My guess is that they wanted to document it in case they needed the
pictures down the road for anything.
I'm glad they did!
It made CS and her attorney look stupid for going on tv and claiming that
these were NOT the same marks that she had due to the fall!
LOL!
Gotta love it!
:banghead:
(bold mine, from previous Crystal #3) Hi txmommy :wave: ...and we were doing so well yesterday... lolol!
1. "Crystal admits doing cocaine while pregnant, this is not a try during pregnancy kind of drug it is a habitual habit at this point and is sometimes in need of intervention."
What Crystal admits to is STOPPING use of cocaine as soon as she learned she was pregnant--unlike dad, who continued using drugs in the home they shared.
2. "Those who don't want to quit drugs while pregnant are in need of someone else caring for the child after delivery."
Those who don't want to quit drugs while PARENTING are in need of someone else to care for their child/ren!
3. "I firmly feel that Ron has demonstrated repeatedly his ability to address ASAP his concerns in regards to the children."
Ron is the one who did not want Crystal to learn to drive; and insisted instead he would be responsible for arranging alternate transportation by his mother to and from Haleigh's doctor appts. during the time they were living together and beyond, yet failed to follow through. Crystal is not the one in whose care Haleigh was when the 22 absences from school occurred during her first few months in school. And Crystal is also not the one who, w/out warning failed to return and kidnapped their two children in violation of the court ordered schedule. It would seem when dad takes the children--nevermind whether there was just cause, whether court sanctioned nor even if legally entitled--he has only altruistic motives... Yet when Mom, in response to now grave and justifiable concern is in a position to seek LEGAL remedies, to rightfully pursue due parental recourse in the prescribed manner, her motives are selfish, sinister and suspect...?
4. "...we (do) not need to speculate the mothers motives for not pursuing child support to establish said paternity."
While attributing the worst most selfish possible motives to mom, for me to say there is a ton of speculating and assigning of benevolent motives re dad going on in your own post would be a gross understatement. And plez, don't even get me started on this doing comparisons of these three women's characters on the basis of looks, mannerisms or vocal tone, I will have cardiac arrest or a stroke... lol. This will have to do for now as it needs to be addressed further in Ron Thread, but w/e we saw eye to eye yesterday, well it was nice while it lasted LOL!!
you know i agree with that and i was wondering the very same thing ... i mean how many of us take photos of our kids when they get hurt ? were they planning to sue the school or ? i do find this kind of odd .. i mean if no one did anything why would ron be worried about it im not being snarky to ron im just really wondering why ? and crystal was supposedly praising how misty and he take good care of the kids .. so at that point why would they be worried she would pull anything ? but who knows with all of em
Scathing references to "rampant misinformation" and blistering accusations of lies aside, I can only defer and pay homage to our fellow member boytwnmom--whom we've all been privileged to have on these boards--and who "couldn't help but feel the need herself to patiently point out a few of the mistruths about Crystal" earlier on this thread. Shelby I assure you, you are not the only one waxing patient in disagreement w info being repeatedly put out here as "fact" yet merely adding to the confusion. Yes here we go again, but I will spare her the trouble of having to repeat herself:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3475523#post3475523
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3476185#post3476185
Yes it IS frustrating to have facts presented in earlier posts both ignored and distorted. Altho I've worked for two attorneys (and consider myself fairly articulate) I, no doubt like Crystal, am w/out question not nearly as equipped to assess nor to argue the legal ramifications as succinctly and clearly as boytwnmom--who, like myself, has no dog in this race. I'm just grateful that a disinterested person in this field has taken time out to do an analysis in order to shed light on this for the rest of us--of which any of us who are not attorneys might do well to heed and take note. And thankful that Crystal has an advocate of her own now. You are not the only poster who's grown weary of hearing what they feel is a mischaracterization. As you said, repeatedly misstating something does not make it true. So it's all "one way," and we "don't see posters stating falsehoods when it comes to Crystal?" Perhaps there is more than "one way" to interpret the alleged "facts" but boytwnmom is certain to enjoy a raucous laugh over that one... Props BTM for your posts. JMO
they are doing alot of things that would seem unlikely that a person would do in this situation ..so with these people you just dont know ..
Ironically, it was the post you reposted to me in your reply that I had in mind when I said here we go again LOL.
All of the inaccuracies were pointed out, the facts I used came from court docs, not media or downstairs "rumors". Busylady kindly backed up my statements with links (IIRC on pg1 of CS thread #3) a few days ago for boytwnmom. Busylady has done it again today.
My concern was people would see that post, and not having been here since the beginning doing the full research as many of us have here have done and take it for truth, when there our docs that dispute that info. Apparently my concern was well-founded. So we can go round and round arguing until we're blue in the face, but I for one, will stick with the facts as I know them and leave all the twisting of it to other posters.
