s claim about the condition of the remains REALLY creates a problem for Casey, who claimed TO LE that she SPOKE with a LIVE Caylee on July 15th–for “about a minute”.. or, er… “a moment”.

Don’t you just love how PRECISE Casey was about the 31 days … but how glaringly VAGUE she was about other key timing details, such as her statement about when she allegedly dropped Caylee off at Sawgrass–between 9am and 1pm–huh??, and about the length of the alleged last phone conversation she had with her child–”about a minute” or “a moment”–whaaaat??… and about how long she claims that “Zanny” was Caylee’s nanny, “for a year and a half…two years”, uhhhh… ?????

Perhaps Baden is in the “the remains are NOT those of Caylee Marie Anthony” boat, provided to the Anthonys by the Milsteads/KFN. (The boat which is headed up sh*t’s creek without a paddle, that is).

*****
Regarding a gag Order–

Does everyone here recall the Scott Peterson case? There was a gag Order in effect, and what did Mark Geragos, attorney for Scott Peterson do to basically circumvent that?? Anyone recall him mounting a replica of Scott’s fishing boat, which held home made concrete anchors and a dummy to represent Laci, about 2 blocks OUTSIDE THE COURTHOUSE, in a location which was certain to garner significant media attention, not to mention that it would likely be viewed by at least some of the jurors on the case (in an obvious effort to create the impression that it would have been impossible for Scott to throw her body overboard without upending the boat itself). This was not only in violation of the gag order (if you consider what he did a form of “speech”), but it was also AFTER the trial judge had ruled that the defense would NOT be permitted to mount a similar display for the jurors during trial. (It back fired on Geragos to the extent that numerous people placed flowers for Laci and Connor in the display, but can you imagine the audacity to have done that in the first place?? Had there been no grand interest in the case from a mass media perspective, I highly doubt he would have engaged in such shenanigans).

I know a bar complaint was lodged against him for the stunt.

In Florida, the Rule of Professional Conduct concerning this issue is:

Rule 4-3.6 Trial Publicity

(a) Prejudicial Extrajudicial Statements Prohibited.

A lawyer shall not make an extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication if the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that it will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding due to its creation of an imminent and substantial detrimental effect on that proceeding.

The key language here is “substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing” the proceeding (i.e. the trial).
This language reflects a revision of the old Florida Rule on this topic, after the handing down of a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court : Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030, 111 S.Ct. 2720, 115 L. Ed. 2d 888 (1991) (having to do with Nevada’s Rule of Professional Conduct on this issue–which closely reflected the old Florida Rule– as being “unconstitutionally vague”). So not only did Florida amend its own Rule, but this was followed by a Florida case, where the appellate court quashed a protective order issued by the trial judge, explaining that “gag orders imposed upon attorneys and litigants are only proper if the restraint on speech is narrowly tailored to achieve the objective sought.” In short, the gag order was lifted, because there had been no showing in this case that the order was necessary to preclude a substantial likelihood of material prejudice to the trial. See Rodriguez v. Feinstein, 734 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).

So can Judge Strickland enter a gag order in this case? Yes, but only if the order is narrowly tailored to achieve the objective sought. (And it would be difficult in this case, where so much of the evidence which the State will seek to introduce against Casey has been splashed over the front pages of local and national newspapers, tabloid magazines, on blogs, etc as a result of requests for the public release of the discovery pursuant to the Sunshine laws.)

Remember: the State requested a gag order in this case early on. Judge Strickland said, “While the court shares the state attorney’s concerns about the amount and nature of the publicity, the legal standard has not been met.”

He continued, “The state attorney’s office argued that the defense team, as well as the Anthony family’s lust for the ‘limelight,’ may well sabotage the potential jury pool when this case is ultimately tried. While this argument has some appeal, it does not rise to the level of being a serious and imminent threat to the administration of justice. Further, this court is confident that even with a ‘gag order’ the publicity and media attention would continue unabated.”

Silver

Judge Strickland appears to bend over backward in terms of leeway for the defense; I guess to limit issues for appeal. So I agree with you, there will be no contempt, or gag order, or any other admonishment in terms of running all over the media with this motion that is (in my opinion) highly prejudicial, and only for the purpose of planting this info into the ears of potential jurors.

As you said, these acts do backfire. When, or if, it is demonstrated that there wasn’t opportunity or motive for Kronk to have committed the crime, (if the seated jurors did hear this a head of time), they will look to the defense as underhanded or dirty, and by association, Casey.

What’s even funnier about Casey’s four-page written statement on the night of the 911 calls is that after writing this:

“On Monday, June 9, 2008, between 9am and 1pm, I took Caylee to the Sawgrass apartments, located on Conway Road”

she wrote this:

“I have not had any contact with Zenaida since Thursday, June 12, 2008. I received a quick call from Zenaida.”

*****

Now how could she be so vague about the time she dropped Caylee off for the last time and get the date wrong to boot, yet be so precise about the date of a “quick call” she received from Zenaida three days later, a date that was actually four days before Caylee “went missing”?

WSH and Val-

I could not agree more about the reason the defense filed this motion. I thought I had expressed this earlier on my first post on it way up this thread, when I explained the normal course would be for the defense to attempt to question Kronk about these matters during cross-examination, at which point, the State would object and the Court would ask the defense for an offer of proof on admissibility (unless the Court summarily sustained the State’s objection–at which point I would expect the defense to request a sidebar) but if not, let me be clear: this was a STUNT, IMO.
(What I meant about the alleged prior bad acts of Kronk being fodder for her defense–or her appellate counsel should she be convicted–is simply that someone was going to ATTEMPT to use it, either during trial by Baez et al, or–had they NOT attempted to use it and Casey were to be convicted, and particularly if she gets the DP, by appellate counsel, who would add that to whatever other reasons they could find to get her conviction overturned based on a claim of “ineffective assistance of counsel”.)

The other thing they do is go through a lot of evidence which has absolutely NOTHING to do with the alleged prior bad acts, and is therefore irrelevant to the motion. I mean–why are they going into his accounts of his observations/reports in August and December at this time?? What does THAT have to do with the Court ruling on the admissibility of alleged prior bad acts evidence?? NOTHING. So why did they do it? TO DISCREDIT THIS MAN AS BEST THEY CAN/TO GET THE MAIN STREAM MEDIA TO RUN WITH HEADLINES AND STORIES THAT ONLY SERVE TO TAINT THE JURY POOL/THE “COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION” ABOUT HIM (in an unethical effort to cast doubt about Casey’s guilt)

Val–
Even the defense concedes that this evidence is inadmissible under the Florida Rules of Evidence. They are arguing that the judge should DISREGARD the Rules to protect Casey’s Constitutional Due Process rights. In support of that notion, they cite those US Supreme Court cases I addressed above (which, as I pointed out, do NOT stand for the general proposition re: admissibility of evidence of 3rd party guilt, as they claim in their Memorandum of Law).

I didn’t see Hornsby address THAT part of the analysis in his article, and I have to say I have a different take on it entirely. I see his piece as, mainly, a combination slam/glam job. A slam against Sheaffer, and glam of how he sees his own, fine self.

And I don’t believe a number of things he says– at all.
For example–and this portion of his article GLARED at me–

“So with the legality of Reverse Williams rule evidence established, the admissibility of Ms. Kerley’s claims boils down to this question:
If Roy Kronk was on trial for Caylee Anthony’s murder, would evidence that he has used strikingly similar duct tape to subdue a women be admissible against him as similar fact evidence?
I am a criminal defense attorney by profession – and my immediate answer would be without a doubt – YES.”

UMMM. Is he SERIOUS???
He is a criminal defense attorney by profession, and his opinion is that this type of prior bad act hearsay would be–”without a doubt”–admissible against Kronk if HE were on trial for Caylee’s murder??? WHA-WHA-WHAT?!!

Either he is a TERRIBLE criminal defense attorney.. OR..he is truly being flagrantly DISINGENUOUS.

