Being "Kronked" in Missing Persons Cases

As one who strongly believes in personal responsibility, liberty and restricted government in our lives, it is rare that you will ever hear me calling for yet another law being enacted.

This is that rare occasion:

We need a Roy Kronk law.

Once upon a time, a defense attorney was a noble profession in which the falsely accused could have a strong defense, and while the guilty could be protected from malicious prosecution.

This underwent a change, which gained traction during the government's "nanny state" prohibition against all alcohol.  The bootleggers, circumventing US laws, were frequently caught defending their profit margin at the end of a gun, which, in turn, led to many attorneys becoming wealthy and influential.  It does not take long to gain a reputation for getting a famous mobster off the scales of justice and back on to the street.

Win at all costs instead of protecting a U.S. citizen against malicious prosecution.

A defense attorney has little to fear when he utters slanderous statements, especially in a passive or vague manner.  To suggest a rape victim "may" have had "up to five partners" is true, if the victim had "one" partner, as "one" is indeed, up to "five."  The word "five" is left in the hearing of those of a lazy or limited intellect, planted like a seed, which grows noxiously.

When Caylee Anthony's remains were found by a man named Roy Kronk, in short order, his ex wife was found spilling out details of him brutalizing her, kidnapping, and so on.  He could do little to defend himself as the insinuation was clear:  perhaps he kidnapped and killed Caylee.

From the beginning, Jose Baez knew this was not true, but truth had nothing to do with the case; it was all about muddying the truth, changing intent of words, and confusing a lazy minded, limited, and quite willful jury.

It succeeded.

Yet, it not only gave a black eye to justice, but it left a cold fear running down the spine of professional search organizations, like Texas Equasearch, who rely not only upon volunteer dollars to keep operations working (imaging the cost of moving a helicopter and horses from Texas to Florida), but rely on volunteer searchers.

These volunteer searchers must now be aware that they may just find themselves in a position to having prove that they did not kill the victim being searched for.

This is now called being "kronked" by a malicious attorney.  There seemed to be no bottom to the sleazy manner in which this case was handled by defense.

What now awaits the Hailey Dunn case?

Do we have any indication that the attorneys here will behave in a professional, dignified and honorable manner?

What can be done to restrict the 'dropping' of falsehood in an attempt to poison the mind of those who listen?

What can be done to remove the "up to five partners" thought from the minds of the public, of whom the jury will be chosen?

Do we have anything that assures us that this case won't denigrate into the same defense mess as the Casey Anthony case?

If there is no legislation that can be carefully enacted without restricting truth in any way (freedom of speech is more of a memory today, than a reality.  If you don't think so, I will give you a list of words and phrases that should you utter, you may find yourself out of a job, or facing other consequences). 

Perhaps rather than legislation a stronger hammer from the Bar Association, with its public rebuke of such antics would be a start, yet it is difficult to see an industry prospering from the perversion of justice being open to restoring dignity when it is this dignity, itself, could cost their members money. 

I don't have an answer for this problem, so it is, perhaps, that stronger minds will put forth potential solutions to be debated over.  Although one never in favor of piling on law after law in society, this is one that I am open to hearing more about.  

The deliberate, willful slander or libel can be answered in court, but even that may not be enough to remove the lie from the minds of the jury pool.

Perhaps if an attorney knows that he or she will be quickly removed from the infamous case where salivation over the potential windfall of fame and fortune dries up, perhaps there would be a restriction on deliberately and unjustly attacking the innocent.