April 27, 2024, 04:59:14 PM *
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 Marie Cummings #6 3/11/09 - 3/14/09  (Read 588822 times)
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
luckyday
Scared Monkey
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 466



« Reply #1300 on: March 13, 2009, 06:24:55 PM »

I am still thinking about The Today Show interview. If Ron thought by flying to NY and going on the show would help in the search to find Haleigh, I must loudly beg to differ.

What he has done is make himself look guiltier than he did before, and his new bride looked like a complete idiot, but then again this  ::MonkeyConfused::MOO.

Logged

Mark Twain:
Always tell the truth. That way, you don't have to remember what you said.
k8
Scared Monkey
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 32


« Reply #1301 on: March 13, 2009, 06:26:01 PM »

Good point on that Brandi, why would you take a break then, when you get off at 3? 

I thought the same thing.  Another thing I know is some companies have a policy that you cannot leave on a break unless you clock out.  I know someone who got fired for leaving for a few minutes to run to the store next door to pick up a newspaper that everyone in the office would read during the day.
Logged
Blue Moon
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 3912



« Reply #1302 on: March 13, 2009, 06:27:13 PM »

Watching the Today Show interview for the 3rd time, and when Meredith asks Ronald about Ronald Jr's version of having seen a man in black that night, specifically, if Ronald believes that Ronald Jr said that to Crystal, he answers, "I don't know. I wasn't there. I was at work."

This statement has become too pat, IMO.

When Ronald, Jr. supposedly said that, Ronald Jr. was NOT at HOME either.

Point is, I find it inappropriate sometimes when Ronald uses this answer: "I don't know. I wasn't there. I was at work."

And he uses it a lot, IMO.

Makes my hinky-meter needle jiggle.


I thought Meredith's question to him was "Do you believe that Ronald Jr. said this to Crystal", and I find his answer to not be pertaining to the situation, she did not ask him where he was the night of the abduction, but rather what his thoughts were of what Crystal says Ronald Jr. said.
Apropriate answer would have been, "I do not know, I was not in that conversation" or something of that nature.  Other than that he sounds like he is reitterating his own aliby a little too much....on the other hand he could be saying that he does not know if he believes Jr given that he was not home to see for himself the man in black....... I don't know nor do I understand it.

I agree, Dolce.  Especially the bolded part.  It's true that it can be looked at in different ways tho, yes.  Just seems to me, that it has become more and more often that Ron is using this statement as answers to questions that it really isn't necessary.  If it had happened once or twice, mmmmkay, could give him the benefit of the doubt.  Yet it's not just a couple times he's used it unnecessarily, IMO.  Dunno what to think of that. 

Maybe both of them have already been talking to a lawyer.   Would explain the short answers from Ron and also would explain Misty walking out from her interview.  To me (my opinion only) Misty has gotten a little brave in the past week.  Speaking more confidently.  She is very very immature and I really don't think she understands the severity of all this.  Why would her mother allow her to shack up with a 24 yr old man?  This little girl worries me too much.  I don't care too much of her mother saying that Haleigh wanted Misty to be her mother.  Like it or not Haleigh does have a mother and Misty will never be her full-blooded mother.  The mother is inserting herself too much into this.  Dangerous combination when you combined that to Ron's hot, loose temper.  It is very telling that the church did not condone that marriage.  These children were living on the edge every day of their life whether they were with Ron and his underage gf or if they were with the mother.  No good for any child. JMO
Logged

If you ask the wrong question, of course, you get the wrong answer. We find in design it’s much more important and difficult to ask the right question. Once you do that, the right answer becomes obvious.<br />Quote: Amory Lovins
Heart
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7717



« Reply #1303 on: March 13, 2009, 06:28:09 PM »

this little wedding screams out to me.......they are guilty of something......and they won't have to testify against each other.  i really didn't know what to think until they pulled that stunt...something ain't right


  Juju    could be   but I wonder if it's not more simple.  Misty's mother and I think ron's too mentioned "them gettin' trashed" in the public eye. True fact, lots of talk about her immaturity, his motives for having her there, was she a babysitter or girlfriend, and lastly but most important, questions about Jr.'s safety.   One quick marriage should slam the door shut on all it (in their minds?)   Upstanding couple just trying to cope together.   

None of it changes my views but , thinking maybe they hope it will.  ??????

and they won't have to testify against each other ------ Not true

The marriage was done due to if, LE wanted to persue it, Ronald could be prosecuted for being sexually involved with Misty, a minor.

It appears that spouse testimony, love, etc. had nothing to do with the marriage. The marriage was to avoid sex with a minor charges.

This explains why Ron does not appear to be such a happy camper regarding the wedding. 

A wedding of necessity for Ron in his opinion.

