Results of DNA of body announced December 19.

If I were on the jury I sure would want to know how Kronk could have gotten the laundry bag, plastic bag, Pooh blanket, etc. Then there is the access to the computer. Sounds more like Cindy could be connected than Kronk. Of course I don’t believe Cindy did it anymore than I believe Kronk did.

But, maybe I’m just a sick-o too, since I have played World of Warcraft many times with friends across the country. Fantasy ain’t all bad…

I don’t think that the remains were identified on the same day that they discovered Caylee’s body. It took some time to get the DNA results. I think it was December 16th when the positive ID came in. Doesn’t really matter.

I wish I’d been a fly on the wall when the Psychiatrist analyzed Casey. I read something last night written by someone who was analyzing Casey’s speech from her interviews with detectives. It was very enlightening. Hope I can find the link. I’ll post it if I find it.

wftv.com/video/216773121/index.html

__________________________________________
If you Google Casey Anthony Discovery Documents you will find everything that is published up to and including the most recent document dump.

Keep the following in mind: Dates are approximate but in the ballpark.

July 15, 2008
Child is reported missing by Cynthia M. Anthony, grandmother of Caylee M. Anthony

July 16, 2008
Probable cause exists to arrest mother, Ms Casey M. Anthony, mother of missing for Neglect (lost her child) lying to investigators and obstructing the investigation.

July 22, 2008
Bond was set at 500K

July 31, 2008
Psychiatric testing is complete and submitted to Judge Strickland

Results were also turned over the Fifth District Court of Appeals and they were the ones who ruled on Bond reduction. NO BOND REDUCTION

They also ruled that Casey Anthony would not get another Bond hearing. The results of Ms Anthony’s psychiatric evaluation are sealed.

December 11, 2009
Body of missing child is found and results from the autopsy have definitively identified the remains of the child who was reported missing on July 15, 2008.

If these are all the facts you know, a reasonable person could make an assumption that something very bad happened. Following the information and reading the discovery will answer many of your questions.

Hope this helps.

The following will help you to understand the recent Motion filed by Mr Baez. This is Mr. Richard Hornsby’s analysis. For an opposing view go to Bill Shaeffer’s Blog and read his opinion piece.

http://blog.richardhornsby.com/2009/11/22 in defense-of-the-casey-anthony-defense/

Hope this helps.

No matter how difficult Mr Baez makes the pretrial and trial, it is my opinion that jurors will find it very difficult to send her to the death chamber.

The problem with Baez hitting the studios the day after deposition with the Kronk story is that most are thinking, “Are you kidding? Nice try, Bozo.” He’s lost his credibility. He has gone beyond his duty to defend his client. What about Mr. Kronk’s rights? Who will see to it that his are not violated?

It’s interesting that Baez didn’t implicate Kronk until after he was fired and lost his representation paid for by the county. I hope his attorney does not abandon him. I think Baez is bucking on it.

I understand why Kronk didn’t go back to the site for 4 months after being dismissed by LE. I once saw two men cutting a chain link fence in the middle of the day to steal metal from a commercial lot. I drove to the nearest warehouse and told them what I saw. Their answer was, “Why would anyone cut down a fence in broad daylight?”

My answer was, because people like you won’t believe anyone would do that in broad daylight, so they don’t call the police. If it happened at night most would call the police. As it turned out, they did steal the metal. I didn’t have a cell phone with me at the time, and I didn’t call when I got home. Perhaps Kronk was put off by the officer who dismissed him as being an idiot.

Critical thinking skills are important for every lawyer. Before you can write you must be able to think it through. Part of the thinking process entails careful judgement and judicious evaluation.

It also includes deductive thinking-reasoning from a general rule to a specific conclusion.Then there is inductive thinking and that would be going from the specific to the general. (A lawyer will analyze a series of specifics cases to develop a general legal rule)

Reasoning by Analogy. This process is based on the concept that similar facts or principles should lead to similar conclusions.

Lawyers look for the distinctions in the facts or law-they should be able to argue that adverse cases do not apply to thier clients circumstances, etc. Being able to distinguish a case is just as important as making an analogy.

Critical Reading is the foundation for legal reasoning.

Source:Skills Needed for Law School / CA law school (IS)

Now the defense is trying to make him a suspect. Next, they will discuss the spot at which the body was found.

Mark my words, you thought I was a fool, but time will tell. 14 years of brainstorming tell me I’m not off base.