According to Ron's Lawyer Misty Never Returned This Weekend.

[MeoW333]

Reading on here and seeing the part about both parents being required to maintain Medicaid on the children... JMO, but that sounds "off" to me.

Medicaid is for underprivileged/poor/welfare children, right? So this judge presumed that neither parent would ever have a job?

FL-CHIPS was already in effect at that time, too, so "Medicaid" sounds like the wrong terminology, imo.

I think the parents having Medicaid for the children is one of the smartest choices, especially if they can't afford health insurance. I'm not sure why the judge presumed neither parent would ever have a job, as half or more of the people with Medicaid do have a job, they probably have trouble making ends meet, especially being with the economy how it is, and can't afford doctors' visits for their children, or E.R. visits for that matter.
Having Medicaid has nothing to do with not having a job, that would be irrelevant unless the parents or parent have really good jobs and make too much money, then they would be denied Medicaid.
The Judge requiring them to maintain Medicaid sounds like it has more to do with Haleigh's health condition than anything else. Obviously Ron nor Crystal make enough money to afford a lot of doctors, so that's probably why the judge said that..imo

 

[MeoW333]

Yeah, but it still doesn't explain a Putnam County judge ordering a parent to have Medicaid on their kid, IMO. "Health care coverage" seems way more likely.

but that's jmo

Where did we round that doc up from to begin with? tia

LFlorida, i am thinking the judge ordered it do to Haleigh's health condition and costly treatments. Also Medicaid can be used in any state, so if they were in (for example, Texas or Ohio) they could take her to a doctor and use Medicaid in other states as well as Florida. A healthy child a judge might not have ordered that, however Haleigh had health problems.

There was discrepancy about Crystal i think (forgot which one) not getting Haleigh to doctors' appointments and that may be the reasoning why the judge ordered they have Medicaid, which would make sense.

 

[elle1919]

I don't tell readers what to believe, I leave that to their discretion and evidently some appreciated article shared. If you don't, scroll on and don't re-post lol.
arrot:

I would appreciate a news article more than an interview edited by a blogger.

What you are really making clear to me is that the information that you examined to develop a theory in this case is based on blogger websites and witnesses that Law Enforcement have dismissed. JMO. For those that might want to examine the facts and develop a theory I am posting the information from PCSO and the facts that they have collected so far in this case.

Here are some of the facts: direct from the PCSO website

SNIP~We have received in excess of 4,000 leads, all of which have been followed up.
We have conducted 138 formal interviews and several hundred informal interviews with potential witnesses. DNA samples were collected from many of those interviewed and compared to evidence collected in the case.
FDLE processed the crime scene. Many items of potential evidentiary value were collected and sent to FDLE’s crime lab for analysis (ie. for fingerprints and DNA). All of evidence has been examined and/or processed, but none of it has identified any suspect or additional leads as to who the suspect(s) may be.
We have searched thousands of acres, including all property west of Highway 17 near the Cummings residence.
We have had numerous underwater recovery and search teams search all of the water near the area of the disappearance.
Aviation assets have conducted several airborne searches.
K9 assets have searched the area on several occasions.
Volunteer civilian searchers on foot and horseback searched the wooded areas near the residence....~end snip

http://www.pcso.us/2009-8-17-a

and PCSO seems to warn anyone AGAINST the type of information that you are posting as facts....

snip~...Sheriff Hardy realizes the importance of keeping the public involved in this case, and appreciates all of the leads that have been provided. Every lead that is provided is acted on by investigators. Sheriff Hardy cautions that because there are many who claim to be valid media outlets, that citizens should be careful not to fall into the trap of believing, or by accident spreading, the untrue and unreliable claims and assumptions of many bloggers who claim to be knowledgeable in the case. He also urges anyone that is assisting, or who wants to assist, to be cautious to stay within the bounds of their authority as they pursue their activities.~ end snip

It appears that you have fallen into the trap that Sherrif Hardy personally warns against. God Bless Haleigh and all of those who love her!!