Let me explain:
He surely knows that the Rules of Evidence authorize the admission of evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts in criminal cases ONLY where the probative value of the evidence outweighs the PREJUDICE THAT NECESSARILY ACCOMPANIES ITS ADMISSION (otherwise-there would be no balancing test to overcome to begin with).
You see, by PRESUMING PREJUDICE and REQUIRING that it be counterbalanced by the evidence’s probative value, the Rules favor the EXCLUSION of such evidence, and particularly so when offered against the ACCUSED, because –as so eloquently stated by the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, “When [prior crimes or bad act] evidence reaches the attention of the jury, it is most difficult, if not impossible, to assume continued integrity of the presumption of innocence. A drop of ink cannot be removed from a glass of milk.” Government of Virgin Islands v. Toto, 529 F.2d 278, 283 (3rd Cir. 1976). Moreover, evidence of other crimes is “probably only equaled by a confession in its prejudicial impact upon a jury….The presumed effect of such evidence is to predispose the minds of the jurors to believe the accused guilty, and they effective strip him of the presumption of innocence.” Commonwealth v. Spruill, 391 A.2d 1048, 1050 (Pa. 1978).

So who is Hornsby kidding???
Any criminal defense lawyer worth his salt would NEVER offer the opinion he did (in the quote I set forth). Sorry, Val, but to me, it seems he was mainly on his own little PRESS TOUR CAMPAIGN here. (Perhaps jealous of the publicity and love that Scheaffer has been receiving, particularly since he commenced his blog? I mean… how many times does he comment on HIMSELF and how fabulous he is?! I stopped counting!)

*****

And Val, just to clarify on another point:
A “prior bad act” is not limited to prior CRIMES. Keep in mind that it can be a prior bad ACT, or WRONG, or CRIME under the Rule.

*****

(btw- I am not offering the opinion that Scheaffer is always correct; just calling THIS particular little jab-fest as I see it).

Maura!
LOL!
I completely skimmed over that other time line error in her written statement!!

Silver, you are great, and always end up making me laugh….Thanks

More Digging:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-casey-anthony-equusearch-records-20091123,0,6785687.story

Casey Anthony’s attorneys want Texas EquuSearch to turn over all of its records

Attorneys for Casey Anthony want Texas EquuSearch, a nonprofit volunteer search group, to turn over all of its records regarding the search last year for slain toddler Caylee Anthony.
Jose Baez filed the paperwork in court Monday asking the judge to order EquuSearch founder Tim Miller to turn over information — such as names and phone numbers — for the thousands who volunteered to look for the missing 2-year-old Orange County girl……

Is the PI now going to set his sights on all of the volunteers? And if you reside in another state what is your obligation to speak with the defense, if any?

Maura

How could she get the date wrong that her daughter went missing- period? Normally the date of any bad event in your life is unfortunately burned into your neurons so deeply that you can’t escape it, unless you suffer from some kind of traumatic amnesia (which clearly Casey did not because she lied about where Caylee was and evaded discovery by avoiding those that might question her further).

I think if Mother Theresa herself found Caylee’s body Jose & Co. would have dug up dirt on her. It IS a pathetic atempt at “reasonable doubt”. Unfortunatley their client, Casey Anthony, will be dound guily beyond a SHADOW of a doubt. A jury will see right through the finger pointing.

according to this wesh article 2 volunteers came forward and said they searched that area in september and didn’t find caylee’s remains…isn’t this about the time the tropical storm hit and dumped almost 10 inches of rain there???

http://www.wesh.com/news/21699113/detail.html

WSH, Silver, Val,

Okay, so now I am a bit more confused than ever, having posted on November 21 a question regarding what I thought to be Mr. Shaeffer’s comment regarding the Anthony’s not being subject to perjury charges because they had not, as yet, given any testimony under oath.

WSH, you were so kind as to point out to me that it wasn’t the Anthony’s Mr. Shaeffer was refering to, but Kronk’s X-wives. In accessing Mr. Shaeffer’s blog, this evening, I read that post again, and have copied the portion that I had a question about. It is as follows:

“BeesKnees, Cathy,Olivia, Frg, Grownupmom, Jan and many more of you have asked this question in varying forms. Why haven’t George and Cindy Anthony been charged and prosecuted for perjury? Quite simply in order for a person to be charged with perjury, he must make a material contradiction of the facts to which he is testifying, under oath. In other words, lie from one sworn statement to another. In the case of George and Cindy Anthony, their statements to the FBI, other law enforcement authorities and of course the media, have not been under oath, or sworn to. Therefore, even if they have contradicted themselves in their series of statements or outright lied, the Florida statutory requirements have not been met to bring a charge of perjury.”

Is this not in fact referring to the Anthony’s and not Kronk’s wives? As I understand it, the Anthony’s have been under oath/sworn in, several times, but am I not understanding that, correctly? Are the oaths they take outside an actual courtroom, as in depos, not binding, though it’s been my experience that they are.

Please advise me on this, and should it be a misstatement on Mr. Shaeffer’s part, perhaps he should be made aware of it, especially in light of Hornsby’s accusations.

Respectfully,
Willow

Sorry, guys. This was posted on Mr. Shaeffer’s blog on 11/2o/2009.

http://www.wftv.com/news/21700894/detail.html

Casey’s Death Penalty Lawyer calls jurors “Killers”

Oh, oh. Scorched earth/Lyons exposed.

Willow-

Re: the perjury charges. I spent a good deal of time of time posting about this on an earlier thread, and I never save my own posts or know where they are, or otherwise I’d just copy and paste here.

First of all, let me just set forth here that perjury is specifically defined by statute (every state has its own statute defining this crime/its variances, and there are federal statutes governing it for cases heard in the U.S. District Courts, which are the trial level of our Federal Courts).

I copied and pasted the Florida criminal statutes defining PERJURY (in all of its permutations), and then did my best to explain the kind of proof required to not just file charges against someone, but to rather file meaningful charges (based on the strength of the evidence) against someone for this CRIME.

As I pointed out, George Anthony has now testified, UNDER OATH, on TWO occasions already in this criminal action (at the Grand Jury proceeding, and at the state subpoenaed deposition). And guess what? The SAO filed a (rare) motion with the court to obtain his Grand Jury testimony FOR THE REASON that they believed it was MATERIALLY divergent from his testimony UNDER OATH at his deposition this past summer.

That signals the potential for a perjury claim against George Anthony.
That also, IMO, signals the potential for perjury charges against Cindy Anthony (should her trial testimony be at MATERIAL variance with her recent deposition testimony in this case).

*****
There are different levels of what are considered perjurious statements (and hence, different classifications of these crimes under the Florida penal code).

The easiest way to prove perjury is when one has two statements from a witness, UNDER OATH, in the same proceeding, which cannot possibly BOTH be true, and which the witness can be demonstrated to have known that at least one of which was NOT TRUE when it was uttered.

I know that Sheaffer says they cannot use anything other than testimony under oath… and while I would never encourage another to waste taxpayer dollars pursuing a perjury charge based on statements to local LE (due to the fact that the person being interviewed is almost NEVER sworn in BEFORE they start answering questions… and also because the Q&A is not nearly as PRECISE as it should be to properly support a perjury charge should the statement be at MATERIAL variance with subsequent testimony which is given UNDER OATH), the fact here is that both George and Cindy gave statements to the FBI….

And that could bring Federal statutes into play…

In any event, there are strategic reasons for NOT pursuing any charges against George, Cindy, and possibly Lee at this time (not to mention proof issues), but should this case go to trial… the testimony of these particular individuals will be watched with HAWK EYES by the State (and many of us out here in la-la-blog-land)

*****
Not going to proof the above; gonna go catch more Monday night football with my husband=) (he’s an Eagles fan now, but he grew up on the other end of the Commonwealth, i.e. he was born in STEELER territory;)

UGH! I wish I could just link you to my earlier post, because I recall going into detail about the TYPE of statements that could be subject to perjury charges (vs. opinion testimony, etc)

Let’s just say– it is a long way off before any perjury charges are leveled, but do not count out the potential for charges to be levied down the road.

Off the watch some MONDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL!!!

