February 24, 2018, 03:46:35 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: NEW CHILD BOARD CREATED IN THE POLITICAL SECTION FOR THE 2016 ELECTION
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Haleigh Cummings #2 2/20/09 - 2/26/09  (Read 214883 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Brandi
Monkey Mega Star
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 25374



« Reply #1020 on: February 23, 2009, 11:45:46 PM »

I have been here on this thread since it began.

The past two days, I have posted and no one has replied to any of my posts.

I don't get it.

I'll go back to lurking.

 
Logged

peanut
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 2481


I can spell, I just can't type.


« Reply #1021 on: February 23, 2009, 11:49:06 PM »

you guys are really scaring me. id hate to see lines drawn as people 'who understand abuse' and those who 'dont agree' with their theories, as if they may somehow be minimizing what any and all victims go thru. any kind of abuse is horrific and i dont believe for a second that anyone doesnt feel empathy for those that have ever experienced it or have had a loved one who did.

im not going to relate my own experiences, not because i think its wrong or inappropriate to do so, but because after many, many years on the net i dont like posting much personal info on public boards. thats not an indictment against those who do, my hats off to all of you, its just a matter of personal comfort levels for me.

i think crystal has many resentments, i wont speculate now what they may be, but i think she deserves an equally intensive investigation as the father since familial-y they are the two main players.jmo.

I agree everyone should be investigated thoroughly, so I check 8 counties for a record on her and couldn't come up with any except a ticket, filing a false police report......no drug charges or any violent charges at all. I also think that because she lives about 100 miles away it has been easier to alibi her.....she was in Glen St. Mary that night.

what was the false police report about, do you know?

ya i know she was, as i know that its been verified ron was at work the whole time. im curious tho who the last person to see haleigh was other than misty, one of the visiting relatives or the ac man? and what time was it? we know she was seen at school that day, that people came over after ron left, so i wish we had an accurate timeline. who else was nearby when she got off the bus, predators watch and fanatasize for quite some time, so how many people are usually around then and who are they?

IIRC, it was when RC was in a wreck and the kids were in the car, her cousin was in the car also and said they were doing drugs..........he later took a pee test and it showed no drugs (my brother can tell you how to pass anything but a hair test), and she got smacked with filing a false report.

I would also like to know exactly WHO saw the kids last other than Misty, like maybe neighbors etc., especially because in 2 different interviews RC stated he left the kids in bed under Misty's care at 10:00

haha within a hair! i can too but please dont tell my mom that. 

reports vary within the media sources and thats frustrating. after all this time tho le would have his movements nailed down tight tho from when he left for work and arrived home. i guess i kinda feel he deserves a bit of a break for being emotional considering what hes going thru, and that tim stayed close to him and involved him when he really didnt have to adds a bit of weight to me, hes been there and understands what you go thru better than most.

it would be great to know more, its not a very crowded area, so im guessing theres not a ton of people waiting on the bus. id love to know what parents were there, what older siblings/relatives, what babbysitters etc. and who else maybe could have 'just happened' to be there? and how many had vehicles?

gah, so many things i wish were released.

  I'm calling your mom tonight!

I wish more were being released also, at least a better timeline...........and the holdup with the trailer has me concerned

haha noooooooooo pleaseeeeeee 

now that is fascinating me too. iirc even the nicole brown/ron goldman crime scene was released sooner than this, what are they trying to preserve? granted im sure they dont have as much manpower as lapd, but they have outside assistance now, so whats still holding it up.

ive been trying to think of what couldnt be collected, they have no prob taking sections of wall or tearing up the pumbling if they have to, so what on earth is it? i cant come up with anything yet, how about you, its just baffling me.

It's baffling to me also~it peaks my curiosity to a new level. The only thing I can think of is that they might have some type of luminol evidence in there........but, that would me she.....well you know > passed there< because if she was only taken from there what else would they need? Again, clueless on the beach

 ya i know but they just use that to spotlight the blood and other fluids, they then photograph, swab and save. if it too big they just take the whole section out, they dont mind ripping things apart if they had to. then i thought maybe the floors, and thats why they cant go back in, because its unsafe. but then theyd be focused at home and they dont seem to be obsessively so. help, what else can we think of, this is driving me nuts!
Logged

Justice is truth in action - Benjamin Disraeli
rana
Monkey Junky Jr.
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 872


« Reply #1022 on: February 23, 2009, 11:51:16 PM »

To me there is a huge difference b/w freaking out totally  - which  I can completely understand - and being aggressive and abusive to the responders and Misty. 




Logged
islandmonkey
Monkey All Star
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10379


HaLeigh~you are loved and in God's loving arms


« Reply #1023 on: February 23, 2009, 11:52:51 PM »

I have been here on this thread since it began.

The past two days, I have posted and no one has replied to any of my posts.

I don't get it.

I'll go back to lurking.

 

  Don't go round lurking~I'm usually invisible monkey myself......
Logged

"If two theories explain the facts equally well then the simpler theory is to be preferred''
[
fatcatlurker
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 3883



« Reply #1024 on: February 23, 2009, 11:53:57 PM »

I have been here on this thread since it began.

The past two days, I have posted and no one has replied to any of my posts.

I don't get it.

I'll go back to lurking.

 

Brandi there have been some disagreements about who to throw under the bus first Ron or Crystal?  I am looking for some fresh idea's.  So hit me woman!  Don't lurk we can't let mob mentality rule the tree!
Logged
peanut
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 2481


I can spell, I just can't type.


« Reply #1025 on: February 23, 2009, 11:55:22 PM »

So do we think Ron was the man in black or is jr and now Crystal just making this up?  As Junior only told this to Crystal and her aunt than she told LE about this man in black,  Could Ron be the man in black or are they making this story up for some reason?

Quote
“The Sheriff’s Office is aware of what the little boy said and is following up on that lead,” Capt.  Dick Schauland told the Times-Union Monday night, “but we are not commenting on any of the interviews.”



from: http://www.jacksonville.com/news/metro/crime/2009-02-23/story/brother_man_in_black_grabbed_haleigh

Did the Sheriff's office talk to Jr. ?




they had a number of people who specialize in dealing with children in these situations talk to him.
Logged

Justice is truth in action - Benjamin Disraeli
Jerseygirl345
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 4752



« Reply #1026 on: February 23, 2009, 11:55:51 PM »

Nice job IM . May I also add something odd? At no time did Misty say she then when to check on Ronny Jr... wouldn't that only make sense?

Sure, feel free to add to my list and toss that on one, another odd thing is the fact she even stayed in the house after realizing Haleigh wasn't in it and the door was open, I think almost anyone else would have picked up the other child an running screaming to the neighbors in fear and called 911.......OOPS, just remembered another thin godd Ron didn't cal 911, Misty did (distancing himself away from the act), and when he does talk with them, he hangs up on them.


Island, I've said it once (or twice), but I'll repeat it.

If I came home and found my child "gone", I'd shout to the babysitter/new "mate" (whatever) to call 911 while I tried to call my child home.  I don't blame him a bit for going nuts on that 911 call...and I daresay most 911 ops and LE wouldn't blame him either.  He asked about the relevevance of her DOB--so would I if I'd already stated child was 5.  A person who is living the horror of a major loss isn't apt to hang on the line.  Myself, I prob would have dropped the phone (in between blessin' The Fates and the irrelevant questions (to him) and headed back out the door to holler for my lost child.

Of course there is more here than meets the eye.  But I'm not gonna hang my hat on that 911 call...at least as re. the bio dad.

Foggy


It's far more than the 911 call.....I made a list earlier and I stand by that. I'm not saying he had anything to do with her disappearance, just pointing out inconsistencies in the stories. I've had to call 911 on more than one occasion, once when my stepson was convulsing and had almost no pulse, I stayed with him on a cordless phone so I could help as much as possible, his mom is a dispatcher for the SO and surely he knows the person he is calling is not the one on the way to investigate. I never heard him go outside and yell for her.......he already assumed "someone stole her".



I agree.. Ron already had assume someone stole Haleigh and ready to kill HIM with his gun..
Logged
klaasend
Administrator
Monkey Mega Star
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 74225



WWW
« Reply #1027 on: February 23, 2009, 11:59:50 PM »

So do we think Ron was the man in black or is jr and now Crystal just making this up?  As Junior only told this to Crystal and her aunt than she told LE about this man in black,  Could Ron be the man in black or are they making this story up for some reason?

Quote
“The Sheriff’s Office is aware of what the little boy said and is following up on that lead,” Capt.  Dick Schauland told the Times-Union Monday night, “but we are not commenting on any of the interviews.”



from: http://www.jacksonville.com/news/metro/crime/2009-02-23/story/brother_man_in_black_grabbed_haleigh

Did the Sheriff's office talk to Jr. ?




Brandi - I think they must have because I believe the search over the weekend near the house was based on what JR said?  Maybe?
Logged

If you need to get into the forum and have forgotten your password, email me and I'll reset it for you: smklaas@hotmail.com
islandmonkey
Monkey All Star
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10379


HaLeigh~you are loved and in God's loving arms


« Reply #1028 on: February 24, 2009, 12:06:33 AM »

I have been here on this thread since it began.

The past two days, I have posted and no one has replied to any of my posts.

I don't get it.

I'll go back to lurking.

 

Brandi there have been some disagreements about who to throw under the bus first Ron or Crystal?  I am looking for some fresh idea's.  So hit me woman!  Don't lurk we can't let mob mentality rule the tree!

How about KFN~I'll gladly throw them under any bus any day
Logged

"If two theories explain the facts equally well then the simpler theory is to be preferred''
[
fatcatlurker
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 3883



« Reply #1029 on: February 24, 2009, 12:08:30 AM »

This is "prolly" nothing, but I'll ask it anyway. Does anyone find it odd that Ron is in a tent, or rather - now a camper, and not at his mom's multi bedroom home or some other friend or relative's house? It seems there's a reason and it doesn't strike me that the reason is that he's too emotionally tied to the exact area, the ground to leave.  I almost -  in the back burner of my foggy head - wonder if she's out there, close, and he's afraid to leave. IOW, if he leaves and he's somewhere else he'll be going crazy wondering if someone is getting "close" to finding her. This way he's there and knows where folks are and aren't.