I'm NOT looking to take anybody's side here but Haleigh's. I am looking at this as objectively as I can and trying to keep the facts in mind and the rumor and innuendo aside. This case is not about Crystal, and she is not the victim, so I just don't understand why some take it so personal when her faults are brought up. Even she has admitted to things that people here still won't believe. I give up.
The way I see it both parents have enough faults that we don't need to be adding to their lists with mis-truths.
As for the custody stuff, I'm with Busylady and am now done with this discussion. So far 2 judges, LE and DCF have all decided Ron should have custody, so unless I'm ready to believe there is a Putnam County conspiracy against Crystal, I am satisfied.
Happy Friday everyone
arrot:(bold mine)
To demean another opinion by any who reject our interpretation of the facts as "twisting" them isn't arguing the facts themselves--it is invalidating another person and attacking their integrity because one disagrees w other points of view. Plenty have, and will continue to, see this very differently.
To diminish another person's interpretation of those same documents--including time spent by a skilled, qualified attorney--dismissing it as "based upon rumor" downstairs also isn't arguing the facts it is invalidating another person's integrity, and the quality of their own assessment, simply because another disagrees w one's point of view. Boytwnmom did not do a lengthy, time consuming analysis of local gossip--she stated she painstakingly reviewed the custody hearing documents.
To discount other's opinions in this case--who have also been here from the very outset and waded at least as doggedly thru documents, having delved equally into researching the legal proceedings, case histories, poured over extensive arrest records, maps etc and consiering the input by those who possess far more qualifications, legal and other areas of expertise--as all superfluous or inferior merely because it conflicts w one's own view also isn't arguing facts fairly. It's again slurring a poster and their efforts for simply disagreeing.
The awarding of custody--in Crystal's and in every case--is determined upon an ongoing fluid decision by courts based upon ever changing circumstances of either parent. So far 'judges' decided to dismiss every one in a long series of drug charges against one parent, LE did nothing about an underaged child living there w dad and we all know DCF never makes any mistakes either but none of it makes it an ounce safer for the children. Which is why anyone on Haleigh's OR Junior's "side" supports a thorough investigation of any concerns that exist now in their environment--in which Haleigh was last seen alive and from which she inexplicably disappeared to ensure all present risk factors are identified and in turn addressed. W/e the court decided in the past does not determine what is in the current best interest of Junior--or his sissy if Lord willing she's possibly survived. In that event everyone should be relieved and assured the children are returning to the healthiest environment wherever that is determined to be. On one thing we can agree, this case is not about Crystal and never has been. It is, however, the topic of this thread--including for all those who view her as peripheral, a scapegoat and a sideshow; but who understand allegations, by her and by others, warrant a closer look, therefore choose to support her in that effort. JMO
(bold mine)
To demean another opinion by any who reject our interpretation of the facts as "twisting" them isn't arguing the facts themselves--it is invalidating another person and attacking their integrity because one disagrees w other points of view. Plenty have, and will continue to, see this very differently.
To diminish another person's interpretation of those very same documents--including time spent by a skilled, qualified attorney--dismissing it as "based upon rumor" downstairs also isn't arguing the facts it is invalidating another person's integrity, and the quality of their own assessment, simply because another disagrees w one's point of view. Boytwnmom did not do a lengthy, time consuming analysis of local gossip--but stated rather she had painstakingly reviewed the custody hearing documents.
To discount other's opinions in this case--who have also been here from the very outset and waded at least as doggedly thru at least as many documents, delved equally into researching legal proceedings, case histories, poured over extensive arrest records, maps etc and w respect and consideration for the time and input by those w greater qualifications, legal and other areas of expertise--as all superfluous or inferior merely because it conflicts w one's own view also isn't arguing facts fairly. It's again slurring a poster and their efforts for simply disagreeing.
The awarding of custody--in Crystal's and in every case--is determined upon an ongoing, fluid, and weighted decision by courts, based upon ever changing circumstances of either parent. So far 'judges' decided to dismiss every one in a long series of drug charges against one parent, LE did nothing about an underaged child living there w dad and we all know DCF never makes any mistakes either but none of it makes it an ounce safer for the children. Which is why anyone on Haleigh's OR Junior's "side" supports a thorough investigation of any concerns which may exist now in their environment--in which Haleigh was last seen alive and from which she inexplicably disappeared to ensure all present risk factors are identified and in turn addressed. W/e the court decided in the past does not determine what is in the current best interest of Junior--or his sissy if Lord willing she's possibly survived. In that event everyone should be relieved and assured the children are returning to the healthiest environment wherever that is determined to be. On one thing we can agree, this case is not about Crystal and never has been. It is, however, the topic of this thread--including for all those who view her as peripheral, a scapegoat and a sideshow; but who understand allegations, by her and by others, warrant a closer look, therefore choose to support her in that effort. JMO
