Haleigh Cummings #4 3/04/09 - 3/08/09

[cookie]

quote from IM's post in regards to AnnaFl:

Actually Anna FL is a relative of Marie's (but not blood relative), not brother, sister or any immediate relative,

soooooo....ooooo how does this make her a relative? and is it a close or distant "relative"? sorry to appear anal on this but there has been some doubt established by Annafl for her posts on other forums in my opinion...

[lilymarie]

I have been taking EVERYTHING AnnaFL says with a HUGE grain of salt. She is connected/related to the mother's side of the family and many of the internet rumors about Ron & Misty have come from her via this site or WS. It is very slanted. I think she believes what she is saying - and I think she wants what's best for Haleigh but I don't think she is objective.

So it is a big leap to say Ron IS dealing drugs based upon what AnnaFL says. It does appear that he has had drug issues in the past (and heck he may now) but wouldn't he have been arrested if anything had been found by now? Yes he would have. Also, there is a very good chance that part of the wall was taken near the water heater - which is near the back door - in order to obtain a palm print or print of some sort.

Also, jumping to any conclusions based upon a reporter that is a friend of a poster that says that the DEA is in town - well they could be there for ANY reason. The DEA is going to be focused on drug related cases only. Right now this is a local LE and FBI missing child case. To conclude this is related to Ron at all is just a giant leap IMO.

Again there seems to be an undercurrent of speculation that this child was abducted over drugs. I just don't see the connection.

A 5 year old girl is 99.9% (don't quote me on that statistic) of the time is taken by a non-family member for one reason. If its family then there is usually an easily identified abuse issue involved. But not drugs.

Sounds as though LE are as well.. Now that she has come up yet again, I have to say, when WS claimed that she sent pm's to admin and said it was inappropriate for anyone to invite her to SM, I e-mailed her and asked her if it was true and went on to let her know that she asked for our help and I would like to know why she would do that... She never responded,so I am taking that as an yes answer to if she did that since from what I hear she is still on WS working hard to muddy the waters. I at this point HAVE to look at ANNA FL and that side of the family with VERY high suspicion. How many times did CA muddy the waters and continue to do so... yes I know,separate cases,yet one side of the family has members online working to muddy waters..go ahead, throw nanners, love me some nanners.

Hey, Searching, granted I got confused among all the Anna FL posts, but somehow I thought she was deemed to be on Misty's side of the family. Did I 'memmer it wrong?

Lilymarie, (red bolding mine) about the % of children taken..... were you saying that the 99% refers to..... in other words.... OF THE SMALL % of children actually taken by NON-family..... that the REASON (out of that very small non-family %) that the reason is generally  one reason. (If I read it right -- you weren't saying that 99% of children TAKEN are TAKEN by NON-family? (Bc that would be an incorrect % as far as I know)

Did I read that right? In more other words -- the high percentage relates to the REASON for non-family abductions - not to the frequency of non-family abductions?

Actually Anna FL is a relative of Marie's (but not blood relative), not brother, sister or any immediate relative, and she's just relating what she is hearing in Satsuma which other locals (IF TRUE ie, Pirate etc) are also hearing....it may be total bunk, and that's why she is grasping at straws trying to put it out there so someone can either disprove or prove what she is hearing, then the family can move on. They are desperate and even followed a psychic's tip to a Island in the middle of St. John's river at night to rule it out. She even said NO one is cleared, nobody period......Unfortunately this case is pulling in alot of the same media whores that Caylee's case did, for instance even Dominic Casey called offering his services I hope they listened (they never heard of him) when I told them about his escapades in Orlando.

so shes not related to rons family as she posted, shes actually a relative of crystals?

then IM, how do you explain this?

"I have no ties to Crystal's family at all but I am related to Ron (first time I've posted that here in the open forum) but not immediate family."

UGGG I put together a really poorly constructed sentence. My fault. I tried to answer this a few posts ago. My only point was: If a someone unknown or barely known to your daughter comes in to the house in the middle of the night and snatches her out of her bed - they want her for something other than drug revenge or ransom. That's all. My bad.

[rana]

This goes along with what other monkeys have said.  I'm just curious why Ron would, in the 911 call be soooooo very insistent that he did not know what Haleigh wore to bed because he was at work...

And yet... be so very insistent in an interview that the side/back door was locked.  I thought he was at work!

How could he possibly know that info for sure, anymore than he could have known what Haleigh wore to bed? 

 

I know, right?

And in one of the Greta interviews, HE was answering questions addressed to Misty about where MISTY was in the bed, where Haleigh was last seen. How would he know? I thought he said that he was at work!