(i am in a good mood, because the Eagles beat the Bears last night, and so the dark circles I found under my eyes this morning were worth the pain of seeing my 43 yr old reflection in the mirror;)

WSH-

IMO, that move spells more D-E-S-P-E-R-A-T-I-O-N.

(if Kronk is their man..as they would gladly insinuate these last few days… why are they still searching for a volunteer to pin it on?)

No volunteer is obligated to speak with the defense, unless the volunteer either a)wishes to speak with them, or b) is subpoenaed by the defense (and in order for the court to issue a subpoena on an out-of-state witness.. there are jurisdictional hurdles for the defense to overcome).

All that this signals to me is that they could not find anything of “value” to them in the names of the volunteers which the court already permitted them to review after the hearing this summer on their initial motion seeking the court to compel the production of TES records.

OK-
NOW I am REALLY going to go watch some FOOTBALL!

Silver,

Please, please, Silver, accept my utmost apologies should I have caused you even a bit of aggravation. It was not my intention. I have read your posts, and so appreciate them, even myself so well understanding what perjury is and in what context one might be charged with the same, as surely the Anthony’s will probably one day be.

My confusion, regarding Mr. Shaeffer’s comments regarding Cindy and George was in that he specifically stated that as of 11/20/2009, as above pasted, Cindy and George had taken no oath nor made any sworn statement that would have substantiated a perjury charge against them, which I knew not to be the case, having scoured, as aforementioned, the taped interviews given to OCSO/FBI as well as the depositions they underwent at Morgan’s law firm, even to ascertain that these interviews and depostions were taken under oath. I did not have questions as to that, nor to the fact that in my opinion they had in fact made perjurous statements in several instances.

I am not a lawyer. I am most certainly not one iota as knowledgable as Mr. Shaeffer, nor you, and so thought that perhaps I had a grave misunderstanding, or such a lack of knowledge, of a particular law that would have made it possible for one to give a certain form or type of deposition or interview under a limited sort of non-binding oath that I was not familiar with, and so imposed the question, more or less, whether it was possible that in fact George and Cindy gave no binding of oath or otherwise sworn statement, though I have not ever heard of or known of such a thing in any criminal case or court of law.

Never have I questioned the information you have provided, which I find not only most valuable, but which serves but to reinforce all that I know regarding such things as perjury. But again, when a man such as Mr. Shaeffer, whom I have the utmost respect for and do so admire, makes such a statement as the Anthony’s have made no sworn statements nor oaths, I have but myself to look to as having been mistaken in my own understanding of law.

So here it is in a nutshell then and I will so dare to say it, though it is with great displeasure that I do. It is not I who made the mistake, it is Bill Shaeffer, and if anything I should not have considered him to be so far superior that I would have questioned my own undestanding, especially in having established the fact that the Anthony’s had indeed not only swore under oath, but in fact perjured themselves again and again, beyond question.

It was not you, nor the information you provided which has always been most informative, nor was it even Mr. Shaeffer I questioned. It was none but myself, and I was mistaken for so doing.

WSH,
As a side note, so there you have it, WSH. It wasn’t Kronk’s ex-wives Mr. Shaeffer was referring to. It was the Anthony’s, and he was mistaken or misspoke. Though right at this moment, I could almost wish I didn’t know that, or even that I would never have known it.

I hope this helps to clarify and clear this up, Silver. As with Val, I relish every piece of information the two of you set forth.

Most sincerely,
Willow

Silver, you don’t need to proof, you just need to enjoy the game!

WHS
No hard feelings, I hope.

Willow

Willow,

You can read Silver’s original response about the possibility of perjury in the comments here:

http://www.thehinkymeter.com/?p=701#comments

Val,

Thanks, Val, for the link. I have re-read Silver’s post. Only time will tell what the court decides to do regarding the Anthony’s. Regardless, you have, once again, no less than astounded me with your newest article. All in all, there is no greater and more informative site than the Hinky Meter, IMHO. Your attention not only to detail, but to all who post, is most commendable! We have all learned so much, here. Thank you.

You all have a truly great Thanksgiving!

Willow

No hard feelings, I hope.
Willow

Of course not Willow.

There were two articles and posts going on simultaneously at WFTV the day you asked. I believe that Belich or Shaeffer mentioned that the ex-wives weren’t under oath either. At any rate, it was better that you got your legal info from Silver on perjury.

I would think that although some of the statements from LE are not considered under oath, that they can still be used in court, especially if they change radically. (maybe not for perjury charges, but at least to impeach testimony or discredit the witness) Otherwise, there wouldn’t be the required Miranda readings for suspects, and the police wouldn’t ask witnesses to confirm that they are knowingly being recording . At least that is my feeble understanding of it (lol).

W. Sheaffer blogs again.

Witness for the Prosecution of fall guy for the defense
http://www.wftv.com/caseyanthonyblog/index.html

pardon my typo – that should read “Witness for the Prosecution or fall guy for the defense?’

R. H. also has a new post to his blog.
Its pretty interesting too.

http://blog.richardhornsby.com/2009/11/24/omg-bill-you-did-not-do-what-i-think-you-did/

Maura

RE Snake
only now was i able to check on the full autopsy report you so kindly posted!!Thank you.
I wish I could write posts like you ppl do, But some, do look like “War & Peace” to me (lenghwise!) It is bad enough that this is not my language, so I try to keep it brief. As long as you understand what I’m trying to say here, I’m fine with the bullying that might come from the grammar brigade! LOL
thanx for breaking the mystery about the snake!!!..and bothering to answer!LOL you rock!

WSH,

Your opinions are hardly feeble. I learn from them, as even so many do. Thanks for being so gracious.

Willow

WSH, oops, your opinions and understandings, that is.

Willow-
My goodness! No need to apologize!!

I am simply pressed for time and never save my posts.

Hope I was helpful=)

Silver, you are always so helpful, wise, level headed, incredibly knowledgable, patient, etc. etc. And no, I’m not just saying that! Thanks, Silver, for all you do.

Maura,

I so want to commend you, again, on the amazing information you were able to put together regarding Kronk! It’s information such as this, such contradictory statements as well as misinformations, that will weigh heavily against the defense should these people be required to testify against Kronk, as their credibility would be easily shot to shreads.

My concern has been, and for quite some time — the true connection between Tracy and the Anthony’s, and in particular her seeming attachment to Casey. In her interview she even stated that Casey was so rather likeable, and her nervous laughter reminded me so much of Lee, who rises in defense of his sister, though he must know she is absolutely guilty. I don’t know that I trust Tracy, and Padilla has said nothing to curb that, though it has been said that not all of her interview has been released as yet. I’d like your thoughts on that, and Tracy, if you wouldn’t mind.

Thanks, Maura! You have done justice a great service.

Will someone please tell me what the heck is a daisy chain. I’ve heard LP use that term a lot on the NG show when he was on there quite a lot in the beginning of thie case.

Argentina Rose, here’s LP explaining his daisy chain:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbAricFBbf8

To all and any, or Silver or Maura or Val,

Will someone please tell me why, if in fact Joy Wray has a computer full of information that could exonerate Casey (prove that Caylee’s body was placed after Casey was jailed) why hasn’t this computer been confiscated and searched, by investigators?

Willow

Willow,

If Joy has evidence proving some one else had possession of Caylee’s body then she is obligated to turn it over to law enforcement. If she has that proof and she is not turning it over to law enforcement, then I would think she is withholding evidence associated with the commission of a crime.

My guess is one of three scenarios: 1. She turned over everything voluntarily to the investigators and Baez and therefore Baez has no need to request release of that discovery…so we most likely won’t see it until trial. 2. LE subpoenaed the information and got it, but so did Baez voluntarily, so the same thing holds true. 3. She hasn’t got jack-shit…in which case we won’t even see it at trial.

Dearest Val,

IMHO, it’s that latter.

Not that any of this matters. This case is going to be tried and decided on the forensics. Period. I’m not even going to say that’s my honest opinion, quite simply because I believe it’s no less than absolute fact.

