In late November 2009, Linda Kenney Baden spoke with Maggie Rodriguez of CBS News about her beliefs concerning Roy Kronk’s involvement in the murder of Caylee Anthony. Ms. Baden’s comments may be found at the following link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pE_sLhcLQ9g
This article is part one of our examination of this short video clip.
Maggie Rodriguez: “Do you believe that there is just as much evidence incriminating Roy Kronk as there is against Casey?”
Linda Kenney Baden: “Absolutely. I mean you have seen the video tapes now, the interviews of the two ex-wives with the son. These people have no motive or reason to lie. I mean…”
“Absolutely” – This word means nothing by itself as it is a modifier of other words. It is used to strengthen another word, like “yes” or “no”, but without a word to modify, it is meaningless. It is often used by those who deceive as a way of tricking their listeners into believing they have answered in the affirmative.
“I mean” – Ms. Baden constantly uses this phrase which declares she does not feel she stated her meaning clearly in the previous statement. In this case, “absolutely” is meaningless and Ms. Baden knows it cannot stand alone as an answer.
“you have seen the video tapes now, the interviews of the two ex-wives with the son” – Ms. Baden feels the “video tapes” should convince anyone who watches them a similar amount of evidence exists incriminating both Roy Kronk and Casey Anthony.
“These people have no motive or reason to lie.” – Ms. Baden introduces the possibility of the ex-wives and son lying. Ms. Baden attempts to buttress her witnesses’ reliability before it is even questioned in the interview. Ms. Baden is sensitive about the truthfulness of Mr. Kronk’s relatives and former relatives. How does Ms. Baden know the motives of these three individuals? How can she be sure they “have no motive or reason to lie”?
Maggie Rodriguez: “Well, but it’s an ex-wife who may have an ax to grind.”
Linda Kenney Baden: “No, no, no, one ex-wife is dying of cancer. This is like a death bed statement. I mean it’s… it’s… it’s incredible. I mean the point about this is is that no one investigated any of this. You know, we talked about Casey, everyone after her… the cops are trying to make a theory fit to her… every piece of evidence that doesn’t fit to her, they throw out. They never got Mr. Kronk’s cell phone records, they didn’t test his DNA. I mean, we are four lawyers and two investigators and we’ve uncovered this, why couldn’t they?
“No, no, no” – Multiple “no”s are a sign of sensitivity and an extremely weak denial due to the need to repeat.
“one ex-wife is dying of cancer. This is like a death bed statement” – Ms. Baden dramatizes the situation to make her witness appear more reliable. In what way is this “like a death bed statement”? Why is “a death bed statement” more reliable than one she would make if she were not dying? Ms. Baden is acknowledging ex-wives in general may have reasons to lie about their former husbands.
“I mean” – Number two.
“the point about this is is that no one investigated any of this” – Who is “no one”? How does Linda Kenney Baden know who or to what degree the police investigated others beyond Casey Anthony for the murder of Caylee Anthony? What is “any of this”? The fact Mr. Kronk has estranged relationships with family and former family members?
“You know” – Another Ms. Baden favorite used to convince the listener they already “know” and, therefore, agree with the statement Ms. Baden will make next.
“we talked about Casey” – Ms. Baden and Ms. Rodriguez spoke about Casey Anthony.
“everyone after her…” – Ms. Baden and Ms. Rodriguez spoke about “everyone” going “after” Casey Anthony for her lies and the death of her daughter. Ms. Baden feels all the world is against her defense of Ms. Anthony.
“the cops are trying to make a theory fit to her…” – Ms. Baden accuses the police of framing Casey Anthony.
“every piece of evidence that doesn’t fit to her, they throw out” – Ms. Baden accuses the police of tampering with evidence. This is an extremely serious charge. Ms. Baden is stating evidence exists which has been hidden or destroyed by the investigators.
“They never got Mr. Kronk’s cell phone records” – If the police “never got” the records, how did “they throw” them out? Ms. Baden is now accusing the police of not gathering evidence.
