How Did the Side Door Get Opened?/Door Locks/Use of Cinder Block**REVISITED**

[mysticrose]

How can he be in two places at once?

If Misty was not home and was with other people...LE would know by now and they have said there has been no one to say she was not there. I believe them.

Why would Ronald make up a story for Misty if she left his children alone to be kidnapped? Why rush home from work to stage a scene? He had no reason to do this especially if he felt she was negligent or involved in some way, imo.

Staging the backdoor with the block and having it unlocked isn't very adequate staging to convince LE. Cutting the screen on her window, leaving it unlocked, and her mattress found in her room would be staging an abduction.

I was never refferring to Ron in my post it was about Misty staging the door not Ron, "he was at work" . Some one did come forward and tip to LE that Misty was not at home. LE cant confirm this prob. because this person heard 3rd hand and then you have Misty who swears she was home you cant prove it.
SS you need to re read my post. It gave two scenarios in moo about Misty staging the door not Ron. Also not that Misty staged the abduction just the door after finding Haleigh missing

 

[SeriouslySearching]

I was never refferring to Ron in my post it was about Misty staging the door not Ron, "he was at work" . Some one did come forward and tip to LE that Misty was not at home. LE cant confirm this prob. because this person heard 3rd hand and then you have Misty who swears she was home you cant prove it.
SS you need to re read my post. It gave two scenarios in moo about Misty staging the door not Ron. Also not that Misty staged the abduction just the door after finding Haleigh missing

Sorry! I did misread it. Wow..second time that has happened in as many days here. (I have got to get rid of this headache as I lose my concentration so easily, I guess.) My apologies. I will try to be more careful.

 

[Whisperer]

Afterall, he called her that morning. He would NOT say if he were and she would not tell, that is for sure.

Both Ron and Misty have reasons to present theselves as good parents. Misty would not say if she left the house and ron would not say the door wasn't locked.

they both are invested in presenting good images, unfortunately, most don't buy it.

 

[mysticrose]

Sorry! I did misread it. Wow..second time that has happened in as many days here. (I have got to get rid of this headache as I lose my concentration so easily, I guess.) My apologies. I will try to be more careful.

Thats Ok SS...lol I had a doozy today as well on one of the other threads..

 

[Blackwatch]

Because the back door was left unlocked doesn't mean he entered through there. They have never said for certain the front door was locked.

Again, I can give you case after case where a child predator entered a home with people sleeping inside where they took their time in doing so. When a predator has his mind set on gratification of his act...not much would stand in his way.

The reason they bring up lock bumping is because they were trying to figure out a rational way for the perp to get in the back door without causing damage...not realizing he could have used the front door, imo. They were trying to apply their own theory as to what they thought happened...imo (which is why it doesn't sound honest...because it is only a theory).

BBM. IF Misty was waiting for Ron at the front door, as Ron stated she was, a body might think Misty would have noticed whether it was locked or not.

Just my observation.

 

[DotsEyes]

When I was a kid, my friend's entire 6 member family were napping after Sunday dinner. Someone entered the house in broad daylight, crept around and stole the wallet out of the pocket of the sleeping father's slacks which were draped across the foot of the bed in which he, his wife, youngest child and dog were napping. The perp also took the money from all the purses in the house and used the toilet, although he/she didn't flush. He climbed on an a/c unit, shimmied a window lock, stepped through the draperies down onto the dining table, then a chair. He retraced his steps on the way out closing the draperies and window. All the doors were locked and it wasn't until one of the kids noticed footprints on the table that they had any clue as to how someone got into the house.

A perp bumping a door and stealing a sleeping child from under the sleeping babysitter's nose is not Mission Impossible.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

BBM. IF Misty was waiting for Ron at the front door, as Ron stated she was, a body might think Misty would have noticed whether it was locked or not.

Just my observation.

If you mean Misty by body...then I don't know if she would have noticed during a panic. It would depend on several things. The only thing I do know is that it has not been clearly stated the front door was locked (to my knowledge).

 

[Skully]

Can anyone tell me how they know the floodlight was not working?

Reasoning is if was pitch black back there, it is more likely that no stranger was hunting around the blackness of night for a door prop....logic dictates that thought process.

Whisper,

There was a full moon that night, it was really light outside.

 

[Donjeta]

Because the back door was left unlocked doesn't mean he entered through there. They have never said for certain the front door was locked.

Again, I can give you case after case where a child predator entered a home with people sleeping inside where they took their time in doing so. When a predator has his mind set on gratification of his act...not much would stand in his way.

The reason they bring up lock bumping is because they were trying to figure out a rational way for the perp to get in the back door without causing damage...not realizing he could have used the front door, imo. They were trying to apply their own theory as to what they thought happened...imo (which is why it doesn't sound honest...because it is only a theory).

I don't understand. Why would a honest theory not sound honest?

 

[stilettos]

I don't understand. Why would a honest theory not sound honest?

:floorlaugh: Does sound a bit convoluted, doesn't it?

 

[DotsEyes]

I don't know but if I woke up, found the back door bricked open and my child missing, the first thing I would think is that the back door was the entry and exit point. I would stay with that assumption until it was proven otherwise. And I would try to think of how someone entered through the locked door. It all seems very normal, reasonable and logical to me for MC and RC to make the same assumption. They are victims, not investigators.

