Thursday, December 3, 2009

The Case Against Casey Anthony: Motions and Commotions

Since I last reported on the Case Against Casey, all heck has broken loose. I watched it all go by. Every time I was ready to report, something new happened and so on and so on. I've had a few days to digest the news and put together some thoughts for you all and a summary of the action with plenty of links.

The first hint that something was up came with a November 18 report on WESH.

The Anthonys' attorney said Kronk's personal life and the circumstances of discovering the remains are different things. George and Cindy Anthony's attorney said all they want is the truth from Kronk and not dirt about his past.

"They have been vilified unfairly. They know what it's like to be under a microscope unfairly and they don't want that to happen to someone who found their granddaughter," attorney Brad Conway said.

Now, I had just finished reading the e-mails between PI Dominic Casey and Cindy Anthony, starting on page 48 of the PDF, which were replete with comments about Kronk and information about his past. Something just wasn't right here!

Sure enough, the very next day, November 19, Clickorlando reported that the defense had taken on a new member, Mort Smith "a Chicago-based private investigator who teaches at DePaul University, the same school where fellow defense team member Andrea Lyon teaches." Mr. Smith had taken on the task of digging into Roy Kronks's past.

This was reported as Mr. Kronk was being deposed by the defense. When he left the deposition at the end of the day,

Kronk said. “He was very nice to me. And it was a very nice mood in there, so, it wasn't a bad day at all.”

Immediately after the deposition, the defense lawyers managed to file this motion and Memorandum of Law:

DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO INTRODUCE PRIOR BAD ACTS AND OTHER CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO ROY M. KRONK


MEMORANDUM OF LAW

According to an article at News13,
In a motion filed late Thursday afternoon, the defense said:
Kronk's attorney, David Evans, released a fairly lengthily statement which concluded:

It is the nature of criminal defense to attempt to find someone to blame for a crime other than the person charged. Mr. Kronk has understood from the beginning that the defense might attempt to cast suspicions in his direction--because that's what defense attorneys do. In their zeal to defend Casey Anthony, defense counsel has filed papers with the Court that are filled with allegations that have no basis in fact and falsely accuse Mr. Kronk of various types of bad behavior.

Included with the motion were videos of portions of the interviews with Mort Smith:

Crystal Sparks (ex-wife)
Jill Kerley (ex-wife)
Brandon Sparks (estranged son)
April Applegate Hensley (daughter of late girlfriend)

Ms. Kerley's interview was the one which was the most inflammatory. She accused Kronk of beating her and binding her hands (once, twice?) with 100-mile-an hour duct tape. When asked what she thought of when she heard about his finding the remains, she said "that he had done it."

Crystal Sparks was mentioned in the D. Casey and C. Anthony e-mails. One comment that stands out in my mind is when it is mentioned that Ms. Sparks had posted last year on various websites, praising Kronk for his actions.

The son was no kinder than the ex-wives. Notable in his statement is that he claimed his father called him in November to tell him about his discovery and how he would be in the news.

Once this news hit, the lawyers who report for the local stations began a rather heated debate over the value of this motion.

WFTV analyst Bill Sheaffer came out first with a raw interview with the station. He blasted the defense royally for the motion, stating, "This is beyond a pathetic attempt, this is a despicable act on the part of the defense in this case," If you haven't heard it before, it is worth a listen.

Raw Video

He also posted an article on his blog November 20.

Does Casey’s Defense Have No Sense Of Decency?

He begins by stating that:

Filing and publicizing the latest so-called ”Motion in Limine” by the Anthony defense team, which would now seem to include Brad Conway, lawyer for George and Cindy Anthony, is an all-time low on a grand scale, even for this crew. This so-called defense tactic, designed to shift the focus of blame away from their client Casey Anthony, is neither new nor unusual in this case. It seems to have begun with allegations against Zenaida Gonzales, then, Jesse Grund, a former Casey boyfriend, to now a very vicious and public attack on an innocent citizen, former Orange County employee, Roy Kronk, the poor soul who had the misfortune to discover Casey Anthony’s handiwork of her little girl’s body dumped like garbage in the woods.

Again, this is a must-read if you haven't already seen it.

The following day, November 21, WKMG was reporting that the Anthony family had no idea this blast against Kronk was coming.

London wanted to know what George and Cindy Anthony, Casey's parents, had to say about the defense team's latest move. "I called Brad Conway, their attorney," Pipitone said. "He says they had no idea this was coming until they saw media reports. He says that they now just want to wait and see how this develops. ... They say what's important to them is to just know the truth."

Link

I find it hard to believe this statement. It sets off my BS meter when Conway had previously stated that the Anthony's did NOT want to see Kronk maligned. I agree with Mr. Sheaffer when he indicates that Conway was involved. Oh, and let's not forget Cindy's involvement with hunting up the dirt on Kronk!

Next, attorney Richard Hornsby joined the fray full-force. On WESH-Channel 2, legal analyst Richard Hornsby said, "This is the first significant and credible shot the defense has taken against the state. I think it has a high likelihood of success."

Source

November 22, Hornsby expanded on his comments on his blog in an article entitled. In Defense of the Casey Anthony Defense. In it, he explains a lot about the law and also takes time to blast Sheaffer in a rather startling manner, it is also worth some time.

