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

[Wyks]

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.

That's true lily, the point we were making is ... how could Ron be so insistent about knowing anything that happened that night, because he was at work.  He skirted the question with the 911 operator about what Haleigh was wearing to bed, saying he didn't know, he was at work.  And yet.. He answers questions later, about the door, even answering questions directed to Misty about other stuff that happened, even tho (as he had answered earlier) he couldn't know that info, he was at work. 

Maybe I'm not explaining myself well, sorry. 

[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.

Good catch. It does seems relevant to me.

Also he adds, why do some folks keep dwelling on non events? The blocks play nothing into this. Okay, but I would think cinder blocks would play into this, since one was holding a door open. 

[fatcatlurker]

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

I've been reading this guy also very nice and very well spoken unlike some others from get go to end, some appear to me to be acting at the beginning of this(like don't know how to blog, etc, than suddenly know it all), but he appears straight up to me.  JMO

[no rose colored glasses]

Wyks, your explaining yourself well, I understand what you are saying.

[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.

That's true lily, the point we were making is ... how could Ron be so insistent about knowing anything that happened that night, because he was at work.  He skirted the question with the 911 operator about what Haleigh was wearing to bed, saying he didn't know, he was at work.  And yet.. He answers questions later, about the door, even answering questions directed to Misty about other stuff that happened, even tho (as he had answered earlier) he couldn't know that info, he was at work. 

Maybe I'm not explaining myself well, sorry. 

No I understand. You're doin' a much better job of 'splainin' than I am today. The more you guys dig up - the more I think it is someone on the fringe of the family. Someone familiar but not immediate. Thanks!!

[islandmonkey]

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.

That's true lily, the point we were making is ... how could Ron be so insistent about knowing anything that happened that night, because he was at work.  He skirted the question with the 911 operator about what Haleigh was wearing to bed, saying he didn't know, he was at work.  And yet.. He answers questions later, about the door, even answering questions directed to Misty about other stuff that happened, even tho (as he had answered earlier) he couldn't know that info, he was at work. 

Maybe I'm not explaining myself well, sorry. 

Then toss the statement below intot he mix, and your mind starts going

http://www.mytvjax.com/mostpopular/story/2005-Documents-Claim-Haleigh-Cummings-Wandered-Off/ecfIOIQdpEyY0r9dGW3W-A.cspx
 
 
VELEZ-MITCHELL: In terms of the family, why the re-interviews over and over again of Misty and Ron and why haven`t any of the immediate family members been excluded as suspects at this point?

SHAULAND: Well, nobody has been excluded as a suspect because we just don`t know what happened to Haleigh. We don`t know anything about her whereabouts. As you can well imagine, somewhere down the line when all likelihood we`ve got a crime involved in the disappearance of Haleigh.

And so we are trying to keep the criminal investigation alive and we`ve not ruled out anybody because we don`t know what the crime is at this point.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I guess --

SHAULAND: As far as --

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Just to follow up on that, Captain, quite often in other criminal cases, let`s say when a woman is murdered, usually immediately police look at the significant other, the husband or boyfriend.

And then as his alibi is verified and they find out yes, he was spotted at work at the time, and that person is formally excluded as a suspect, that`s what I`m talking about.

Obviously, for example, Ron`s alibi was that he was at work. And that`s firm, right?

SHAULAND: That`s correct. That is his alibi and he was at work. We were able to check that. However, again we don`t know what happened to Haleigh and we don`t when it happened."

[fatcatlurker]

Is there any word on Dolce?  I just saw it as I was reading back. 

[MuffyBee]

Is there any word on Dolce?  I just saw it as I was reading back. 

She has posted in musings and says she and the baby are okay.  She needs to get more rest and take it easy. 

[fatcatlurker]

Is there any word on Dolce?  I just saw it as I was reading back. 

She has posted in musings and says she and the baby are okay.  She needs to get more rest and take it easy. 

Thank you thank you, you set my mind at ease.