Just recalling that Caylee was very close and wasn't found til... well... either Aug or Dec depending on how you regard the meter reader. Jon Benet was super super close (the basement) but she wasn't found exactly immediately. There are others. I hope she's alive, but what's the likely scenario for her being alive? That a ped took her and hasn't killed her yet? A horrible thought. That someone took her and sold her? Another horrible thought.

 Just thinking out loud.

Then there's that Occam's razor... the principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. IOW, whatever the simplest explanation is, is likely the correct one.

The intruder theory leaves too many things to chance for me and the flags go up for many weird things. The cinderblock propping, the turning on of the light, the leaving the door open, the NOT closing of the door upon seeing it "wide open," the not freaking out and thinking OMG could intuder still be here? Could be coming back let me lock the door, let me run grab BOTH kids oops one is missing but she seemed to know that it was Haleigh right off and not Jr. (from the blanket clip)

Then there's the past tense, "loved her" the "child's life back" comment and others,  the temper, the name calling, the anger, the over the top tears and angst, the short temper with reporters,  the flatout denial of true provable things, the history with LE and child services, the drug issues, the clearly enabling grandmother,.... on and on...



Myself, I'm not comfortable w/trying/convicting him before a variety of inconsistencies have been cleared up or evidence emerges. 

Also, when he said he'd look for her until ...blah, blah, blah I took it as a sentence he didn't finish because it was too repulsive a thought to be spoken aloud and he caught himself.

As re. the talk of abuse:  plenty of people are verbally abusive but never lift a hand to a spouse/live-in/child.  I still haven't seen evidence that he punched anyone out, let alone his daughter.  If you have evidence, I'd welcome seeing what so many of you all percieve.

I agree w/some things any number of posters have stated.  But imho, suggesting that he hauled his baby girl to some bridge (and did what?) 'cause he's a crane operator is more than a bit premature and in my mind not a whole lot different than what GR did to Ronald Cummings on that inflammatory and obviously biased broadcast.

Don't get me wrong--I'm more than a bit concerned about the whole mess.  I could go on and on about what I think about the personalities involved (and will ), but this is not a Caylee case where one person had a documented history of deception etc., not to mention her grandmothers call to 911 that sad, sad day.

I know this is a place where folks hash out their ideas and suspcions.  I just think its early days yet to throw RC (the dad) under the bus--though I absolutely agree that in light of the lax supervision of his daughter, he fell way short of the mark and may well regret that lapse in judgement for the rest of his life. 

Foggy

About the verbal abuse and physical abuse correlation, I agree; Some people can be verbally abusive without being physically abusive. However, I don't think it's an impossible leap in logic for me to fathom or consider that a man who strikes a woman could possibly strike a child.   

Last night Craig Rivera mentioned a document (I'll look for a link) regarding Ron's violation of  an injunction for protection. Crystal had filed an injunction, but then dropped the charges which is not unheard of in cases with spouses/girlfriends. Of course, Craig Rivera could be lying on air, but that seems foolish since it's something that can be verified. Also, I realize that it's possible that Crystal could have filed a false claim against Ron; so I guess that goes to... do I believe her when I watch her talk about it. Yes, I believe her when she says Ron hit her. It's just an opinion of my impression of her. Additionally, Ron's threats, his temper, and Misty's fear are palpable IMO. Misty could be terrified of TV, but I get a different vibe from her that she's afraid of Ron in particular. That's just my take on it.


Rana, I don't give a blankety-blank about what Geraldo or Greg Rivera say.  Many of their sources are unamed, so they can take a long walk off a short pier as far as I'm concerned.

Yet they don't mind putting the bereft young man's feet to the fire on nat'l tv.  Calling them bottom feeders is an insult to catfish et al everywhere.

Re. orders of protection:  bio mom said herself that she returned to him over and over.  And for what?  Sex and drugs?  The kids?  She leaves a man over and over because she's afraid of him, but leaves her helpless little lambs w/him? 

I'm not sure why you are throwing in with bio mom and frankly I don't care.  I'm only responding to you because I think some of your speculation is along the lines of Geraldos and I in good conscience cannot let that go unchallenged since you (and Geraldo) have yet to put forth hard evidence that bio dad is the monster you are attempting to define.

And one other thing:  of course no "monkeys" looked askance at your opinions 'bout other cases since it appears you are a new poster--unless you've posted in the past under another appelation of course 
.

Live well.

Foggy


Sorry for the stack again all.

Foggy I agree.  This tree is getting stagnant w/one sided theories.  I'm still waiting for a some good posters that were here to come back from earlier run offs with some fresh insight into this mess.
Logged
fatcatlurker
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 3883



« Reply #1030 on: February 24, 2009, 12:16:14 AM »

http://www.news4jax.com/news/18778590/detail.html

While neither of Haleigh's parents would speak to the media after the incident, Haleigh's maternal grandmother wasn't surprised at the confrontation between the family and Rivera.

"It's our word against his. You know, he says no and we say yes," said Haleigh's maternal grandmother, Marie Griffis.

Haleigh's family members on both sides said the drama and accusations have taken away from their shared goal of finding Haleigh.

"All of the commotion it caused took away from the searching and leads for Haleigh. We just want Haleigh, and the media slows down more and more each day because it's getting longer and longer," Sykes said.
Logged
rana
Monkey Junky Jr.
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 872


« Reply #1031 on: February 24, 2009, 12:20:09 AM »

This is "prolly" nothing, but I'll ask it anyway. Does anyone find it odd that Ron is in a tent, or rather - now a camper, and not at his mom's multi bedroom home or some other friend or relative's house? It seems there's a reason and it doesn't strike me that the reason is that he's too emotionally tied to the exact area, the ground to leave.  I almost -  in the back burner of my foggy head - wonder if she's out there, close, and he's afraid to leave. IOW, if he leaves and he's somewhere else he'll be going crazy wondering if someone is getting "close" to finding her. This way he's there and knows where folks are and aren't.

Just recalling that Caylee was very close and wasn't found til... well... either Aug or Dec depending on how you regard the meter reader. Jon Benet was super super close (the basement) but she wasn't found exactly immediately. There are others. I hope she's alive, but what's the likely scenario for her being alive? That a ped took her and hasn't killed her yet? A horrible thought. That someone took her and sold her? Another horrible thought.

 Just thinking out loud.

Then there's that Occam's razor... the principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. IOW, whatever the simplest explanation is, is likely the correct one.

The intruder theory leaves too many things to chance for me and the flags go up for many weird things. The cinderblock propping, the turning on of the light, the leaving the door open, the NOT closing of the door upon seeing it "wide open," the not freaking out and thinking OMG could intuder still be here? Could be coming back let me lock the door, let me run grab BOTH kids oops one is missing but she seemed to know that it was Haleigh right off and not Jr. (from the blanket clip)

Then there's the past tense, "loved her" the "child's life back" comment and others,  the temper, the name calling, the anger, the over the top tears and angst, the short temper with reporters,  the flatout denial of true provable things, the history with LE and child services, the drug issues, the clearly enabling grandmother,.... on and on...



Myself, I'm not comfortable w/trying/convicting him before a variety of inconsistencies have been cleared up or evidence emerges. 

Also, when he said he'd look for her until ...blah, blah, blah I took it as a sentence he didn't finish because it was too repulsive a thought to be spoken aloud and he caught himself.

As re. the talk of abuse:  plenty of people are verbally abusive but never lift a hand to a spouse/live-in/child.  I still haven't seen evidence that he punched anyone out, let alone his daughter.  If you have evidence, I'd welcome seeing what so many of you all percieve.

I agree w/some things any number of posters have stated.  But imho, suggesting that he hauled his baby girl to some bridge (and did what?) 'cause he's a crane operator is more than a bit premature and in my mind not a whole lot different than what GR did to Ronald Cummings on that inflammatory and obviously biased broadcast.

Don't get me wrong--I'm more than a bit concerned about the whole mess.  I could go on and on about what I think about the personalities involved (and will ), but this is not a Caylee case where one person had a documented history of deception etc., not to mention her grandmothers call to 911 that sad, sad day.

I know this is a place where folks hash out their ideas and suspcions.  I just think its early days yet to throw RC (the dad) under the bus--though I absolutely agree that in light of the lax supervision of his daughter, he fell way short of the mark and may well regret that lapse in judgement for the rest of his life. 

Foggy

About the verbal abuse and physical abuse correlation, I agree; Some people can be verbally abusive without being physically abusive. However, I don't think it's an impossible leap in logic for me to fathom or consider that a man who strikes a woman could possibly strike a child.   

Last night Craig Rivera mentioned a document (I'll look for a link) regarding Ron's violation of  an injunction for protection. Crystal had filed an injunction, but then dropped the charges which is not unheard of in cases with spouses/girlfriends. Of course, Craig Rivera could be lying on air, but that seems foolish since it's something that can be verified. Also, I realize that it's possible that Crystal could have filed a false claim against Ron; so I guess that goes to... do I believe her when I watch her talk about it. Yes, I believe her when she says Ron hit her. It's just an opinion of my impression of her. Additionally, Ron's threats, his temper, and Misty's fear are palpable IMO. Misty could be terrified of TV, but I get a different vibe from her that she's afraid of Ron in particular. That's just my take on it.


Rana, I don't give a blankety-blank about what Geraldo or Greg Rivera say.  Many of their sources are unamed, so they can take a long walk off a short pier as far as I'm concerned.