Sheaffer responded through halboedeker's blog in the Orlando Sentinel.

"I have been asked for, and strive to, consistently deliver sound legal analysis of this case, based upon my knowledge and experience gained from 30 years as a criminal defense attorney and my time as a prosecutor. I am honored to share my insights with the viewers of WFTV Eyewitness News and enjoy the free exchange of ideas that result. It is, of course, always easier to criticize than to create, and it is easier to denigrate than to develop one's own well-reasoned discourse on a topic. There will always be those who prefer to take that easier route. I think the public, the judicial system and the memory of Caylee are better served if the focus of the discussion remains on the facts of the case and the workings of our judicial system and not those who opine on these matters."

What really matters to me is that we now have two blogs by two Florida attorneys with differing ideas. Let's hope that both these gentlemen contine to post as the trial goes on. We who aren't attorneys and follow the case can use as much legal information as possible.

Now, back to the Kronk motion!

Immediately after filing the motion, the defense went on a major media blitz which covered both locally and nationally. I've posted two of the links at the end of the article . What strikes me most is the fact that this motion is clearly saying that Kronk needs to be considered a person of interest in the case, the information given relates to long-ago events in his life. Who better than ex-wives and estranged children to make all sorts of statements, apparently NOT under sworn oath. The motion and memorandum point out many differences in Kronk's reports. They even say, at the very end of page 31 of the Memorandum that:

The evidence she sees to introduce at trial is crucial to her ability to undermine Mr. Kronk's credibility before the jury. Because its impeachment value has already been demonstrated by the contrast with Mr. Kronk's answers at his November 19, 2009 desposition, this evidence should be admitted at trial.

There's a bit of a problem here! If one turns to page 32 of the Memorandum, one will see that it was signed by Jose Baez and Andrea Lyon on November 18, 2009!

Finally, there is one more motion that hasn't be mentioned too much. It's the MOTION TO TAKE DEPOSITION TO PERPETUATE TESTIMONY OF JILL KERLEY . The motion was signed by Baez and Lyon on November 18, so we can assume it was filed the 19th along with the other Kronk motion. This motion is asking for Ms. Kerley to be deposed so that she can attest to the following under oath:

Ms. Kerley is the former wife of Roy Kronk, and was married to him for approximately four months. Her testimony is material in this case to the matter of introduction of evidence regarding third-party guilt, namely that Mr. Kronk shoud be a suspect in this case....

I would really love to know more about the former Mrs. Kronk of four months. I would love to know how long ago they were married. I would love to know if she knows that Kronk abducted Caylee Anthony. And there lies the rub. There is absolutely no evidence that Kronk had any connections to Casey Anthony. There is no evidence to show any connection between Caylee's death and Mr. Kronk. I sure hope Mr. Kronk has a terrific alibi, like he was at work or playing computer games online at the time!

I hope Judge Strickland rules against the original motion and I'm looking forward to your opinions!

Links to Defense Media Blitz:

Today show
WESH
WKMG 1
WKMG 2
WKMG Full Interview

6 comments:

shari said...

Pretty amazing and sleazy stuff by the defense team. Now the "defense" team is going to challenge Florida statutes on the death penalty. That ought to go over well with the citizens of the state of Florida. This defense team and the Anthonys will destroy anyone in their path, even though they "really know the truth" about the death of this child. How many people are piling up under this bus??

ritanita said...

Well, I do understand that the defense would certainly have the right to look for "dirt" on a witness to challenge credibility.

However, to try and make him a suspect goes way too far.

The only "evidence" they have is that his ex-wife said she thought he did it!

I'm wondering what she will say when all the lawyers are gathered - defense and prosecution. I'm wondering what she will say when she's sworn to tell the whole truth and nothing but.

shari said...

Good point ritanita. Unfortunately everyone in this case seem to be unable to recognize the truth.

Nora said...

The ONLY person responsible for what happened to Caylee is her mother. There is no evidence to the contrary and all the evidence to support it. As I've repeatedly posted, the defense will use any pathetic excuse to pawn off Casey's responsibility on somebody else. THIS is a miscarriage of the justice system.

Liz said...

For something that should have been a basic case of mother abandoning child/ms/accidental death or whatever this has become a showcase for the WORST of any/all legal systems in the country.

I don't believe it should be a death penalty case - only the coverup by the family has led to this - and I don't believe the sunshine laws should exist in any legal system.

As for Mr Cronk - we all learn from his experience to refuse to help LE in any fashion - very sad. Why would anybody follow up on what they found when LE ignored same - and why past personal relationships that failed should be used in any way in this case is unbelievable to my way of thinking.

Ritanita - many thanks again for your wonderful summary - your skill at drawing it all together is exceptional

shari said...

Liz, the "sunshine laws" were voted upon by the citizens of Florida. It was supposed to make government transparent to it's constituents. It has proven to be tabloid fodder in this case. Normally this is not the norm here in the sunshine state. It has benefits however. You can look up court records online and check on who you let into your home, your life, do business with, or who your kids are exposed to. It truly isn't all bad. This case has bastardized these laws however, and made it very hard to pick a jury IMO...