Art Harris Exclusives - Merged threads

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Kat said:
Yes Whisperer. I do remember that and it has stuck with me for all this time. That interview (I need to find it again so I can watch it again) is where she slipped. She scrambled to cover her tracks. Didn't she? I think everyone here at the time said "WTH, with the blankets and van" but IMHO that portion of the story may just be correct.As for AH and MC's revelation, I take what she has to say with a grain of salt (other than her slip above) the size of the rock of gibraltar. He's reporting what he has heard, and bless him he can't help that every single one of these players are fibbers, liars, prevaricators. At best JMHO.


ETA: If it's proven that "they" (whoever that may be) took the van that night, it doesn't mean that sweet Haleigh was alive when she was put into it. JMHO.
Click to expand...



BBM

I always thought Misty was referring to the van LE siezed. I also figured they took the blanket as evidence. That's the reason I never gave it a second thought.
 
GRANNYL said:
Bern I may be wrong but I think Tommy and Misty rode back to St. Johns County Jail in the same car leaving from Putnam County Jail.
Click to expand...

Thanks Granny,

I must have missed it or didn't see him on the video. That must have been one interesting ride back!
 
http://www.examiner.com/x-7403-Tamp...gs-sighting-in-Abington-Massachusetts-WalMart

It has also been reported that around the time Haleigh went missing many phone calls were made between Misty Croslin and her brother Timmy. Reports also show that Misty Croslin called her brother before the 911 phone call was placed by Ronald Cummings. Now, an important question is why Misty Croslin would call her brother before calling 911. In fact, Misty Croslin never called 911, it was only when Ronald Cummings’ returned from work and discovered that Haleigh was gone that 911 was called.


This is the brother I'd be looking at!
 
Misty Claims; In December of 2009, a month before she was arrested for trafficking drugs, her brother Tommy took her to/showed her the spot where, she claims he (Tommy) told her that him and cousin Jo dumped HaLeigh's body. This spot that Misty claims Tommy showed her involves a dock but Misty (interestingly) doesn't recall where exactly this "spot" is that her brother Tommy took her to/showed her.
IMO, MISTY'S CLAIM INDICATES SHE'S LYING: SHE DOESN'T RECALL WHERE THE LOCATION IS THAT SOMEONE SUPPOSEDLY SHOWED HER AND TOLD HER THAT'S WHERE THEY DUMPED THE BODY OF A 5-YEAR-OLD LITTLE GIRL?? A LITTLE GIRL THAT MISTY CLAIMS TO HAVE LOVED...Here again, like Ronald's statement distancing himself from the cement block used to prop open the back door to the MH whereby Ronald claims he'd never seen any cement blocks on his property before; In her story, Misty goes as far as telling LE that Tommy took me...Tommy told me... BUT I can't remember where he took me... Misty is distancing herself here. She's telling a story, and I do mean a "story", and, in order to make her story more believable - "they did it, not me" - she over-distances herself here by claiming not to recall where this alleged spot was that Tommy took her to. Just like the cement block that Ronald over-distanced himself from (one would have had to be completely blind not to have seen cement blocks on or around the property of the MH), one wouldn't forget the spot where a 5-year-old little girl's body was claimed to have been dumped by someone. Misty is lying, again. JMHO ~
 
Why would Tommy (or Timmy or Joe) place Haleigh anywhere near their family's home? Strikes me that IF Haleigh is anywhere near this place, it wasn't a Croslin that put her there. They might not be the highest-ordered thinking group out there, but seems to me they'd want to make sure that if/when she's found, she couldn't be tied to them.

Sounds more like, IF she's there, it's because someone wants the Croslin's to take the fall for it.
 
''Indeed, truth, the whole truth, and nothing but The Bald Truth has been elusive in this...''

I agree with Art, two fabricated stories by him are listed below.


brother Tommy had directed police to search for Haleigh’s body three days earlier, on April 13, according to James Werter,


On The Nancy Grace Show Tuesday night, Werter said his client could identify the killer, but stopped short of revealing more
 
“They wanted to see if she could give them any details that might back up her dock story.”


Does this make any sense to anyone? What details would there be about Tommy telling Misty the story that would back up her claim he told her that?

I am not calling BS on it but I just can't think of any possible details.
 
Maryann123 said:
Yes, we do Elle. I think it depends on which side of the fence you are on. I lean toward Tommy being the patsy for Ronald and Misty. I think you lean toward Tommy being guilty of "something", not necessarily of murder. If I find out Tommy has so much as covered up information that could have solved this case, I will be against him, worse than most on this board. At this point, I think he is just Misty and Ronald's sucker.
I'm open to all points of view, but I haven't seen anything to point me toward Tommy's guilt. Maybe I have blinders on!
Click to expand...

:D This SUCKER agrees with you wholeheartedly: Tommy is just Misty & Ronald's SUCKER.

jmo
 
Quoted From AH's article:

"On The Nancy Grace Show Tuesday night, Werter said his client could identify the killer, but stopped short of revealing more."