“they didn’t test his DNA.” – More evidence Ms. Baden accuses the police of not gathering, but this is not evidence which was thrown out. Ms. Baden has no examples of any evidence which was discarded.
“I mean” – Number three.
“we are four lawyers and two investigators and we’ve uncovered this, why couldn’t they?” – What is “this”? What exactly did the four and two uncover? That the police did not gather evidence? That the police threw out evidence? That the cops are trying to make a theory fit? That Mr. Kronk’s relatives do not like him?
We have learned Ms. Baden wants us to believe there is evidence which indicates Mr. Kronk murdered Caylee Anthony and the police ignored this evidence and did not investigate, even though Ms. Baden is not able to verbalize what the evidence is to which she refers.
We have learned Ms. Baden wants us to believe the police destroyed or hid evidence against multiple suspects other than Casey Anthony, but she is again unable to describe the discarded evidence nor has she backed up her accusation with a court motion.
We have learned Ms. Baden believes everyone is “after” Ms. Anthony, which makes life miserable for Ms. Baden.
Bull Stopper Stops Bull 
~ Happy New Year Bullstopper!~
Hark the Harald angels sing
Caylee’s justice cometh in the spring
Happy New Year!
Excellent article! I love how you have characterized Ms. Baden, and analyzed her speech. You have proved, to me at least, that one’s words do carry a great deal of intrinsic truth that is revealed in speech patterns. My eyes are opened! Great job!
Thanks!
LKB might think that Jose Baez is preparing for a mistrial during the pretrial phase. Who knows. Maybe the scientific evidence she must examine and cross examine is relevant and possibly difficult to trash.
Jurors will want to know who placed Caylee in the trunk and why. They may want to know if the victim expired in the trunk. The science which could prove that a death occured and that decompositional fluids leaked out, etc will be important.
Ms Anthony did not carry Caylee down the street in a laundry basket-the evidence points to Caylee Anthony being transported in her vehicle. They found hair in the trunk and it can only belong to Casey or Caylee.
I heard or read an interesting comment about the process relative to those charged with a capital crime. When someone is charged with murder that includes the HACs and the possibility of the DP the process affords the defendant “life on the installment plan”.
I am sure KC will be participating in the plan and wonder if Jose plans to stick through the whole process.
Does LKB believe Roy Kronk killed Caylee?
“Absolutely” not.
But she wants US to believe SHE believe’s there is just as much evidence that RK killed Caylee.
The DT’s job, after all, is not to prove Casey is innocent, but to throw around that unreasonable reasonable doubt!
You are going to love tomorrow’s article.
*stomps feet*
It’s tomorrow!
Bring it on, Bull .. 😀
LKB was on a “mission” to spread the reasonable doubt and being the forceful speaker that she is, she hit the ground RUNNING on her home turf. Unfortunately she like so many of us has “pet phrases” that sprinkle her vernacular, perhaps hers are from desperation/utilization within her profession,for what it’s worth, her social intercourse is peppered with “you knows” and “I means” also!
Leaving at that time the defense “gang” (can’t call it a team, a team is a cohesive unit with a game plan and leader, neither of which I’ve observed functioning effectively to date) was the smartest move she could make since it appeared to this outsider that full fledged scholarly legal (reciprocal discovery filings) & ethical (J. Lyons questionable witness interactions) behavior which SHE DOES BELIEVE IN wasn’t on the table. LKB is a formidable force & a righteous defender of the constitution & due process and she can ask some mind-blowing questions when one is facing her on the witness stand or at a depo!
She does indeed have pet phrases. As with most who use such phrases, she uses them through long habit reinforced by positive results. Normally, she gets what she wants by using her verbal skills which include ingraining her audience with so many “you knows” and such they subconsciously begin to accept they agree with her. She doesn’t notice she adds the phrases and after a short time, the audience stops noticing they are hearing them, but they are always there.
“It’s like a deathbed confession”– Um, except it wasn’t and even if it had been, your bizarre suggestion that a deathbed confession would somehow mean she couldn’t/wouldn’t lie does not speak well for your intelligence.
