Skip to content

February 28, 2010

14

30-days to wait and see…what could it be? take a poll….

by Andrea O'Connell

As we have recently learned, Judge Strickland has ruled the state can delay the release of information (discovery) to the defense and to the public.   This ruling was made on the 24th of February.  If the court is counting calendar days, 30 days will expire on March 26, 2010.

To date, there have been zero leaks about what could possibly be contained in the sealed envelope that was delivered to Judge Strickland and which enclosed in it “certain material and information that have come into the possession of law enforcement” (Orlando Sentinel, 2/24/10).

If this information were exculpatory, or favorable to Casey, it would be released fairly quickly, or such is my non-legal opinion. But, when such evidence is inculpatory, or not-favorable to Casey and incriminates her even further,  it would seem to me that law enforcement, if the information is new to them, would need to do a thorough fact-finding investigation.  Law enforcement would have to ensure that what they have, although on its face may indeed inculpate Casey, will stand the test of a careful review, perhaps testing, etc.

So. I would like to know what people think this evidence is, and whether it is harmful or helpful to the defense.

Advertisements
Read more from Anthony Trial
14 Comments Post a comment
  1. snoopysleuth
    Feb 28 2010

    Hi Andrea~~you have a very nice blog. I cast my votes but I have mulled many things over in my mind just what this material/information may be. It seems that if the prosecution did not want to do a further investigation, the material/information would have been given to the defense. It seems that LE wants to investigate it to possibly verify if it is true and/or that it may incriminate someone else that may have been involved in a cover-up or is an accessory after the fact. I don’t think that LE would spend days investigating this unless in the end, it will help the prosecution or, Lord forbid, be very favorable to the defense and they want to put the kabosh on it.

    Reply
  2. Andrea
    Feb 28 2010

    Well Hi Snoopy!

    Thank you so much for visiting me here! I really appreciate it.

    Yup I agree, if LE didn’t need to validate the info or material, then I also think they’d have no problem turning it over, or at least sharing the crux of the material. I may be wrong (will have to check on this) but I believe that if the material is exculpatory, the state is bound to release it right away…which is only right, fair and balanced….

    my goodness, you know we’ll be all a-buzz here come the time when this mystery is solved for us…. LOL!

    Thank you again for visiting! I will stop in to see you, too!

    🙂 hugs, Andrea

    Reply
  3. Ideas
    Feb 28 2010

    I appreciate that it’s not being leaked. The defense leaked Kronk and he gets shanghai’ed.

    It may have something to do with George’s testimony, but that would not be new.

    Whatever it is, I hope it’s end is that this case is resolved more quickly.

    Reply
    • Andrea
      Feb 28 2010

      Me too, I hope that what ever the info / material is, it will leave little doubt and it will encourage Casey to give it up before the case goes to trial.

      I hope, too, that what ever evidence this is, it will create some urgency and propel the case more quickly forward. however, I tend to think that’s probably not going to happen…. Justice is surely not swift, rather it drags and drags….!

      Reply
  4. Boston
    Mar 1 2010

    A possibility:

    Could it be Koy Kronk’s girlfriend? Could she be the Category B witness? I reviewed what the Orlando Sentinel reported on April 6, 2009 relative to when I first heard her mentioned. To the best of my recollection her name has not been printed anywhere.

    Her “involvement” according to the Orlando Sentinel: Mr Kronk came home and told her what he had seen at the final resting place. “His girlfriend convinced him to call authorities.”

    (Rumor had it that she worked at the jail and that she overheard something and came home and told him. Her employment/profession was not mentioned in the article nor was she identified as an OCSD employee, according to the Orlando Sentinel , April 6, 2009. ( to the best of my recollection no one has ever said she wasn’t an employee of OCSD).

    Reply
    • Andrea
      Mar 1 2010

      Hey Boston…That’s true… we have not heard her name mentioned – at least it’s not sticking out in my memory.

      I wonder if it is truth or rumor that she worked at the jail and may have “overheard” a piece of the puzzle that no one on the planet seemed to know? Hmmmmm… LOL!

      I think there must be some truth in some part of this story, however. But, the “story” could be as benign as Kronk having a friend of a friend working in the jail, and it all got misconstrued, as rumors do when they float from ear to ear to ear!

      I seem to recall Kronk telling the detectives that he did go home and tell his family, and they encouraged him to go back and look.

      You’ve got a GREAT memory, Boston! LOL! Thanks so much for reminding us of this….