Willow

Dr. Lillian Glass has a new analysis up. This one is on the videos of Roy Kronk’s ex-wives.

http://drlillianglassbodylanguageblog.wordpress.com/

Interesting reading. While Dr. Glass doesn’t realize there is a 4th piece of duct tape that could have been used as a restraint, it doesn’t detract from the interesting points she makes about the “ex-wives club”.

Thanks Val

Her write-ups are interesting, but her typos are distracting. Don’t you find?

Nah, none of us are perfect. I don’t tend to focus in on those types of things.

I really find her analyses interesting. I have to admit I know almost nothing about body language studies, so it’s nice to get read some one’s take on these things.

P.S. Unless the person I’m reading is Joy Wray and then all I can see is her spelling errors. Maybe because they outnumber the correctly spelled words.

lmao.

LOL Val…..Those writings are from a separate and distinct language. (way beyond typos)

the Roy Kronk whodunit is and always has been a redherring by the defense. They are not so stupid that they could actually believe that Roy can be tied in to the murder of Caylee, IMHO. They are simply tossing out as many things as they can to confuse the issues and maybe give a juror multiple areas on which they could get stuck so that they will decide that there may be reasonable doubt.

there are still problems with the Krionk tale, imho, since I cannot get past the fact that he allegedly saw what he tought was the skull of a baby girl in the water and then let the whole thing drop for months. He had lots of options when the local police would not follow up and yet he did none of them. Why? For example, he could have cotnacted state police, FBI, the Sentinel and told them that the local police would not do any thing when he was sure that he had seen a skull there. He could have done any number of things to force the issue and did none of them.

I find it troubling.

(repost with fixed typos – not Wray )

the Roy Kronk whodunit is and always has been a redherring by the defense. They are not so stupid that they could actually believe that Roy can be tied in to the murder of Caylee, IMHO. They are simply tossing out as many things as they can to confuse the issues and maybe give a juror multiple areas on which they could get stuck so that they will decide that there may be reasonable doubt.

there are still problems with the Kronk tale, imho, since I cannot get past the fact that he allegedly saw what he thought was the skull of a baby girl in the water and then let the whole thing drop for months. He had lots of options when the local police would not follow up and yet he did none of them. Why? For example, he could have contacted state police, FBI, the Sentinel and told them that the local police would not do any thing when he was sure that he had seen a skull there. He could have done any number of things to force the issue and did none of them.

I find it troubling.

In Kronk’s first calls, to my understanding he thought he saw something that day in the woods, but wasn’t sure. In his December call he had definitely found the remains. In between he had been reassigned and then was assigned back to the same area. In my opinion, I don’t find it troubling that he didn’t do more to “force the issue” since he was only suspicious and since LE didn’t back him up. Still, a nagging doubt led him to look again in December and the rest is history. Sounds perfectly-imperfectly human and normal to me.

In his (Kronk’s) interviews with the police corporal he was asked how certain he was at the time that he had seen a skull. He replied that he was 99.99% certain of it – “like 100 %”. So, this does not work for me.

He definitely believed that he had seen Caylee’s skull there in the water on the 11th. Why stop pushing the issue after three calls to the local police? It seems to me that any normal person would have then went to a different law enforcement arm or to the newspaper. I know that I would have.

I would like to respond to the issue about why Roy would think he saw a skull in August and then not go further than he did. First off, Roy never said to anyone (including the co-workers with him) that it WAS a skull, nor did he ever state that in follow-up interviews after the remains were found. He stated he thought “it looked like a skull”. The man tried three times in as many days, was ignored, passed around, and then derided by law enforcement.

He states in direct question to why he didn’t try to notify Law Enforcement again after August 13th that “he had a lot of personal issues to deal with. This incident stayed in the back of his mind but after reports kept coming out about different locations the body may be, he began to think maybe what he saw wasn’t a skull.”

When he got reassigned to the same route again in December, he decided to look again, and made a confirming discovery. But even then he states – he is unsure if what he found on December 11 is what he was seeing in August because the area did not look the same (i.e. was dry).

http://www.wftv.com/_blank/18740699/detail.html

Starting on page 13.

I don’t see anything he’s saying there that trips my hinky.

Hey Val — there is a bit of recounting of Roy’s finding the remains in December on page 4, but the rest of the recounting of Roy’s story (and his co-workers’ stories) is on pages 8 through 12. Page 13 is about Annie Downing and her info.

Roy Kronk, page 3 of 25, interview started at 15:30 on 1-6-09:

My theory, well, was real simple, was that she kept saying that she was real close. When stopped there, which was the first time I had ever been there, I looked. There is swamp on one side of the road. there is swamp on another side of the road, okay. You always get decay coming out of swamps. There was a school at the end. It was August. There was no school going on. And it just made sense to me that if you were going to get rid of something like that, well if you would put it in a place where you knew there would be very little traffic whatsoever because the only people going back and forth was, you know, people going down to do maintenance on the school and all that other stuff. People like myself who were there for a, a specific reason.

YM: Uh-huh (affirmative).

Kronk: Uh, we also, like we found a dead, you know, rattlesnake laying there and all that. And it just made sense to me that you would want something that far away from you if you had actually done something like that. It just kind of made sense to me that’s where she would have dumped it.

** Okay so we have him working from a starting theory that this is the place most likely to contain the body of Caylee. It just made sense to him. There was no people and there was already decay smells to help cover up the noisome odor of death. He had these thoughts before he ever got out of the vehicle – before they went into the woods. It just made sense to him.

On page 10:

YK: But up to that day, including that day, and up until December, you thought that was a human skiull…
Kronk: Yeah (affirmative)
YM: …that you saw?
Kronk: I thought that I saw what I saw.
YM: You weren’t, you weren’t questioning what you saw? Yuo were just…
Kronk: No.
YM: …upset? It’s safe to say upset…

** There was nothing tenetive or uncertain in Kronk’s mind at that time according to what he reported to Yuri Melich here. He saw what he saw. It was a human skull. He believed it belonged to Caylee. Why would you stop in your efforts to report it after only one law enforcement agency? Especially when you have had dealings with the law before and especially when you have a girlfriend who works for the OCS and especially when you believe that the responding officers were idiots and did not believe you and especially when you believe that the other officer that you spoke to about it on the tip line was wrong about it not having been long enough for there to be a skeleton? Why? How is that a reasonable response from an innocent man who thinks that he has found the skull of a human baby girl?

On Page 4.

YM: You just happened to be there so why not look?
RK: Yeah(affirmative). Yeah(affirmative).
YM: Okay.
RK: So I just started into the woods and …
YM: When you walked down a ways and you saw something, describe to me again, you said that you saw something white.
RK: I saw something white that was protruding up out of the water. It appeared to me, it just looked like the top of a human skull.
YM: Okay.
RK: That’s just what it looked like to me.
YM: In your heart of hearts, and in, well we, we said this before.
RK: Right.
YM: What did you think that was?
RK: I thought it was a human skull.
YM: No question?
RK: No.

On page 6.

YM: Okay. When you went home did you, you didn’t, obviouslydidn’t call until later that night.
RK: No. I went, uh, we went back, turned our work in for the day. I got in my car and went home.
YM: If someone were to ask why you didn’t call that afternoon while you were standing there if you thought it was a skull what would your reaction be?
RK: Well, it, it, like I said, it, it looked like a skull to me. I was about ninety-nine point nine, nine, nine percent sure it was a skull. And but you know, Dave tells me I’m crazy. And honestly, it was a hot day. I just wanted to go home. I wanted to take a shower. I wanted to like you know, drink a soda, relax, get in the pool.
YM: Uh-huh (affirmative).
RK: And just you know, I had to start dinner for my girlfriend.
YM: Uh-huh (affirmative).
RK: You know I, I’m not going to say that I didn’t care, but I wasn’t going to go in there. there was water and snakes and all that other stuff. And you know, so I just kind of put it on the back burner and mentioned something to my girlfriend that night about it. And then the next night she made me call. I called. Uhm, the next….

Now, remember what he said on page six and then go and look at his first 911 call.

In that call he acts like he is standing there at the vehicle on the first day that he saw the skull, but he clearly told Yuri that he had waited at least two days to make the call. Why?