The problem is, I watched, and NG said that Werter's client could ID the killer - then Werter got an and categorically and very specifically DENIED that he said that and would say only that his client knew what happened that night.

So, somebody pinch me and tell me I've been dreaming, or that I'm wrong about what Werter said on NG about ID-ing the killer and AH is right. Or maybe I missed another show where Werter changed his mind completely?

ETA: Okay, nevermind. Don't pinch me. Here's the NG Transcripts from Tues, April 27 2010:

GRACE: Mr. Werter -- with us, everyone, Jim Werter, a well-respected attorney out of the Jacksonville, Florida area.

Mr. Werter, is it true that you have stated that your client can ID the killer, the person that took Haleigh?

WERTER: OK. That`s incorrect. What I stated was that he`s, first of all, not culpable but he does know what happened that night. I had been repeatedly saying that I cannot discuss the facts of the case because it`s an ongoing investigation and I`d like to see it come to a successful conclusion.

You being former in a way law enforcement by being a prosecutor, me being former law enforcement and a prosecutor, I`d like to see a successful end to this. And I think Tommy will come out very well with this.

GRACE: OK. Wait. Now you`re saying that your client knows what happened that night?

WERTER: Yes.

GRACE: What happened?

WERTER: I told you. I just told you. I cannot discuss the facts of the case because of the ongoing investigation. When I am dying for an arrest to be made in this case and I could be more forthcoming. But right now I have a good working relationship with law enforcement. I`m going to keep it that way.
 
Dr.Fessel said:
“They wanted to see if she could give them any details that might back up her dock story.”


Does this make any sense to anyone? What details would there be about Tommy telling Misty the story that would back up her claim he told her that?

I am not calling BS on it but I just can't think of any possible details.
Click to expand...


Don't worry, Doc, it doesn't make sense to many of us. Can't understand. :waitasec:
 
Emma Peel said:
Quoted From AH's article:

"On The Nancy Grace Show Tuesday night, Werter said his client could identify the killer, but stopped short of revealing more."


The problem is, I watched, and NG said that Werter's client could ID the killer - then Werter got an and categorically and very specifically DENIED that he said that and denied that his client could ID the killer.

So, somebody pinch me and tell me I've been dreaming, or that I'm wrong about what Werter said on NG about ID-ing the killer and AH is right. Or maybe I missed another show where Werter changed his mind completely?
Click to expand...


Emma, you are absolutely correct. In the basement thread this morning, someone kindly posted the transcript from CNN:

NANCY: Mr. Werter, is it true that you have stated that your client can ID the killer, the person that took Haleigh?

WERTER: OK. That`s incorrect. What I stated was that he`s, first of all, not culpable but he does know what happened that night. I had been repeatedly saying that I cannot discuss the facts of the case because it`s an ongoing investigation and I`d like to see it come to a successful conclusion.

You being former in a way law enforcement by being a prosecutor, me being former law enforcement and a prosecutor, I`d like to see a successful end to this. And I think Tommy will come out very well with this.


http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1004/27/ng.01.html
 
aksleuth said:
Emma, you are absolutely correct. In the basement thread this morning, someone kindly posted the transcript from CNN:

NANCY: Mr. Werter, is it true that you have stated that your client can ID the killer, the person that took Haleigh?

WERTER: OK. That`s incorrect. What I stated was that he`s, first of all, not culpable but he does know what happened that night. I had been repeatedly saying that I cannot discuss the facts of the case because it`s an ongoing investigation and I`d like to see it come to a successful conclusion.

You being former in a way law enforcement by being a prosecutor, me being former law enforcement and a prosecutor, I`d like to see a successful end to this. And I think Tommy will come out very well with this.


http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1004/27/ng.01.html
Click to expand...

Thanks!
I just haven't ventured to the basement today. Just got here, and now I gotta leave again. :) Glad we're keepin' it real (as real as it gets) here @ WS!
 
Emma Peel said:
Quoted From AH's article:

"On The Nancy Grace Show Tuesday night, Werter said his client could identify the killer, but stopped short of revealing more."


The problem is, I watched, and NG said that Werter's client could ID the killer - then Werter got an and categorically and very specifically DENIED that he said that and denied that his client could ID the killer.

So, somebody pinch me and tell me I've been dreaming, or that I'm wrong about what Werter said on NG about ID-ing the killer and AH is right. Or maybe I missed another show where Werter changed his mind completely?
Click to expand...

Only half dreaming. ;) He adamantly refused to confirm or deny that his client could ID the killer.

When Nancy asked him if he had stated that he could ID him, he said "OK, That's incorrect," and followed up at length about why he refused to say that Tommy could ID the killer.

It's inexcusable for anyone to turn around and falsely report that he said the words he clearly said he would not say.