 

[Whisperer]

SeriouslySearching, hi, I don't know where the link is you are requesting but I remember the conversation. It was thought it was highly unlikely Ron was a crane operator because of training and I think a license. Without experience or training it would be more likely he operated a forklift. But, just recently I learned that he did whatever needed to be done there, so I don't think he had a definite title. Hope this helps

Ron's lawyer verified on the NG show that Ron told him he was hired as a Crane Operator but didn't work on one per say. He was doing odd jobs around the yard or whatever they told him to do.

The reference that keeps getting posted as PDM substantation is not accurate. The reporter was filling in with her own kge and not quoting PDM but adding her own words of what she thought or heard from others..

 

[Whisperer]

I would appreciate a news article more than an interview edited by a blogger.

What you are really making clear to me is that the information that you examined to develop a theory in this case is based on blogger websites and witnesses that Law Enforcement have dismissed. JMO. For those that might want to examine the facts and develop a theory I am posting the information from PCSO and the facts that they have collected so far in this case.

Here are some of the facts: direct from the PCSO website

SNIP~We have received in excess of 4,000 leads, all of which have been followed up.
We have conducted 138 formal interviews and several hundred informal interviews with potential witnesses. DNA samples were collected from many of those interviewed and compared to evidence collected in the case.
FDLE processed the crime scene. Many items of potential evidentiary value were collected and sent to FDLE’s crime lab for analysis (ie. for fingerprints and DNA). All of evidence has been examined and/or processed, but none of it has identified any suspect or additional leads as to who the suspect(s) may be.
We have searched thousands of acres, including all property west of Highway 17 near the Cummings residence.
We have had numerous underwater recovery and search teams search all of the water near the area of the disappearance.
Aviation assets have conducted several airborne searches.
K9 assets have searched the area on several occasions.
Volunteer civilian searchers on foot and horseback searched the wooded areas near the residence....~end snip

http://www.pcso.us/2009-8-17-a

and PCSO seems to warn anyone AGAINST the type of information that you are posting as facts....

snip~...Sheriff Hardy realizes the importance of keeping the public involved in this case, and appreciates all of the leads that have been provided. Every lead that is provided is acted on by investigators. Sheriff Hardy cautions that because there are many who claim to be valid media outlets, that citizens should be careful not to fall into the trap of believing, or by accident spreading, the untrue and unreliable claims and assumptions of many bloggers who claim to be knowledgeable in the case. He also urges anyone that is assisting, or who wants to assist, to be cautious to stay within the bounds of their authority as they pursue their activities.~ end snip

It appears that you have fallen into the trap that Sherrif Hardy personally warns against. God Bless Haleigh and all of those who love her!!

No trap did anyone fall into. The words we heard were from the witness herself...not a blogger.

We are now left with the choice to believe what we hear. Your argument is not valid regarding dismissing bloggers. She is a witness, not a blogger. Just as Nay, Nay, etc.

Furthermore, you are dismissing a witness's recollection...you have every right to do so, but others also have the right to consider the words of the witness.

It appears that the arguement has gone way beyond and above the simple words of a witness and to the outter limits of how you are viewing the words of Sheriff Hardy.

My interpretation of Sheriff Hardy was to not believe what you hear from AH or TJhart. That is because, IMO, their source of info is coming from TN. We know how bias that has been, not to mention inaccurate.

From your list of general facts that LE has chosen to tell us leaves out all the witnesses and lawyers who have spoken; there are ways to almost have a theory but certainly you could never have one based on what you posted regarding PCSO....not many could ever come up with one if they only used the words of the Sheriff when there wasn't an arrest. You have to have witness input till an arrest to develop any scenario.

 

[elle1919]

No trap did anyone fall into. The words we heard were from the witness herself...not a blogger.