You’re right with the observation about Baez not really seeming to have ever cared about Kronk as an actual suspect. Baez was probably aware early on that something, be it work, a trip- something had eliminated Kronk. He knows full well the Cops looked into him. They know they will be asked about it at trial.
It’s all about putting the process on trial and not the defendant.
A defense attorney’s job is not to make up daydreams to free his client. He cannot suborn purgery. To put a witness on the stand whom he knows is lying is illegal.
A defense attorney who knowingly does this can be prosecuted and disbarred. While the opening and closing arguments may be opinions, testimony from the stand must be the truth and if an attorney knows his witness is lying, he is committing an illegal act. I’m not sure Baez understands this. After all, he is not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Linda Kenney Baden most certainly knows this elementary fact. A disgruntled ex-wife’s testimony is certainly suspect. Ex-wives have been known to want to get even.
This could be one of the major reasons she and Lyon fled the team.
Baez does not comprehend many of the simplest legal concepts. He and other defense members/supporters have made statements to the effect that Casey will go free if they can persuade even a single juror to vote “not guilty.” The difference between a hung jury/mistrial and an acquittal is so basic and so significant – especially to any criminal defense attorney – that my jaw literally dropped the first time I heard him say this.
It is OK for any attorney to present testimony or other evidence which conflicts with testimony/evidence presented by the other side. That is what NORMALLY happens at a trial. It is NOT OK for an attorney to deliberately fabricate evidence or ask witnesses to testify falsely, although the attorney is not held responsible if evidence turns out to be bogus (Cindy providing the wrong hairbrush, for example) or if witnesses testify falsely on their own.
This distinction is a fine line. If a defendant’s mother, wife, brother, girlfriend, etc. tells the defense attorney that they will testify as an alibi witness, the defense attorney can put that alibi witness on the stand even if the defense attorney personally holds the opinion that the alibi is unlikely. However, the defense attorney (nor anyone acting on behalf of the attorney) cannot approach a witness and ask them to testify falsely to provide a false alibi.
The vast majority of attorneys, defense and otherwise, prefer their witnesses testify truthfully. It is much easier to put a spin on bad facts than to persuade a jury that thinks you, your client and your witnesses are a bunch of liars.
Kas-Go to para.9,line 29. I think you misunderstood who said what. Little mistakes like that happen all the time.
No one has to believe the deathbed confession but it is admissible under the hearsay rule in Fl. It is examined and cross examined and jurors can evaluate it during deliberations.
Locard and NSL-I think you both would find this article interesting. The Role of the Defense Attorney: Not Just an Advocate written by Roberta Flowers.
Great blog! I for one would think the last person to ask about anyone would be the disgruntled ex-spouse. Whether the guy is a crack pot or not has nothing to do with the body that was in the trunk of Casey’s car. Even George said “the body that was in the trunk is not my granddaughter” BTW I found this blog from the threads on JB Mission, I go there sometimes to read but never post anymore because I was being treated with suspicion when even I questioned anything I disagreed with.
Thanks for reading.
Come on Bull, no one believes that Roy Kronk murdered Caylee. NO ONE. I think some people just have {and rightfully so} a problem or need a better explanation than what we have heard.I still have a problem why during one of those 3 calls he did not escort LE to the bag. Seems to me RK was in that AREA more than anyone else. That is odd to me.
If you don’t believe Roy Kronk murdered Caylee, why are the answers to your questions about his personal life the business of anyone other than Roy Kronk?
If there is not probable cause to believe Roy Kronk murdered Caylee, then there is not enough validation for a warrant.
Excellent article as usual bullStopper. I don’t believe for a second she honestly thinks RK had any involvement other than finding Caylee’s remains. for all of these attorneys posturing about being on board because “they believe she’s innocent” they sure bail fast when their agenda has been filled imo
wonder if Jose ever got the list of the additional TES searchers that were being hounded in to the Judge by 12/31
tomorrow will be an interesting court day.