As for the rest of the breaking news, who knows. :sheesh: It wouldn't surprise me that Misty would say it, and I'm glad Art keeps the story in the news. but how is it a break? :confused:

I swear, trying to sleuth this case is like trying to play chess with bystanders placing extra pieces on the board after every few moves ...when not outright mislabeling the real pieces that do belong. :headache:
 
As in all lies, there is always some truth. I believe the St. Johns River IS where the body was disposed of. However, I don't think ToC took MC to 'show' her where they dumped the body... And even if he did, why would he wait until Dec.? It just seems to me that MC is squirming and flailing with her lies at this point. This girl couldn't tell the truth if her 'honey buns' depended on it!

I just hope that LE is able to discard all of the 'garbage' info (he said/she said) and stick with the facts!

I do believe that another family member will be the one to crack this wide open. I only hope that MC (& RC) are exposed for all of their lies.

JMO!

Still praying for complete justice for darling Haleigh!
 
Unless Misty says I was there when Haleigh died I am not going to believe anything attribued to her at this point, because that is the only statement she could make that I would believe. I do not think there is anything remotely "breaking news" about this bit from AH, it is simply one more thing Misty may or may not have said, but since little or none of what she has said has shown to be true based on LD tests, why should this statement get so much attention? It is just pure sensationalism IMO and does little or nothing to advance the case.
 
Dr.Fessel said:
“They wanted to see if she could give them any details that might back up her dock story.”


Does this make any sense to anyone? What details would there be about Tommy telling Misty the story that would back up her claim he told her that?

I am not calling BS on it but I just can't think of any possible details.
Click to expand...

Maybe they hoped that if they took her out there while giving her the impression that they had discovered evidence about what truly happened, she would start "fixing" her story?

They'd either have a more dependable story or more story-changing to sink her with at trial.
 
Kat said:
Yes Whisperer. I do remember that and it has stuck with me for all this time. That interview (I need to find it again so I can watch it again) is where she slipped. She scrambled to cover her tracks. Didn't she? I think everyone here at the time said "WTH, with the blankets and van" but IMHO that portion of the story may just be correct.

As for AH and MC's revelation, I take what she has to say with a grain of salt (other than her slip above) the size of the rock of gibraltar. He's reporting what he has heard, and bless him he can't help that every single one of these players are fibbers, liars, prevaricators. At best JMHO.


ETA: If it's proven that "they" (whoever that may be) took the van that night, it doesn't mean that sweet Haleigh was alive when she was put into it. JMHO.
Click to expand...

The "they" in question could mean LE. They had the van at the time that this interview took place.

From what she says, I can glean a few things:

- her usual sleeping blanket was in the van
- it was not USUAL for that blanket to be in the van
- she had to take a different blanket from it's usual place on the window to wash it so that she could use it to sleep with
- the fact that she had to wash the window blanket makes me conclude that she slept with the van blanket the night before (otherwise the window blanket would have been washed and ready for use that night)
- which leads me to assume that the usual sleeping blanket was only put into the van within the prior 12 hours before she had to sleep that night.

The question is why was the blanket put in the van that day/night that Haleigh went missing???????

Hence my signature...
 
Emma Peel said:
Quoted From AH's article:

"On The Nancy Grace Show Tuesday night, Werter said his client could identify the killer, but stopped short of revealing more."


The problem is, I watched, and NG said that Werter's client could ID the killer - then Werter got an and categorically and very specifically DENIED that he said that and would say only that his client knew what happened that night.

So, somebody pinch me and tell me I've been dreaming, or that I'm wrong about what Werter said on NG about ID-ing the killer and AH is right. Or maybe I missed another show where Werter changed his mind completely?

ETA: Okay, nevermind. Don't pinch me. Here's the NG Transcripts from Tues, April 27 2010:

GRACE: Mr. Werter -- with us, everyone, Jim Werter, a well-respected attorney out of the Jacksonville, Florida area.

Mr. Werter, is it true that you have stated that your client can ID the killer, the person that took Haleigh?

WERTER: OK. That`s incorrect. What I stated was that he`s, first of all, not culpable but he does know what happened that night. I had been repeatedly saying that I cannot discuss the facts of the case because it`s an ongoing investigation and I`d like to see it come to a successful conclusion.

You being former in a way law enforcement by being a prosecutor, me being former law enforcement and a prosecutor, I`d like to see a successful end to this. And I think Tommy will come out very well with this.

GRACE: OK. Wait. Now you`re saying that your client knows what happened that night?

WERTER: Yes.

GRACE: What happened?

WERTER: I told you. I just told you. I cannot discuss the facts of the case because of the ongoing investigation. When I am dying for an arrest to be made in this case and I could be more forthcoming. But right now I have a good working relationship with law enforcement. I`m going to keep it that way.
Click to expand...

Nope Emma, you are not dreaming, Werter never said Tommy could ID the killer, Nancy said those words. I saw the AH article last night and that statement stood out because, it is simply not true.

As for the rest of that article, I seriously doubt that anyone is suddenly taking Misty's word for anything. I suspect that Art's "source" is a family member, and well I don't trust any of them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 229 more.
Total: 549 (members: 230, guests: 319)

Online statistics

Members online
230
Guests online
319
Total visitors
549
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
609,113
Messages
18,249,701
Members
234,538
Latest member
Enriquemet
Back
Top