[peanut]

oh good the glitch didnt last long, thanks guys!

[lilymarie]

This goes along with what other monkeys have said.  I'm just curious why Ron would, in the 911 call be soooooo very insistent that he did not know what Haleigh wore to bed because he was at work...

And yet... be so very insistent in an interview that the side/back door was locked.  I thought he was at work!

How could he possibly know that info for sure, anymore than he could have known what Haleigh wore to bed? 

 

I know, right?

And in one of the Greta interviews, HE was answering questions addressed to Misty about where MISTY was in the bed, where Haleigh was last seen. How would he know? I thought he said that he was at work!

He was at work according to law enforcement.

[Brandi]

Dugga fixed the error!  Thanks Dugga!

woohoo!

We're back!

Dugga is da bomb. (or something like that.)

 

[rana]

rana:

You asked:

Hey, Searching, granted I got confused among all the Anna FL posts, but somehow I thought she was deemed to be on Misty's side of the family. Did I 'memmer  it wrong?

Although I am not Searching, I pasted each posting that was posted here that apparently AnnaFL posted on WS.

In them, are:

"Yes, I am a close relative. I don't want to say which side because 1) it seems irrelevant 2) I'm afraid of Ron and 3) It won't help find Haleigh."

and also:

"I have no ties to Crystal's family at all but I am related to Ron (first time I've posted that here in the open forum) but not immediate family."

So take that as you will.

THANK YOU!!

[no rose colored glasses]

Here's something to toss around, according to a poster in the basement at WS. This poster is a neighbor of Ron's, he is saying that the owner of the trailer when cleaning up for the next tenant, which would have been Ron, those cinder blocks were placed out of site behind the shed. So, one would have had to be familar with the property to know the blocks were more or less hidden behind a shed. This poster doesn't really want to talk much about the blocks, saying something to the effect, that the blocks aren't that important, yada, yada. I'm trying to figure out this person, and what exactly his position is.

[islandmonkey]

quote from IM's post in regards to AnnaFl:

Actually Anna FL is a relative of Marie's (but not blood relative), not brother, sister or any immediate relative,

soooooo....ooooo how does this make her a relative? and is it a close or distant "relative"? sorry to appear anal on this but there has been some doubt established by Annafl for her posts on other forums in my opinion...

I would rather not say exactly how she is related (if she gave me her ok I would) I talked with Marie and she is related..........she lives in another area of Florida, not in or near Satsuma or Glen St. Mary.

[peanut]

ote from: luckyday on Today at 02:21:00 PM
Quote
Ok I call the 1888-277-8477- Made a report about Madison Ave off of highway 17 south of Myra Lake and a SO 1 block over on Baker.. They gave me a report # to refer back to add any notes or info.. Its done..
HMMMM. I called last week reference AnnaFl's post about Ron stealing drugs. They gave me no report #. I called last night (actually early this am) on the dream/Madison Ave/RR tracks as well and DID get a report #.

DEA agents??? The jig is up if that is the case. No wonder Ron/Misty have not been on camera lately.  Maybe they found drugs in the trailer.

I find that very interesting, about not getting a report # on the AnnaFL's post about Ron stealing drugs. Are they not supposed to take everything called in with some seriousness, but the dream they gave you a report #.    That makes no sense to me.

Tell me about it. Makes absolutely no sense.

Yes, we have no nanners for you, Wyks!!

I have been taking EVERYTHING AnnaFL says with a HUGE grain of salt. She is connected/related to the mother's side of the family and many of the internet rumors about Ron & Misty have come from her via this site or WS. It is very slanted. I think she believes what she is saying - and I think she wants what's best for Haleigh but I don't think she is objective.

So it is a big leap to say Ron IS dealing drugs based upon what AnnaFL says. It does appear that he has had drug issues in the past (and heck he may now) but wouldn't he have been arrested if anything had been found by now? Yes he would have. Also, there is a very good chance that part of the wall was taken near the water heater - which is near the back door - in order to obtain a palm print or print of some sort.

Also, jumping to any conclusions based upon a reporter that is a friend of a poster that says that the DEA is in town - well they could be there for ANY reason. The DEA is going to be focused on drug related cases only. Right now this is a local LE and FBI missing child case. To conclude this is related to Ron at all is just a giant leap IMO.

Again there seems to be an undercurrent of speculation that this child was abducted over drugs. I just don't see the connection. A 5 year old girl is 99.9% (don't quote me on that statistic) of the time is taken by a non-family member for one reason. If its family then there is usually an easily identified abuse issue involved. But not drugs.