He seems to be challenging the judge, so I will be interested in tomorrow’s hearing, too.
“Seems to me RK was in that AREA more than anyone else. That is odd to me.”
IIRC Roy was given that route right around the time this came out he was curious when he thought he’d seen something and called it in. he was dismissed by the responding deputy (Cain, who was later fired) as wasting their time. shortly after he was transferred. when he was reassigned there, he went again to look (probably curious if what he thought he’d seen, HAD been followed up on) resulting in the third call to get someone out there.
i can see this being totally reasonable, a whole lot more reasonable than “dropping a child at the bottom of the stairs between the hours of 9 & 1”, at an unidentified, unoccupied apt with an invisible nanny NO ONE but casey can identify… oh no wait it was in imiginary smackdown at the park where she was held down and zenaida AND her sister TOOK caylee.
Anonymous
January 2, 2011 at 10:29 pm
Yes the Flowers’ essay is well worth the read and stimulated many minutes of spirited discussion with folks from LE & the prosecutors’ office while “visiting” my laboratory! For those interested, here’s a link: http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/osjcl/Articles/Volume7_2/Flowers-FinalPDF.pdf
My favorite quote within the essay is: ” The problem faced by a criminal defense attorney with a client
intent on lying has been called “the perfect storm of ethics issues.”6 The answer to the problem is found in accepting the responsibility to fulfill each of these roles in any given situation.”
Now…perhaps the Anthony defense gang might read this essay but living it, is another issue.
Thank you for this article on LKB. NO…she knows Kronk is an innocent player. Trust me…if she thought there was a fighting chance to free a murderer, she would have never bailed ship.
I agree with Venice.
Great Article Mr. Stopper!
Bull, I have no questions about Kronks personal life. I don’t give a crap about the supposed taping of an ex-wife. If I were a man and had that puss talking to me, I would have taped her mouth also. I just think something is not kosher with him and his attorney’s story. There is 2 or 3 different stories. I also believe he and his lawyer came up with the most believable. I really don’t know what that is either. Maybe you do. I also know that you and I have different opinions. But that’s okay too, right?
locard-I’m so glad you enjoyed the article. Beautifully written. Thank you for supplying the link.
getreal- read doc 18740223 Case No#08-074777
OCSO Supplemental Report. I am confident that it will answer your questions and give you some indication of what Mr Kronk told LE. The entire Supplemental Report is well written,informative and well worth the read.
(N.B. Mr Kronk was in the area because he was employed by the OCPW as a Meter Reader. His supervisor or co-worker David Dean took him over there because he did not know where Suburban Drive was. It was his first time reading meters on Suburban Drive. While relieving himself he saw something suspicious and called out to Mr Dean and another co-worker, “I see a skull”. They heard what Mr Kronk said and walked over to where he was. They were frightened and distracted by the snakes and lefft-Mr Dean picked up a dead snake, took it home and put it in his freezer.)
Keep in mind that this is not “his attorneys story”. His attorney represents him and is “telling Mr Kronk’s story”.
What a beautiful day for Caylee!!!! Baez needs to worry………..
Ms Anthony can smile at him and compliment him but when she gets convicted she will go after him with everything she’s got. She will have what he never uses wisely-time.
I couldn’t agree more. Baez really took on alot of problems with this case, now and later.
Bull,
The sparks are getting ready to fly. jbmission is about to blast Judge Perry. That is wrong on so many levels!
wow…I wonder why she didn’t attach her name to her comment about “Judge PePe”. What a disheartening comment to read. So sad.
locard-Mr Baez got a dose of reality today in “real time”. Did it make any difference to him? Probably not. He thinks the court’s cost will be based on him making $3.00 per hour! HA! He thought he had the last word but in reality the listener had the last laugh. The guy “aint got no respect”.
I think JP made him seriously read between the lines this time=The Taxpayers can sue.
Venice-it’s terribly disturbing to think that a man with such a distinguished career can be slammed so unmercifully and for no cause.