Yet they don't mind putting the bereft young man's feet to the fire on nat'l tv.  Calling them bottom feeders is an insult to catfish et al everywhere.

Re. orders of protection:  bio mom said herself that she returned to him over and over.  And for what?  Sex and drugs?  The kids?  She leaves a man over and over because she's afraid of him, but leaves her helpless little lambs w/him? 

I'm not sure why you are throwing in with bio mom and frankly I don't care.  I'm only responding to you because I think some of your speculation is along the lines of Geraldos and I in good conscience cannot let that go unchallenged since you (and Geraldo) have yet to put forth hard evidence that bio dad is the monster you are attempting to define.

And one other thing:  of course no "monkeys" looked askance at your opinions 'bout other cases since it appears you are a new poster--unless you've posted in the past under another appelation of course 
.

Live well.

Foggy

Rana, I don't give a blankety-blank about what Geraldo or Greg Rivera say.  Many of their sources are unamed, so they can take a long walk off a short pier as far as I'm concerned.

There is a record of a domestic violence injunction violation and that's what I was referring to. I believe it was Islandmonkey who posted the link a couple of pages back. I don't know about the Brothers Rivera and their reports on other cases. I was referring to this specific one.

  Re. orders of protection:  bio mom said herself that she returned to him over and over.  And for what?  Sex and drugs?  The kids?  She leaves a man over and over because she's afraid of him, but leaves her helpless little lambs w/him? 

It's not unusual for a woman to go to back a man more than once before she finally has the fortitude, courage, strength - whatever the word you want to call it  - to leave him.

I'm not sure why you are throwing in with bio mom and frankly I don't care.  I'm only responding to you because I think some of your speculation is along the lines of Geraldos and I in good conscience cannot let that go unchallenged since you (and Geraldo) have yet to put forth hard evidence that bio dad is the monster you are attempting to define.

I didn't need to "put forth hard eveidence" for you since I was merely commenting on what has already transpired. I believe I'm allowed to comment on observations and impressions I have even if they happen to be incongruent with yours. And I don't recall defining anyone as a "monster." You may direct me to the post to remind me though.

And one other thing:  of course no "monkeys" looked askance at your opinions 'bout other cases since it appears you are a new poster--unless you've posted in the past under another appelation of course 

I don't know what you mean about "...no 'monkeys' looked askance at your opinions 'bout other cases."

As for other "appelations," I don't have any. I'm new here and have felt very welcomed.


Logged
fatcatlurker
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 3883



« Reply #1032 on: February 24, 2009, 12:21:04 AM »

Even the psychic's want Haleigh to be found ok.

http://www.examiner.com/x-1168-Crime-Examiner~y2009m2d23-Psychic-believes-Haleigh-will-be-found-alive-and-well
Logged
Foggy Dew
Monkey Junky Jr.
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 701



« Reply #1033 on: February 24, 2009, 12:22:37 AM »

This is "prolly" nothing, but I'll ask it anyway. Does anyone find it odd that Ron is in a tent, or rather - now a camper, and not at his mom's multi bedroom home or some other friend or relative's house? It seems there's a reason and it doesn't strike me that the reason is that he's too emotionally tied to the exact area, the ground to leave.  I almost -  in the back burner of my foggy head - wonder if she's out there, close, and he's afraid to leave. IOW, if he leaves and he's somewhere else he'll be going crazy wondering if someone is getting "close" to finding her. This way he's there and knows where folks are and aren't.

Just recalling that Caylee was very close and wasn't found til... well... either Aug or Dec depending on how you regard the meter reader. Jon Benet was super super close (the basement) but she wasn't found exactly immediately. There are others. I hope she's alive, but what's the likely scenario for her being alive? That a ped took her and hasn't killed her yet? A horrible thought. That someone took her and sold her? Another horrible thought.

 Just thinking out loud.

Then there's that Occam's razor... the principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. IOW, whatever the simplest explanation is, is likely the correct one.

The intruder theory leaves too many things to chance for me and the flags go up for many weird things. The cinderblock propping, the turning on of the light, the leaving the door open, the NOT closing of the door upon seeing it "wide open," the not freaking out and thinking OMG could intuder still be here? Could be coming back let me lock the door, let me run grab BOTH kids oops one is missing but she seemed to know that it was Haleigh right off and not Jr. (from the blanket clip)

Then there's the past tense, "loved her" the "child's life back" comment and others,  the temper, the name calling, the anger, the over the top tears and angst, the short temper with reporters,  the flatout denial of true provable things, the history with LE and child services, the drug issues, the clearly enabling grandmother,.... on and on...



Myself, I'm not comfortable w/trying/convicting him before a variety of inconsistencies have been cleared up or evidence emerges. 

Also, when he said he'd look for her until ...blah, blah, blah I took it as a sentence he didn't finish because it was too repulsive a thought to be spoken aloud and he caught himself.

As re. the talk of abuse:  plenty of people are verbally abusive but never lift a hand to a spouse/live-in/child.  I still haven't seen evidence that he punched anyone out, let alone his daughter.  If you have evidence, I'd welcome seeing what so many of you all percieve.

I agree w/some things any number of posters have stated.  But imho, suggesting that he hauled his baby girl to some bridge (and did what?) 'cause he's a crane operator is more than a bit premature and in my mind not a whole lot different than what GR did to Ronald Cummings on that inflammatory and obviously biased broadcast.

Don't get me wrong--I'm more than a bit concerned about the whole mess.  I could go on and on about what I think about the personalities involved (and will ), but this is not a Caylee case where one person had a documented history of deception etc., not to mention her grandmothers call to 911 that sad, sad day.

I know this is a place where folks hash out their ideas and suspcions.  I just think its early days yet to throw RC (the dad) under the bus--though I absolutely agree that in light of the lax supervision of his daughter, he fell way short of the mark and may well regret that lapse in judgement for the rest of his life. 

Foggy

About the verbal abuse and physical abuse correlation, I agree; Some people can be verbally abusive without being physically abusive. However, I don't think it's an impossible leap in logic for me to fathom or consider that a man who strikes a woman could possibly strike a child.   

Last night Craig Rivera mentioned a document (I'll look for a link) regarding Ron's violation of  an injunction for protection. Crystal had filed an injunction, but then dropped the charges which is not unheard of in cases with spouses/girlfriends. Of course, Craig Rivera could be lying on air, but that seems foolish since it's something that can be verified. Also, I realize that it's possible that Crystal could have filed a false claim against Ron; so I guess that goes to... do I believe her when I watch her talk about it. Yes, I believe her when she says Ron hit her. It's just an opinion of my impression of her. Additionally, Ron's threats, his temper, and Misty's fear are palpable IMO. Misty could be terrified of TV, but I get a different vibe from her that she's afraid of Ron in particular. That's just my take on it.


Rana, I don't give a blankety-blank about what Geraldo or Greg Rivera say.  Many of their sources are unamed, so they can take a long walk off a short pier as far as I'm concerned.

Yet they don't mind putting the bereft young man's feet to the fire on nat'l tv.  Calling them bottom feeders is an insult to catfish et al everywhere.

Re. orders of protection:  bio mom said herself that she returned to him over and over.  And for what?  Sex and drugs?  The kids?  She leaves a man over and over because she's afraid of him, but leaves her helpless little lambs w/him? 

I'm not sure why you are throwing in with bio mom and frankly I don't care.  I'm only responding to you because I think some of your speculation is along the lines of Geraldos and I in good conscience cannot let that go unchallenged since you (and Geraldo) have yet to put forth hard evidence that bio dad is the monster you are attempting to define.

And one other thing:  of course no "monkeys" looked askance at your opinions 'bout other cases since it appears you are a new poster--unless you've posted in the past under another appelation of course 
.


Live well.

Foggy [/color]


HUH? We were all new posters once .....I have been reading since the NH case and only started posting since the Caylee Marie case. I don't really see anything suspicous about a new poster, but maybe that's just me


Call me suspicious if you want--but it has less to do w/being a new poster (as am I) and more w/the repetive recounting of much unsubstantiated "evidence".  Speculation is one thing, but perpetuation of bull when one has cooincidentally decided to post is a little concerning to me. 

Sorry if I think what she has posted is prejudicial and not necessarily based in fact.   I also find it remarkable that all the postings on the heels of this recent child's disappearance are so tilted against the bio dad.

I'm merely suggesting that folks take everything they hear/read w/a grain of salt. 

I can't recall who posted that they sensed a lynch mob mentality about this whole mess, but I totally agree.

...still praying that Miss Haleigh comes home safe and sound... 

Foggy
[/clor] 

Logged
islandmonkey
Monkey All Star
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10379


HaLeigh~you are loved and in God's loving arms


« Reply #1034 on: February 24, 2009, 12:29:49 AM »

This is "prolly" nothing, but I'll ask it anyway. Does anyone find it odd that Ron is in a tent, or rather - now a camper, and not at his mom's multi bedroom home or some other friend or relative's house? It seems there's a reason and it doesn't strike me that the reason is that he's too emotionally tied to the exact area, the ground to leave.  I almost -  in the back burner of my foggy head - wonder if she's out there, close, and he's afraid to leave. IOW, if he leaves and he's somewhere else he'll be going crazy wondering if someone is getting "close" to finding her. This way he's there and knows where folks are and aren't.

Just recalling that Caylee was very close and wasn't found til... well... either Aug or Dec depending on how you regard the meter reader. Jon Benet was super super close (the basement) but she wasn't found exactly immediately. There are others. I hope she's alive, but what's the likely scenario for her being alive? That a ped took her and hasn't killed her yet? A horrible thought. That someone took her and sold her? Another horrible thought.

 Just thinking out loud.

Then there's that Occam's razor... the principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. IOW, whatever the simplest explanation is, is likely the correct one.

