8/20 Ron takes plea, will testify in Haleighs trial

[YellowSubmarine]

Just thought it would be a good idea to start a new thread on the outcome of Ron's hearing today.


Father Of Missing Girl Faces Up To 90 Years In Prison

POSTED: Friday, August 20, 2010
UPDATED: 12:21 pm EDT August 20, 2010



Ronald Cummings talks with his attorney just before pleading guilty to three counts of drug trafficking.
PALATKA, Fla. -- The father of missing girl Haleigh Cummings pleaded guilty Friday morning to three of five drug trafficking charges against him in exchange for him agreeing to testify in any future trial criminal involving the disappearance of his daughter.

http://www.news4jax.com/news/24700021/detail.html

 

[YellowSubmarine]

It's disgusting to think he may have info regarding Haleigh's disappearance that he has kept secret. How can a father spit on his daughters grave like that?!?

 

[gypsy gal]

The information being released said he would testify to the timeline in the case. It really does not sound like he has been withholding all of this important and pertinent information from the authorities. All of the evidence and information that I have seen makes me believe that Ronald was at work that night.

 

[raisincharlie]

Seems to me the only timeline Ron could testify to would be his own since he claims he was at work. If true, I fail to see the relevance. I went to work at X, I got off work at X. I called Misty at X (can't say for sure where she was just that she answered the phone). I called Tommy at X. I came in the door at X.

All of which could be proved by either phone records, time cards or witnesses who saw him and so forth. They don't need Ron's time line if he was truly at work. JMO - he is missing some hours and now the SA is going to get those admissions from him, if he doesn't lie that is. This is all information irrelevant if Ron was actually at work. Looks to me he wasn't and has not truthfully accounted for his hours for over 18 months.

 

[kamky]

Seems to me the only timeline Ron could testify to would be his own since he claims he was at work. If true, I fail to see the relevance. I went to work at X, I got off work at X. I called Misty at X (can't say for sure where she was just that she answered the phone). I called Tommy at X. I came in the door at X.

All of which could be proved by either phone records, time cards or witnesses who saw him and so forth. They don't need Ron's time line if he was truly at work. JMO - he is missing some hours and now the SA is going to get those admissions from him, if he doesn't lie that is. This is all information irrelevant if Ron was actually at work. Looks to me he wasn't and has not truthfully accounted for his hours for over 18 months.

Phone records indicate the time of a call and the calling and called numbers. They do not tell who was actually using the phone and what was said on a call. Ron's testimony can fill in the blanks. Ron can testify what he and other familiy members did and at what approximate times prior to his leaving work. He can testify as to the time he left for and arrived at work. He can confirm when he talked to family members at home on the phone and who he actually talked to. For example, he could testify that he called Misty or Misty called him at 8:30 pm and he spoke, not only to Misty but also to Haleigh, placing her alive and in the home at that time. He could testify as to the state of mind of Misty when he talked to her. He could testify that GGMS called him after she left the MH when she dropped off the clothes and what she said about the visit. He could testify as to the time that he called Tommy and what was said on that call and whether or not he talked to anyone else at the home.

He could also testify about the details of his and Misty's conversations regarding that night and Haleigh in the months after her disappearance. he could testify as to Misty's demeanor, comments she may have made, and contradictions she might have expressed.

None of this testimony means that he has not discussed this previously with LE! It merely means that he is willing to repeat it to the court under oath to assist the prosecution in the trial.

 

[cleo612]

Phone records indicate the time of a call and the calling and called numbers. They do not tell who was actually using the phone and what was said on a call. Ron's testimony can fill in the blanks. Ron can testify what he and other familiy members did and at what approximate times prior to his leaving work. He can testify as to the time he left for and arrived at work. He can confirm when he talked to family members at home on the phone and who he actually talked to. For example, he could testify that he called Misty or Misty called him at 8:30 pm and he spoke, not only to Misty but also to Haleigh, placing her alive and in the home at that time. He could testify as to the state of mind of Misty when he talked to her. He could testify that GGMS called him after she left the MH when she dropped off the clothes and what she said about the visit. He could testify as to the time that he called Tommy and what was said on that call and whether or not he talked to anyone else at the home.