She could be a member of AAA but it’s a certainty she’s a card carrying member of DDD. Demean, degrade and diminish.
I agree. I just don’t understand how someone can attack the moral ground, and defend the immoral. How demeaning to read something like that about Judge Perry.
Anon, now you want to try to enlighten me about the role of Mr. Kronks attorney? Gee, how helpful. But quite unnecessary. I know what attorneys do for their clients. If you think that Baez is a dishonest lawyer, why could the same thing hold true for Roy Kronk’s attorney. They fix and tweak stories all the time. But thanks for your attempt to make me see it your way. But no thanks.
That’s quite a generalization about attorneys you are making there although it’s not clear exactly what you meant by “what attorneys do for their clients” and “fix and tweak stories.” Certainly attorneys try to portray facts/evidence in the light most favorable to their clients but I don’t see anything “dishonest” about that.
For example, some people want to characterize Casey’s emotional reaction to learning about the discovery of a small child’s remains near the Anthonys’ residence as proving her guilt because “only the murderer could have known” that those remains were Caylee’s. I would argue that most people, including Casey, instinctively knew that those remains were almost certainly Caylee’s thus Casey’s emotional reaction proves nothing. That would be my “spin” if I were Casey’s attorney. Nothing “dishonest” about it.
Read Roberta Flowers article (see link above). No one knows everything.
In my opinion, Mr Baez will not be the first media whore who walked into this case with dirty hands and no talent. He doesn’t like to do too much mental mining but instead found people who were willing to become part of the judicial process for all the wrong reasons. These people were never interested in justice for Caylee-they simply lusted for name recognition. To be the quintessential media whore one must demonstrate through word and action that the truth is relative.
Casey Anthony deserves so much more.
Katprint, are you the blog attorney? A real attorney? Retired? Out of work? I know someone on here says they are an attorney. If that is you, fine. Now, what is so obscure about what I meant about attorneys fixing and tweaking stories all the time. Roy Kronk would look like an absolute fool if allowed to sputter his 2 or 3 or more different scenarios of Aug. 11th., 12th., and 13th., and Dec. 11th. There is not a doubt in my mind that this attorney for Kronk, paid for by the county, has not “fixed” this story some way. I think Roy Kronk spent more time pissing in the woods and “looking” than he spent doing his job. Why all the royal treatment of hiring him a lawyer? Giving him a new “position”. I see a good samaritan as someone who does something good and wants no glory. Kronk didn’t want to talk till the price was right.
I am a “real” attorney licensed to practice before all courts of the State of California as well as federal courts. I am a “verified” attorney on the Websleuths site. I often post on blogs if I find the topic interesting but I do not run my own blog.
What I find “so obscure” about your “attorneys fixing and tweaking stories all the time” statement, is I cannot figure out whether you are accusing attorneys of making false statements of fact as opposed to merely presenting true facts in the best light.
I also think Kronk was somewhat reluctant to come forward because he knew about his own personal baggage with regard to his various ex-wives/girlfriends. He knew that he was thousands of dollars in arrears in child support (which is where the minimal reward he received went to – he didn’t keep much if any of that money.) I am not aware of Kronk selling his story to anyone for a price; perhaps you could provide a link to where he got $200K like Casey?
I am OK with good Samaritans who act out of the kindness of their hearts. I am also OK with people doing good things for the rewards – money, glory, personal satisfaction, whatever. It is more important to me that the good deed be done at all than that the good deed be done only by someone with pure intentions.
Someday we will have to discuss how fickle bloggers are. We can satart with Leonard Padilla. Then Brad Conway. Then Tim Miller. Even Mark Nejame. Talk about a media whore. Now Nejame is one in my book.
Katprint-I have always been interested in what Ms Anthony might have passed up in November of 2008. Was it possible for the state to offer Ms Anthony 8-10 years if she told authorities where the body was and what happened? Did she blow out the candle at the end of the tunnel?
Yes and Yes.
