The gun story has never made sense to me and I dont believe it.
If neighbors of the Cummings can hear a scream as they claim, then they can hear a gunshot, imo.
These folks wouldnt be able to clean every trace of a gunshot scene.
I know people have said that intentional shootings can be such that there is minimized splatter, but if a gunshot happened in this case, I'd think it an accident.
There could have been a gunshot at another location/home (that has not been searched) But if that were so, then the gun being "stolen" part still doesnt make sense bc how is it stolen from Ron's home if it's not
IN Ron's home in the first place.
If that were true, why not just say it in the beginning?
I dont think Misty even remembered hanging flyers with Joe, much less that someone would have snapped a photo as proof. Therefore she woudlnt realize, when hatching the story, how confounding it looks that she calmly (or apparently not in obvious distress at being in Joe's presence) strolled around town hanging flyers with the crazed murderer from whom she had supposedly cowered the night before.
Also, I think what happened was not intentional even if it was wrong/illegal in nature; So I cant get on board with this child-for-gun substitution story bc it sounds intentional - even if spur of the moment. Also, if "Joe" were intent on acquiring a firearm, whether "promised," "owed" or not, if he were THAT intent as to become enraged, it seems the gun was what he was seeking and a child wouldnt serve his purpose.
Unless that points to molestation. I've read some linguistics theories about interviews in which the words "blankets" "water" etc are prevalent being indicative of sexual abuse, but I cant get my head around the notion that that night was the first time and that on the first time it all goes to hell in a handcart for them.
And if it
werent the first time, it seems there'd have been prior evidence to that effect particularly since Crystal had routine visits with the children and would have seen something or been told something or had a clue somehow imo.
Also, the pièce de résistance, no wait -- the coups de grâce, well anyway, whatever I'm trying to say, the main reason I dont believe it is that none of this gun story (as it stands now in its current rendition) would explain Ron's words and actions since day one.
Just for starters, if Ron weren't involved there'd be no need for him to participate in (imo) a badly thought-out, poorly rehearsed, and grossly over-acted 911 call. And according to FBI statistics, for what it's worth, many times in cases that are eventually solved, whoever turns out later to be found the perp was the one who got another individual to make, or at least initiate, the 911 call....
for what it's worth. Also, Ron was legally the adult, the bio parent, the resident of the home and again, for cryin out loud,
he's the child's father why didnt HE make the call to initiate the report? Then if need be, put Misty on the phone for questions. (FBI link here - but scroll very far down to find it by the title below)
"911 Calls and Statement Analysis," 2008, by Dr. Susan H Adams
http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2008/june2008/june2008leb.htm
Nor would there be a need for him to (imo) stage a crime scene with a wide open bricked door, and to apparently make himself deliberately seen on a quick mart camera and on and on.
Add that to Neves' and Sykes' odd accounts and inconsistencies which, imo, point only to covering for Ron.
In closing, if there were actually an element of truth to the gun story - as in if there were a gun truly involved in an altercation, accident, whatever - my guess is that Mr. Cummings was the one brandishing it. I'll stop there.
moo
.