The intruder theory leaves too many things to chance for me and the flags go up for many weird things. The cinderblock propping, the turning on of the light, the leaving the door open, the NOT closing of the door upon seeing it "wide open," the not freaking out and thinking OMG could intuder still be here? Could be coming back let me lock the door, let me run grab BOTH kids oops one is missing but she seemed to know that it was Haleigh right off and not Jr. (from the blanket clip)

Then there's the past tense, "loved her" the "child's life back" comment and others,  the temper, the name calling, the anger, the over the top tears and angst, the short temper with reporters,  the flatout denial of true provable things, the history with LE and child services, the drug issues, the clearly enabling grandmother,.... on and on...



Myself, I'm not comfortable w/trying/convicting him before a variety of inconsistencies have been cleared up or evidence emerges. 

Also, when he said he'd look for her until ...blah, blah, blah I took it as a sentence he didn't finish because it was too repulsive a thought to be spoken aloud and he caught himself.

As re. the talk of abuse:  plenty of people are verbally abusive but never lift a hand to a spouse/live-in/child.  I still haven't seen evidence that he punched anyone out, let alone his daughter.  If you have evidence, I'd welcome seeing what so many of you all percieve.

I agree w/some things any number of posters have stated.  But imho, suggesting that he hauled his baby girl to some bridge (and did what?) 'cause he's a crane operator is more than a bit premature and in my mind not a whole lot different than what GR did to Ronald Cummings on that inflammatory and obviously biased broadcast.

Don't get me wrong--I'm more than a bit concerned about the whole mess.  I could go on and on about what I think about the personalities involved (and will ), but this is not a Caylee case where one person had a documented history of deception etc., not to mention her grandmothers call to 911 that sad, sad day.

I know this is a place where folks hash out their ideas and suspcions.  I just think its early days yet to throw RC (the dad) under the bus--though I absolutely agree that in light of the lax supervision of his daughter, he fell way short of the mark and may well regret that lapse in judgement for the rest of his life. 

Foggy

About the verbal abuse and physical abuse correlation, I agree; Some people can be verbally abusive without being physically abusive. However, I don't think it's an impossible leap in logic for me to fathom or consider that a man who strikes a woman could possibly strike a child.   

Last night Craig Rivera mentioned a document (I'll look for a link) regarding Ron's violation of  an injunction for protection. Crystal had filed an injunction, but then dropped the charges which is not unheard of in cases with spouses/girlfriends. Of course, Craig Rivera could be lying on air, but that seems foolish since it's something that can be verified. Also, I realize that it's possible that Crystal could have filed a false claim against Ron; so I guess that goes to... do I believe her when I watch her talk about it. Yes, I believe her when she says Ron hit her. It's just an opinion of my impression of her. Additionally, Ron's threats, his temper, and Misty's fear are palpable IMO. Misty could be terrified of TV, but I get a different vibe from her that she's afraid of Ron in particular. That's just my take on it.


Rana, I don't give a blankety-blank about what Geraldo or Greg Rivera say.  Many of their sources are unamed, so they can take a long walk off a short pier as far as I'm concerned.

Yet they don't mind putting the bereft young man's feet to the fire on nat'l tv.  Calling them bottom feeders is an insult to catfish et al everywhere.

Re. orders of protection:  bio mom said herself that she returned to him over and over.  And for what?  Sex and drugs?  The kids?  She leaves a man over and over because she's afraid of him, but leaves her helpless little lambs w/him? 

I'm not sure why you are throwing in with bio mom and frankly I don't care.  I'm only responding to you because I think some of your speculation is along the lines of Geraldos and I in good conscience cannot let that go unchallenged since you (and Geraldo) have yet to put forth hard evidence that bio dad is the monster you are attempting to define.

And one other thing:  of course no "monkeys" looked askance at your opinions 'bout other cases since it appears you are a new poster--unless you've posted in the past under another appelation of course 
.


Live well.

Foggy [/color]


HUH? We were all new posters once .....I have been reading since the NH case and only started posting since the Caylee Marie case. I don't really see anything suspicous about a new poster, but maybe that's just me


Call me suspicious if you want--but it has less to do w/being a new poster (as am I) and more w/the repetive recounting of much unsubstantiated "evidence".  Speculation is one thing, but perpetuation of bull when one has cooincidentally decided to post is a little concerning to me. 

Sorry if I think what she has posted is prejudicial and not necessarily based in fact.   I also find it remarkable that all the postings on the heels of this recent child's disappearance are so tilted against the bio dad.

I'm merely suggesting that folks take everything they hear/read w/a grain of salt. 

I can't recall who posted that they sensed a lynch mob mentality about this whole mess, but I totally agree.

...still praying that Miss Haleigh comes home safe and sound... 

Foggy
[/clor] 



I do, while I like to theorize and speculate I did provide the links to all the charges from Putnam and Sarasota counties.....there were numerous drug charges,including dealing from a vehicle, morphine, herion, mary jane and opium and GHB (date rape drug), leaving the scene of an accident involving injuries and a domestic violence charge.....I also looked in more than 8 counties for records on CS, and only came up with 2, neither were drug related (not that it means anything), and the other an unpaid traffic ticket. Those allegations were substantitated. I'll provide the link and entirety of it if you wish. I also know many who have posted the past couple of days are survivors of domestic violence and they offer insight IMO.
Logged

"If two theories explain the facts equally well then the simpler theory is to be preferred''
[
Jerseygirl345
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 4752



« Reply #1035 on: February 24, 2009, 12:33:46 AM »

Geeze....

Everyone is entitled to an oppinion and speculations.. The red flags with all the

inconsistancies with Ron and Misty has me wondering what the heck really happened

that evening.. Ron's anger and foul mouth. The mobile is still taped off..
Logged
fatcatlurker
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 3883



« Reply #1036 on: February 24, 2009, 12:36:06 AM »

Interesting speculation from another web blog on Haleigh:

Haliegh wouldnt have been afraid to go to the clothes basket because the kitchen light was on, which is right by the door and the basket.and as i have aid before.. i believe the person that took her put the light on so they could see Haliegh come near the door to snatch her.

OMG! i just thought of this. and it makes alot of sence. the light was put on in the kitchen so that Haliegh WOULDNT be afraid in the dark and so that she would be seen by the person that took her, i think they were in the woods watching for her in to come by the door OR right near the door and took her when she was putting her pink top in the basket, if this is how it all happened then i would say it HAS to be someone that KNOWS she is afraid of the dark and knew she has changed her clothes and put them in the clothes basket before. What do ya'll think about my therory??? of course all this is just MO.
Logged
rana
Monkey Junky Jr.
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 872


« Reply #1037 on: February 24, 2009, 12:38:00 AM »

HUH? We were all new posters once .....I have been reading since the NH case and only started posting since the Caylee Marie case. I don't really see anything suspicous about a new poster, but maybe that's just me


Call me suspicious if you want--but it has less to do w/being a new poster (as am I) and more w/the repetive recounting of much unsubstantiated "evidence".  Speculation is one thing, but perpetuation of bull when one has cooincidentally decided to post is a little concerning to me. 

Sorry if I think what she has posted is prejudicial and not necessarily based in fact.   I also find it remarkable that all the postings on the heels of this recent child's disappearance are so tilted against the bio dad.

I'm merely suggesting that folks take everything they hear/read w/a grain of salt. 

I can't recall who posted that they sensed a lynch mob mentality about this whole mess, but I totally agree.

...still praying that Miss Haleigh comes home safe and sound... 

Foggy


FoggyDew, I wouldn't call your opinions "bull"  if I disagreed with them.

I don't believe Ron is being truthful. That is an opinion.

Also, were you not ever "new" here? How else does one participate without first being "new?"

So you say that I'm being repetitive?


......said the desert to the grain of sand.





Logged
islandmonkey
Monkey All Star
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10379


HaLeigh~you are loved and in God's loving arms


« Reply #1038 on: February 24, 2009, 12:40:08 AM »

Sarasota County:

Defendant Name: CUMMINGS RONALD L
Date of Birth: 10/29/1983
Case Number: 2005 CF 017999 NC
Uniform Case Number: 582005CF0179990001NC
Clerk Filing Date: 9/29/2005
Defense Attorney: PUBLIC DEFENDER 
Judge:   


Scheduled Court Appearance(s):
Date Time Location Description


Charges:
Statute Code General Offense Character Statute Description Disposition Date Disposition
893.13(6A) Principal DRUGS POSSESS-CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE WITHOUT PRESCRIPTION 10/18/2005 Dropped/Abandoned
893.13(6A) Principal DRUGS POSSESS-CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE WITHOUT PRESCRIPTION 10/18/2005 Dropped/Abandoned
893.147(1) Principal NARCOTIC EQUIP POSSESS-AND OR USE 10/18/2005 Dropped/Abandoned
741.31 Principal VIOL INJUNCTION PROTECTION DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 10/18/2005 Dropped/Abandoned
499.03 Principal DRUGS-POSSESS NEW LEGEND DRUG WO PRESCRIPTION 10/18/2005 Dropped/Abandoned