Now this may be a little far fetched, but the two may have some type of agreement between them after LE got involved. You marry me to keep me from going to  prison and I want tell what I know about what happened the night Haleigh went missing, or vise versa.


and you know all of this how?

I could have asked the same of your post.  However,



CHAPTER 794

SEXUAL BATTERY

794.005  Legislative findings and intent as to basic charge of sexual battery.

794.011  Sexual battery.

794.0115  Dangerous sexual felony offender; mandatory sentencing.

794.02  Common-law presumption relating to age abolished.

794.021  Ignorance or belief as to victim's age no defense.

794.022  Rules of evidence.

794.023  Sexual battery by multiple perpetrators; reclassification of offenses.

794.0235  Administration of medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) to persons convicted of sexual battery.

794.024  Unlawful to disclose identifying information.

794.026  Civil right of action for communicating the identity of a sexual crime victim.

794.027  Duty to report sexual battery; penalties.

794.03  Unlawful to publish or broadcast information identifying sexual offense victim.

794.05  Unlawful sexual activity with certain minors.

794.055  Access to services for victims of sexual battery.

794.056  Rape Crisis Program Trust Fund.

794.065  Unlawful place of residence for persons convicted of certain sex offenses.

794.075  Sexual predators; erectile dysfunction drugs.

794.08  Female genital mutilation.

794.09  Forfeiture of retirement benefits.

794.005  Legislative findings and intent as to basic charge of sexual battery.--The Legislature finds that the least serious sexual battery offense, which is provided in s. 794.011(5), was intended, and remains intended, to serve as the basic charge of sexual battery and to be necessarily included in the offenses charged under subsections (3) and (4), within the meaning of s. 924.34; and that it was never intended that the sexual battery offense described in s. 794.011(5) require any force or violence beyond the force and violence that is inherent in the accomplishment of "penetration" or "union."

History.--s. 2, ch. 92-135.

794.011  Sexual battery.--

(1)  As used in this chapter:

(a)  "Consent" means intelligent, knowing, and voluntary consent and does not include coerced submission. "Consent" shall not be deemed or construed to mean the failure by the alleged victim to offer physical resistance to the offender.

(b)  "Mentally defective" means a mental disease or defect which renders a person temporarily or permanently incapable of appraising the nature of his or her conduct.

(c)  "Mentally incapacitated" means temporarily incapable of appraising or controlling a person's own conduct due to the influence of a narcotic, anesthetic, or intoxicating substance administered without his or her consent or due to any other act committed upon that person without his or her consent.

(d)  "Offender" means a person accused of a sexual offense in violation of a provision of this chapter.

(e)  "Physically helpless" means unconscious, asleep, or for any other reason physically unable to communicate unwillingness to an act.

(f)  "Retaliation" includes, but is not limited to, threats of future physical punishment, kidnapping, false imprisonment or forcible confinement, or extortion.

(g)  "Serious personal injury" means great bodily harm or pain, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement.

(h)  "Sexual battery" means oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another or the anal or vaginal penetration of another by any other object; however, sexual battery does not include an act done for a bona fide medical purpose.

(i)  "Victim" means a person who has been the object of a sexual offense.

(j)  "Physically incapacitated" means bodily impaired or handicapped and substantially limited in ability to resist or flee.

(2)(a)  A person 18 years of age or older who commits sexual battery upon, or in an attempt to commit sexual battery injures the sexual organs of, a person less than 12 years of age commits a capital felony, punishable as provided in ss. 775.082 and 921.141.

(b)  A person less than 18 years of age who commits sexual battery upon, or in an attempt to commit sexual battery injures the sexual organs of, a person less than 12 years of age commits a life felony, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, s. 775.084, or s. 794.0115.

(3)  A person who commits sexual battery upon a person 12 years of age or older, without that person's consent, and in the process thereof uses or threatens to use a deadly weapon or uses actual physical force likely to cause serious personal injury commits a life felony, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, s. 775.084, or s. 794.0115.

(4)  A person who commits sexual battery upon a person 12 years of age or older without that person's consent, under any of the following circumstances, commits a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, s. 775.084, or s. 794.0115:

(a)  When the victim is physically helpless to resist.

(b)  When the offender coerces the victim to submit by threatening to use force or violence likely to cause serious personal injury on the victim, and the victim reasonably believes that the offender has the present ability to execute the threat.

(c)  When the offender coerces the victim to submit by threatening to retaliate against the victim, or any other person, and the victim reasonably believes that the offender has the ability to execute the threat in the future.

(d)  When the offender, without the prior knowledge or consent of the victim, administers or has knowledge of someone else administering to the victim any narcotic, anesthetic, or other intoxicating substance which mentally or physically incapacitates the victim.

(e)  When the victim is mentally defective and the offender has reason to believe this or has actual knowledge of this fact.

(f)  When the victim is physically incapacitated.

(g)  When the offender is a law enforcement officer, correctional officer, or correctional probation officer as defined by s. 943.10(1), (2), (3), (6), (7), (Cool, or (9), who is certified under the provisions of s. 943.1395 or is an elected official exempt from such certification by virtue of s. 943.253, or any other person in a position of control or authority in a probation, community control, controlled release, detention, custodial, or similar setting, and such officer, official, or person is acting in such a manner as to lead the victim to reasonably believe that the offender is in a position of control or authority as an agent or employee of government.

(5)  A person who commits sexual battery upon a person 12 years of age or older, without that person's consent, and in the process thereof does not use physical force and violence likely to cause serious personal injury commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, s. 775.084, or s. 794.0115.

(6)  The offense described in subsection (5) is included in any sexual battery offense charged under subsection (3) or subsection (4).

(7)  A person who is convicted of committing a sexual battery on or after October 1, 1992, is not eligible for basic gain-time under s. 944.275. This subsection may be cited as the "Junny Rios-Martinez, Jr. Act of 1992."

(Cool  Without regard to the willingness or consent of the victim, which is not a defense to prosecution under this subsection, a person who is in a position of familial or custodial authority to a person less than 18 years of age and who:

(a)  Solicits that person to engage in any act which would constitute sexual battery under paragraph (1)(h) commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(b)  Engages in any act with that person while the person is 12 years of age or older but less than 18 years of age which constitutes sexual battery under paragraph (1)(h) commits a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(c)  Engages in any act with that person while the person is less than 12 years of age which constitutes sexual battery under paragraph (1)(h), or in an attempt to commit sexual battery injures the sexual organs of such person commits a capital or life felony, punishable pursuant to subsection (2).

(9)  For prosecution under paragraph (4)(g), acquiescence to a person reasonably believed by the victim to be in a position of authority or control does not constitute consent, and it is not a defense that the perpetrator was not actually in a position of control or authority if the circumstances were such as to lead the victim to reasonably believe that the person was in such a position.

(10)  Any person who falsely accuses any person listed in paragraph (4)(g) or other person in a position of control or authority as an agent or employee of government of violating paragraph (4)(g) is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

History.--s. 2, ch. 74-121; s. 17, ch. 75-298; s. 1, ch. 84-86; s. 1, ch. 89-216; s. 3, ch. 92-135; s. 1, ch. 92-310; s. 3, ch. 93-156; s. 2, ch. 95-348; s. 99, ch. 99-3; s. 8, ch. 99-188; s. 1, ch. 2002-211.

794.0115  Dangerous sexual felony offender; mandatory sentencing.--

(1)  This section may be cited as the "Dangerous Sexual Felony Offender Act."

(2)  Any person who is convicted of a violation of s. 787.025(2)(c); s. 794.011(2), (3), (4), (5), or (Cool; s. 800.04(4) or (5); s. 825.1025(2) or (3); s. 827.071(2), (3), or (4); or s. 847.0145; or of any similar offense under a former designation, which offense the person committed when he or she was 18 years of age or older, and the person:

(a)  Caused serious personal injury to the victim as a result of the commission of the offense;

(b)  Used or threatened to use a deadly weapon during the commission of the offense;

(c)  Victimized more than one person during the course of the criminal episode applicable to the offense;

(d)  Committed the offense while under the jurisdiction of a court for a felony offense under the laws of this state, for an offense that is a felony in another jurisdiction, or for an offense that would be a felony if that offense were committed in this state; or

(e)  Has previously been convicted of a violation of s. 787.025(2)(c); s. 794.011(2), (3), (4), (5), or (Cool; s. 800.04(4) or (5); s. 825.1025(2) or (3); s. 827.071(2), (3), or (4); s. 847.0145; of any offense under a former statutory designation which is similar in elements to an offense described in this paragraph; or of any offense that is a felony in another jurisdiction, or would be a felony if that offense were committed in this state, and which is similar in elements to an offense described in this paragraph,

is a dangerous sexual felony offender, who must be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of 25 years imprisonment up to, and including, life imprisonment.

(3)  "Serious personal injury" means great bodily harm or pain, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement.

(4)  The offense described in subsection (2) which is being charged must have been committed after the date of commission of the last prior conviction for an offense that is a prior conviction described in paragraph (2)(e).

(5)  It is irrelevant that a factor listed in subsection (2) is an element of an offense described in that subsection. It is also irrelevant that such an offense was reclassified to a higher felony degree under s. 794.023 or any other law.

(6)  Notwithstanding s. 775.082(3), chapter 958, any other law, or any interpretation or construction thereof, a person subject to sentencing under this section must be sentenced to the mandatory term of imprisonment provided under this section. If the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment imposed under this section exceeds the maximum sentence authorized under s. 775.082, s. 775.084, or chapter 921, the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment under this section must be imposed. If the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment under this section is less than the sentence that could be imposed under s. 775.082, s. 775.084, or chapter 921, the sentence imposed must include the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment under this section.

(7)  A defendant sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment under this section is not eligible for statutory gain-time under s. 944.275 or any form of discretionary early release, other than pardon or executive clemency, or conditional medical release under s. 947.149, before serving the minimum sentence.

History.--s. 7, ch. 99-188; s. 1, ch. 2002-211; s. 1, ch. 2003-115; s. 3, ch. 2006-299.

794.02  Common-law presumption relating to age abolished.--The common-law rule "that a boy under 14 years of age is conclusively presumed to be incapable of committing the crime of rape" shall not be in force in this state.

History.--s. 1, ch. 4964, 1901; GS 3222; RGS 5052; CGL 7154; s. 2, ch. 74-121.

794.021  Ignorance or belief as to victim's age no defense.--When, in this chapter, the criminality of conduct depends upon the victim's being below a certain specified age, ignorance of the age is no defense. Neither shall misrepresentation of age by such person nor a bona fide belief that such person is over the specified age be a defense.

History.--s. 2, ch. 74-121.

794.022  Rules of evidence.--

(1)  The testimony of the victim need not be corroborated in a prosecution under s. 794.011.

(2)  Specific instances of prior consensual sexual activity between the victim and any person other than the offender shall not be admitted into evidence in a prosecution under s. 794.011. However, such evidence may be admitted if it is first established to the court in a proceeding in camera that such evidence may prove that the defendant was not the source of the semen, pregnancy, injury, or disease; or, when consent by the victim is at issue, such evidence may be admitted if it is first established to the court in a proceeding in camera that such evidence tends to establish a pattern of conduct or behavior on the part of the victim which is so similar to the conduct or behavior in the case that it is relevant to the issue of consent.

(3)  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, reputation evidence relating to a victim's prior sexual conduct or evidence presented for the purpose of showing that manner of dress of the victim at the time of the offense incited the sexual battery shall not be admitted into evidence in a prosecution under s. 794.011.

(4)  When consent of the victim is a defense to prosecution under s. 794.011, evidence of the victim's mental incapacity or defect is admissible to prove that the consent was not intelligent, knowing, or voluntary; and the court shall instruct the jury accordingly.

(5)  An offender's use of a prophylactic device, or a victim's request that an offender use a prophylactic device, is not, by itself, relevant to either the issue of whether or not the offense was committed or the issue of whether or not the victim consented.

History.--s. 2, ch. 74-121; s. 237, ch. 77-104; s. 1, ch. 83-258; s. 1, ch. 90-40; s. 5, ch. 90-174; s. 25, ch. 93-156; s. 1, ch. 94-80.

794.023  Sexual battery by multiple perpetrators; reclassification of offenses.--

(1)  The Legislature finds that an act of sexual battery, when committed by more than one person, presents a great danger to the public and is extremely offensive to civilized society. It is therefore the intent of the Legislature to reclassify offenses for acts of sexual battery committed by more than one person.

(2)  A violation of s. 794.011 shall be reclassified as provided in this subsection if it is charged and proven by the prosecution that, during the same criminal transaction or episode, more than one person committed an act of sexual battery on the same victim.

(a)  A felony of the second degree is reclassified to a felony of the first degree.

(b)  A felony of the first degree is reclassified to a life felony.

This subsection does not apply to life felonies or capital felonies. For purposes of sentencing under chapter 921 and determining incentive gain-time eligibility under chapter 944, a felony offense that is reclassified under this subsection is ranked one level above the ranking under s. 921.0022 or s. 921.0023 of the offense committed.

History.--s. 4, ch. 84-86; s. 17, ch. 93-156; s. 24, ch. 95-184; s. 20, ch. 97-194; s. 2, ch. 99-172.

794.0235  Administration of medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) to persons convicted of sexual battery.--

(1)  Notwithstanding any other law, the court:

(a)  May sentence a defendant to be treated with medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA), according to a schedule of administration monitored by the Department of Corrections, if the defendant is convicted of sexual battery as described in s. 794.011.

(b)  Shall sentence a defendant to be treated with medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA), according to a schedule of administration monitored by the Department of Corrections, if the defendant is convicted of sexual battery as described in s. 794.011 and the defendant has a prior conviction of sexual battery under s. 794.011.

If the court sentences a defendant to be treated with medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA), the penalty may not be imposed in lieu of, or reduce, any other penalty prescribed under s. 794.011. However, in lieu of treatment with medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA), the court may order the defendant to undergo physical castration upon written motion by the defendant providing the defendant's intelligent, knowing, and voluntary consent to physical castration as an alternative penalty.

(2)(a)  An order of the court sentencing a defendant to medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) treatment under subsection (1), shall be contingent upon a determination by a court appointed medical expert, that the defendant is an appropriate candidate for treatment. Such determination is to be made not later than 60 days from the imposition of sentence. Notwithstanding the statutory maximum periods of incarceration as provided in s. 775.082, an order of the court sentencing a defendant to medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) treatment shall specify the duration of treatment for a specific term of years, or in the discretion of the court, up to the life of the defendant.

(b)  In all cases involving defendants sentenced to a period of incarceration, the administration of treatment with medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) shall commence not later than one week prior to the defendant's release from prison or other institution.

(3)  The Department of Corrections shall provide the services necessary to administer medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) treatment. Nothing contained in this section shall be construed to require the continued administration of medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) treatment when it is not medically appropriate.

(4)  As used in this section, the term "prior conviction" means a conviction for which sentence was imposed separately prior to the imposition of the sentence for the current offense and which was sentenced separately from any other conviction that is to be counted as a prior conviction under this section.

(5)  If a defendant whom the court has sentenced to be treated with medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) fails or refuses to:

(a)  Appear as required by the Department of Corrections for purposes of administering the medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA); or

(b)  Allow the administration of medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA),

the defendant is guilty of a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

History.--s. 1, ch. 97-184.

794.024  Unlawful to disclose identifying information.--

(1)  A public employee or officer who has access to the photograph, name, or address of a person who is alleged to be the victim of an offense described in this chapter, chapter 800, s. 827.03, s. 827.04, or s. 827.071 may not willfully and knowingly disclose it to a person who is not assisting in the investigation or prosecution of the alleged offense or to any person other than the defendant, the defendant's attorney, a person specified in an order entered by the court having jurisdiction of the alleged offense, or organizations authorized to receive such information made exempt by s. 119.071(2)(h), or to a rape crisis center or sexual assault counselor, as defined in s. 90.5035(1)(b), who will be offering services to the victim.

(2)  A violation of subsection (1) constitutes a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

History.--s. 6, ch. 95-207; s. 100, ch. 99-3; s. 2, ch. 2002-246; s. 50, ch. 2004-335; s. 52, ch. 2005-251.

794.026  Civil right of action for communicating the identity of a sexual crime victim.--

(1)  An entity or individual who communicates to others, prior to open judicial proceedings, the name, address, or other specific identifying information concerning the victim of any sexual offense under this chapter or chapter 800 shall be liable to that victim for all damages reasonably necessary to compensate the victim for any injuries suffered as a result of such communication.

(2)  The victim shall not be able to maintain a cause of action unless he or she is able to show that such communication was intentional and was done with reckless disregard for the highly offensive nature of the publication.

History.--s. 7, ch. 95-207.

794.027  Duty to report sexual battery; penalties.--A person who observes the commission of the crime of sexual battery and who:

(1)  Has reasonable grounds to believe that he or she has observed the commission of a sexual battery;

(2)  Has the present ability to seek assistance for the victim or victims by immediately reporting such offense to a law enforcement officer;

(3)  Fails to seek such assistance;

(4)  Would not be exposed to any threat of physical violence for seeking such assistance;

(5)  Is not the husband, wife, parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, brother, or sister of the offender or victim, by consanguinity or affinity; and

(6)  Is not the victim of such sexual battery

is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

History.--s. 3, ch. 84-86; s. 1226, ch. 97-102.

794.03  Unlawful to publish or broadcast information identifying sexual offense victim.--No person shall print, publish, or broadcast, or cause or allow to be printed, published, or broadcast, in any instrument of mass communication the name, address, or other identifying fact or information of the victim of any sexual offense within this chapter, except as provided in s. 119.071(2)(h) or unless the court determines that such information is no longer confidential and exempt pursuant to s. 92.56. An offense under this section shall constitute a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

History.--s. 1, ch. 6226, 1911; RGS 5053; CGL 7155; s. 2, ch. 74-121; s. 16, ch. 75-298; s. 180, ch. 91-224; s. 1, ch. 94-88; s. 430, ch. 96-406; s. 6, ch. 2008-234.

794.05  Unlawful sexual activity with certain minors.--

(1)  A person 24 years of age or older who engages in sexual activity with a person 16 or 17 years of age commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. As used in this section, "sexual activity" means oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another; however, sexual activity does not include an act done for a bona fide medical purpose.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0794/ch0794.htm

Also you can trun on HLN  they are discussing this now.
Logged

Heart
Wyks
Monkey All Star
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10268



« Reply #1304 on: March 13, 2009, 06:29:15 PM »

WDBO Local News      
Haleigh Cummings' dad and stepmom appear on national TV
By Marva Hinton @ March 13, 2009 11:31 AM

It's been over a month since Haleigh Cummings disappeared from her home in Satsuma. The girl's dad and his new bride appeared on the Today Show Friday morning. The national TV appearance came a day after the two were married.

Ronald Cummings and 17-year-old Misty Croslin, who's pictured at right, both said they don't believe deputies view Misty as a suspect in Haleigh's disappearance. The teen also said she walked out during a recent police interview because a new deputy on the case was rude to her.

"He was just like yelling and pretty much telling me I'm a liar," she said.

Deputies have pointed out inconsistencies in the teen's story, and she was asked about that during the interview with the Today Show's Meredith Vieira.

"Why did you say one thing one time and one time the other?" asked Vieira.

"Um, I don't know," said Misty after a long pause.


But Ronald says he believes her account of what happened the night five-year-old Haleigh disappeared. She told deputies she put the child to bed around 9:00 on the night of February 9, and when she woke up around 3:00 the next morning, the child was gone and the door of the family's trailer was propped open.

Ronald also stressed that the only reason he came on the show was to get the focus back on his missing daughter.

<http://wdbo.com/localnews/2009/03/haleigh-cummings-dad-and-stepm.html>

Note the red 9:00

See how media make mistakes, all the time. Very frustrating.

It IS frustrating, Brandi!  The mistakes that the media themselves make.  It was um NG, I believe, perhaps JVM tho, (one of those two), who was interviewing Crystal one day.  Asking her about the lie detector tests.  We sat here and heard Crystal herself, right then, answer something to the effect that she thought so but they hadn't said.  NG or JVM turned right to the camera and said something like 'ok, we've just heard that Crystal the bio mom has passed the lie detector test.  ????????  I was like, ermmmmm nooooooo that's NOT what we just heard her say!  Soooo frustrating when they do stuff like that. 
Logged

~ 'Things are not always what they seem' ~
mizjay
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 3430



« Reply #1305 on: March 13, 2009, 06:30:21 PM »


  Because I'm not good at snipping and don't want the stack~

  All the time card questions still would make it a conspiracy that it just doesn't seem likely that the Satsuma crew could stay true to.

If Misty did it, told Ron, that means he would support her even after she did something terrible to his little girl

If Ron did something, when?  before he left for work would mean all the grannies are in on it

If Ron did something to her at 2am, how could he take care of everything before the 911 call

If somebody else known to Misty did it and she knows, shes better at staying cool under pressure than most criminals

  Also, they were "advised" by george anthony probably to tell LE as little as possible, so .............. i dunno
Logged
rana
Monkey Junky Jr.
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 872


« Reply #1306 on: March 13, 2009, 06:31:09 PM »

this little wedding screams out to me.......they are guilty of something......and they won't have to testify against each other.  i really didn't know what to think until they pulled that stunt...something ain't right
Juju    could be   but I wonder if it's not more simple.  Misty's mother and I think ron's too mentioned "them gettin' trashed" in the public eye. True fact, lots of talk about her immaturity, his motives for having her there, was she a babysitter or girlfriend, and lastly but most important, questions about Jr.'s safety.   One quick marriage should slam the door shut on all it (in their minds?)   Upstanding couple just trying to cope together.   

None of it changes my views but , thinking maybe they hope it will.  ??????
and they won't have to testify against each other ------ Not true

The marriage was done due to if, LE wanted to persue it, Ronald could be prosecuted for being sexually involved with Misty, a minor.

It appears that spouse testimony, love, etc. had nothing to do with the marriage. The marriage was to avoid sex with a minor charges.

This explains why Ron does not appear to be such a happy camper regarding the wedding. 

A wedding of necessity for Ron in his opinion.

Now this may be a little far fetched, but the two may have some type of agreement between them after LE got involved. You marry me to keep me from going to  prison and I want tell what I know about what happened the night Haleigh went missing, or vise versa.

Law is not my thang, so for Heart or anyone who can answer, I have a question or three.  Smile

I read the statute about the spousal privilege exception. It included something to the effect that when the issue/crime (can't recall the word used) involves one spouse as the victim (?) the privilege doe not apply. And the same/similar exception applies for when a child of either spouse is involoved in the.... crime/issue.

Luckyday posted the actual statute and I can't recall the exact wording, but in a felony (2nd degree? was it? for the sex issue b/w a 25 yr old and a 17 yr old?) if that were pursued, is Misty in this instance (prior to the marriage) a "victim" per se? I don't mean in "practice,"  Smile   but legally speaking. So how would the spousal privilege or exception apply there? -- if at all.

Also, if there were an exception applied here, wouldn't all Misty have to say (I suppose) is that there was no physical contact prior to the marriage? (And pigs fly and I am Mary Queen of Scots)  Smile   Sorry that was judgmental of me. Bad me!

(What's the penalty for perjury BTW?) But how do you prove that? I don't know how it could be proven since she didn't have a pregnancy (that we know of) by Ron or give birth prior to the marriage (like as in CS's or Amber's cases)

Which brings me to Amber. If LE really wanted to go after Ron with charges (not saying that they do, but "if" -- hypothetically) why not involove underage Amber who purportedly has a child by Ron? That proves sexual contact unless paternity is uncertain; But that is easy enough to check I suppose. HOWEVE, does that apply only if Amber were willing to submit to it. Again don't know the law on that - meaning could Amber choose to refuse to participate? (As in, for example, Rihanna maybe refusing to testify against Browne) Any atttys or law buffs here?  TIA.  Smile



 
Logged
rana
Monkey Junky Jr.
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 872


« Reply #1307 on: March 13, 2009, 06:33:19 PM »



Also, the HLN dude just said that spousal privilege only applies to communications that occur after the marriage.

That is all.  Smile



Logged
Wyks
Monkey All Star
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10268



« Reply #1308 on: March 13, 2009, 06:34:37 PM »

I also found this odd:

During the Today Show interview, Ronald said:

“That’s still drawing the focus off of Haleigh,” he said. “We need to be focused on Haleigh and not what I’m doing in my personal life … It’s nobody’s business what I do in my personal life. I go to work. I support my family. I don’t know what my personal life has to do with national TV. My daughter’s missing. That’s what has to do with national TV. We need to get her found.”

Not, I went to work, or I used to work. But the present tense.

Does he still work?



I don't think so, Brandi.  Last I heard, tho it could be rumor again,    is that he lost his job.  We do know for sure tho, as it's been reported, that Ron hasn't been to work at all this past month.  His co-workers have reportedly given up their vaca and sick leave so he could stay home and handle stuff. 
 
Logged

~ 'Things are not always what they seem' ~
JuJu
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 1033



« Reply #1309 on: March 13, 2009, 06:34:45 PM »

 
Logged

Regrets, I've had a few......
no rose colored glasses
Monkey Mega Star
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 45869


Zoe you will always be in my heart and soul


« Reply #1310 on: March 13, 2009, 06:34:57 PM »

One of the locals or a relative, I'm not quite sure who she is over yonder, is saying Ron's mother went to New York with the newlyweds. Probably keeping an eye on the both of them. 
Logged
Brandi
Monkey Mega Star
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 25374



« Reply #1311 on: March 13, 2009, 06:39:38 PM »

I also found this odd:

During the Today Show interview, Ronald said:

“That’s still drawing the focus off of Haleigh,” he said. “We need to be focused on Haleigh and not what I’m doing in my personal life … It’s nobody’s business what I do in my personal life. I go to work. I support my family. I don’t know what my personal life has to do with national TV. My daughter’s missing. That’s what has to do with national TV. We need to get her found.”

Not, I went to work, or I used to work. But the present tense.

Does he still work?



I don't think so, Brandi.  Last I heard, tho it could be rumor again,    is that he lost his job.  We do know for sure tho, as it's been reported, that Ron hasn't been to work at all this past month.  His co-workers have reportedly given up their vaca and sick leave so he could stay home and handle stuff. 
 

Then perhaps he should have said, "I have worked and supported my family."

JMO.

Thanks for your reply, Wyks. I assume no one else replied, because we are not sure of his employment status at this time.
Logged

Wyks
Monkey All Star
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10268



« Reply #1312 on: March 13, 2009, 06:39:52 PM »


Good to see you posting, DayOldDonuts!  This is an interesting theory, and certainly a possibility!  Am thinking that a 5 yr old may not be able to lift a cinderblock, but could probably shove/pull one a few inches or feet. 


It is not a whole cinderblock.

Just a piece of one.

Just sayin.

See picture below.




Yeppers, that what I said in a different post about it.  Forgot to say that in this one.  Does the piece of cinderblock in the pic where it's over to the left of the ramp, next to the doorjamb, screen barely open.. look different (smaller?) to you or anyone else, than the piece of cinderblock in the pic where it's off to the right of the ramp???   Or is that just the angle? 

Logged

~ 'Things are not always what they seem' ~
Brandi
Monkey Mega Star
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 25374



« Reply #1313 on: March 13, 2009, 06:41:25 PM »

One of the locals or a relative, I'm not quite sure who she is over yonder, is saying Ron's mother went to New York with the newlyweds. Probably keeping an eye on the both of them. 

I had heard that Ron's mother was going to take care of Ronald Jr. while they were away in NYC.

*shrug*

Maybe they meant his grandmother, Annette Sykes, whose residence housed the wedding yesterday.

 
Logged

rana
Monkey Junky Jr.
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 872


« Reply #1314 on: March 13, 2009, 06:43:50 PM »

Hello Fellow Monkeys!