Actually, its the reverse according to the NCMEC:

The good news, experts say, is that recent high-profile kidnapping cases do not reflect a growing problem. According to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, the number of serious abduction cases is consistent with last year's figures, but overall trends show an actual decline in such cases. In 2001, 725,000 children - nearly 2,000 per day - were reported missing. Most cases involved abduction by a parent, or a child running away. The vast majority of kids were recovered quickly. Three thousand to 5,000 children were involved in so-called "stranger danger" cases, taken by a non-family member. Of these, 200 to 300 were cases where the child was murdered or ransomed.





http://life.familyeducation.com/stranger-safety/safety/36556.html

im confused, and the bolding is mine. to me this info reads that there are 3 to 5000 out of over 700,000 that are 'stranger danger' ie drugs, ransom etc. help me please, what am i misunderstanding?

Oh, my brain is so fried, but I believe they mean out of over 700,000 only 3-5m are true stranger abductions (bu someone completely unknown to family).

well ya, this case will do it to you thats for sure haha! thats how i read it as well, thats why i was confused as it supports what was being said about the chances of it being a drug related abduction, that the chances are extremely slim.

' true stranger ' doesnt mean unknown to family/friends, it means unknown to the victim.

No~I think it means COMPLETE stranger to the family as in Creepy Couey, etc. I'll go back and find it again as I forgot the link anyway

that makes no sense tho, one can determine if someone is unknown to the victim, but how can it be definitively stated that no friend or family member ever crossed paths with them. isnt that just too broad of a of a distinction to make?

Ok~just looked it up.....Stranger: A perpetrator whom the child or family do
not know, or a perpetrator of unknown identity.

Defining Nonfamily Abduction and
Related Terms
• Nonfamily abduction: (1) An episode in which a
nonfamily perpetrator takes a child by the use of
physical force or threat of bodily harm or detains
the child for a substantial period of time (at least
1 hour) in an isolated place by the use of physical
force or threat of bodily harm without lawful authority
or parental permission, or (2) an episode in
which a child younger than 15 or mentally incompetent,
and without lawful authority or parental permission,
is taken or detained or voluntarily accompanies
a nonfamily perpetrator who conceals the
child’s whereabouts, demands ransom, or expresses
the intention to keep the child permanently.
• Stereotypical kidnapping: A nonfamily abduction
perpetrated by a slight acquaintance or stranger in
which a child is detained overnight, transported at
least 50 miles, held for ransom or abducted with
intent to keep the child permanently, or killed.
• Stranger: A perpetrator whom the child or family do
not know, or a perpetrator of unknown identity.
• Slight acquaintance: A nonfamily perpetrator whose
name is unknown to the child or family prior to the
abduction and whom the child or family did not know
well enough to speak to, or a recent acquaintance who
the child or family have known for less than 6 months,
or someone the family or child have known for longer
than 6 months but seen less than once a month.

gah, so if they categorize the dif between stranger and slight acquaintance which statistic do they use or are they combined?

haha nm me, im just having a flashback to an old prof whose pet buggaboo was what you could do with statistics to support just about anything. its not related to this as the stats are frightening and i find nothing to laugh about in regards to the sheer number of yearly victims.

[islandmonkey]

rana:

You asked:

Hey, Searching, granted I got confused among all the Anna FL posts, but somehow I thought she was deemed to be on Misty's side of the family. Did I 'memmer  it wrong?

Although I am not Searching, I pasted each posting that was posted here that apparently AnnaFL posted on WS.

In them, are:

"Yes, I am a close relative. I don't want to say which side because 1) it seems irrelevant 2) I'm afraid of Ron and 3) It won't help find Haleigh."

and also:

"I have no ties to Crystal's family at all but I am related to Ron (first time I've posted that here in the open forum) but not immediate family."
So take that as you will.

THANK YOU!!

That red post is from Pirate at WS.........not Anna FL, I know it gets confusing

[Brandi]

Here's something to toss around, according to a poster in the basement at WS. This poster is a neighbor of Ron's, he is saying that the owner of the trailer when cleaning up for the next tenant, which would have been Ron, those cinder blocks were placed out of site behind the shed. So, one would have had to be familar with the property to know the blocks were more or less hidden behind a shed. This poster doesn't really want to talk much about the blocks, saying something to the effect, that the blocks aren't that important, yada, yada. I'm trying to figure out this person, and what exactly his position is.

If that is the case, it could be as simple as Ron finding the cinder blocks and moving them out into the open for some reason. Could be many reasons for that.

Just sayin.