Docket Information:
Date Description Pages Image
10/27/2005 COURT EVENT CANCELLED The following event: CRIMINAL - ARRAIGNMENT FELONY scheduled for 11/04/2005 at 9:00 am has been resulted as follows: Result: CANCELLED (Criminal) 0 None
10/27/2005 Payment of Court Cost 0 None
10/19/2005 ARREST BOND RECORD CREATED Ref: Bond/Pwr No.: 2005AA079210 Initial Charge #: 1 Initial Action Code: POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE(MORPHINE) Prosecutor Count #: 1 Prosecutor Action Code: POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE(MORPHINE) Bonding Co.: AA LARAZA BAIL BONDS Bond Amount: $5000 The following field(s) on arrest bond 1 have been modified: New Bond Status Added: BOND RELEASED New Bond Status Date Added: 10/18/2005  0 None
10/18/2005 NOTICE OF CASE DISPOSITION/ACTION-DECLINED 1 Image
10/5/2005 ARREST BOND RECORD CREATED Arrest Bond Added to Case with: Arrest Date: 09/26/2005 Initial Charge #: 1 Initial Action Code: POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE(MORPHINE) Prosecutor Count #: Prosecutor Action Code: Custody Location: Bond Status: Posted Status Date: 09/28/2005 Bond Type: Surety Bond/Pwr No.: 2005AA079210 Bond Amount: $5000 Bonding Co.: AA LARAZA BAIL BONDS Cash Depositor:  0 None
10/3/2005 Court Event Set Event: CRIMINAL - ARRAIGNMENT FELONY Date: 11/04/2005 Time: 9:00 am Judge: ROBERTS, CHARLES E Location: Courtroom 3-A Result: CANCELLED (Criminal) 0 None
9/29/2005 ADVISORY HEARING BOND 2 Image
9/29/2005 COPY OF DRIVERS LICENSE 1 Image
9/29/2005 EVIDENCE / PROPERTY RECEIPT 10 Image
9/29/2005 REPORT 2 Image
9/29/2005 PROBABLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT (FHPF05OFF062270) 17 Image
9/29/2005 NOTICE TO APPEAR - CRIMINAL 1 Image
9/28/2005 INVOCATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 1 Image
9/28/2005 INDIGENCY CIRCUIT CASE APPROVED Receipt: 422546 Date: 10/27/ 1 Image
9/28/2005 BOND - PAPER POWER # 2005-AA-07 3 Image
9/28/2005 DECISION TO DECLINE TO APPLY FOR THE SERVICES OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER 1 Image



PUTNAM COUNTY:

Details:

UCN: 542007MM004677XXAXMX
File Date: 2007-11-14 Judge: PETER T MILLER   
Defense Atty: 

Defendant
CUMMINGS, RONALD LEMYLES 
Alias


Date # Docket Description
2007-11-14 1 WILDLIFE CITATION - #132466-C GFFC/ EASON 11-02-07 

2007-11-14 1 POSSESSION OF MODERN FIREARM DURING MUZZLELOADING 

2007-11-14 1 SEASON 

2007-11-14 1 TRESPASS 

2007-11-14 2 NOTICE TO DEFENDANT (12-18-2007) 

2007-11-29 3 NOTICE RETURNED UNEXECUTED 

2007-11-29 4 NOTICE TO DEFENDANT (12/18/2007)CORRECT ADDRESS 

2007-12-18 5 ARR MIN: DEFT PRES IN COURT WAIVING RIGHT TO COUNSEL 

2007-12-18 5 ARR ENT PLEA OF NOLO CONTENDERE TO CT I - POSS OF 

2007-12-18 5 MODERN FIREARM DURING MUZZELOADING SEASON - CT II - 

2007-12-18 5 TRESPASS - NOLLE PROSEQUI - DEFT SWORN, PLEA ACCEPTED 

2007-12-18 5 DEFENDANT ADJUDGED GUILTY 

2007-12-18 5 $273.00 FINE AND COST SUSPENDED 

2007-12-18 5 24 HOURS HOUSE ARREST 

2007-12-18 6 WAIVER OF COUNSEL 

2007-12-18 7 WRITTEN PLEA OF GUILTY OR NOLO CONTENDERE TO 

2007-12-18 7 CRIMINAL CHARGES IN COUNTY COURT 

2008-01-08 8 JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE CT I 


Details:

UCN: 542007MM001480XXAXMX
File Date: 2007-04-03 Judge: PETER T MILLER   
Defense Atty: BRUNTON, MACK 

Defendant
CUMMINGS, RONALD LEMYLES 
Alias


Date # Docket Description
2007-04-03 1 COMPLAINT FILED: PCSO/ WALTER 04-02-07 

2007-04-03 1 AFFRAY 

2007-04-23 2 INFORMATION (AFFRAY) 

2007-04-23 3 NOTICE TO DEFENDANT (05/10/2007)CERTIFIED 

2007-05-10 4 ARRAIGNMENT MINUTES: COURT ORDERED CASE CONTINUED 

2007-05-10 4 TO NEXT ARRAIGNMENT 06/12/2007 

2007-05-10 5 NOTICE TO DEFENDANT (06-12-2007) 

2007-05-18 6 NOTICE RETURNED UNEXECUTED - UNCLAIMED 

2007-06-12 7 ARRAIGNMENT MINUTES: COURT ORDERED CASE CONTINUED 

2007-06-12 7 TO NEXT ARRAIGNMENT 07/12/2007 

2007-06-12 8 NOTICE TO DEFENDANT (07-12-2007) 

2007-06-14 9 NOTICE TO DEFENDANT (07-12-2007) IN OFFICE 

2007-07-12 10 ARR MIN: DEFT PRES, ADJ INS P D APPT MACK BRUNTON 

2007-07-12 10 ARR ENT PLEA OF NOT GUILTY - PRE TRIAL SET 08/22/2007 

2007-07-12 11 AFFIDAVIT OF INDIGENT STATUS 

2007-07-12 11 DEFENDANT ADJUDGED INDIGENT 

2007-07-12 11 $40.00 APPLICATION FEE IMPOSED 

2007-07-12 12 ORDER APPOINTING PUBLIC DEFENDER 

2007-07-12 13 PRE-TRIAL ORDER (08-22-2007) 

2007-08-22 14 PRE TRIAL MINUTES: DEFT PRES, ATT BY MACK BRUNTON 

2007-08-22 14 ON MOTION OF DEFENSE COUNSEL, COURT ORDERED CASE 

2007-08-22 14 CONTINUED TO 09/19/2007 

2007-08-22 15 NOTICE TO DEFENDANT (09-19-2007) IN COURT 

2007-09-19 16 PRE TRIAL MINUTES: DEFERRED PROSECUTION AGREEMENT FILED 

2007-09-19 16 AND ACCEPTED 

2007-09-19 17 DEFERRED PROSECUTION AGREEMENT 

2007-09-19 17 10 HOURS COMMUNITY SERVICE 

2007-09-19 17 $50.00 COST OF PROSECUTION 

2007-09-28 18 MEMO FROM HRDS: DEFT COMPLETED THE CONDITIONS OF HIS 

2007-09-28 18 PRE-TRIAL DIVERSION PROGRAM 

2007-10-18 19 NOTICE OF SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF DEFERRED 

2007-10-18 19 PROSECUTION AGREEMENT 

2007-11-28 20 $100.00 PAYMENT MADE TO CASE 09/18/2007 


Details:

UCN: 542006MM005654XXAXMX
File Date: 2006-12-19 Judge: PETER T MILLER   
Defense Atty: 

Defendant
CUMMINGS, RONALD LEMYLES 
Alias


Date # Docket Description
2006-11-14 1 TRAFFIC CITATION - #6417EEN-3 PCSO/ MANNING 10-30-06 

2006-11-14 1 LEAVING THE SCENE OF AN ACCIDENT 

2006-12-12 2 MOTION TO TRANSFER CASE TO COUNTY COURT 

2006-12-19 3 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO TRANSFER CASE TO COUNTY COURT 

2006-12-19 3 FROM CIRCUIT COURT 06-002339-CF53 

2006-12-19 4 NOTICE TO DEFENDANT (01-23-2007) 

2007-01-02 5 NOTICE RETURNED UNEXECUTED - NO SUCH NUMBER 

2007-01-05 6 NOTICE TO DEFENDANT (01-23-2007) 

2007-01-12 7 NOTICE RETURNED UNEXECUTED - NO SUCH NUMBER 

2007-01-23 8 ARRAIGNMENT MINUTES: DEFT NOT PRESENT IN COURT 

2007-01-23 8 COURT ORDERED CAPIAS 

2007-01-23 8 BOND SET AT $1004 FIRM 

2007-01-23 9 CAPIAS ISSUED - BOND SET AT $1004 FIRM 

2007-01-25 10 CAPIAS RECALLED - CASE SET FOR ARRAIGNMENT 02/06/2007 

2007-01-25 10 NOTICE TO DEFENDANT (02-06-2007) IN OFFICE 

2007-01-25 11 CHANGE OF ADDRESS 

2007-01-26 12 CAPIAS RETURNED 

2007-02-06 13 ARRAIGNMENT MINUTES: ON MOTION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA THE 

2007-02-06 13 THE CASE WAS ORDERED NOLLE PROSEQUI IN OPEN COURT 

2007-02-06 13 INFRACTION DISMISSED CIT # 6416EEN2 - CARELESS DRIVING 

2007-02-06 13 INFRACTION DISMISSED CIT # 6418EEN4 - OPERATE ATV 

2007-02-06 13 W/O HELMET 

2007-02-06 14 WAIVER OF COUNSEL 


Details:

UCN: 542006MM005654XXAXMX
File Date: 2006-12-19 Judge: PETER T MILLER   
Defense Atty: 

Defendant
CUMMINGS, RONALD LEMYLES 
Alias


Date # Docket Description
2006-11-14 1 TRAFFIC CITATION - #6417EEN-3 PCSO/ MANNING 10-30-06 

2006-11-14 1 LEAVING THE SCENE OF AN ACCIDENT 

2006-12-12 2 MOTION TO TRANSFER CASE TO COUNTY COURT 

2006-12-19 3 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO TRANSFER CASE TO COUNTY COURT 

2006-12-19 3 FROM CIRCUIT COURT 06-002339-CF53 

2006-12-19 4 NOTICE TO DEFENDANT (01-23-2007) 

2007-01-02 5 NOTICE RETURNED UNEXECUTED - NO SUCH NUMBER 

2007-01-05 6 NOTICE TO DEFENDANT (01-23-2007) 