We are now left with the choice to believe what we hear. Your argument is not valid regarding dismissing bloggers. She is a witness, not a blogger. Just as Nay, Nay, etc.

Furthermore, you are dismissing a witness's recollection...you have every right to do so, but others also have the right to consider the words of the witness.

It appears that the arguement has gone way beyond and above the simple words of a witness and to the outter limits of how you are viewing the words of Sheriff Hardy.

My interpretation of Sheriff Hardy was to not believe what you hear from AH or TJhart. That is because, IMO, their source of info is coming from TN. We know how bias that has been, not to mention inaccurate.

From your list of general facts that LE has chosen to tell us leaves out all the witnesses and lawyers who have spoken; there are ways to almost have a theory but certainly you could never have one based on what you posted regarding PCSO....not many could ever come up with one if they only used the words of the Sheriff when there wasn't an arrest. You have to have witness input till an arrest to develop any scenario.

That is perfectly fine Whisperer if you want to completely disregard what Law Enforcement states. When I listened to the interview I could hear where portions of the interview were edited and personally I refuse to believe anyone who feels the need to edit an alleged witness interview. You yourself have posted that there should be no need to edit an interview and how you would like to hear the unedited version.

I stated that if you listen to the interview in its entirety you would hear the woman say that she wasn't sure where Misty hit the child. I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with posting links to bloggers interviews but it should be done in the RT. When guests and others come to this forum to read they are looking for the most accurate up to date information on the Haleigh case. When they come to Haleigh's forum it is not right for them to believe that the information they are reading is considered true and accurate because a blogger said so. None of this is been confirmed as factual information.

It wasn't appropriate when ART H and Cobra were targeting Crystal Sheffield and being the loud speaker for lies about what Kim Picazio did and said....and it is not proper now. JMO but everyone should be held to the same accountability.

 

[Donjeta]

That is perfectly fine Whisperer if you want to completely disregard what Law Enforcement states. When I listened to the interview I could hear where portions of the interview were edited and personally I refuse to believe anyone who feels the need to edit an alleged witness interview. You yourself have posted that there should be no need to edit an interview and how you would like to hear the unedited version.

I stated that if you listen to the interview in its entirety you would hear the woman say that she wasn't sure where Misty hit the child. I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with posting links to bloggers interviews but it should be done in the RT. When guests and others come to this forum to read they are looking for the most accurate up to date information on the Haleigh case. When they come to Haleigh's forum it is not right for them to believe that the information they are reading is considered true and accurate because a blogger said so. None of this is been confirmed as factual information.

It wasn't appropriate when ART H and Cobra were targeting Crystal Sheffield and being the loud speaker for lies about what Kim Picazio did and said....and it is not proper now. JMO but everyone should be held to the same accountability.

I agree that there should be accountability and every blogger and other interested parties should consider what they release very carefully.

But I think it confuses the issue that there are two levels of facts.
It is factual information that there is a video of a woman saying she saw or thinks she saw Misty hit a child. It is also a fact that there are several videos of family members saying Ron picked Haleigh up. So far this is undisputable. So we have two differing accounts of the same event, and this is where the problems start. Which one of them is a fact? I don't know. Maybe neither of them are facts and Teresa, Tommy or Lindsy picked Haleigh up. But IMO it doesn't help the case to try to discount one of the alternatives out of hand.

I'd like to give most people who come here to read the credit for being able to discern for themselves that when there are several versions of the same event one or more of them may be false, and that things aren't always correct, true and factual just because someone, anyone, says so.

ETA I agree that I would prefer unedited interviews, if possible, but it's not always feasible in practice. People have bandwidth limitations on their websites and they need to cut the videos they post down to size. Sometimes the interviewees ramble on and on and on about something that is extremely uninteresting or repetitive or too offensive to post and it has to be cut for that reason. Also, long interviews have to be edited to five minutes or so because that's usually the length that people are prepared to watch. If you post 45 minute interviews the number of people watching it will go down like a ton of lead.