Also, I think it is not normal to think 99.999% that you have just seen the skull of a baby girl and then wait two days to call the police. Add that to the deception during the 911 call of it being that first day. No hinky meter?

He didn’t wait 2 days. He called the 11th, the 12th and the 13th. He got called an idiot and accused of wasting people’s time when some one finally met him.

Which side should we show more disgust with – Roy, who called 3 times and was derided? or the individuals who didn’t respond immediately to his report and when they did only fell on their ass and said negative things because they had to get out of their patrol car and actually do something?

William – I’m assuming you’re applying what you believe you would do if you were in his position as the bar against which you are measuring. I’m also assuming you haven’t been there. While I haven’t either, I don’t see anything suspicious about those 3 days as far as Roy’s behavior. I also don’t see anything suspicious about him getting half-past-give-a-shit and going on with his own life. I would have told Cain off, got arrested for obscene language, and never went back most likely. Good deal it wasn’t me – she might still be there rotting.

I could go on. There are a lot of other things about Kronk’s interviews which ring hinky bells for me. Also about his 911 calls.

One of the things that does not mesh up is the fact that he was 99.999% sure he had seen Caylee’s skull, yet during the 911 call he laughs and states that he is not saying that Caylee’s body is there – but it should be checked out.

Once more, why?

William, I think you’ve answered your own questions – he wasn’t getting any backup from LE, he’d already called 4 times in August and met with LE and he was being blown off. He ’saw what he saw’ but really, 6 or more feet away, in the overgrown swamp, object submerged or partially submerged, and other people who looked couldn’t “see” it (co-workers and LE) — what kind of superhuman effort do you think he should have made, as an interested but outside party? Should he have gotten hip boots and waded out there? Maybe someone else would have, but I don’t see anything hinky about him NOT pressing any further on finding out what the object he saw was, at that time, even if he was certain it was a skull. It’s like when people are certain they saw a UFO only in this case, as later events proved, he happened to be right about Caylee’s remains, whether he actually saw a skull or not. Things in the woods are hard to spot and identify at a distance and if you see something, you may be able to keep seeing it and visually locating it, but it may be almost impossible to get others to look at the same thing you are looking at. Especially if they are blowing you off in the first place.
Respectfully,
Steffiee

He clearly told YM that he did not call on the same day that he first went there. So, either he did not go there for the first time on the 11th. Or he was lying about it in his statement to YM.

If he was not lying about it, then he lied to the 911 operator when he made the call – because he clearly acted like it was happening contemporaneously.

I have not been in exactly the same situation, but I have been in one that was close to it. So I know what I would do.

I will put together a document on all of the problems with his statements and email it to you if you want. There are quite a few things which are not consistent and do not make sense.

Steffiee:

It is not just about what he should have done under the circumstances but also why would he then go back and look again in December if he felt that he had been blown off and called an idiot and treated badly. Also, that is exactly the thing which would drive me to contact the newspaper. Treat me like an idiot when I am trying to report what I believe to be a human skull of a two year old babY? The newspapers would all have been on speed dial after that.

If you’re being ridiculed by LE, why would you want to contact the newspapers to be ridiculed in a more public forum? No matter how “certain” he felt he was, the only way to tell would have been to wade into the water to make sure and it’s not unreasonable that he didn’t actually do that or want to contact newspapers without that positive proof. But if you have that nagging suspicion that you were “right” and others were “wrong” and it’s months later and the water is gone and you’re back in the area in the course of your job, sure you’d go take a look again. I just don’t see anything in this.

On page 6.

YM: Okay. When you went home did you, you didn’t, obviouslydidn’t call until later that night.
RK: No. I went, uh, we went back, turned our work in for the day. I got in my car and went home.
YM: If someone were to ask why you didn’t call that afternoon while you were standing there if you thought it was a skull what would your reaction be?
RK: Well, it, it, like I said, it, it looked like a skull to me. I was about ninety-nine point nine, nine, nine percent sure it was a skull. And but you know, Dave tells me I’m crazy. And honestly, it was a hot day. I just wanted to go home. I wanted to take a shower. I wanted to like you know, drink a soda, relax, get in the pool.
YM: Uh-huh (affirmative).
RK: And just you know, I had to start dinner for my girlfriend.
YM: Uh-huh (affirmative).
RK: You know I, I’m not going to say that I didn’t care, but I wasn’t going to go in there. there was water and snakes and all that other stuff. And you know, so I just kind of put it on the back burner and mentioned something to my girlfriend that night about it. And then the next night she made me call. I called. Uhm, the next….

She made him call the next night at the earliest. The first 911 call came in on the 11th. That means that he was actually there on the 10th for the first time or else he is lying somewhere.

Also, remember that he is no spring chicken when it comes to dealing with LE. He has been in trouble with the law before. he knows how they work. He knows that it is a felony to lie to LE. Yet he clearly lied either to YM or to the 911 operator.

Why?

Oh well, it is not really all that important – we will simply have to disagree on this one. You are taking him at face value and I am not because I see problems in his statements when I look at all of the information together.

I think that all of this will be brought out by the defense – it is a good way to attack his credibility and to keep the jury off balance on whether there could be other suspects.

By the way, the biggest thing for me is the fact that his girlfriend WORKS at the JAIL – she has an link with law enforcement and could EASILY have done something to make sure that he was not just blown off. It was her that made him report it after all. Right?

William

I’ve heard that his girlfriend works at the jail. Do we know this for a fact? Was it in his depos?

Also, if the info was relayed by her, then it sounds like she could be in trouble vs. Kronk.
Although it would speak to that fact that he wasn’t 100% honest, he doesn’t work for the jail and has no obligation to the rights of defendants housed there. So I don’t see it as truly a flaw or major problem with him, (if that makes sense).

Valhall, new blogger here. I have read a lot of your writing and enjoy reading your comments. I want to thank you for Mr. Kronk. He has done some silly things (like saying he was peeing in the woods on County time) but being accused of murdering this beautiful little child is disgusting and believe it’s going to bite the Anthony’s in the arse.

I’ve had a question I don’t know how to get an answer for. For a long time now I’ve thought it suspicious Kronk found this baby the one and only day G+C were out of town since she went missing. Maybe the defense is telling on themselves. Is it possible they knew Kronk was going to check this site on that day? Maybe they knew he peeked in here weekly on his route or something like that and THEY staged the scene to make it easier for him to find her.

The question I’d like answered is this: Who pushed for the date for the Anthony’s appearance on Larry King Live? Was it Larry’s show’s decision or the defense that pushed for that particular day? I’d love to know an honest answer to that question.

Thanks again!

WSH:

My point was that she works for the Sherrif. He was reporting this to the Sherrif. Once he reported it the first time and then heard nothing about them finding anything, why wouldn’t he ask her to talk to the sherrif about it? She obviosuly thought that therre was something to it or she would not have made him call 911 on the night of the 11th. So, once it did not work, why would he simply go the same route again when he has a girlfriend who works WITH the sherrif’s office?

That makes no sense to me.

No one else here seems to see a problem with this though, so I am done with it and will take a page from your book, WSH, and will shut up about it.

Maybe she didn’t want to get intimately or personally involved as it might come across as an impropriety? Maybe, even if not true, she feared that she might be accused of being part of a “daisy chain”, as has happened anyway(?)

LOL..William

You guys crack me up. No one wants you to shut up on either topic.

William, I think you are making good points. I am not dismissing your thoughts on this, nor am I on your concerns. It’s just that I’m seeing it differently. I think the important point you made is that this will come out at trial. I have faith that it will.

Okay, a hypothetical here. If Kronk’s girlfriend sent him to the dump site, does that make all findings (scientific and opinion) of the remains inadmissible because the attorney/client privilege was violated? What if the idea came through D Casey, somehow via an intermediary, to Kronk, assuming Casey was under work privilege, (that being that he knew where the remains were while working for Baez), as opposed to gaining the knowledge whilst working for the Anthonys? Perhaps I am confusing no warrants or warrants not properly issued. Is this an area that could hurt the case, or could it only mean disciplinary actions for those expected not to divulge defense secrets? Someone has probably answered this earlier, but I forget what the ramifications might be.