[Searching]

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?

It was said she was related to Marie.. I thought Marie was related to Crystal?

[Wyks]

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

I heard him say that too.  On the very same video the camera panned around the home and yard, and you could see the cinderblocks close by.  I was like    then ermmmm Ron, what are those?   

No need to lurk Brandi, they've said a lot of things, even said them differently, there's no way we could remember it all, ya know?

[rana]

Then toss the statement below intot he mix, and your mind starts going

http://www.mytvjax.com/mostpopular/story/2005-Documents-Claim-Haleigh-Cummings-Wandered-Off/ecfIOIQdpEyY0r9dGW3W-A.cspx
 
 
VELEZ-MITCHELL: In terms of the family, why the re-interviews over and over again of Misty and Ron and why haven`t any of the immediate family members been excluded as suspects at this point?

SHAULAND: Well, nobody has been excluded as a suspect because we just don`t know what happened to Haleigh. We don`t know anything about her whereabouts. As you can well imagine, somewhere down the line when all likelihood we`ve got a crime involved in the disappearance of Haleigh.

And so we are trying to keep the criminal investigation alive and we`ve not ruled out anybody because we don`t know what the crime is at this point.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I guess --

SHAULAND: As far as --

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Just to follow up on that, Captain, quite often in other criminal cases, let`s say when a woman is murdered, usually immediately police look at the significant other, the husband or boyfriend.

And then as his alibi is verified and they find out yes, he was spotted at work at the time, and that person is formally excluded as a suspect, that`s what I`m talking about.

Obviously, for example, Ron`s alibi was that he was at work. And that`s firm, right?

SHAULAND: That`s correct. That is his alibi and he was at work. We were able to check that. However, again we don`t know what happened to Haleigh and we don`t when it happened."

And there it is....

SHAULAND: That`s correct. That is his alibi and he was at work. We were able to check that.  However, again we don`t know what happened to Haleigh and we don`t when it happened."

The "and we don't know WHEN it happened" part speaks volumes to me.

[Searching]

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.

Also he adds, why do some folks keep dwelling on non events? The blocks play nothing into this. Okay, but I would think cinder blocks would play into this, since one was holding a door open. 

Please be careful with taking the statements from "neighbors" and "family" from WS.. One of them joined back in Dec. and now claims to be a local there..just sayin

[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.

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

no, i was referring to myself, i was laughing at my starting to nitpick at statistical breakdowns and why i sometimes do that.

[Wyks]

Thanks NoRose and Lily!   

[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.

Good catch. It does seems relevant to me.

Also he adds, why do some folks keep dwelling on non events? The blocks play nothing into this. Okay, but I would think cinder blocks would play into this, since one was holding a door open. 

Please be careful with taking the statements from "neighbors" and "family" from WS.. One of them joined back in Dec. and now claims to be a local there..just sayin

Yes, I know, taking it all with a lot of caution, just finding some of the things said interesting.

[Jerseygirl345]

Good Evening Monkeys...

I find it strange that no friends of Ron or Misty have come forward let alone seen them is any of the searches or by the tents...

[cookie]

Good Evening Monkeys...

I find it strange that no friends of Ron or Misty have come forward let alone seen them is any of the searches or by the tents...

neither has anyone from Crystal's side....do you find that strange as well?

[islandmonkey]

  Oh, I gotcha Peanut......I agree there are way too many lost out there, and some are just classified as runaways in those numbers, who knows for sure whether they actually ran away OR met with foul play as per the study teenagers:


Teenagers were by far the most frequent victims
of both stereotypical kidnappings and nonfamily
abductions.


http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/documents/nismart2_nonfamily.pdf

[peanut]

Good Evening Monkeys...

I find it strange that no friends of Ron or Misty have come forward let alone seen them is any of the searches or by the tents...

well i dont think name tags are being handed out just to make things easier for us haha. but seriously, who in their right mind would willingly interject themselves into the media in such a horrible case?