[islandmonkey]

ote from: luckyday on Today at 02:21:00 PM
Quote
Ok I call the 1888-277-8477- Made a report about Madison Ave off of highway 17 south of Myra Lake and a SO 1 block over on Baker.. They gave me a report # to refer back to add any notes or info.. Its done..
HMMMM. I called last week reference AnnaFl's post about Ron stealing drugs. They gave me no report #. I called last night (actually early this am) on the dream/Madison Ave/RR tracks as well and DID get a report #.

DEA agents??? The jig is up if that is the case. No wonder Ron/Misty have not been on camera lately.  Maybe they found drugs in the trailer.

I find that very interesting, about not getting a report # on the AnnaFL's post about Ron stealing drugs. Are they not supposed to take everything called in with some seriousness, but the dream they gave you a report #.    That makes no sense to me.

Tell me about it. Makes absolutely no sense.

Yes, we have no nanners for you, Wyks!!

I have been taking EVERYTHING AnnaFL says with a HUGE grain of salt. She is connected/related to the mother's side of the family and many of the internet rumors about Ron & Misty have come from her via this site or WS. It is very slanted. I think she believes what she is saying - and I think she wants what's best for Haleigh but I don't think she is objective.

So it is a big leap to say Ron IS dealing drugs based upon what AnnaFL says. It does appear that he has had drug issues in the past (and heck he may now) but wouldn't he have been arrested if anything had been found by now? Yes he would have. Also, there is a very good chance that part of the wall was taken near the water heater - which is near the back door - in order to obtain a palm print or print of some sort.

Also, jumping to any conclusions based upon a reporter that is a friend of a poster that says that the DEA is in town - well they could be there for ANY reason. The DEA is going to be focused on drug related cases only. Right now this is a local LE and FBI missing child case. To conclude this is related to Ron at all is just a giant leap IMO.

Again there seems to be an undercurrent of speculation that this child was abducted over drugs. I just don't see the connection. A 5 year old girl is 99.9% (don't quote me on that statistic) of the time is taken by a non-family member for one reason. If its family then there is usually an easily identified abuse issue involved. But not drugs.

Actually, its the reverse according to the NCMEC:

The good news, experts say, is that recent high-profile kidnapping cases do not reflect a growing problem. According to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, the number of serious abduction cases is consistent with last year's figures, but overall trends show an actual decline in such cases. In 2001, 725,000 children - nearly 2,000 per day - were reported missing. Most cases involved abduction by a parent, or a child running away. The vast majority of kids were recovered quickly. Three thousand to 5,000 children were involved in so-called "stranger danger" cases, taken by a non-family member. Of these, 200 to 300 were cases where the child was murdered or ransomed.





http://life.familyeducation.com/stranger-safety/safety/36556.html

im confused, and the bolding is mine. to me this info reads that there are 3 to 5000 out of over 700,000 that are 'stranger danger' ie drugs, ransom etc. help me please, what am i misunderstanding?

Oh, my brain is so fried, but I believe they mean out of over 700,000 only 3-5m are true stranger abductions (bu someone completely unknown to family).

well ya, this case will do it to you thats for sure haha! thats how i read it as well, thats why i was confused as it supports what was being said about the chances of it being a drug related abduction, that the chances are extremely slim.

' true stranger ' doesnt mean unknown to family/friends, it means unknown to the victim.

No~I think it means COMPLETE stranger to the family as in Creepy Couey, etc. I'll go back and find it again as I forgot the link anyway

that makes no sense tho, one can determine if someone is unknown to the victim, but how can it be definitively stated that no friend or family member ever crossed paths with them. isnt that just too broad of a of a distinction to make?

Ok~just looked it up.....Stranger: A perpetrator whom the child or family do
not know, or a perpetrator of unknown identity.

Defining Nonfamily Abduction and
Related Terms
• Nonfamily abduction: (1) An episode in which a
nonfamily perpetrator takes a child by the use of
physical force or threat of bodily harm or detains
the child for a substantial period of time (at least
1 hour) in an isolated place by the use of physical
force or threat of bodily harm without lawful authority
or parental permission, or (2) an episode in
which a child younger than 15 or mentally incompetent,
and without lawful authority or parental permission,
is taken or detained or voluntarily accompanies
a nonfamily perpetrator who conceals the
child’s whereabouts, demands ransom, or expresses
the intention to keep the child permanently.
• Stereotypical kidnapping: A nonfamily abduction
perpetrated by a slight acquaintance or stranger in
which a child is detained overnight, transported at
least 50 miles, held for ransom or abducted with
intent to keep the child permanently, or killed.
• Stranger: A perpetrator whom the child or family do
not know, or a perpetrator of unknown identity.
• Slight acquaintance: A nonfamily perpetrator whose
name is unknown to the child or family prior to the
abduction and whom the child or family did not know
well enough to speak to, or a recent acquaintance who
the child or family have known for less than 6 months,
or someone the family or child have known for longer
than 6 months but seen less than once a month.

gah, so if they categorize the dif between stranger and slight acquaintance which statistic do they use or are they combined?

haha nm me, im just having a flashback to an old prof whose pet buggaboo was what you could do with statistics to support just about anything. its not related to this as the stats are frightening and i find nothing to laugh about in regards to the sheer number of yearly victims.