Wouldn’t help the defense at all from that standpoint. Oh, you mean what if she listened in on a conversation between Casy and Baez? Well, that could hurt the prosecution but only under extraordinary circumstances. The judge would have to find that her doing this was so violative of the constitution that the state should loose the right to try Casey. Has happened before, but not for something like this – a crime like this. I doubt that it could happen here because the over-reaching by police did nothing except cause the discovery of the body under this hypothetical. They could lose the body and still get a conviction on nothing but the circumstantial evidence, so I doubt it could have any practical impact at all – except to the career of some people.

If it instead came from Dominic Casey – no impact to the case. Big impact for him because he would have violated florida statutes on PIs and may well have committed a crime also – not that the state would prosecute him since it helped their case.

Actually, I take it back. No impact under either scenario. Kronk acts as a cut-out for the State’s reponsibility. the girlfriend would be fired most likely, but the defense would receive no benefit at all since she would be guilty of only gossiping confidential evidence to Kronk and he is a private citizen. you might make the case of his being a police agent under her control – but it would be a BIG stretch.

WSH: You just scratched my itch – that could explain why he might be telling lies and making inconsistent statements. Thanks.

“They could lose the body and still get a conviction on nothing but the circumstantial evidence”

William,

The duct tape evidence is very powerful, especially if you accept the prosecution’s argument, but still strong if you accept JWG’s argument. It illustrates a cold and callous nature. So I think the remains are an important element, no?… And the prosecutions argument for the death penalty as well.

WSH: True on the DP – but they could still get LWOP on circumstantial without the duct tape. Also, there is a concept of inevitable discovery. The prosecution could make the case that the area would have been searched again during the dry season even if Kronk had not made the calls. It makes no difference though, since they would have real reouble in making Kronk an agent of the police.

reouble/trouble

Boz: I doubt that the Anthony family could dictate when they would appear on Larry King. I think it is most likely that the show did the scheduling and that it was simply a coincidence that they were out of town the day that Roy Kronk again called the police about the Suburban Drive swamp site. It is not like Larry King could not have covered the Anthony mess without Cindy and George being there. He had a large field to choose from for that coverage. The Anthony Family would have had no levereage to make demands of Larry King.

Does anyone have any proof that Kronk’s girlfriend does work at the Orange County jail? I mean other then Padilla’s word as he relates his daisy chain theory. He also says Kronk’s boss is a neighbor of the Anthonys and is part of that same daisy chain.

I asked that question earlier, Nosy. William said that she worked for the Sheriff, but I do not know the source of this info. Maybe he will come back.

Padilla is the only source that I know of – I am discovering that the transcript does not match the tape recording of the interviews with Kronk however. I am listening to the tapes now. To see if he mentions her job.

Nope. No mention of her job. So, padilla is the only source that I know of – I got the Sherrif office thing from the fact that the jail is under the Sherrif’s control in Orange County.

Thanks William. It’s been so long since I heard those tapes, I should go back and review them myself. I wonder if Kronk’s recent depo with the defense will be released? Surely this very pertinent question would be asked by them.

Nosy:

I would think so and I would hope so.

In defense of Mr. Kronk and his social interaction with the LE: I’ve always been on the right side of the law at crime scenes yet have had the misfortune of dealing with nitwits within the testosterone infested Law Enforcement Community (and that does include the estrogen producers with “bad-ass ‘tude wannabes”) who are absolute “know it alls” and patronizing protectors! As a member of the public, I’d stay away from future repeat encounters, however as a Medical Examiner, I just take names and kick butt! (and as a 6′ redhead, throw my significant weight around!).
I’m thinking that Kronk had more than enough on his proverbial plate with the new route et al., the atmosphere of Orlando weather-wise and Anthony-wise, and when he ended up back close to the Anthony stomping grounds, his interest flared up again!

Joypath!!! Double High Five’s, here, having worked the streets for many years, with many a pompous, badge brandishing, Glock toting, know-it-all, patronizing protectants who didn’t have a choice but to allow me to PROVE myself! Your comment sure had me jumping up and down!

Willow

I don’t know. I think this probably ate at Kronk, in a surreal sort of way, but after his encounter with Cain, he was at a temporary loss. It’s a testosterone thing, perhaps. He’d been made to feel like a fool, and there are just some guys who’d not go back for more of that; though he did go back. That’s why I think it ate at him, because he went back. He saw what he saw and he had to prove it, not only to himself, but to LE as well. I don’t, however, believe he was fully prepared for what he found. Can you imagine?

Willow

Wondering if Joy Wray will be on the chopping block with Kronk if Baez continues this disgusting, unethical, lazy and embarrassing non-defense. I sincerely wish there was a way to get Baez disbarred.

Val – Just wanted to pop in & say Hi to you, and Merry Christmas & Happy New Year.

I also want to say Merry Christmas & Happy New Year back to

Ann – TX

an old friend of mine.

They can poke and poke and poke at the innocent, but in this case the LE worked their tail off and found all the neccesary and will prevail. I believe in PURE justice in this mess. We all see through the rest!

Okay. I concede that there are more potential reasons for Mr. Kronk’s behavior than my original ruminations allowed for. It must be a guy thing…

The fact is that there could have been any number of motivations driving the way that this went down and the reasons for the delay in finally finding Caylee. I get that. I admit that. I am still a guy though, so I will bull my way through and insist that I still have that little small feeling of disorientation where you can’t quite put your finger on the problem, but you still feel that there is one lurking below the surface. I agree that it could all have been quite innocent and understandable in terms of human interactions in a highly charged emotional setting when Mr. Kronk was having to deal with the oft infuriating attitudes of superiority that LE personnel bring to the job. I also agree that he may have been motivated to be less than truthful in some of his dealings with LE out of consideration for his girlfriend’s possible jeopardy in her job. I still doubt that these answers can account for all of the inaccuracies and inconsistencies that I find in looking at the statements made, calls placed, and behaviors displayed by Mr. Kronk.

Still probably a guy thing though….

Brad:

I do not agree that Mr. Baez has done anything untoward in his defense of Casey Anthony. It is his job to advocate on her behalf and explore possible avenues which tend to point away from the guilt of his client (if they exist). I have not seen anything so far that I would agree should result in the disbarment of an attorney. I have seen lots of accusations about unethical behavior on his part, but no smoking gun so far. I doubt that there will be a smoking gun in the end.

Mr. Baez is doing exactly what a defense lawyer should be doing in this situation, in my opinion, and you have to play the hand that you are dealt when defending a client. In a case such as this one, Mr. Baez is left with very few winning strategies to pursue. He is doing the next best thing that he can under the circumstances – pull on all of the threads of the State’s case and hope that one or more will come unraveled and provide a hole that your client can squeeze through. In my opinion, this IS appropriate pretrial maneuvering on his part.

American justice is an often messy, and sometimes unseemly, search for some semblance of the truth. I think that things are going fine and that truth will out in this case.

Hummm. Mr. Hill, and most respectfully, what is it that you believe the truth to be, if I might so inquire of one such as yourself, who appears to be quite learned, if not even a practioner of LAW?

Surely Baez is doing no less than what he must do, in defense of his client, to include making anyone within a reasonable spit’s distance of the matter, suspect. Thus, Kronk. But don’t you find it just a wee bit unethical that he would cause to be suspect such an obvious innocent? Why Kronk and not Wray, who claims an “in” such as the Anthony’s being the Godparents of her children, as well as who has an obvious, current, mental — condition, which includes being part and party to such things as child abuse and known mental breakdowns, which are documented facts, whereas Kronk has no such record other than the unproven allegations of the rather disgruntled.

It just seems to me that Roy and Zenaida have much in common, in that their reputations have been so needlessly battered, and a fine line crossed, ethically speaking, and all for the sake of defending Casey, whom the defense has to know, beyond any reasonable doubt, is guilty as charged. But of course, this may just be my anger speaking.

