Ron C. # 10

[Gracenote]

I agree DenVIP. I think he should be re-interviewed and if he doesn't like the idea....maybe he could get a lawyer to be present with him. As Haleigh's father going public and stating that he doesn't want to be re-interviewed doesn't sound positive. He states that LE turned the interview personal, and thats why he refused....iirc.

Yes, saying that to a reporter was not a good thing. It didn't come across very well.

 

[LaLaw2000]

Still in all, we have heard that Ronald refuses to meet with investigators and even stated on TV that the investigators do not call him and give him an update. Seems as if Ronald himself contradicts Action News.

I am going to find out where that reporter got that information from.

 

[TxLady2]

The bottom line is.... he doesn't seem to have been cleared so I guess his "I was at work" alibi is not all that rock solid. 'Nuff said!

 

[Flossie JMO]

The bottom line is.... he doesn't seem to have been cleared so I guess his "I was at work" alibi is not all that rock solid. 'Nuff said!

Nobody is cleared other than the AC man

 

[raeann]

What EXACTLY was Ronald's job at PDM? I would like a better understanding of what he did all night long while he was at work. People make it sound like he had the type of job which would allow him to be alone all night and also not to be productive. It would appear as if the bosses wouldn't notice if he was actually performing the duties given to him to accomplish during his shift. If he had the ability to come and go as he pleased...wouldn't this conflict with the job getting done? Wouldn't other people notice if one person was not doing their job because they would work together doing their own jobs to get the major task completed?

If he had a job that allowed him not to be a productive member of their team and allowed him to come and go anytime he wanted to...he had a pretty easy ride!! Wow! I guess there are no supervisors there and the other workers are oblivious to who is around at any given time so it must be people are secluded in their jobs. Funny because I have never seen or heard of a construction business who could operate in such a way and stay afloat.

Again...EXACTLY what did his job require him to do?!

"Construction worker caught sleeping in broad daylight, on the job."

http://www.collegehumor.com/picture:70431

 

[lonetraveler]

How in the world can you think that someone's work alibi isn't that solid. That is one of the only facts that we have in this case. In the article you quote this was stated: Cummings was at work the night his daughter vanished and came home as the 911 call to authorities was being made.

http://www.jacksonville.com/news/me...aleighs_family_remains_divided_6_months_later

Whether or not he was at work has been confirmed by LE, it has been stated from the beginning that he was present for his shift and he got home as the 911 call was being made. If you are of the opinion that LE feels he wasn't at work and PDM Bridge is lying I really would like to read a link to support that information.

If it is your opinion that something happened to Haleigh prior to Ronald going to work and he went to his shift after said event....then fine, say that. I do not think it is fair that people keep insisting RC was not at work when LE tells he that they confirmed and he was at work??

He was at work, definitely. Don't know when he showed up for work or how long he was there for the night shift, but he was definitely seen and ate in the cafeteria sometime during the shift. However, when Ron arrived at work has not been stated. There is also a surveilance video showing Ron shopping at a convenience store prior to arriving home. There are also multiple stories on different web sites that have multiple stories of what he may or may not have done prior to showing up at work.

 

[Shaymus at The Rock]

I sure hope LE is updating these parents more frequently than once a month ! I'd have to be held down from going in for a once a day updates.

 

[LaLaw2000]

I have emailed the newspaper editor and referred him to the video Ronald did concerning the investigators not keeping him up to speed on the investigation. The article probably should have read that investigators from several agencies meet once a month to discuss the case. MOO

I have asked the editor to clarify the article.

 

[DenVIP]

ok Im still miffed at the logic here.....Ron has an alibi, even lets say a solid one....this absolves him of the responsibility to answer any more of LE's questions......feel free to quote this with a yes or no reply.....just to do a little straw poll

 

[SeriouslySearching]

"Construction worker caught sleeping in broad daylight, on the job."

http://www.collegehumor.com/picture:70431

And this would be proof of what exactly?! That person obviously isn't working on a construction site with a crew around him and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with this conversation, imo.