Casey (there are too many potential Ms. Anthonys LOL!) was initially charged with Child Neglect. It is possible that she was offered a deal to plead guilty to Child Neglect if she said where Caylee really was – and if Caylee was alive.
Manslaughter is a second degree felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison per statute but I understand judges will usually sentence a first-time offender to around 7 years in prison. The prosecution could have offered a basic Manslaughter plea in exchange for disclosing the location of the body. The difference between Manslaughter and Murder is that the death was not intentional but rather resulted from culpable negligence – defined as more than a failure to use ordinary care, but rather the negligence must be gross and flagrant. The course of conduct must demonstrate a wanton and reckless disregard for human life, or for the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or for the safety and welfare of the general public.
“Aggravated” Manslaughter involves a certain type of victim including (among others) children. It is a first degree felony punishable by up to 30 years in prison. It is one of the charges Casey is currently facing. It is legally possible for Casey to be acquitted of Murder but convicted of Aggravated Manslaughter.
After Atty Lenamon got the DA to agree not to seek the death penalty, back before Caylee’s body was found, Casey could have pled guilty to Murder without any other deal on the table and the maximum sentence would have been life in prison.
Generally, as part of a plea agreement, the defendant is required to provide an allocution where the defendant basically says what happens, which forms the factual basis required for the court to accept the plea. I have personally seen judges refuse to accept the plea (never on one of my own cases, of course) when the defendant told the court that they did not commit the crime but were pleading guilty anyway because their attorney told them to do so.
For every general rule, there are exceptions. There can be plea agreements where the defendant merely does not contest the charges (pleads “no contest”) or where the defendant reserves the right to appeal some particular decision – usually a motion to suppress evidence or a coerced confession – and to withdraw his plea if the appeal is successful. There can be plea agreements where the prosecution agrees to defer prosecution and dismiss all charges if the defendant stays out of trouble for a certain amount of time, which is very common in drug and alcohol cases.
At this point, I think the best possible (but very unlikely) plea deal would be basic Manslaughter. IMO the most likely plea deal would be Aggravated Manslaughter or Murder with the death penalty dropped again.
Mr Conway and Nejame and Padilla are lawyers. Why does everyone who had the misfortune to have met Mr and Mrs Anthony at their darkest hour end up being a media whore?
Tim Miller has devoted his life to finding missing children. He is a compassionate and caring person and yes, he had the misfortune to meet Mr and Mrs Anthony.Is his behavior towards them as shallow and disrespectful as their behavior towards him?
When the trial is over you will see people come out of the woodwork and attempt to restore their good name and reputation. There are remedies for all those who have been harmed, threatened and subjected to ridicule that had no basis in fact.Keywords: Settlements. Money. Relief.
Bull, I have replies still in moderation.
From this point forward, any replies which contain nasty remarks to other posters will never be released from moderation.
You are free to say what you like about me.
Anon.. I don’t know why all those lawyers wanted to be media whores. I will start with Nejame for now. A prominent attorney {Nejame} hears about the Anthony case and decides to get involved in some way so he reps George and Cindy. Why? Publicity. Then he isn’t getting the desired result. No one “liked” him during that time. {bloggers} So he quit them. Along came Tiger Woods, but I won’y go there. Then along comes Roy Kronk. So to be thought of as “classy”, he gave RK $5,000. I doubt this was all out of his own pocket but by doing so then he was wonderfull. {according to bloggers}. Well, that still wasn”t enough for Nejame. He still wanted to be involved in this case. So, along comes TES.Low and behold, here we have Nejame now representing this group founder, Tim Miller. He can’t stay out of it. How is he any different than Baez?
Katprint-Thank you for your thoughtful and informative response to my question. I read it twice. Okay. Let me state at the outset that I never once gave any thought to the possibility that Ms Anthony could have been offered a plea on the charge of Child Neglect. The evidence that was emerging around the time of the Bond hearing was pointing to a murdered child and not a missing one. I just thought they would not bother offering anything.
Say she took the Manslaughter plea back in November 2008. When the authorities (ME/LE) went to the crime scene, recovered the remains, found the duct tape over the mouth and nose, would those findings vacate the plea agreement?