 

[elle1919]

I agree that there should be accountability and every blogger and other interested parties should consider what they release very carefully.

But I think it confuses the issue that there are two levels of facts.
It is factual information that there is a video of a woman saying she saw or thinks she saw Misty hit a child. It is also a fact that there are several videos of family members saying Ron picked Haleigh up. So far this is undisputable. So we have two differing accounts of the same event, and this is where the problems start. Which one of them is a fact? I don't know. Maybe neither of them are facts and Teresa, Tommy or Lindsy picked Haleigh up. But IMO it doesn't help the case to try to discount one of the alternatives out of hand.

I'd like to give most people who come here to read the credit for being able to discern for themselves that when there are several versions of the same event one or more of them may be false, and that things aren't always correct, true and factual just because someone, anyone, says so.

Perhaps the focus on who picked Haleigh up at the bus stop makes for interesting conversation in the RT but the truth is that Haleigh was alive on February 9th when the AC man came. No matter how many times that tidbit is pointed out we keep going back to discuss the bus stop. I have no problem with the bus stop discussion but it is topic for the rumor thread because of the unconfirmed information being discussed. JMO

 

[debs]

Perhaps the focus on who picked Haleigh up at the bus stop makes for interesting conversation in the RT but the truth is that Haleigh was alive on February 9th when the AC man came. No matter how many times that tidbit is pointed out we keep going back to discuss the bus stop. I have no problem with the bus stop discussion but it is topic for the rumor thread because of the unconfirmed information being discussed. JMO

But it is indeed a fact that we have conflicting stories as to who picked Haleigh up from the bus stop, is it not?

Also, we don't know what the AC guy saw. We have never heard a peep about what he saw at all.

 

[Whisperer]

Elle...what fact are you using to say Haleigh was alive when the AC man arrived. What fact are you using to say the AC man was actually there?

 

[Donjeta]

Perhaps the focus on who picked Haleigh up at the bus stop makes for interesting conversation in the RT but the truth is that Haleigh was alive on February 9th when the AC man came. No matter how many times that tidbit is pointed out we keep going back to discuss the bus stop. I have no problem with the bus stop discussion but it is topic for the rumor thread because of the unconfirmed information being discussed. JMO

I don't know what the AC man said at all. Did he even see Haleigh? We have been told by Misty that he was there but are there confirmed statements from the AC guy saying that he saw Haleigh?

Anyway, I'm not sure about the relevance of the AC guy having seen her alive. It doesn't matter whether he saw her or not, there are still two different accounts of the bus stop, and I'd like to know why. It's not enough for me to just say, we can't discuss it because the video was edited and it was published in a blog, and LE hasn't confirmed it etc.

Supposing the woman's tale is true and Misty slaps children in public she might easily have hit Haleigh harder in the evening after the AC guy was gone.

 

[elle1919]

Elle...what fact are you using to say Haleigh was alive when the AC man arrived. What fact are you using to say the AC man was actually there?

So you can see my posts. Law Enforcement gave us the information about the Air Conditioning repairman Whisperer. Why would they tell us that he was there and when he was there if we were not to consider the information that he saw Haleigh? As a point of fact I tried to sleuth the AC guy many months ago and was told that Law Enforcement cleared the AC man and the information that Haleigh was present when the AC repairman was there can probably be found in that thread.

LE did state the AC man was at the trailer that day, they "cleared" him after all did they not?

 

[Quiche]

So you can see my posts. Law Enforcement gave us the information about the Air Conditioning repairman Whisperer. Why would they tell us that he was there and when he was there if we were not to consider the information that he saw Haleigh? As a point of fact I tried to sleuth the AC guy many months ago and was told that Law Enforcement cleared the AC man and the information that Haleigh was present when the AC repairman was there can probably be found in that thread.

LE did state the AC man was at the trailer that day, they "cleared" him after all did they not?

This post contains some very twisted logic, imo.