 

[debs]

ok Im still miffed at the logic here.....Ron has an alibi, even lets say a solid one....this absolves him of the responsibility to answer any more of LE's questions......feel free to quote this with a yes or no reply.....just to do a little straw poll

Absolutely, emphatically NO!

 

[LaLaw2000]

You would think that PDM's shift time and exactly what a crane operator does is some sort of state secret! We may never find out if a crane operator has any 'down' time during the shift.

 

[badme102]

Nobody is cleared other than the AC man

Yes, but we have since learned that everyone has their certain degree of suspicion. I wish I could take a gander at LE's chart for "degrees of suspicion" for all individuals involved.

 

[LaLaw2000]

ok Im still miffed at the logic here.....Ron has an alibi, even lets say a solid one....this absolves him of the responsibility to answer any more of LE's questions......feel free to quote this with a yes or no reply.....just to do a little straw poll

My vote is a resounding NO.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

I have emailed the newspaper editor and referred him to the video Ronald did concerning the investigators not keeping him up to speed on the investigation. The article probably should have read that investigators from several agencies meet once a month to discuss the case. MOO

I have asked the editor to clarify the article.

The problem as I see it is that they need to define WHICH investigators are supposedly meeting once a month. We know they formed a task force which was supposed to meet once a month...but they only met one time and did not reschedule a time to meet again because they proclaimed they had to go through 4,000 leads. This was the same meeting it was discovered the evidence had not been sent for testing. To my knowledge, they have not met as a group other than the first time.

I would recommend you write him back and ask him to clarify that point.

 

[atherella]

The bottom line is.... he doesn't seem to have been cleared so I guess his "I was at work" alibi is not all that rock solid. 'Nuff said!

I don't think that is the case at all.

I think the problem is LE does not know what happened to HaLeigh yet. They do however, know Ron was at work, and the hours he was at work. However, how do you clear Ron without knowing what happened?

No one else has been cleared yet either - does that mean NO ONE in this case has an alibi? NO ONE? I highly doubt that.

 

[raeann]

And this would be proof of what exactly?! That person obviously isn't working on a construction site with a crew around him and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with this conversation, imo.

LOL....it was a joke....see the little smiley face before it???? It was meant to imply nothing other than to inject a bit of humor into what is always such a touchy situation on this board lately....so smile please everyone :crazy:

 

[LaLaw2000]

The problem as I see it is that they need to define WHICH investigators are supposedly meeting once a month. We know they formed a task force which was supposed to meet once a month...but they only met one time and did not reschedule a time to meet again because they proclaimed they had to go through 4,000 leads. This was the same meeting it was discovered the evidence had not been sent for testing. To my knowledge, they have not met as a group other than the first time.

I would recommend you write him back and ask him to clarify that point.

Thanks, but I have written my email and asked him what I wanted to ask.

We absolutely have no way of knowing that the group of investigators have met only once. None of us are there and so far LE is not confiding in any of us.

BBM: Feel free to write and ask whatever you like just as I did.


MOO's

 

[LaLaw2000]

LOL....it was a joke....see the little smiley face before it???? It was meant to imply nothing other than to inject a bit of humor into what is always such a touchy situation on this board lately....so smile please everyone :crazy:

 

[lonetraveler]

I share you pain. I really do. But if any of us were to post that Ron did have convictions we would be slaughtered and hanged to dry. I guess if you aren't found guilty by a judge and jury, it doesn't count.

Posting all of this again will take up a lot of space, but I have a number of questions that have never really been addressed regarding this record.

1. Why do people say there were no convictions when there were NUMEROUS guilty pleas, fines leveled, probation given, community service assigned, rehab type courses required etc. ALL of those are technically convictions to my knowledge.

2. Why is much of this record NOT included in most of the other times that it has been posted?
******EDITED TO ADD****This is the LATER part of his record only.....there are numerous additional charges preceding these which start in 2004---as referred to in the preceding post regarding 2002 charges.