He could also testify about the details of his and Misty's conversations regarding that night and Haleigh in the months after her disappearance. he could testify as to Misty's demeanor, comments she may have made, and contradictions she might have expressed.

None of this testimony means that he has not discussed this previously with LE! It merely means that he is willing to repeat it to the court under oath to assist the prosecution in the trial.

The question still remains as to why RC would not testify to those "facts" in any potential trial anyway.

In other words, why would he NOT testify in any potential trial? Why would he purposely sit back in any potential trial and not offer up this same information? Why did it take a plea deal to get him to agree to do this? The victim in any potential trial is HIS OWN DAUGHTER.

Why would he have to be given a plea deal to get on a witness stand and tell what he knows when it would mean justice for his missing and presumed dead baby daughter?

What is he hiding?

 

[kamky]

The question still remains as to why RC would not testify to those "facts" in any potential trial anyway.

In other words, why would he NOT testify in any potential trial? Why would he purposely sit back in any potential trial and not offer up this same information? Why did it take a plea deal to get him to agree to do this? The victim in any potential trial is HIS OWN DAUGHTER.

Why would he have to be given a plea deal to get on a witness stand and tell what he knows when it would mean justice for his missing and presumed dead baby daughter?

What is he hiding?

Ron and his lawyer aren't dumb. If Ron is willing to testify in a trial and it might help find his daughter, then he has something of value. If he has something of value, he would be stupid not to use it to help his own drug case. Ron is a pragmatist.

Why would this be hiding anything??

Let's put it this way, if you have money to purchase something at the grocery and you have a coupon for the product, would you not use the coupon? You want the product and would buy it in any case, but why not benefit from the added savings?

Obviously, not the exact same thing, but the same concept.

 

[cleo612]

Why would he purposely NOT testify when the end result would be justice for the disappearance and probable murder of his own daughter?

Why would he even threaten to not testify?

He obviously cares very little about his daughter's demise, or that she should have justice for having her life as she knew it taken from her.

What would he have done if the SAO had said "No" to his plea offer? Would he still have refused to take the stand on his daughter's behalf?

The only thing that rings true to me is that he is hiding SOMETHING--I know not what.

 

[MADJGNLAW]

Ron and his lawyer aren't dumb. If Ron is willing to testify in a trial and it might help find his daughter, then he has something of value. If he has something of value, he would be stupid not to use it to help his own drug case. Ron is a pragmatist.

Why would this be hiding anything??

Let's put it this way, if you have money to purchase something at the grocery and you have a coupon for the product, would you not use the coupon? You want the product and would buy it in any case, but why not benefit from the added savings?

Obviously, not the exact same thing, but the same concept.

I respectfully disagree. We are talking about a 5 yr old child. Ronalds child. He should of told LE any and everything from day one. Not use what happen to Haleigh as a pawn to reduce his sentence. JMO though..and respect yours fully :blowkiss:

 

[cami]

The question still remains as to why RC would not testify to those "facts" in any potential trial anyway.

In other words, why would he NOT testify in any potential trial? Why would he purposely sit back in any potential trial and not offer up this same information? Why did it take a plea deal to get him to agree to do this? The victim in any potential trial is HIS OWN DAUGHTER.

Why would he have to be given a plea deal to get on a witness stand and tell what he knows when it would mean justice for his missing and presumed dead baby daughter?

What is he hiding?

Why did he phone home so many times that night? I too believe he's hiding something. I just can't believe Misty won't crack. A young girl like that. She must be awfully tough to withstand the hardball interveiws...if they have subjected to her any that is.

Someone needs to come forward and give peace to Halleigh. She'll never rest in peace until this is solved.

Dear little thing...it just breaks my heart.

 

[kamky]

Why would he purposely NOT testify when the end result would be justice for the disappearance and probable murder of his own daughter?

Why would he even threaten to not testify?

He obviously cares very little about his daughter's demise, or that she should have justice for having her life as she knew it taken from her.

What would he have done if the SAO had said "No" to his plea offer? Would he still have refused to take the stand on his daughter's behalf?