 

[elle1919]

This post contains some very twisted logic, imo.

It is not logic at all. I am telling you that Law Enforcement has interviewed the AC Man and we learned of the AC man through LE. How is that twisted?

Quite simple really.

 

[Quiche]

It is not logic at all. I am telling you that Law Enforcement has interviewed the AC Man and we learned of the AC man through LE. How is that twisted?

Quite simple really.

I agree, it is not logic. I am referring to the conclusion that the AC man must have witnessed Haleigh that afternoon. That is quite a leap, imo. Do you have a link by any chance? Maybe I've overlooked a critical piece of information given by LE. tia

 

[stilettos]

I don't know what the AC man said at all. Did he even see Haleigh? We have been told by Misty that he was there but are there confirmed statements from the AC guy saying that he saw Haleigh?

Anyway, I'm not sure about the relevance of the AC guy having seen her alive. It doesn't matter whether he saw her or not, there are still two different accounts of the bus stop, and I'd like to know why. It's not enough for me to just say, we can't discuss it because the video was edited and it was published in a blog, and LE hasn't confirmed it etc.

Supposing the woman's tale is true and Misty slaps children in public she might easily have hit Haleigh harder in the evening after the AC guy was gone.

I agree with the possibility of your last sentence...what i am trying to discover is the reason RC would lie, assault and threaten to protect the person that may have done this. When we figure that out...we will know what RC has to gain.....or lose in this case.

 

[Donjeta]

I don't think it is disputed that the AC guy was there. IMO the interesting part is what did he see. Did he see Haleigh? Did he remember? Did he pay any attention to the children? Did he see if Haleigh was okay? There were other kids there, supposedly, would he have paid any attention to any one child in particular or been able to tell if he saw just Haleigh, later?

What did LE state about what the AC guy saw? I might be wrong about this but IIRC we discussed it a lot many months ago and the jury came out inconclusive since LE didn't give out much except he was cleared.

 

[elle1919]

I agree, it is not logic. I am referring to the conclusion that the AC man must have witnessed Haleigh that afternoon. That is quite a leap, imo. Do you have a link by any chance? Maybe I've overlooked a critical piece of information given by LE. tia

No I don't have a link. The information you want can be found here.

Air Conditioner Repair Man - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

Why would Law Enforcement say he has a strong alibi and he was cleared if he claimed never to see Haleigh? Seriously if Haleigh went missing and the AC Man claimed that he never saw Haleigh I would not consider that an alibi. The only way LE could have cleared him in the disappearance would make sense was if he said he saw her.

 

[Donjeta]

No I don't have a link. The information you want can be found here.

Air Conditioner Repair Man - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

Why would Law Enforcement say he has a strong alibi and he was cleared if he claimed never to see Haleigh? Seriously if Haleigh went missing and the AC Man claimed that he never saw Haleigh I would not consider that an alibi. The only way LE could have cleared him in the disappearance would make sense was if he said he saw her.

So you're just inferring that he must have seen Haleigh alive because LE said he was cleared? This is not a fact, then?

Honestly, this makes no sense to me. I've never seen Haleigh but I have a solid alibi. If his whereabouts that night have been documented with solid confirmation he's got an alibi and he's cleared whether or not he saw Haleigh or not.

 

[Quiche]

No I don't have a link. The information you want can be found here.

Air Conditioner Repair Man - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

Why would Law Enforcement say he has a strong alibi and he was cleared if he claimed never to see Haleigh? Seriously if Haleigh went missing and the AC Man claimed that he never saw Haleigh I would not consider that an alibi. The only way LE could have cleared him in the disappearance would make sense was if he said he saw her.

Oh, that's a link to a discussion thread. I was asking for a link to an LE statement. Anyhow, consider this scenario: AC man was never there, had documented and witnessed evidence that he did not service that MH, and could substantiate his whereabouts all day and evening. Wouldn't that also "clear" him?