3. Why is it stated that these charges were all from years ago before he had custody when the dates clearly show that they are NOT?

4. Also of note there are at least 10 times here when apparently RON HAD GIVEN AN INCORRECT ADDRESS and notices were recorded as unable to be delivered.


File Date: 2004-11-16 Judge: A W NICHOLS III
Defense Atty: FELICIANO, SHARON
Defendant
CUMMINGS, RONALD LEMYLES
Date # Docket Description
2004-11-16 1 ARREST REPORT - PCSO EDGAR (ARREST 11/12/04)
2004-11-16 1 POSSESSION OF CANNABIS IN EXCESS OF 20 GRAMS
2004-11-16 1 POSSESSION OF DRUG PARAPHERNALIA
2004-11-16 1 MAINTAINING A DRUG VEHICLE
2004-11-16 3 TRAFFIC CITATION - #7877-DBJ 2
2004-11-16 4 AFFIDAVIT OF INSOLVENCY
2004-11-16 5 ORDER APPOINTING PUBLIC DEFENDER FOR 1ST APP HEARING
2004-11-16 6 APPEARANCE BOND - UNSECURED $ 2,012
2004-12-03 7 INFORMATION (CT 1-POSSESSION OF CANNABIS IN EXCESS
2004-12-03 7 OF 20 GRAMS)
2004-12-07 8 NOTICE TO DEFENDANT (01-07-2005)
2005-01-07 9 ARRAIGNMENT MINUTES: DEFT PRESENT, SWORN, ARRAIGNED,
2005-01-07 9 PUBLIC DEFENDER APPOINTED, ENTERED PLEA OF NOT GUILTY,
2005-01-07 9 SET FOR PRE TRIAL 02/03/2005.
2005-01-07 10 AFFIDAVIT OF INDIGENT STATUS
2005-01-07 10 DEFENDANT ADJUDGED INDIGENT
2005-01-25 17 PUBLIC DEFENDER, DEFT SCREENED BY TREATMENT AND DEEMED
2005-01-25 17 APPROPRIATE FOR DRUG COURT, DEFT DECLINED THE DRUG COURT
2005-02-03 18 ADI - LEVEL II
2005-03-03 20 DEFT SWORN, W/D FORMER PLEA, PLEAD NOLO A/C, ADVISED
2005-03-03 20 MAX PENALTY 5 YRS DOC &/OR $5000 FINE, PSI WAIVED,
2005-03-03 20 PLEA ACCEPTED, SENTENCING SET SAME DAY
2005-03-03 20 ADJUDICATION OF GUILT WITHHELD
2005-03-03 20 $370.00 COURT COSTS (6 MONTHS TO PAY)
2005-03-03 20 ADI PROGRAM - LEVEL II
2005-09-08 21 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION OF ADI LEVEL II PROGRAM
************************************************** ****************
Date # Docket Description
2006-11-14 1 TRAFFIC CITATION - #6417-EEN 3 PCSO OFF/MANNING
2006-11-14 1 LEAVING THE SCENE OF ACCIDENT INVOLVING INJURIES
2006-12-12 2 MOTION TO TRANSFER CASE TO COUNTY COURT
2006-12-19 3 ORDER TO TRANSFER CASE TO COUNTY COURT
************************************************** ****************
2006-08-01 1 ARREST REPORT - PCSO/ MAY (ARREST 07-29-2006)
2006-08-01 1 TRESPASS
2006-08-01 2 AFFIDAVIT OF INSOLVENCY
2006-08-01 3 $504.00 CHUCK'S BAIL BOND POSTED - #00601638 07-29-06
2006-08-11 4 INFORMATION (TRESPASS)
2006-08-31 6 ARR MIN: DEFT PRES, ADJ INS P D APPT MACK BRUNTON