Just caught up reading the thread, watching the Today Show video (http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/vp/29674806#29657605) for those who have not seen it, and capturing a few images, uploading them so I can share them along with my thoughts.

You all have stated my concerns very well about the Today Show appearances, from the church sending an email stating that they "do not agree with this union" to Misty walking out of a LE interview the day before her wedding, because the "new to the case" interviewer was rude, yelling and called her a liar, to how many times did Ronald throw out, "I was at work." Oh and, Misty seemingly looking to Ronald to help her answer the question Meredith asked about why Misty's story of what happened that night keep changing. And then Misty, not getting any help, just said, "I don't know." (bah!)

Oh, yes, and how the "happily married" couple appeared when Meredith stated that they had just gotten married yesterday.  I don't see happiness in their demeanors at all.

This is how they appeared at that moment when Meredith mentioned their wedding:



Then, below I captured Ronald's look on his face when he again said, "I was at work"



I am left just shaking my head.

On another note, here is a capture of Wayanne Kruger's page from http://www.care2.com/c2c/people/profile.html?pid=491739816

I am not sure what to think of her yet. I don't get a good feeling about her, myself. But that is my gut talking, mostly.






Thanks Brandi, for those captures; You got wicked, mad skillz, with a Z- as the kids say.  Smile

Also, I deserve a pelting after I ask this; but, by any chance, is it possible that Ms. Kruger and Crystal Cummings are consulting the same hair stylist?

Commence the pelting.

Lord forgive me; That was shallow and uncalled for, but I was compelled to ask. My apologies, monkeys.


MOO


Logged
Wyks
Monkey All Star
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10268



« Reply #1315 on: March 13, 2009, 06:45:13 PM »

Has anyone thought that the reason for the marriage might be that Misty is pregnant?  With all the national attention I'm sure that Ron's mother would push for this union. 

Yeppers, that idea has been tossed around a few times.  lol  Not so sure that Ron's mom would push for the union now, considering that she doesn't seem to have done so with Crystal or Amber when they became pg.  And yet, could be national attention may have prompted her to push for this.  To be fair, it's possible that she may have pushed for this with the others, maybe Ron wasn't listening then, and we just haven't heard about that. 
 
Logged

~ 'Things are not always what they seem' ~
klaasend
Administrator
Monkey Mega Star
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 74276



WWW
« Reply #1316 on: March 13, 2009, 06:46:03 PM »

One of the locals or a relative, I'm not quite sure who she is over yonder, is saying Ron's mother went to New York with the newlyweds. Probably keeping an eye on the both of them. 

I had heard that Ron's mother was going to take care of Ronald Jr. while they were away in NYC.

*shrug*

Maybe they meant his grandmother, Annette Sykes, whose residence housed the wedding yesterday.

 

I heard Ron Jr. was going to be with his mom (Crystal) while they are in NY and for the weekend.
Logged
luckyday
Scared Monkey
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 466



« Reply #1317 on: March 13, 2009, 06:46:18 PM »

Heart :

Thanks for all your hard work on the Statute post. 

It is quite evident that you are a brainy brainard monkey. Kudo's and two snaps up (Tm In Living Color)
Logged

Mark Twain:
Always tell the truth. That way, you don't have to remember what you said.
Brandi
Monkey Mega Star
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 25374



« Reply #1318 on: March 13, 2009, 06:46:54 PM »


Good to see you posting, DayOldDonuts!  This is an interesting theory, and certainly a possibility!  Am thinking that a 5 yr old may not be able to lift a cinderblock, but could probably shove/pull one a few inches or feet. 


It is not a whole cinderblock.

Just a piece of one.

Just sayin.

See picture below.




Yeppers, that what I said in a different post about it.  Forgot to say that in this one.  Does the piece of cinderblock in the pic where it's over to the left of the ramp, next to the doorjamb, screen barely open.. look different (smaller?) to you or anyone else, than the piece of cinderblock in the pic where it's off to the right of the ramp???   Or is that just the angle? 





Posting this for comparison. I think this is the image you are referring to, Wyks?

Looks the same size to me. Just that it is on its side in one image and flat in the other.
Logged

Brandi
Monkey Mega Star
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 25374



« Reply #1319 on: March 13, 2009, 06:48:00 PM »

One of the locals or a relative, I'm not quite sure who she is over yonder, is saying Ron's mother went to New York with the newlyweds. Probably keeping an eye on the both of them. 

I had heard that Ron's mother was going to take care of Ronald Jr. while they were away in NYC.

*shrug*

Maybe they meant his grandmother, Annette Sykes, whose residence housed the wedding yesterday.

 

I heard Ron Jr. was going to be with his mom (Crystal) while they are in NY and for the weekend.

LOL!

So much for believing what you read in the media. Now I am even more confuzzled!

 

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 2.309 seconds with 19 queries.