Should you have addressed these matters in previous postings, I apologize, most sincerely, for not having become familiar. But, it is the day before the day before Christmas and all through the house …”

May God’s greatest blessing rain down upon all, this most wonderous season of all for who seek to do His will.

And Hey! We forgot Kwansa (sp) didn’t we? LOL

Willow

Willow:

Having nothing to do with the case at hand and not being an attorney, but simply holding an opinion based on the evidence which has come to light so far and the facts as they have been reported in various media, my opinion is that Casey killed her daughter.

The manner and the reason for the action is unknown and, perhaps, unknowable unless Ms. Anthony should decide to reveal it at some future date.

I find nothing unusual or even particularly troubling in the tactics used by Mr. Baez to date. the only reason that anyone’s reputation has become sullied in the present case is because there has been such a media frenzy about the case and things are being reported on which occur in many cases and never see the light of day in print. There are quite a few cases every year where the defendant casts dispersion on the other key players in the drama and the public never hears of it.

Nor do I think that the defense should concern themselves with the conduct of the media and change their tactics solely because the media has chosen to keep this case under a magnifying glass of public inquiry. Casey deserves what defense they can muster for her. It is our system of justice and the confrontational nature of it is what generally produces a truthful result in the end.

Happy holidays to you as well.

As for Wray being a better candidate for a suspect, I agree. I think that she may yet find the defense pointing in her direction as things progress. The real question is how much of a logical link can be made between any other person and the dath of this baby girl. If they can find some wiggle room in the known activities of Wray so that they can place her in close proximity to the most likely time and place of Caylee’s demise, then she shall surely also become a target.

The real problem for the defens is that none of these other potential villans can account for the trunk of the car used solely by Casey having had a decompositional event occur in it.

From the defense standpoint it is an UPHILL batlle to point the finger at anyone other than their client.

dath/death

I am most appreciative, Mr. Hill, and agree, for the most part. But don’t you suppose that it is the defense, itself, as well as the Anthony’s that are keeping the media frenzy burning as it is, with all of their public appearances? Are they not to blame for even so capturing and holding the attentions of the general public, which has proven itself to so soon forget and move on? Wasn’t it Cindy Anthony who went directly to the media at the onset of this, and of course, who wouldn’t; nonetheless, what makes this case so different than say the matter of Haleigh Cummings, or a dozen others like her, that have received no such notoriety?

What sets Casey Anthony separate and apart if not the (forgive me) “antics”/legal manuverings of the defense and her family? Can the public interest be blamed on other than the defense and families constant “advertisement” of her alleged innocense, which in turn maintains the attention of the media? Forgive me my ignorance, but some things just bug the tar out of me, and this is but one of them. I greatly appreciate your insight.

Willow

» Julie said: { Dec 23, 2009 – 01:12:56 }
~~~~~~~~
sure do miss you Julie. Karibear popped in not long ago and asked about you. Merry Christmas!

Williow:

The denfense cannot control the actions of Geroge and Cindy.

The thing which may have kept this so much in the limelight is:

1. Many men find Casey attractive.
2. Many women are very interested in so comely a child as Caylee was and in so troubling her home life appears to have been prior to her death.
3. The amount of time that was allowed to pass before any report was made to the LE community. This is a highly irregular case when there seemed to have been plenty of people around who were interested in the wellbeing of this child, yet she went missing for over 30 days before anyone sounded the alarm.
4. The age of the child and Casey.
5. The lifestyle of Casey.
6. The number and pervasiveness of the lies that Casey told everyone in her life.

Just my opinion.

and in so troubling her home life appears to have been prior to her death/and in how troubling her home life appears to have been prior to her death

Dee-miss you too. Merry Christmas to you too. And a Happy New Year. Click on my name, you’ll find some of us in a new place. Tell Ann too, if you can.

Dee-if you see KariBear, tell her to check her myspace for a message.

Hi Val,
Love this blog!
I emailed u last night, and asked you if you had seen the person calling himelf/herself
Heckler? They are, indeed, very, very strange. I hope u (and others?) will check this character out. They appear to know alot more than they are saying. Your feedback would be interesting.

Tks.!

Julie said: { Dec 23, 2009 – 10:12:16 }
~~~~~~~
OK