2007-01-12 7 NOTICE RETURNED UNEXECUTED - NO SUCH NUMBER 

2007-01-23 8 ARRAIGNMENT MINUTES: DEFT NOT PRESENT IN COURT 

2007-01-23 8 COURT ORDERED CAPIAS 

2007-01-23 8 BOND SET AT $1004 FIRM 

2007-01-23 9 CAPIAS ISSUED - BOND SET AT $1004 FIRM 

2007-01-25 10 CAPIAS RECALLED - CASE SET FOR ARRAIGNMENT 02/06/2007 

2007-01-25 10 NOTICE TO DEFENDANT (02-06-2007) IN OFFICE 

2007-01-25 11 CHANGE OF ADDRESS 

2007-01-26 12 CAPIAS RETURNED 

2007-02-06 13 ARRAIGNMENT MINUTES: ON MOTION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA THE 

2007-02-06 13 THE CASE WAS ORDERED NOLLE PROSEQUI IN OPEN COURT 

2007-02-06 13 INFRACTION DISMISSED CIT # 6416EEN2 - CARELESS DRIVING 

2007-02-06 13 INFRACTION DISMISSED CIT # 6418EEN4 - OPERATE ATV 

2007-02-06 13 W/O HELMET 

2007-02-06 14 WAIVER OF COUNSEL 

Details:

UCN: 542006MM005654XXAXMX
File Date: 2006-12-19 Judge: PETER T MILLER   
Defense Atty: 

Defendant
CUMMINGS, RONALD LEMYLES 
Alias


Date # Docket Description
2006-11-14 1 TRAFFIC CITATION - #6417EEN-3 PCSO/ MANNING 10-30-06 

2006-11-14 1 LEAVING THE SCENE OF AN ACCIDENT 

2006-12-12 2 MOTION TO TRANSFER CASE TO COUNTY COURT 

2006-12-19 3 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO TRANSFER CASE TO COUNTY COURT 

2006-12-19 3 FROM CIRCUIT COURT 06-002339-CF53 

2006-12-19 4 NOTICE TO DEFENDANT (01-23-2007) 

2007-01-02 5 NOTICE RETURNED UNEXECUTED - NO SUCH NUMBER 

2007-01-05 6 NOTICE TO DEFENDANT (01-23-2007) 

2007-01-12 7 NOTICE RETURNED UNEXECUTED - NO SUCH NUMBER 

2007-01-23 8 ARRAIGNMENT MINUTES: DEFT NOT PRESENT IN COURT 

2007-01-23 8 COURT ORDERED CAPIAS 

2007-01-23 8 BOND SET AT $1004 FIRM 

2007-01-23 9 CAPIAS ISSUED - BOND SET AT $1004 FIRM 

2007-01-25 10 CAPIAS RECALLED - CASE SET FOR ARRAIGNMENT 02/06/2007 

2007-01-25 10 NOTICE TO DEFENDANT (02-06-2007) IN OFFICE 

2007-01-25 11 CHANGE OF ADDRESS 

2007-01-26 12 CAPIAS RETURNED 

2007-02-06 13 ARRAIGNMENT MINUTES: ON MOTION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA THE 

2007-02-06 13 THE CASE WAS ORDERED NOLLE PROSEQUI IN OPEN COURT 

2007-02-06 13 INFRACTION DISMISSED CIT # 6416EEN2 - CARELESS DRIVING 

2007-02-06 13 INFRACTION DISMISSED CIT # 6418EEN4 - OPERATE ATV 

2007-02-06 13 W/O HELMET 

2007-02-06 14 WAIVER OF COUNSEL 



Details:

UCN: 542006MM003417XXAXMX
File Date: 2006-08-01 Judge: PETER T MILLER   
Defense Atty: BRUNTON, MACK 

Defendant
CUMMINGS, RONALD LEMYLES 
Alias


Date # Docket Description
2006-08-01 1 ARREST REPORT - PCSO/ MAY (ARREST 07-29-2006) 

2006-08-01 1 TRESPASS 

2006-08-01 2 AFFIDAVIT OF INSOLVENCY 

2006-08-01 3 $504.00 CHUCK'S BAIL BOND POSTED - #00601638 07-29-06 

2006-08-11 4 INFORMATION (TRESPASS) 

2006-08-11 5 NOTICE TO BONDSMAN (08/31/2006) 

2006-08-31 6 ARR MIN: DEFT PRES, ADJ INS P D APPT MACK BRUNTON 

2006-08-31 6 ARR ENT PLEA OF NOT GUILTY - PRE TRIAL SET 10/04/2006 

2006-08-31 7 AFFIDAVIT OF INDIGENT STATUS 

2006-08-31 7 DEFENDANT ADJUDGED INDIGENT 

2006-08-31 7 $40.00 APPLICATION FEE IMPOSED 

2006-08-31 8 ORDER APPOINTING PUBLIC DEFENDER 

2006-08-31 9 PRE-TRIAL ORDER (10-04-2006) 

2006-09-06 10 NOTICE TO BONDSMAN (10-04-2006) 

2006-10-04 11 PRE TRIAL MINUTES: DEFT PRES, ATT BY MACK BRUNTON 

2006-10-04 11 STATE AND DEFENSE ANNOUNCED READY FOR TRIAL 

2006-10-04 11 CASE SET FOR NON JURY TRIAL 10/30/2006 

2006-10-04 12 WAIVER OF JURY TRIAL 

2006-10-04 13 NOTICE TO DEFENDANT (10-30-2006) 

2006-10-06 14 NOTICE TO BONDSMAN (10-30-2006) 

2006-10-10 15 STATE ATTORNEY WITNESS SUBPOENA ISSUED: 

2006-10-10 15 WILLIAM P MORRIS 

2006-10-10 16 STATE ATTORNEY WITNESS SUBPOENA ISSUED: 

2006-10-10 16 DS JOHN MAY 

2006-10-16 17 STATE ATTORNEY WITNESS SUBPOENA RETURNED SERVED: 

2006-10-16 17 WILLIAM P MORRIS 

2006-10-16 18 STATE ATTORNEY WITNESS SUBPOENA RETURNED SERVED: 

2006-10-16 18 DS JOHN MAY 

2006-10-16 20 STATE ATTORNEY WITNESS SUBPOENA RETURNED SERVED: 

2006-10-16 19 MS. TAMMY PINKNEY 

2006-10-26 21 AMENDED INFO (TRESPASS ON PROPERTY OTHER THAN A 

2006-10-26 21 STRUCTURE OR CONVEYANCE) 

2006-10-30 22 TRIAL MINUTES: DEFT PRES ATT BY MACK BRUNTON 

2006-10-30 22 FOR NON JURY TRIAL- STATE REP BY DAVID HOLLANDER 

2006-10-30 22 DEFT W-DREW FORMER PLEA - ENT PLEA OF NOLO CONTENDERE 

2006-10-30 22 TO TRESPASS, DEFT SWORN, PLEA ACCEPTED, 

2006-10-30 22 ADJUDGED GUILTY 

2006-10-30 22 PROB HRDS 6 MONTHS 

2006-10-30 22 1 DAY PCJ WITH CREDIT FOR TIME SERVED OF 1 DAY 

2006-10-30 22 $273.00 FINE AND COST 

2006-10-30 22 $ 40.00 PD FEE SUSPENDED 

2006-10-30 22 RANDOM DRUG TEST 

2006-10-30 23 WRITTEN PLEA OF GUILTY OR NOLO CONTENDERE TO 

2006-10-30 23 CRIMINAL CHARGES IN COUNTY COURT 

2006-10-30 24 ORDER OF PROBATION 

2007-01-17 25 $ 60.00 FINE AND COST PAYMENT 11/14/2006 

2007-02-07 26 SUCCESSFUL TERMINATION OF PROBATION 

2007-02-14 27 $120.00 FINE AND COST PAYMENT 12/28/2006 

2007-03-16 28 $ 93.00 FINE AND COST BAL PAID 01/25/2007 


Details:

UCN: 542006CF002339XXAXMX
File Date: 2006-11-14 Judge: A W NICHOLS III   
Defense Atty: 

Defendant
CUMMINGS, RONALD LEMYLES 
Alias


Date # Docket Description
2006-11-14 1 TRAFFIC CITATION - #6417-EEN 3 PCSO OFF/MANNING 

2006-11-14 1 LEAVING THE SCENE OF ACCIDENT INVOLVING INJURIES 

2006-12-12 2 MOTION TO TRANSFER CASE TO COUNTY COURT 

2006-12-19 3 ORDER TO TRANSFER CASE TO COUNTY COURT 


Details:

UCN: 542004CF002063XXAXMX
File Date: 2004-11-16 Judge: A W NICHOLS III   
Defense Atty: FELICIANO, SHARON 

Defendant
CUMMINGS, RONALD LEMYLES 
Alias


Date # Docket Description
2004-11-16 1 ARREST REPORT - PCSO EDGAR (ARREST 11/12/04) 

2004-11-16 1 POSSESSION OF CANNABIS IN EXCESS OF 20 GRAMS 

2004-11-16 1 POSSESSION OF DRUG PARAPHERNALIA 

2004-11-16 1 MAINTAINING A DRUG VEHICLE 

2004-11-16 2 DEFENDANT PRESENT FOR FIRST APPEARANCE HEARING 11/13/04 

2004-11-16 2 ADJ INS P D APPOINTED FOR FIRST APPEARANCE ONLY 

2004-11-16 2 SUFFICIENT PROBABLE CAUSE FOUND 

2004-11-16 2 $2012.00 UNSECURED BOND SET 11/13/04 

2004-11-16 3 TRAFFIC CITATION - #7877-DBJ 2 

2004-11-16 4 AFFIDAVIT OF INSOLVENCY 

2004-11-16 5 ORDER APPOINTING PUBLIC DEFENDER FOR 1ST APP HEARING 

2004-11-16 6 APPEARANCE BOND - UNSECURED $ 2,012 

2004-12-03 7 INFORMATION (CT 1-POSSESSION OF CANNABIS IN EXCESS 

2004-12-03 7 OF 20 GRAMS) 

2004-12-07 8 NOTICE TO DEFENDANT (01-07-2005) 

2005-01-07 9 ARRAIGNMENT MINUTES: DEFT PRESENT, SWORN, ARRAIGNED, 

2005-01-07 9 PUBLIC DEFENDER APPOINTED, ENTERED PLEA OF NOT GUILTY, 

2005-01-07 9 SET FOR PRE TRIAL 02/03/2005. 