      🙂

      Reply
  5. Boston
    Mar 1 2010

    I am trying to think of people who are not deposed but have information second hand or possibly have information that would cast a bad light on the defense theory?

    Have they completed their investigation and know without a shadow of a doubt that there was obstruction of justice within the family? Even if they decided that they would not charge Mrs Anthony wouldn’t this information make it impossible for her to seek employment? Is it really worth it to ruin Mrs Anthony knowing that they have enough information to take Casey down?

    I do not believe that Mr Ashton would waste his time with Cindy Anthony. I think he gets it when it comes to Cindy.

    Reply
    • Andrea
      Mar 1 2010

      Oh I totally agree with you; and if they charged the family with something, it would be harmful to the case.

      And the reason is this: The Anthony’s are “witnesses” for the state. This means, they cannot plead the fifth, or refuse to testify or refuse to answer, etc. They will be compelled to answer.

      However, IF they were charged with a crime related to the case, they may be able to plead the fifth on the grounds that testifying would incriminate them. So, the state would never make such a careless move in this chess game.

      So, it is my belief that they will be treated as hostile witnesses, they will be asked leading questions by the state as a result, and they will compelled to answer truthfully. Hah! That is gonna be a made for tv movie right there…(sad, though…. they are a hot mess, these Anthony’s aren’t they?)

      Now, if the Anthony’s perjure themselves, well, then they could face charges, and perhaps other charges would get piled on, too. But, I doubt that will happen….

      good questions, Boston! good post as usual!

      hugs, Andrea

      Reply
    • Andrea
      Mar 1 2010

      yes, Ashton wouldn’t make that move because it would harm his case. He needs Cindy and George too much as witnesses. If they get charged with anything, I would venture to guess it will be perjury. If they were charged with a crime, or if they “feared” they were gonna be charged with a crime, then perhaps they could plead the fifth…. I’m not sure about that, but I do know they will be state witnesses and will be compelled to answer all questions put to them.

      Reply
  6. Boston
    Mar 1 2010

    In the Defendant’s Motion In Limine To Introduce Prior Bad Acts and Other Circumstantial Evidence Pertaining to Roy M. Kronk we see the name of an X-girlfriend, Sandy Hensley. I do not know if this is the same girlfriend he had when he saw something in the swamp in August 2008? This Motion was submitted to the court on or about November 18, 2009.

    Reply
  7. Andrea
    Mar 1 2010

    Another good question, Boston…! we’ll need to research that one, for sure as I kind of forget the name of his current wife/girlfriend…

    I can’t see how the defense can bring up prior bad acts of Kronks because he’s a witness, not a defendant. And a Motion in Limine, is what is used by defense counsel to limit or eliminate evidence or testimony.

    Had Casey not been tried and convicted as a felon prior to the murder case, the defense could have filed a Motion in Liminie to keep that out of the murder trial. Now, they cannot since she’s been convicted of the felonies.

    So, in short, I don’t believe that motion will apply here. 🙂

    Reply
  8. Boston
    Mar 2 2010

    Andrea-I actually brought up that Motion because it was the only one I read that mentioned an x-girlfriend.

    You are right they are bringing up Kronk because he is central to their defense theory that someone other than Casey killed Caylee. Yes, he is a witness for the prosecution but the defense is using him to deflect blame. Ms Anthony does not want to take responsibility for her actions and in implicating Mr Kronk she is also looking for someone who will also take the punishment.
    As the song say, “you can’t have one without the other.”

    I cannot for the life of me understand why Mr Baez did not hammer home why Casey should have accepted the plea deal offered in November of 08.

    Reply
  9. Kitt
    Mar 9 2010

    Oh darn! The poll closed before I got here. Anyway, very good article, Andrea.

    Not that my vote counts anymore, but I would go with it being something damning for Casey&Company, favorable for the State.

    Reply
    • Andrea
      Mar 9 2010

      Well, Hi Kitt!!!

      So nice to see you here! Yes, I kept the poll up for only a couple of days, but I have another one coming! Probably this weekend as I am up to my ears in work…

      I agree with you, I do think (as did the majority) that whatever the material is the state is holding back, it is likely something if not damning, is at least inflammatory (to the defense).

      Tomorrow there’s a new release of discovery – they say the material will be DNA reports / records. Of course we hope there will be some strong conclusions made…. 🙂

      Thanks again so much for stopping by!

      All the best,
      Andrea

      Reply

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Note: HTML is allowed. Your email address will never be published.

Subscribe to comments

%d bloggers like this: