Haleigh Marie Cummings #6 3/11/09 - 3/14/09

[rana]

If you're inerested in neuro-linguistics and psycho-linguistics here's a link.

APA: Association for Psychological Science
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/Search_Result.cfm?cx=016918977869823798848%3Aairdsrswywi&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8&q=NEURO+LINGUISTICS#1296

FWIW, neuro-linguistics is the study of the brain networks that underlie grammar and communication and control the comprehension, production, and acquisition of language.

Psycho-linguistics is the study of the cognitive processes and representations that underlie language use. IOW, it's the influence of psychological factors on the development, use, and interpretation of language.

Do you monkeys see these as red flags?
That's fine if you don't. And fine to say so; I'm just so curious what others think.

LINK: video of Misty's blanket story interview
http://www.news4jax.com/video/18700882/index.html

Red flag 1.... Why tell the blanket story in the first place?
Misty's convoluted blanket story is something I just can't seem to get beyond. IIRC, the reporter simply asked her, "What happened?" (or something like that) And Misty's answer oddly (IMO) included her launching into what seems like an overly complicated blanket story, like musical chairs only with blankets with intricate details of the washing and the drying and the taking down and the putting this one, no that one, b/c of this and that, and oh yeah that one was "in the van"..... "that they took."

Misty said an awful lot about pee and blankets in fairly short interview, relatively speaking. I mean for a 2 minute clip the blanket story alone took up a good chunk of it. Yet on things that are extremely significant she's unsure and waffling. Who slept where? Who was where? Why did she get up? What time? WTH?

Red flag 2.... True stories may change in added details, but not in the core story
 As JVM (and others) said, a truthful person's story may "change" only in that the person may add a detail, etc but the actual story itself does NOT change in a person being truthful.

IOW, using JVM's example for a second, interview "one" may be, "He and I walked the dog. We walked down Main Street." Interview "two" may be: "He and I walked the dog, we went down the steps... we went onto Main Steet" The steps were "added," but that addition doesn't change the core of the truthful story.

Misty had gotten up to got to the bathroom, no... to get water; Who was sleeping where? She is all over the place with inconsistencies. She was working so hard to 'splain the where-s and whys and whatnots of the freakin blankets, and they were blankets that frankly aren't that salient to the story unless they really are that salient to the story. She was so busy almost desperately explaining from where she got the blankets and what went on with the dang blankets, it was just..... odd IMO.

Then she goes from blanket/s to "little sheet." Now we have an additional thing.... the sheet. Wow, Misty really let' er rip all from a simple reporter's question of, "What did you hear?" I don't want to say that Misty seemed obsessed with the blankets, but day-um. (southern for "dang")   

[rana]

Red flag 3.... Why did Misty add the little "I guess..." to the blanket story?
When Misty said, "I guess" it probably ("prolly" as they say)    seems like a small, subtle nothing; but to me it's something. When Misty said to the reporter that Haleigh had "peed on a blanket," or something to that effect, Misty then oddly (to me) squeezed in an, “I guess.”
WHAT? You GUESS?  Don't you know? If you don't know which child had an accident, do you know which child was sleeping where? She DID, or she DIDN'T; but Misty GUESSES? Or she knows who had the accident, but doesn't know WHEN? She guesses? .... K.... I think she knows - one way or the other... doesn't she?

The "I guess" at 0:41 in the video....
So it's like as Misty is saying the words that, "her blanket was..... she had peed on her blanket the night before... I guess...." Could she be subconsciously thinking, in that split second, (as her words are coming out) that she's thinking or feeling or believing that she may have just semi let it slip? That she may have accidently told us what happened? Was that  why she felt the urge to add the, “I guess” ?

I don't think people often just say things that have no meaning; There's usually a meaning on some level; IMO, there's generally some flash of reasoning in things we say - a trigger, a fear, a goal, a motive..... something

So why is Misty adding the, “I guess” ? It seems like the hinky meter is saying that Misty's subconscious is freaked out worrying on that issue. IOW, to me that little "I guess" sort of makes it sound like, "It's no biggy" "It's routine; no big deal" "Nothing to get alarmed about" Altho bio mom and grandmom (one of the grandmoms - I can't recall which) said that Haleigh had not wet the bed at their homes in two years - give or take.

LINK below: video of Misty's blanket story interview

http://www.news4jax.com/video/18700882/index.html

[rana]

Red flag 4.... Misty's eyes..
I meant to post a link yesterday on neuro-linguistics, but I wanted to find one that is informative and factual, but not a snore-fest or tedious to read. (Posting tedious journal essays with a butt-load of footnotes etc is a good way to bore folks' and my own socks off.) (Learned that one the hard way - heh.)

Anyhoo...   if you're into neuro-linguistics, eye movements, watching micro expressions and eye cues, at times when Misty spoke it seemed like she indicated with her eyes that she was possibly creating images, rather than recalling them, in her mind, IMO. (ie lying)

With neuro-linguistics, (as a tool, not proof) Misty's eyes should - from a norm - typically have been flipping up and to the left if she were trying to recall actual things, facts about the blankets. That would have  better indicated that she was trying to make something (that really happened) appear (re-appear) in her mind or "mind's eye," as they say. (in other words, IF she had been telling the truth, that is.)

Red flag 5.....  Back in the day, did you monkeys ever take your "blanket curtain" down?
I had a blanket curtain once. I didn't take it down unless I had another one handy or a sheet to replace it to cover the window - for privacy adn to reduce the sunlight. How about y'all? Why did she really take it down? It seems like she/they had herself/themselves an urgent need for blankets other than the reason that she's giving in a seemingly overly complicated way.

Oh, and here's a link to eye movements. It's not the one I wanted,  but it's not bad. Also, of course, take it all with a grain of salt b/c it's only a tool not "proof."       The notion of taking any isolated movement and making broad assumptions about them and twisting them into fact, isn't what it's all about at all so.... 

LINK to eye movement info
http://www.memorymentor.com/eye_movements.htm

[peanut]

those are all valid tools but we are missing one very important part. you need to have examples of how a subject normally speaks to compare to how they talk when under stress. if you have nothing to compare it to youre just going on generalities, which while interesting tell you nothing thats definitive.

[rana]

Did Ron and/or Misty take Haleigh's body?
I hate to even think it; but I wonder if Ron (or Misty - but I'm leaning toward Ron) wrapped Haleigh in one of the blankets and put her in the truck drove away with her. I wonder if he dumped her body and maybe kept the blanket - altho why would he DO that? But could that be why it was, "in the van? .....that they took?" Or maybe she had the blanket on her 3 day bender; IDK; but did SHE have the truck on the 3 day bender? (And do we even have a link to the 3 day bender? indicating that that it actually happened?)
 
Not a flag per se... but what about Butterbean and other possible "witnesses" of sorts like co-workers?
We have no real clue what all Jr. said to the psychologists/LE. He could have said plenty (or not;) and they just haven't told us. Remember the two year old in the Bobby Cutts case? 'Mommy in the rug." "Mommy crying." "The table broken." Bless his little heart. How completely horrifying.

Also, I think I recall reading here some documents or the police report or something, in which LE had blacked out some things. Did LE have any statements from witnesses, co-workers etc blacked out? I can't remember what exactly was in the police report or what part looked to be blacked out. Anyone have a link handy?  TIA. 

MOO       

[peanut]

Did Ron and/or Misty take Haleigh's body?
I hate to even think it; but I wonder if Ron (or Misty - but I'm leaning toward Ron) wrapped Haleigh in one of the blankets and put her in the truck drove away with her. I wonder if he dumped her body and maybe kept the blanket - altho why would he DO that? But could that be why it was, "in the van? .....that they took?" Or maybe she had the blanket on her 3 day bender; IDK; but did SHE have the truck on the 3 day bender? (And do we even have a link to the 3 day bender? indicating that that it actually happened?)
 
Not a flag per se... but what about Butterbean and other possible "witnesses" of sorts like co-workers?
We have no real clue what all Jr. said to the psychologists/LE. He could have said plenty (or not;) and they just haven't told us. Remember the two year old in the Bobby Cutts case? 'Mommy in the rug." "Mommy crying." "The table broken." Bless his little heart. How completely horrifying.

Also, I think I recall reading here some documents or the police report or something, in which LE had blacked out some things. Did LE have any statements from witnesses, co-workers etc blacked out? I can't remember what exactly was in the police report or what part looked to be blacked out. Anyone have a link handy?  TIA. 

MOO       

ok so ron did it. if so, why state on the today show that jrs story of a black man coming in and taking her is a bunch of garbage? if guilty why try to quash any story that would point to someone but him?

[GramaMonkey]

This may have been posted already....sorry....BUT IT IS IN PRINT.

Investigation Focusing on Misty Croslin Cummings Timeline
Posted By: Jessica Clark     Created: 3/13/2009 5:44:59 PM    Updated: 3/13/2009 9:19:49 PM
Recommend Print Article Email Article Larger Smaller

 
PUTNAM COUNTY, FL -- After Ronald Cummings and his new wife, Misty Croslin Cummings, appeared on The Today Show Friday morning, the Putnam County Sheriff's Office commented on what was said.
For the first time, investigators mentioned their concerns about inconsistencies with Misty Cummings' story about what happened the night 5-year-old Haleigh Cummings disappeared.

Captain Dick Schauland confirmed Friday morning that investigators do have concerns about the timeline Misty has provided.

Schauland told First Coast News, "What happened during that eight-hour time period from 7 p.m. to 3 a.m. when she found the child missing and what occurred during that time is what [investigators] are trying to straighten out."
On The Today Show interview, Misty agreed there were inconsistencies but could not explain why.

Misty also said she felt like she was not a suspect. Ronald Cummings supported her and explained one of the lead detectives told him Misty was not a suspect in Haleigh's disappearance.

When asked if Misty Cummings was a suspect, Captain Schauland told First Coast News Friday, "I would not list Misty as a suspect. We just want to get the timeline straightened out. Our most important thing is finding Haleigh. That's more important than anything else. And Misty's the key to that."

Misty also mentioned on The Today Show that she had taken a polygraph and that she was told she passed it.Just a couple hours later, Capt. Schauland said the agency was not releasing any information involving the polygraphs. He has said this many times. He did say however, that people who take polygraphs are "normally not told weather they pass or didn't pass."
He added, "I'm not talking about this case; I'm talking about polygraphs in general, but usually there's a line of questioning and it either shows deception or to be inconclusive on question one, two or three. But it really isn't a pass or fail thing."

 www.firstcoastnews.com

[rana]

those are all valid tools but we are missing one very important part. you need to have examples of how a subject normally speaks to compare to how they talk when under stress. if you have nothing to compare it to youre just going on generalities, which while interesting tell you nothing thats definitive.

I agree with you, Peanut, about the non-definitive nature of it all. Taking one isolated eye movement or any other expression - in and of itself - and then, for example,  my trying to weave a story from it and then calling it fact wouldn't be prudent or prove anything. So I agree. Taking one "thing" by itself is close to useless.

But the norms are designed based on physiological mechanisms of the part of the brain that's accessed during memory recall. IOW, when comparing eye movements of people telling lies vs eye movements of people telling the truth, they typically are different and fall into patterns for people in general (not individuals per se) b/c human brains are wired in the same basic way (barring some disease, trauma, injury, anomaly etc... not necessarily identical brains of course, but as far as regions used for memory recall, etc.   

There are voice stress analyses that are interesting, but very controversial as far as I know - mainly for the reason you just cited..... and others reasons.

[peanut]

those are all valid tools but we are missing one very important part. you need to have examples of how a subject normally speaks to compare to how they talk when under stress. if you have nothing to compare it to youre just going on generalities, which while interesting tell you nothing thats definitive.

I agree with you, Peanut, about the non-definitive nature of it all. Taking one isolated eye movement or any other expression - in and of itself - and then, for example,  my trying to weave a story from it and then calling it fact wouldn't be prudent or prove anything. So I agree. Taking one "thing" by itself is close to useless.

But the norms are designed based on physiological mechanisms of the part of the brain that's accessed during memory recall. IOW, when comparing eye movements of people telling lies vs eye movements of people telling the truth, they typically are different and fall into patterns for people in general (not individuals per se) b/c human brains are wired in the same basic way (barring some disease, trauma, injury, anomaly etc... not necessarily identical brains of course, but as far as regions used for memory recall, etc.   

There are voice stress analyses that are interesting, but very controversial as far as I know - mainly for the reason you just cited..... and others reasons.

yes, thats true. but again, it also depends on what expert is doing the analysis. there are many patterns and the way they entwine is individual and subject to various interpretations. for example, card sharps are very good at reading other players, but its based on observation of behavior that is the 'norm' for the specific individual being watched. they then take the 'normal' reactions and compare those to any that deviate from them. without something to use as a baseline its worthless, and youre going to lose a whole lot of money haha.

[Searching]

i just found this if u want to read more up on the case it is about todays show

http://www.palatkadailynews.com/articles/2009/03/14/news/news01.txt

Thanks for the link...
Snipped from article.

"We are satisfied with the interviews that we have had so far with Ronald, and his account of the eight hours in question," Bowling added.

My 2 cents... How hard is it to say "I don't know,I was at work" over and over,so well, guess they would be satisfied with his account.   

[peanut]

i just found this if u want to read more up on the case it is about todays show

http://www.palatkadailynews.com/articles/2009/03/14/news/news01.txt

Thanks for the link...
Snipped from article.

"We are satisfied with the interviews that we have had so far with Ronald, and his account of the eight hours in question," Bowling added.

My 2 cents... How hard is it to say "I don't know,I was at work" over and over,so well, guess they would be satisfied with his account.   

where does it say he gave no details, im not seeing that in the article linked?

[mioyshi]

i just found this if u want to read more up on the case it is about todays show

http://www.palatkadailynews.com/articles/2009/03/14/news/news01.txt

Thanks for the link...
Snipped from article.

"We are satisfied with the interviews that we have had so far with Ronald, and his account of the eight hours in question," Bowling added.

My 2 cents... How hard is it to say "I don't know,I was at work" over and over,so well, guess they would be satisfied with his account.   

hm, lets see, " I dont know, I was at work"    ....not hard at all.. But that little look ron did, goes in the pile of things that make me go ,,,,hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

and, Good morning Saturday monkeys....

[Searching]

i just found this if u want to read more up on the case it is about todays show

http://www.palatkadailynews.com/articles/2009/03/14/news/news01.txt

Thanks for the link...
Snipped from article.

"We are satisfied with the interviews that we have had so far with Ronald, and his account of the eight hours in question," Bowling added.

My 2 cents... How hard is it to say "I don't know,I was at work" over and over,so well, guess they would be satisfied with his account.   

where does it say he gave no details, im not seeing that in the article linked?

It does not say that, but seems he says that on even questions that it makes no sense to answer with that.. Like on the newlywed appearance,they asked about his thoughts on what Crystal says Jr has said, you know,if he thought it true that Jr said it..he replied he did not know,he was working..... seems to be becoming his standard answer....

[Searching]

i just found this if u want to read more up on the case it is about todays show

http://www.palatkadailynews.com/articles/2009/03/14/news/news01.txt

Thanks for the link...
Snipped from article.

"We are satisfied with the interviews that we have had so far with Ronald, and his account of the eight hours in question," Bowling added.

My 2 cents... How hard is it to say "I don't know,I was at work" over and over,so well, guess they would be satisfied with his account.   

hm, lets see, " I dont know, I was at work"    ....not hard at all.. But that little look ron did, goes in the pile of things that make me go ,,,,hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

and, Good morning Saturday monkeys....

That was a sly look he had on that show when he said that wasn't it.. I just wanted to smack him in the back of the head to get that look off his face.   

[peanut]

i just found this if u want to read more up on the case it is about todays show

http://www.palatkadailynews.com/articles/2009/03/14/news/news01.txt

Thanks for the link...
Snipped from article.

"We are satisfied with the interviews that we have had so far with Ronald, and his account of the eight hours in question," Bowling added.

My 2 cents... How hard is it to say "I don't know,I was at work" over and over,so well, guess they would be satisfied with his account.   

where does it say he gave no details, im not seeing that in the article linked?

It does not say that, but seems he says that on even questions that it makes no sense to answer with that.. Like on the newlywed appearance,they asked about his thoughts on what Crystal says Jr has said, you know,if he thought it true that Jr said it..he replied he did not know,he was working..... seems to be becoming his standard answer....

haha well if he was at work and keeps getting asked that by the media whats he supposed to say? by the time i heard the same interview question for the umpteenth time id be barking it too.

[Searching]

i just found this if u want to read more up on the case it is about todays show

http://www.palatkadailynews.com/articles/2009/03/14/news/news01.txt

Thanks for the link...
Snipped from article.

"We are satisfied with the interviews that we have had so far with Ronald, and his account of the eight hours in question," Bowling added.

My 2 cents... How hard is it to say "I don't know,I was at work" over and over,so well, guess they would be satisfied with his account.   

where does it say he gave no details, im not seeing that in the article linked?

It does not say that, but seems he says that on even questions that it makes no sense to answer with that.. Like on the newlywed appearance,they asked about his thoughts on what Crystal says Jr has said, you know,if he thought it true that Jr said it..he replied he did not know,he was working..... seems to be becoming his standard answer....

haha well if he was at work and keeps getting asked that by the media whats he supposed to say? by the time i heard the same interview question for the umpteenth time id be barking it too.

Did you watch that NY interview??  That answer did NOT fit the question... It was a wth moment....
If you could have seen the look on my face as I watched that and heard/seen that part,you would have laughed because I was in a state of jaw/floor syndrome. It left me puzzled. I have been one of the ones saying wait till there's more evidence/word out before saying RC did something, but that even left me wondering if he did...

[peanut]

i just found this if u want to read more up on the case it is about todays show

http://www.palatkadailynews.com/articles/2009/03/14/news/news01.txt

Thanks for the link...
Snipped from article.

"We are satisfied with the interviews that we have had so far with Ronald, and his account of the eight hours in question," Bowling added.

My 2 cents... How hard is it to say "I don't know,I was at work" over and over,so well, guess they would be satisfied with his account.   

where does it say he gave no details, im not seeing that in the article linked?

It does not say that, but seems he says that on even questions that it makes no sense to answer with that.. Like on the newlywed appearance,they asked about his thoughts on what Crystal says Jr has said, you know,if he thought it true that Jr said it..he replied he did not know,he was working..... seems to be becoming his standard answer....

haha well if he was at work and keeps getting asked that by the media whats he supposed to say? by the time i heard the same interview question for the umpteenth time id be barking it too.

Did you watch that NY interview??  That answer did NOT fit the question... It was a wth moment....
If you could have seen the look on my face as I watched that and heard/seen that part,you would have laughed because I was in a state of jaw/floor syndrome. It left me puzzled. I have been one of the ones saying wait till there's more evidence/word out before saying RC did something, but that even left me wondering if he did...

oh ya, i watched it and youre right, they are both very awkward and unusure on camera. but i think anyone in their positions would be, and the thing from that interview that i dont undertand is, why say jrs supposed story of the man in black breaking in and taking her is a bunch of garbage? if he did something to her why would he dismiss any other possible tale of someone else being reponsible, the more suspects to cloud the issue the better, one would think?

[Searching]

i just found this if u want to read more up on the case it is about todays show

http://www.palatkadailynews.com/articles/2009/03/14/news/news01.txt

Thanks for the link...
Snipped from article.

"We are satisfied with the interviews that we have had so far with Ronald, and his account of the eight hours in question," Bowling added.

My 2 cents... How hard is it to say "I don't know,I was at work" over and over,so well, guess they would be satisfied with his account.   

where does it say he gave no details, im not seeing that in the article linked?

It does not say that, but seems he says that on even questions that it makes no sense to answer with that.. Like on the newlywed appearance,they asked about his thoughts on what Crystal says Jr has said, you know,if he thought it true that Jr said it..he replied he did not know,he was working..... seems to be becoming his standard answer....

haha well if he was at work and keeps getting asked that by the media whats he supposed to say? by the time i heard the same interview question for the umpteenth time id be barking it too.

Did you watch that NY interview??  That answer did NOT fit the question... It was a wth moment....
If you could have seen the look on my face as I watched that and heard/seen that part,you would have laughed because I was in a state of jaw/floor syndrome. It left me puzzled. I have been one of the ones saying wait till there's more evidence/word out before saying RC did something, but that even left me wondering if he did...

oh ya, i watched it and youre right, they are both very awkward and unusure on camera. but i think anyone in their positions would be, and the thing from that interview that i dont undertand is, why say jrs supposed story of the man in black breaking in and taking her is a bunch of garbage? if he did something to her why would he dismiss any other possible tale of someone else being reponsible, the more suspects to cloud the issue the better, one would think?

That is a very good point. Is it possible that Misty did something stupid  (leaving after children went to sleep or something) and is afraid to tell? maybe afraid of being charged with neglect or afraid of what "others" may say or do if they find out..

[mioyshi]

i just found this if u want to read more up on the case it is about todays show

http://www.palatkadailynews.com/articles/2009/03/14/news/news01.txt

Thanks for the link...
Snipped from article.

"We are satisfied with the interviews that we have had so far with Ronald, and his account of the eight hours in question," Bowling added.

My 2 cents... How hard is it to say "I don't know,I was at work" over and over,so well, guess they would be satisfied with his account.   

where does it say he gave no details, im not seeing that in the article linked?

It does not say that, but seems he says that on even questions that it makes no sense to answer with that.. Like on the newlywed appearance,they asked about his thoughts on what Crystal says Jr has said, you know,if he thought it true that Jr said it..he replied he did not know,he was working..... seems to be becoming his standard answer....

haha well if he was at work and keeps getting asked that by the media whats he supposed to say? by the time i heard the same interview question for the umpteenth time id be barking it too.

Did you watch that NY interview??  That answer did NOT fit the question... It was a wth moment....
If you could have seen the look on my face as I watched that and heard/seen that part,you would have laughed because I was in a state of jaw/floor syndrome. It left me puzzled. I have been one of the ones saying wait till there's more evidence/word out before saying RC did something, but that even left me wondering if he did...

I too had that dropping mouth afliction when watching the interview. I found ron very cocky. When I see cocky, I usually think, this person thinks he is abouve the law and truths. He was not acting like a grieving father whose child has been missing for a month.

When they were in ny, my son was on his way home from work, and they passed Satsuma.
He saw, lots of le walking on the sides of the road way there, searching the weeds and sides of the road.

He said he saw a cross along side the road, saying, " Bring Haileigh home"..
Said it made him sad to think the child is still missing, and the father was not out there looking for her too. MY son is 21,, aparently, he is a lot more concerned for this missing child, than the father. ANd I do not like how he dissed Heilighs mom.

Just too cocky, and he is not Kid Rock.......imo, hope she is found soon......

[peanut]

i just found this if u want to read more up on the case it is about todays show

http://www.palatkadailynews.com/articles/2009/03/14/news/news01.txt

Thanks for the link...
Snipped from article.

"We are satisfied with the interviews that we have had so far with Ronald, and his account of the eight hours in question," Bowling added.

My 2 cents... How hard is it to say "I don't know,I was at work" over and over,so well, guess they would be satisfied with his account.   

where does it say he gave no details, im not seeing that in the article linked?

It does not say that, but seems he says that on even questions that it makes no sense to answer with that.. Like on the newlywed appearance,they asked about his thoughts on what Crystal says Jr has said, you know,if he thought it true that Jr said it..he replied he did not know,he was working..... seems to be becoming his standard answer....

haha well if he was at work and keeps getting asked that by the media whats he supposed to say? by the time i heard the same interview question for the umpteenth time id be barking it too.

Did you watch that NY interview??  That answer did NOT fit the question... It was a wth moment....
If you could have seen the look on my face as I watched that and heard/seen that part,you would have laughed because I was in a state of jaw/floor syndrome. It left me puzzled. I have been one of the ones saying wait till there's more evidence/word out before saying RC did something, but that even left me wondering if he did...

oh ya, i watched it and youre right, they are both very awkward and unusure on camera. but i think anyone in their positions would be, and the thing from that interview that i dont undertand is, why say jrs supposed story of the man in black breaking in and taking her is a bunch of garbage? if he did something to her why would he dismiss any other possible tale of someone else being reponsible, the more suspects to cloud the issue the better, one would think?

That is a very good point. Is it possible that Misty did something stupid  (leaving after children went to sleep or something) and is afraid to tell? maybe afraid of being charged with neglect or afraid of what "others" may say or do if they find out..

ya, mistys the wild card in all of this. id pay good money to be able to take a peek at all her interviews with le and the fbi. why cant they even give us a smidge of info...its driving me crazy!