 

[TxLady2]

When I was a kid, my friend's entire 6 member family were napping after Sunday dinner. Someone entered the house in broad daylight, crept around and stole the wallet out of the pocket of the sleeping father's slacks which were draped across the foot of the bed in which he, his wife, youngest child and dog were napping. The perp also took the money from all the purses in the house and used the toilet, although he/she didn't flush. He climbed on an a/c unit, shimmied a window lock, stepped through the draperies down onto the dining table, then a chair. He retraced his steps on the way out closing the draperies and window. All the doors were locked and it wasn't until one of the kids noticed footprints on the table that they had any clue as to how someone got into the house.

A perp bumping a door and stealing a sleeping child from under the sleeping babysitter's nose is not Mission Impossible.

Exactly! And I am amazed at the number of folks who believe Ron and Misty both lie with every breath, cannot accept the possibility that the back door could have accidentally been left unlocked... or the front door for that matter. They both say they keep it locked all the time, yet both admit that they do use that door occasionally to take out trash, or vacuum the car.
I know that I have sometimes lost my keys. Cannot find them anywhere, all the time claiming I ALWAYS take them out of the car and drop them in my purse, I NEVER leave them in the car... you know how it goes. Later, my husband goes to check and voila! My keys were in the ignition!

 

[SeriouslySearching]

I don't understand. Why would a honest theory not sound honest?

Because of the holes which would be in a theory making it "inconsistent" with facts.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

:floorlaugh: Does sound a bit convoluted, doesn't it?

Again...no. It doesn't sound convoluted. :furious:

When you are trying to fill in blanks with a theory, it isn't going to fit the facts any more than it does here when we are trying to piece things together. There are always holes where it won't match up unless it did happen exactly that way down to the letter.

Often witness statements do not match up to each other even if they saw the same occurrence at the same time. People will try to fill in gaps in their memories. This is a well known phenomenon.

 

[Donjeta]

Because of the holes which would be in a theory making it "inconsistent" with facts.

Which facts do you think are inconsistent here?

To my ear, the lock bumping theory sounded a bit funny because of the way it was delivered, but it was really just a nonverbal impression and a phrasing issue, nothing to do with facts or holes as such as I know little to nothing about lock bumping and no information was released on the evidence found on the back door.

If the front door was used, who bricked the back door and why?

 

[SeriouslySearching]

Which facts do you think are inconsistent here?

To my ear, the lock bumping theory sounded a bit funny because of the way it was delivered, but it was really just a nonverbal impression and a phrasing issue, nothing to do with facts or holes as such as I know little to nothing about lock bumping and no information was released on the evidence found on the back door.

If the front door was used, who bricked the back door and why?

LE made the statement early on and I don't know what they feel are "inconsistent" with the scene.

My theory is the perp wanted to enter the backdoor, propped it open with the cement block, could not get the lock open so went to the front door instead to enter.

I think the exit was planned for the backdoor due to several reasons:

1. Easier to slip out unnoticed with Haleigh.

2. Less chance of waking up Misty and Rj by not messing with the front door and the screen there.

3. A chance someone would drive by and see the perp carrying a child out of the front is greater than slipping out the back then around in the cover of darkness behind the mh.

4. Also less of a chance if Haleigh made noise that she would be heard by going out the back as it puts more distance between them.

5. The access to the vehicle the perp was intending on using was hidden, but could be easier accessed under the cover of shadows to get to it instead of walking down the road where he may be seen with her.

 

[Viki]

LE made the statement early on and I don't know what they feel are "inconsistent" with the scene.

My theory is the perp wanted to enter the backdoor, propped it open with the cement block, could not get the lock open so went to the front door instead to enter.

I think the exit was planned for the backdoor due to several reasons:

1. Easier to slip out unnoticed with Haleigh.

2. Less chance of waking up Misty and Rj by not messing with the front door and the screen there.

3. A chance someone would drive by and see the perp carrying a child out of the front is greater than slipping out the back then around in the cover of darkness behind the mh.

4. Also less of a chance if Haleigh made noise that she would be heard by going out the back as it puts more distance between them.

5. The access to the vehicle the perp was intending on using was hidden, but could be easier accessed under the cover of shadows to get to it instead of walking down the road where he may be seen with her.

I posted the same scenario on another site a couple nights ago.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

I posted the same scenario on another site a couple nights ago.

I don't go to other sites, but I am glad we are on the same page as it being plausible. I keep going back over it and this is what I keep coming up with since we don't know if the front door was locked or not.

Also, if there were clothes on the floor that night in the back room...when he pushed open the door upon entering...the clothing would have been pushed out of the way. The door slowly closes upon leaving and it was open that night which could mean clothes were possibly keeping it open. He could have kicked clothes with his feet in between the door and the jamb which would not have been there if he had entered that way. Make sense?

 

[Viki]

I don't go to other sites, but I am glad we are on the same page as it being plausible. I keep going back over it and this is what I keep coming up with since we don't know if the front door was locked or not.

Also, if there were clothes on the floor that night in the back room...when he pushed open the door upon entering...the clothing would have been pushed out of the way. The door slowly closes upon leaving and it was open that night which could mean clothes were possibly keeping it open. He could have kicked clothes with his feet in between the door and the jamb which would not have been there if he had entered that way. Make sense?

It does make sense... and the reason I started thinking about this scenario ... in through the front door and out through the side door - is because someone on another board, with speech patterns very similar to a principle in this case, came on-line, and said the front door was unlocked.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

While that would fall under the rumor category, it makes it even more plausible.