Me either.......I hope you didn't think I was laughing about any of this.

[rana]

This goes along with what other monkeys have said.  I'm just curious why Ron would, in the 911 call be soooooo very insistent that he did not know what Haleigh wore to bed because he was at work...

And yet... be so very insistent in an interview that the side/back door was locked.  I thought he was at work!

How could he possibly know that info for sure, anymore than he could have known what Haleigh wore to bed? 

 

I know, right?

And in one of the Greta interviews, HE was answering questions addressed to Misty about where MISTY was in the bed, where Haleigh was last seen. How would he know? I thought he said that he was at work!

He was at work according to law enforcement.

I was referring to Ron's answering questions directed toward Misty as to where Misty was in the bed, when Misty last saw Haleigh, etc..... WHILE HE WAS AT WORK.

[no rose colored glasses]

Here's something to toss around, according to a poster in the basement at WS. This poster is a neighbor of Ron's, he is saying that the owner of the trailer when cleaning up for the next tenant, which would have been Ron, those cinder blocks were placed out of site behind the shed. So, one would have had to be familar with the property to know the blocks were more or less hidden behind a shed. This poster doesn't really want to talk much about the blocks, saying something to the effect, that the blocks aren't that important, yada, yada. I'm trying to figure out this person, and what exactly his position is.

If that is the case, it could be as simple as Ron finding the cinder blocks and moving them out into the open for some reason. Could be many reasons for that.

Just sayin.

But I thought he never saw the cinder block before?

[lilymarie]

This goes along with what other monkeys have said.  I'm just curious why Ron would, in the 911 call be soooooo very insistent that he did not know what Haleigh wore to bed because he was at work...

And yet... be so very insistent in an interview that the side/back door was locked.  I thought he was at work!

How could he possibly know that info for sure, anymore than he could have known what Haleigh wore to bed? 

 

I know, right?

And in one of the Greta interviews, HE was answering questions addressed to Misty about where MISTY was in the bed, where Haleigh was last seen. How would he know? I thought he said that he was at work!

He was at work according to law enforcement.

I was referring to Ron's answering questions directed toward Misty as to where Misty was in the bed, when Misty last saw Haleigh, etc..... WHILE HE WAS AT WORK.

ok

[rana]

Here's something to toss around, according to a poster in the basement at WS. This poster is a neighbor of Ron's, he is saying that the owner of the trailer when cleaning up for the next tenant, which would have been Ron, those cinder blocks were placed out of site behind the shed. So, one would have had to be familar with the property to know the blocks were more or less hidden behind a shed. This poster doesn't really want to talk much about the blocks, saying something to the effect, that the blocks aren't that important, yada, yada. I'm trying to figure out this person, and what exactly his position is.

Good catch. It does seems relevant to me.

[mizjay]

  Does anyone recall how far into the woods the homemade "chair" was ?  Was wondering if it was close enough to lurk, watching the home for routines and such.

[fatcatlurker]

Dugga fixed the error!  Thanks Dugga!

woohoo!

We're back!

Dugga is da bomb. (or something like that.)

 

There was a problem?  Cuz I was tryin to catch up on my blackberry & couldn't it kept showing the old threads and I thought I was nutz!  Good I'm not crazy after all, well atleast not that crazy.

[Brandi]

Here's something to toss around, according to a poster in the basement at WS. This poster is a neighbor of Ron's, he is saying that the owner of the trailer when cleaning up for the next tenant, which would have been Ron, those cinder blocks were placed out of site behind the shed. So, one would have had to be familar with the property to know the blocks were more or less hidden behind a shed. This poster doesn't really want to talk much about the blocks, saying something to the effect, that the blocks aren't that important, yada, yada. I'm trying to figure out this person, and what exactly his position is.

If that is the case, it could be as simple as Ron finding the cinder blocks and moving them out into the open for some reason. Could be many reasons for that.

Just sayin.

But I thought he never saw the cinder block before?

I must have missed him saying that.

I am not batting very well today. LOL

I think I'll just lurk for a bit