Aggravated Manslaughter: Am I correct when I say that Ms Anthony will be about 82 years old before she is eligible for parole or released? (I say Judge Perry gives her 40 years)
I do not know why Ms Anthony gambled with her own life. Do you think Mr Baez knows who he is dealing with?
At the very, very beginning, it was theoretically possible that Casey might have given Caylee to Caylee’s biological father or sold Caylee for adoption. Casey was initially in the same boat as Elizabeth Johnson (Baby Gabriel’s mother) who could probably get out of the jail where she’s been for over a year if she could produce a live Gabriel.
The duct tape evidence would probably not have vacated/negated a Manslaughter plea. The purpose of a plea agreement is to admit guilt to a less serious crime to avoid being convicted of a worse crime.
I am not particularly familiar with Florida’s parole system so I have no opinion about how much time Casey would have served.
I think Casey gambled with her own life because staunch unwavering denial has always been a successful strategy for her in the past. I think that Baez knows exactly who he is dealing with; I think they are peas in a pod.
Katprint-Thank you again for helping me understand what transpires before and after pleas are offered, etc. Yep, you’re right-tp/p. God help her.
Bull, how is my comment/question on Jan. 4th at 3:37 am a nasty remark? Can I really say what I like about you? LOL Do you plan to sic the dogs on me if I do?
getreal-You cannot identify anyone as a media whore unless you base it on some criteria. When attempting to label people (not the same as libel) think about what they have in common.
The hallmark of a media whore, in my opinion, is their ability to tell lies.That is what separates them from all the others who are associated with this high profile case. You have officers of the court, the trier of fact, the media and others with the same objective-to afford Ms Anthony a fair trial before an impartial jury. Media whores have no concept of what is fair or just.
Figure out who these people are. Are they all high school graduates? College educated? Are they between 40-60 yoa? Are they employed? Profiles emerge fairly quickly.
Anon.. a media whore is not a liar. A media whore is, in my opinion, is someone who just loves to be focused on, in the spotlight, in the news, etc. I don’t see why you think they are all liars… To me, a liar is anyone who lies. They need not be in the spotlight, or the media to lie.
Anon… guess you didn’t see my response on the other post. Amedia whore is someone who likes to be in the spotlight, in the news, etc. That is the only criteria necessary. It is sorta like being a blog —–. Has to be on all of them, everyday. But of course, they want to be “popular”
getreal-If you are going to label someone a media whore you have to have a reason. Any group of people who are singled out as different or unusual share similarities.
This is a small group of people who for whatever reason wanted name recognition. None of them had the capacity to understand the peril this defendant was in or the consequences of interfering in a death investigation.
1. Most live in the Orlando area
2. All caught the attention of LE
3. None of them has any LE training
4. Their veracity has been questioned
5. None of them knew Casey Anthony
6. Most of them want to help the defense
7. The defense uses them as a distraction
8. All their names will be listed in published discovery
9. To the best of my knowledge all are HS graduates
10.Their connection to the case can be anything from being best friends with the defendant’s family; having an intimate relationship with defendant’s parent; knowing the lawyers and judges assigned to the case;knowing LE willing to share death investigation details; etc.
______________________________________________
Every circus has clowns.
Yes Roy Kronk did kill Caykee Anthony. It is also said that his girl friend that lives in with him overheard Casey talking about the case and she directed Roy Kronk to where the body was. Roy Kronk wants to be rich and famous from this dead girl. Roy is a pervert and a child killer. Casey is the victim here. Roy knew where the body was his girl friend who lives with this pig told him where the bidy was thats how he knew exactly where to go. He alsocalled his son days before and told him he is going to be rich and on tv. Roy better watch himself. He is as guilty for murder because he was hiding Caylees body until the reward money git bigger. But the joke was on him. He got nothing. Also Roy you will get nothing ever. Your ctrditiors will get paid and your ex wife will get paid. You are no hero. You are a baby killer you monster.