2005-01-07 10 AFFIDAVIT OF INDIGENT STATUS 

2005-01-07 10 DEFENDANT ADJUDGED INDIGENT 

2005-01-07 10 $40.00 APPLICATION FEE IMPOSED 

2005-01-07 11 ORDER APPOINTING PUBLIC DEFENDER 

2005-01-07 12 ORDER SETTING PRE TRIAL 02/03/2005 

2005-01-07 13 NOTICE GIVEN TO DEFENDANT IN COURT FOR NEXT COURT DATE 

2005-01-10 14 NOTICE TO DEFENDANT (02-03-2005) 

2005-01-18 15 DRUG COURT HEARING MINUTES: DEFT PRESENT, ATT BY KURT 

2005-01-18 15 TEIFKE, COURT DIRECTED DEFENDANT MAKE AND KEEP 

2005-01-18 15 APPOINTMENT WITH PUBLIC DEFENDER AND TREATMENT 

2005-01-18 15 PROVIDER, NEXT HEARING SET 01/25/2005 

2005-01-18 16 NOTICE GIVEN TO DEFENDANT IN COURT FOR NEXT COURT DATE 

2005-01-25 17 DRUG COURT HEARING MINUTES: DEFENDANT PRESENT, DEFT MET WITH 

2005-01-25 17 PUBLIC DEFENDER, DEFT SCREENED BY TREATMENT AND DEEMED 

2005-01-25 17 APPROPRIATE FOR DRUG COURT, DEFT DECLINED THE DRUG COURT 

2005-01-25 17 PROGRAM, DEFT WILL FOLLOW TRADITIONAL COURT DOCKET 

2005-02-03 18 PRE TRIAL MINUTES: DEFT PRES, ATT BY SHARON FELICIANO 

2005-02-03 18 ON MOTION OF DEFENSE COUNSEL, COURT ORDERED CASE 

2005-02-03 18 CONTINUED TO 09/08/2005 

2005-02-03 18 ADI - LEVEL II 

2005-02-07 19 NOTICE TO DEFENDANT (09-08-2005) 

2005-03-03 20 PRE TRIAL MINUTES: DEFT PRES, ATT BY SHARON FELICIANO, 

2005-03-03 20 DEFT SWORN, W/D FORMER PLEA, PLEAD NOLO A/C, ADVISED 

2005-03-03 20 MAX PENALTY 5 YRS DOC &/OR $5000 FINE, PSI WAIVED, 

2005-03-03 20 PLEA ACCEPTED, SENTENCING SET SAME DAY 

2005-03-03 20 ADJUDICATION OF GUILT WITHHELD 

2005-03-03 20 $370.00 COURT COSTS (6 MONTHS TO PAY) 

2005-03-03 20 ADI PROGRAM - LEVEL II 

2005-09-08 21 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION OF ADI LEVEL II PROGRAM 

2005-09-08 21 $370.00 COURT COST PAID 

2005-11-14 22 $370.00 PAYMENT MADE TO CASE 


Details:

UCN: 542002MM005697XXAXMX
File Date: 2002-12-12 Judge: PETER T MILLER   
Defense Atty: 

Defendant
CUMMINGS, RONALD LEMYLES 
Alias


Date # Docket Description
2002-12-12 1 WILDLIFE CITATION #036954C CRAIG MCGUIRE 

2002-12-12 1 ATTEMPTING TO TAKE DEER BY GUN AND LIGHT AT NIGHT 

2002-12-12 1 HUNTING FROM RIGHT OF WAY 

2002-12-30 2 NOTICE TO DEFENDANT (1-23-2003) 

2003-01-23 3 ARR MIN: DEFT PRES IN COURT WAIVING RIGHT TO COUNSEL 

2003-01-23 3 ARR ENT PLEA OF GUILTY TO CT I - ATT TO TAKE DEER AT 

2003-01-23 3 NIGHT WITH GUN AND LIGHT & CT II - HUNTING FROM RIGHT 

2003-01-23 3 OF ROADWAY - DEFT SWORN, PLEA ACC - ADJUDGED GUILTY 

2003-01-23 3 COUNT I PROB HRDS 6 MONTHS 

2003-01-23 3 $188.00 FINE 

2003-01-23 3 $ 25.00 COURT FACILITY FEE 

2003-01-23 3 $ 25.00 WILDLIFE ALERT FUND 

2003-01-23 3 COUNT II PROB HRDS 6 MONTHS CONCURRENTLY WITH CT I 

2003-01-23 3 $156.50 FINE AND COST SUSPENDED 

2003-01-23 4 WAIVER OF COUNSEL 

2003-01-23 5 WRITTEN PLEA OF GUILTY OR NOLO CONTENDERE TO 

2003-01-23 5 CRIMINAL CHARGES IN COUNTY COURT 

2003-01-23 6 ADJ OF GUILT AND PLACING DEFENDANT CT I 

2003-01-23 6 ON PROBATION AND SUCCESSFUL TERMINATION OF PROBATION 

2003-01-23 7 ADJ OF GUILT AND PLACING DEFENDANT CT II 

2003-01-23 7 ON PROBATION AND SUCCESSFUL TERMINATION OF PROBATION 

2003-03-04 8 $188.00 FINE PAID 02/18/2003 

2003-03-04 9 $ 25.00 COURT FACILITY FEE PAID 02/18/2003 

2003-03-04 10 $ 25.00 WILDLIFE ALERT FUND PAYMENT 02/18/2003 


Details:

UCN: 542002CF002133XXAXMX
File Date: 2002-12-12 Judge: TERRY J LARUE   
Defense Atty: SIKES, LARRY E 

Defendant
CUMMINGS, RONALD LEMYLES 
Alias


Date # Docket Description
2002-12-12 1 ARREST REPORT - PCSO (ARREST 12/12/2002) 

2002-12-12 1 POSSESSION OF COCAINE 

2002-12-12 1 POSSESSION OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE 

2002-12-12 1 POSSESSION OF CANNABIS UNDER 20 GRAMS 

2002-12-12 1 POSSESSION OF DRUG WITHOUT PRESCRIPTION 

2002-12-12 1 POSSESSION OF DRUG PARAPHERNALIA 

2002-12-12 1 BOND SET AT $ 2,504 SECURED BLANKET 

2002-12-12 2 AFFIDAVIT OF INSOLVENCY 

2002-12-12 3 APPLICATION AND ORDER APPOINTING PUBLIC DEFENDER 

2002-12-12 4 $ 2,504 CHUCK'S BAIL BOND POSTED - # 365649 

2003-01-20 5 NOTICE TO DEFENDANT (01-28-2003) DRUG COURT 

2003-01-20 6 NOTICE TO BONDSMAN (01-28-2003) DRUG COURT 

2003-01-21 10 INFORMATION (CT 1-POSSESSION OF COCAINE, CT 2- 

2003-01-21 10 POSSESSION OF CANNABIS LESS THAN 20 GRAMS) 

2003-01-28 7 DRUG COURT HEARING MINUTES: DEFT PRESENT, ATT BY KURT 

2003-01-28 7 TEIFKE, COURT DIRECTED DEFENDANT MAKE AND KEEP 

2003-01-28 7 APPOINTMENT WITH PUBLIC DEFENDER AND TREATMENT 

2003-01-28 7 PROVIDER, NEXT HEARING SET 02/04/2003 

2003-01-28 8 NOTICE GIVEN TO DEFENDANT IN COURT FOR NEXT COURT DATE 

2003-02-04 9 DRUG HEARING MINUTES: DEFENDANT NOT PRESENT, ATTENDED BY 

2003-02-04 9 KURT TEIFKE, DEFENDANT NOT INTERESTED IN DRUG COURT, 

2003-02-04 9 DEFT DECLINED DRUG COURT, DEFT WILL FOLLOW TRADITIONAL 

2003-02-04 9 COURT DOCKET 

2003-02-05 11 NOTICE TO BONDSMAN (02-26-2003) 

2003-02-26 12 ARRAIGNMENT MINUTES: DEFT PRESENT, SWORN, ARRAIGNED, 

2003-02-26 12 PUBLIC DEFENDER APPOINTED, ENTERED PLEA OF NOT GUILTY, 

2003-02-26 12 SET FOR PRE TRIAL 04/01/2003 AND TRIAL 04/01/2003. 

2003-02-26 13 APPLICATION AND ORDER APPOINTING PUBLIC DEFENDER 

2003-02-26 14 ORDER SETTING PRE TRIAL 04/01/2003 

2003-02-26 15 NOTICE TO BONDSMAN (04-01-2003) 

2003-02-26 16 ARRAIGNMENT MINUTES: DEFT PRESENT, SWORN, ARRAIGNED, 

2003-02-26 16 PUBLIC DEFENDER APPOINTED, ENTERED PLEA OF NOT GUILTY, 

2003-02-26 16 SET FOR PRE TRIAL 04/01/2003 AND TRIAL 05/05/2003. 