The only thing that rings true to me is that he is hiding SOMETHING--I know not what.

How do you know he threatened to not testify?

If Ron has a halfway decent lawyer, he would have stepped in and done what good lawyers are supposed to do! Example:

Ron to LE: So this is what I know...blah, blah, blah.
LE to Ron: Okay, good, thank you. Now, we'll need you to testify to that in court.
Ron to LE: Oka-
Ron's Lawyer stepping in quickly: He would be glad to testify for the prosecution IF you do something for him in the drug charges,
LE to Ron's lawyer: Well, maybe. We'll see. What do you have in mind?

Negotiations ensued. Obviously the prosecution feels that Ron's testimony will be helpful so they benefit. Ron gets to help find his daughter and to reduce his drug sentence.

 

[dodie20]

I respectfully disagree. We are talking about a 5 yr old child. Ronalds child. He should of told LE any and everything from day one. Not use what happen to Haleigh as a pawn to reduce his sentence. JMO though..and respect yours fully :blowkiss:

this is exactly why I don't like these minimum mandatorys...they reward criminals for witholding information. These things prove that if you're gonna be a drug trafficker, then you need to be withholding IMPORTANT information in a child's murder. Too danged bad for the common 1 dimensional druggie, who just deals. So, Hope got 15 years for almost nothing, & I expect the same for Donna Brock. They should've taken a few lessons from Ron...& been holding on to some Haleigh information. I pity the fool who just tells what he knows, out of conscience, morals, or whatever. & cops wanna know why witnesses never talk??? are they serious??? that information might come in handy some day.

 

[dodie20]

How do you know he threatened to not testify?

If Ron has a halfway decent lawyer, he would have stepped in and done what good lawyers are supposed to do! Example:

Ron to LE: So this is what I know...blah, blah, blah.
LE to Ron: Okay, good, thank you. Now, we'll need you to testify to that in court.
Ron to LE: Oka-
Ron's Lawyer stepping in quickly: He would be glad to testify for the prosecution IF you do something for him in the drug charges,
LE to Ron's lawyer: Well, maybe. We'll see. What do you have in mind?

Negotiations ensued. Obviously the prosecution feels that Ron's testimony will be helpful so they benefit. Ron gets to help find his daughter and to reduce his drug sentence.

Ron 'gets to help find his daughter'? I'm sorry, but realistically speaking, I don't see that...he could've done that a looong time ago, but I just remember him refusing to talk to LE, because he didn't know anything. & then he gave Misty sanctuary. I guess he really loved that girl.

 

[cleo612]

How do you know he threatened to not testify?

If Ron has a halfway decent lawyer, he would have stepped in and done what good lawyers are supposed to do! Example:

Ron to LE: So this is what I know...blah, blah, blah.
LE to Ron: Okay, good, thank you. Now, we'll need you to testify to that in court.
Ron to LE: Oka-
Ron's Lawyer stepping in quickly: He would be glad to testify for the prosecution IF you do something for him in the drug charges,
LE to Ron's lawyer: Well, maybe. We'll see. What do you have in mind?

Negotiations ensued. Obviously the prosecution feels that Ron's testimony will be helpful so they benefit. Ron gets to help find his daughter and to reduce his drug sentence.

BIBM

Using your hypothetical scenario here, RC is saying that he will only testify if they drop/reduce the charges against him.

WHY? Why would he even negotiate testifying in a potential trial when that trial would be to seek justice for his missing and presumed dead baby daughter?

So, if the SAO had not agreed to drop/reduce some of the charges, he is in effect saying that he could care less about seeing justice for HaLeigh and would not testify to those ends.

He made a deal on his daughter's dead body and in seeing justice for her demise.

 

[MADJGNLAW]

Ronald Cummings Pleads Guilty to Three of 5 Drug Charges in Plea Deal
Crystal Sheffield, the mother of Haleigh was in the courtroom, joined by several family members.


TJ Hart Posted: Friday, 20 August 2010
"Snip" http://www.thesky973.com/pages/7956251.php


Ronald Cummings withdrew his not guilty plea in the drug trafficking cases against him.
Prosecutors agreed to drop two of the five cases against Cummings, and he entered a guilty plea in the other three.