Julie said: { Dec 23, 2009 – 10:12:22 }
~~~~~~~~
I did earlier and saw Dis & eva

Julie, almost forgot Ann-Tx left you a message in the BR…

Dee-thanks.

Val,
A very strange person calling themself Heckler is on Richard Hornsby’s blog. He/she is saying some interesting things…wish u would check it out. Would love ur feedback..
Whoever this is will not talk to Richard, but is talking alot to several bloggers. Hope u will check this out. “They” said for instance that Richard Grund had known about Zeneida since 2006….Richard thinks this is correct!

Hope u will look into this. Thank you.

Hadley

Hadley-Richard Grund did say that the first time he heard the name Zenaida was in April 2006. After Casey kept sticking him with babysitting duty, he asked her one day what she was going to do about it, and she said she found someone, and gave the name Zenaida.

“I find nothing unusual or even particularly troubling in the tactics used by Mr. Baez to date. the only reason that anyone’s reputation has become sullied in the present case is because there has been such a media frenzy about the case and things are being reported on which occur in many cases and never see the light of day in print. There are quite a few cases every year where the defendant casts dispersion on the other key players in the drama and the public never hears of it.”

William

I Love to read your perspective and appreciate your open mindedness. I agree with a good portion of your take. There are some exceptions. I believe, if I allow for a strong benefit of doubt here, that Baez’s ‘greenness’ forced him into some errors in judgment and contributed to part of the sullied rep. He may have taken Casey’s word without allowing for the potential consequence of her lying to him about the true circumstances. He should not have given so many statements to the press, especially at the onset. He should have kept other options open, ie. an accidental death scenario, mental defect, mental illness, compulsive lying, etc (just in case). He shouldn’t have issued “My client is innocent” and then continued to elaborate on that and how wonderful she was, and perpetuating the nanny story. “She’s not guilty and we will prove it in a court of law”, would have sufficed and kept a multitude of defense options open. He should never have permitted Todd Black aka Gil Cabot to be spokesperson. (Especially when TB made a statement that implied Caylee was dead before her remains were found). If he was working intricately with the Anthonys to foster Casey’s defense, he shouldn’t have encouraged them to go on TV where they have often done more harm than good toward his client’s defense. And we know, he DID encourage them, because he called George to show up at M NeJame’s presser. There should have been more forethought and careful consideration before utilizing the Padillas and also D Casey, or at least have more carefully constructed an adequate contract to fully protect his client. This of course, is not even considering what other info may come out in trial in regard to what D Casey knew about the dump site, who sent him there, and whether or not anyone told him not to report a body, (if indeed that was the case, we only hear speculation and innuendo at this juncture). So I would have to disagree that the media is entirely at fault for the situation that he is left with today.

» Julie said: { Dec 23, 2009 – 11:12:15 }

Hadley-Richard Grund did say that the first time he heard the name Zenaida was in April 2006. After Casey kept sticking him with babysitting duty, he asked her one day what she was going to do about it, and she said she found someone, and gave the name Zenaida.

Julie
Was it the full name, or was it Zanny? Or Zanny (Zany) the nanny? Can’t remember, but I think the full name didn’t come out until after the disappearance?

WSH:

Excellant post.

I would point out, however, that he has not said much of anything in the only place that it counts – the courtroom. Granted, he may have to rehabilitate some of the things that were said early on once there is a jury in the case – if there is a jury in the case. He may have to spend a little time in his closing remarks covering how the case has expanded or changed over time, but I do not see him as being backed into a corner so far.

Could he have handled it better with more experience? Yep, you bet’cha. Can he still salvage a good deal? I think so, because he DOES have a client who the most of the public sees has a habitual liar. They would expect her to have lied to Baez as well at least at first. So he has some play. If he is as good as he thinks he is, then he willl be able to use the things in his favor to get the jury past all of the errors and bragging early on.

I still think it is a VERY HARD ROAD that he has to walk, but there are places for some respite along the way if he can recognise them.

has/as

WSH-I found this youtube interview. RG (on 9/5/08) says that Casey says Zenaida Gonzalez at around 9:40.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iLNWjWwIEw

Thanks Julie

No problem

I would like to try to clear something up. The Orange County jail is run by Orange County, not the Sheriff’s office. There are some OCSO employees working there but very few and only for security at entrances, similar to the ones at the courthouse and courtrooms. Almost all of the corrections officers are county employees. I will try to find out if Kronk’s girlfriend works there now or ever did. Hope this helps.

Boz:

Thanks. I thought they ran it – some counties do. Yes, I would be very interested in anything that you could learn about her working there or not.

Okay. That kills my whole thing about her working for the OCS and having an in with them to help get Mr. Kronk listened to.

So, he would not have had any reason to try to protect her job. that means that there must be some other reason why he was not totally honest in his 911 call.

I don’t have time to go back and read all this. I’m sorry could you tell me again what he was not honest about?

on the 911 tapes he pretended to be callling as if he were at the site right then – but in the transcript of his being questioned by OCS he said that he did not make the first call until the following night when his girlfriend made him call. Also, he told Yuri Melich that he was 99.999% certain that he had seen a skull at the site, but he told the 911 operator that he was not saying that Caylee’s body was there or anything,

in his OCS transcript he also said that he never stopped believing that he had seen Caylee’s skull there. Yet when he was trying to get an officer to come out there he did not sound positive about this at all and laughed after saying he wasn’t saying that the body was there or anything.

On August 11 2008 when Roy called 911 he said:

I’m a meter reader for Orange County and I had the route today that included the Anthony’s home.

on page 6, he told Yuri melich:

RK: And just you know, I had to start dinner for my girlfriend.
YM: Uh-huh (affirmative).
RK: You know I, I’m not going to say that I didn’t care, but I wasn’t going to go in there. there was water and snakes and all that other stuff. And you know, so I just kind of put it on the back burner and mentioned something to my girlfriend that night about it. And then the next night she made me call. I called. Uhm, the next….

“…he told Yuri Melich that he was 99.999% certain that he had seen a skull at the site, but he told the 911 operator that he was not saying that Caylee’s body was there or anything…”

William,

Maybe we should consider that the “99.999%” was a bit of hyperbole and his response to being treated with a certain disregard by Cain, initially; feeling that he suffered some kind of injustice, of sorts, bruised ego, whatever-he exaggerated the conviction that he had of what he said he saw earlier, when speaking later with Melich? Geez, I’m not sure my last sentence even made sense.

WSH:

I got the intent of the sentence.

Okay, I’ll give you that one. Still wouldn’t explain his pretending to the 911 operator that he had the route the following day. Why pretend that it was the same day of the route?

Mr. Hill with all due respect and in defense of an innocent man being accused of murdering a child:

1) I just read the transcript of the first 911 call. IMO, Mr. Kronk never said nor insunuated he was calling from the site. He was a bit nervous and I understand that because he was thinking people are going to think he’s crazy seeing what others can’t see. He NEVER says he’s calling from the site and as a matter of fact, he didn’t even call 911, he called the non-emergency sherrif line and was cold transferred to the 911 operator.

2) Why would anyone question him saying “he’s not saying it’s Caylee’s body”. Of course he’d never know who’s body it was, he was just repoting A body.

“Why pretend that it was the same day of the route?”

You got me dude. no idea.

Boz:

He said that he had the route today. But in his statement to Yuri he said that he did not call the police until his girlfriend made him the FOLLOWING night.

These are mutually inconsistent statements – only one can be true.

As a matter of fact, in your previous post 03:12 Mr. Kronk says:

“I’m a meter reader for Orange County and I had the route today that included the Anthony’s home.”

Notice the word HAD. If he was trying to say he was at the site, he’d say, “I’m on my route today….

Boz:

The key word is TODAY.

The story he relayed to Yuri would have placed him on the route on the 10th – he made the call to police on the 11th.

He was nervous, he used today instead of yesterday. I don’t think that’s enough to accuse the man of murder. I believe he was startled when he was cold transferred to 911.

Do you know the absolute lies the Anthony’s have told is in the thousands?

I am not saying that he is a murderer. I do not think that he could have been the one who killed Caylee since there is no way to explain the body in Casey’s trunk if Roy were the killer.

Thank you William, it’s good to see that in writing just in case Mr. Kronk would stumble onto this site.

I am well aware of the many lies that seem to have been told by all of the various Anthony family members.

You are welcome. I have said multiple times that I think that Casey killed her daughter.

I apologize for my rudeness. I don’t know what I’d do myself if I was falsley accused of murdering a child. This is getting so out of hand it’s unbelievable. Have you read Blinkoncrime’s new story?

Nope. But I will.

Val,
Checking to see if this goes through…

Hadley again, Val, I asked you earlier if you had seen the person on Richard Hornsby’s blog calling himself/herself Hecker. The person is extremely strange, and is almost ranting that Casey is innocent. I would love to get some feedback on your thoughts.
(and anyone else here who cares to comment)

Many thanks!
Hadley

OOPS!……meant to say HECKLER….sorry.

Yep, I answered you, Hadley. I prefer not to comment on other posters at other sites.

Val,
Merry Christmas to you and your family.

Thank you for staying in touch with Richard Hornsby. He needs someone like you at this time. He appears to be extra senstive and hurt at this time, and is showing way to much anger. Please, stand by him, sweet lady. I think you can make a huge difference if u will just take a little time with him.

Many Tks.
H.

Thanks, Hadley.

Merry Christmas and God’s blessings to you and yours.

I don’t believe I’ve got any influence over Mr. Hornsby. We only visited briefly on the Websleuths’ thread. However, he is in my prayers, because I am concerned for the level of anger he seems to have right now.

Why isn’t Kronk in jail if he is suspected of committed this horrid slaughter? “Whoever”
did it is a Clear Danger to Society!

Val,
He stated that yoou reminded him of the mother he never had…perhaps he misses her more around the Holidays, or now that he has a new baby on the way. He respects and admires you, it obvious. I truly don’t understand all the anger, or the need for revenge.
Not only are you brillant, but also super caring. I so appreciate that.

God’s Blessings to You and Your Family…

Well, Hadley, I wouldn’t put that much meaning into his words. I’m not sure what he meant, but I’m not sure it was that profound.

I hope you had a wonderful Christmas.

Now it’s on to the New Year!

My opinion: If there is any hinky behavior regarding Mr. Kronk, it is due to his knowledge that he would be in the cross hairs and spot light once he reported his findings . He was tied between wanting to report what he suspected was a dead body but also wanted to maintain his private past. Everyone who is remotely connected to this case has had their past lives analyzed, researched and published in newspapers and on-line for all to see…and broadcast on news shows and morning shows and evening shows, etc, far and wide, as well. He had to know this kind of scrutiny was going to happen to him and I think he wanted to avoid it (while his good conscious demanded that he report it anyway.) He hedged, he hesitated, he was ridiculed and told he was wasting police time and, in an emotional state of mind, may have appeared contradictory…he was trying to protect himself and I would have done the same thing.
I disagree; tactfully I hope, that Joy Wray is the most likely next target. My money is still on George and I’m still waiting for him to be moved up onto that square on the chess board. I think that only Casey is keeping him from becoming the next pawn to fall. George is a sitting duck. Anything that Casey did…he could have done.

Valhall – EXCELLENT post!!! I just read it today. I am also appalled by the fact the defense is trying to vilify Mr. Kronk, it’s sad to me, he should be thanked by the Anthony’s by bringing Caylee for a proper burial. The Anthony’s are ungrateful people amongst another things. They have thrown anybody they could under the bus just to cover up for their pathological liar daughter.
I guess that Mr. Kronk is related to Zenaida, right? LOL!!! Maybe that’s what the next bombshell will be when Cindy will appear on National TV. One more lie to Cindy is nothing, she will twist all of the facts to save her daughter’s skin. If the Anthony’s had done a better parenting maybe KC wouldn’t be the monster she is today. To the Anthony’s is everybody’s fault but their own daughter. Shame shame shame!!!
Thanks Valhall for your posts.
Justice for little Caylee!!!!