2003-02-26 17 APPLICATION AND ORDER APPOINTING PUBLIC DEFENDER 

2003-02-26 18 ORDER SETTING PRE TRIAL 04/01/2003 

2003-03-05 19 NOTICE TO BONDSMAN (04-01-2003) 

2003-04-01 20 PRE TRIAL MINUTES: DEFT PRES, ATT BY LARRY SIKES 

2003-04-01 20 ON MOTION OF DEFENSE COUNSEL, COURT ORDERED CASE 

2003-04-01 20 CONTINUED TO 05/27/2003 

2003-04-08 22 SUBSTANCE ABUSE OFFENDER REFERRAL AGREEMENT 

2003-04-10 21 NOTICE TO BONDSMAN (05-27-2003) 

2003-05-27 23 PRE TRIAL MINUTES: ON MOTION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

2003-05-27 23 THE CASE WAS ORDERED NOLLE PROSEQUI IN OPEN COURT 

2003-05-27 24 ANNOUNCEMENT OF NOLLE PROSEQUI - ENT CIR CT MIN 

2003-05-27 24 BK 374 PG 597 


Details:

UCN: 542001MM004105XXAXMX
File Date: 2001-10-24 Judge: PETER T MILLER   
Defense Atty: 

Defendant
CUMMINGS, RONALD LEMYLES 
Alias


Date # Docket Description
2001-10-26 1 COMPLAINT ROBERT PAUL MIDDLETON ASSAULT 

2001-11-20 2 ANNOUNCEMENT OF NO INFORMATION 


Details:

UCN: 542001MM000043XXAXMX
File Date: 2001-01-02 Judge: PETER T MILLER   
Defense Atty: 

Defendant
CUMMINGS, RONALD LEMYLES 
Alias


Date # Docket Description
2001-01-02 1 TRAFFIC CITATION - #8654-AJQ-5 LECLAIR 

2001-01-02 1 VIOLATION OF LICENSE RESTRICTIONS (BUSINESS PURPOSES) 

2001-01-02 1 CASE SET 02/06/2001 @ 9:00 AM 

2001-01-02 2 NOTICE TO PARENTS ISSUED (02-06-01) 

2001-02-06 3 ARR MIN: DEFT PRES IN COURT WAIVING RIGHT TO COUNSEL 

2001-02-06 3 ARR ENT PLEA OF GUILTY TO VIOLATE RESTRICTION ON D L 

2001-02-06 3 DEFT SWORN, PLEA ACC - ADJUDICATION OF GUILT WITHHELD 

2001-02-06 3 1 MONTH UNSUPERVISED PROBATION 

2001-02-06 3 7 PM CURFEW JAIL TOUR 

2001-02-06 3 $156.50 FINE AND COST SUSPENDED 

2001-02-06 4 WAIVER OF COUNSEL 

2001-02-06 5 WRITTEN PLEA OF GUILTY OR NOLO CONTENDERE TO 

2001-02-06 5 CRIMINAL CHARGES IN COUNTY COURT 

2001-02-06 6 ORDER WITHHOLDING ADJUDICATION OF GUILT AND PLACING 

2001-02-06 6 DEFENDANT ON PROBATION 


Logged

"If two theories explain the facts equally well then the simpler theory is to be preferred''
[
Foggy Dew
Monkey Junky Jr.
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 701



« Reply #1039 on: February 24, 2009, 12:40:35 AM »

This is "prolly" nothing, but I'll ask it anyway. Does anyone find it odd that Ron is in a tent, or rather - now a camper, and not at his mom's multi bedroom home or some other friend or relative's house? It seems there's a reason and it doesn't strike me that the reason is that he's too emotionally tied to the exact area, the ground to leave.  I almost -  in the back burner of my foggy head - wonder if she's out there, close, and he's afraid to leave. IOW, if he leaves and he's somewhere else he'll be going crazy wondering if someone is getting "close" to finding her. This way he's there and knows where folks are and aren't.

Just recalling that Caylee was very close and wasn't found til... well... either Aug or Dec depending on how you regard the meter reader. Jon Benet was super super close (the basement) but she wasn't found exactly immediately. There are others. I hope she's alive, but what's the likely scenario for her being alive? That a ped took her and hasn't killed her yet? A horrible thought. That someone took her and sold her? Another horrible thought.

 Just thinking out loud.

Then there's that Occam's razor... the principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. IOW, whatever the simplest explanation is, is likely the correct one.

The intruder theory leaves too many things to chance for me and the flags go up for many weird things. The cinderblock propping, the turning on of the light, the leaving the door open, the NOT closing of the door upon seeing it "wide open," the not freaking out and thinking OMG could intuder still be here? Could be coming back let me lock the door, let me run grab BOTH kids oops one is missing but she seemed to know that it was Haleigh right off and not Jr. (from the blanket clip)

Then there's the past tense, "loved her" the "child's life back" comment and others,  the temper, the name calling, the anger, the over the top tears and angst, the short temper with reporters,  the flatout denial of true provable things, the history with LE and child services, the drug issues, the clearly enabling grandmother,.... on and on...



Myself, I'm not comfortable w/trying/convicting him before a variety of inconsistencies have been cleared up or evidence emerges. 

Also, when he said he'd look for her until ...blah, blah, blah I took it as a sentence he didn't finish because it was too repulsive a thought to be spoken aloud and he caught himself.

As re. the talk of abuse:  plenty of people are verbally abusive but never lift a hand to a spouse/live-in/child.  I still haven't seen evidence that he punched anyone out, let alone his daughter.  If you have evidence, I'd welcome seeing what so many of you all percieve.

I agree w/some things any number of posters have stated.  But imho, suggesting that he hauled his baby girl to some bridge (and did what?) 'cause he's a crane operator is more than a bit premature and in my mind not a whole lot different than what GR did to Ronald Cummings on that inflammatory and obviously biased broadcast.

Don't get me wrong--I'm more than a bit concerned about the whole mess.  I could go on and on about what I think about the personalities involved (and will ), but this is not a Caylee case where one person had a documented history of deception etc., not to mention her grandmothers call to 911 that sad, sad day.

I know this is a place where folks hash out their ideas and suspcions.  I just think its early days yet to throw RC (the dad) under the bus--though I absolutely agree that in light of the lax supervision of his daughter, he fell way short of the mark and may well regret that lapse in judgement for the rest of his life. 

Foggy

About the verbal abuse and physical abuse correlation, I agree; Some people can be verbally abusive without being physically abusive. However, I don't think it's an impossible leap in logic for me to fathom or consider that a man who strikes a woman could possibly strike a child.   

Last night Craig Rivera mentioned a document (I'll look for a link) regarding Ron's violation of  an injunction for protection. Crystal had filed an injunction, but then dropped the charges which is not unheard of in cases with spouses/girlfriends. Of course, Craig Rivera could be lying on air, but that seems foolish since it's something that can be verified. Also, I realize that it's possible that Crystal could have filed a false claim against Ron; so I guess that goes to... do I believe her when I watch her talk about it. Yes, I believe her when she says Ron hit her. It's just an opinion of my impression of her. Additionally, Ron's threats, his temper, and Misty's fear are palpable IMO. Misty could be terrified of TV, but I get a different vibe from her that she's afraid of Ron in particular. That's just my take on it.


Rana, I don't give a blankety-blank about what Geraldo or Greg Rivera say.  Many of their sources are unamed, so they can take a long walk off a short pier as far as I'm concerned.

Yet they don't mind putting the bereft young man's feet to the fire on nat'l tv.  Calling them bottom feeders is an insult to catfish et al everywhere.

Re. orders of protection:  bio mom said herself that she returned to him over and over.  And for what?  Sex and drugs?  The kids?  She leaves a man over and over because she's afraid of him, but leaves her helpless little lambs w/him? 

I'm not sure why you are throwing in with bio mom and frankly I don't care.  I'm only responding to you because I think some of your speculation is along the lines of Geraldos and I in good conscience cannot let that go unchallenged since you (and Geraldo) have yet to put forth hard evidence that bio dad is the monster you are attempting to define.

And one other thing:  of course no "monkeys" looked askance at your opinions 'bout other cases since it appears you are a new poster--unless you've posted in the past under another appelation of course 
.

Live well.

Foggy

Rana, I don't give a blankety-blank about what Geraldo or Greg Rivera say.  Many of their sources are unamed, so they can take a long walk off a short pier as far as I'm concerned.

There is a record of a domestic violence injunction violation and that's what I was referring to. I believe it was Islandmonkey who posted the link a couple of pages back. I don't know about the Brothers Rivera and their reports on other cases. I was referring to this specific one.

  Re. orders of protection:  bio mom said herself that she returned to him over and over.  And for what?  Sex and drugs?  The kids?  She leaves a man over and over because she's afraid of him, but leaves her helpless little lambs w/him? 

It's not unusual for a woman to go to back a man more than once before she finally has the fortitude, courage, strength - whatever the word you want to call it  - to leave him.

I'm not sure why you are throwing in with bio mom and frankly I don't care.  I'm only responding to you because I think some of your speculation is along the lines of Geraldos and I in good conscience cannot let that go unchallenged since you (and Geraldo) have yet to put forth hard evidence that bio dad is the monster you are attempting to define.

I didn't need to "put forth hard eveidence" for you since I was merely commenting on what has already transpired. I believe I'm allowed to comment on observations and impressions I have even if they happen to be incongruent with yours. And I don't recall defining anyone as a "monster." You may direct me to the post to remind me though.

And one other thing:  of course no "monkeys" looked askance at your opinions 'bout other cases since it appears you are a new poster--unless you've posted in the past under another appelation of course 

I don't know what you mean about "...no 'monkeys' looked askance at your opinions 'bout other cases."

As for other "appelations," I don't have any. I'm new here and have felt very welcomed.





I'm glad you feel welcome.  I'd lurked hereabouts for awhile, then I had to post re. the Caylee Anthony missing persons case. 

What caused you to post (if your care to share)?

I'm not as adept as you are re. "snipping" another posters words (mine in this instance), so I must bow to your experience w/technology relating to forums--esp. a new one.

Whatev. 

...adding to the constant hopes and prayers that Haleigh comes home safe and sound...

Foggy


Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Use of this web site in any manner signifies unconditional acceptance, without exception, of our terms of use.
Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC
 
Page created in 1.15 seconds with 20 queries.