One case carries a minimum sentence of 3 years with a 10-year max in prison, .

Two have minimums of 10 years each with maximums of 30.

Ronald Cummings is slated to be sentenced Sept. 24.


A blogger claims Sheffield and her mother were seen outside the courthouse this morning pointing at Lisa Croslin who was standing near a bus stop at that time.

 

[Amster]

Just thought it would be a good idea to start a new thread on the outcome of Ron's hearing today.


Father Of Missing Girl Faces Up To 90 Years In Prison

POSTED: Friday, August 20, 2010
UPDATED: 12:21 pm EDT August 20, 2010



Ronald Cummings talks with his attorney just before pleading guilty to three counts of drug trafficking.
PALATKA, Fla. -- The father of missing girl Haleigh Cummings pleaded guilty Friday morning to three of five drug trafficking charges against him in exchange for him agreeing to testify in any future trial criminal involving the disappearance of his daughter.

http://www.news4jax.com/news/24700021/detail.html

True to form...the famous Ronald smirk. :sick:

 

[MADJGNLAW]

Why did he phone home so many times that night? I too believe he's hiding something. I just can't believe Misty won't crack. A young girl like that. She must be awfully tough to withstand the hardball interveiws...if they have subjected to her any that is.

Someone needs to come forward and give peace to Haleigh. She'll never rest in peace until this is solved.

Dear little thing...it just breaks my heart.

Here is Misty's chance and Tommy's to. To no surprise Ron, the one with the longest criminal record and more charges than Hope, Donna, and Tommy got 2of his charges dropped. Maybe this will be an eye opener for the rest of them. At least I would hope so anyway. This has to come to an end, for Haleigh's sake I could care less about the ones that have been lying, dealing, stealing, and drugging it up while she is still missing. As CS said, they can all rot in Jail! :furious:

 

[cluciano63]

Ugh, this is disgusting to me. The very idea that he should have to receive any consideration in order to testify in any "future trial" regarding his daughter's probable death is despicable. Not something he or his lawyer should be bragging about, if you ask me. Just hoping he spends the next few decades behind bars, thinking of all of the ways he contributed to whatever happend to his daughter.

 

[MADJGNLAW]

BIBM

Using your hypothetical scenario here, RC is saying that he will only testify if they drop/reduce the charges against him.

WHY? Why would he even negotiate testifying in a potential trial when that trial would be to seek justice for his missing and presumed dead baby daughter?

So, if the SAO had not agreed to drop/reduce some of the charges, he is in effect saying that he could care less about seeing justice for HaLeigh and would not testify to those ends.

He made a deal on his daughter's dead body and in seeing justice for her demise.

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap: Very well said!

 

[kant]

I agree with so many of you guys and your points I cant quote or ditto them all here, so here's a big, "well said!" out to you!

Ok jumping off the points already made, who here can (ok "will" - for the literalists among us heh) explain for me the nature of how a plea deal is generated? I mean it seems to me (and I admit i dont know) that a "deal" would involve something not otherwise attainable or forthcoming.

I guess I'm wondering about the legal logistics/mechanics of it all. Also, a deal (again, to me) seems to imply that if the deal had not come to fruition for Ron, that Ron would not have offered the testimony minus the "deal"- which is a dispicable thought. In other words, if all that is indeed the case, then what is the motivation for the powers-that-be to offer a deal in the first place?

I suppose the likley years of actual incarceration have some bearing on it all; and I dont know the answer to that - as far as... if so-and-so gets "x" years, how many of those years will he actually serve? The logic for me there is that if an individual is going to be behind bars for so many years that he wont likely survive to see a free day, then a "deal" effecting a fraction of those years wouldnt make much difference one way or another.

Also, I've felt at times that Ron's situation is remininiscent of Capone's; and no Im not comparing Cummings to Capone, so no need to put that one to me; I'm comparing the situations and how they remind me of each other in a particular aspect. In other words, LE knew Capone did "X" but couldnt get enough - or didnt have enough - evidence to likely make it stick, but they got him on an unrelated charge.

moo

.