2006-08-31 6 ARR ENT PLEA OF NOT GUILTY - PRE TRIAL SET 10/04/2006
2006-08-31 7 AFFIDAVIT OF INDIGENT STATUS
2006-08-31 7 DEFENDANT ADJUDGED INDIGENT
2006-08-31 7 $40.00 APPLICATION FEE IMPOSED
2006-08-31 8 ORDER APPOINTING PUBLIC DEFENDER
2006-08-31 9 PRE-TRIAL ORDER (10-04-2006)
2006-09-06 10 NOTICE TO BONDSMAN (10-04-2006)
2006-10-04 11 PRE TRIAL MINUTES: DEFT PRES, ATT BY MACK BRUNTON
2006-10-04 11 STATE AND DEFENSE ANNOUNCED READY FOR TRIAL
2006-10-04 11 CASE SET FOR NON JURY TRIAL 10/30/2006
2006-10-04 12 WAIVER OF JURY TRIAL
2006-10-04 13 NOTICE TO DEFENDANT (10-30-2006)
2006-10-06 14 NOTICE TO BONDSMAN (10-30-2006)
2006-10-10 15 STATE ATTORNEY WITNESS SUBPOENA ISSUED:
2006-10-10 15 WILLIAM P MORRIS
2006-10-10 16 STATE ATTORNEY WITNESS SUBPOENA ISSUED:
2006-10-10 16 DS JOHN MAY
2006-10-16 17 STATE ATTORNEY WITNESS SUBPOENA RETURNED SERVED:
2006-10-16 17 WILLIAM P MORRIS
2006-10-16 18 STATE ATTORNEY WITNESS SUBPOENA RETURNED SERVED:
2006-10-16 18 DS JOHN MAY
2006-10-16 20 STATE ATTORNEY WITNESS SUBPOENA RETURNED SERVED:
2006-10-16 19 MS. TAMMY PINKNEY
2006-10-26 21 AMENDED INFO (TRESPASS ON PROPERTY OTHER THAN A
2006-10-26 21 STRUCTURE OR CONVEYANCE)
2006-10-30 22 TRIAL MINUTES: DEFT PRES ATT BY MACK BRUNTON
2006-10-30 22 FOR NON JURY TRIAL- STATE REP BY DAVID HOLLANDER
2006-10-30 22 DEFT W-DREW FORMER PLEA - ENT PLEA OF NOLO CONTENDERE
2006-10-30 22 TO TRESPASS, DEFT SWORN, PLEA ACCEPTED,
2006-10-30 22 ADJUDGED GUILTY
2006-10-30 22 PROB HRDS 6 MONTHS
2006-10-30 22 1 DAY PCJ WITH CREDIT FOR TIME SERVED OF 1 DAY
2006-10-30 22 $273.00 FINE AND COST
2006-10-30 22 $ 40.00 PD FEE SUSPENDED
2006-10-30 22 RANDOM DRUG TEST
2006-10-30 23 WRITTEN PLEA OF GUILTY OR NOLO CONTENDERE TO
2006-10-30 23 CRIMINAL CHARGES IN COUNTY COURT
2006-10-30 24 ORDER OF PROBATION
2007-01-17 25 $ 60.00 FINE AND COST PAYMENT 11/14/2006
2007-02-07 26 SUCCESSFUL TERMINATION OF PROBATION
2007-02-14 27 $120.00 FINE AND COST PAYMENT 12/28/2006
2007-03-16 28 $ 93.00 FINE AND COST BAL PAID 01/25/2007
************************************************** ****************
2006-11-14 1 TRAFFIC CITATION - #6417EEN-3 PCSO/ MANNING 10-30-06
2006-11-14 1 LEAVING THE SCENE OF AN ACCIDENT
2006-12-12 2 MOTION TO TRANSFER CASE TO COUNTY COURT
2006-12-19 3 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO TRANSFER CASE TO COUNTY COURT
2006-12-19 3 FROM CIRCUIT COURT 06-002339-CF53
2006-12-19 4 NOTICE TO DEFENDANT (01-23-2007)
2007-01-02 5 NOTICE RETURNED UNEXECUTED - NO SUCH NUMBER
2007-01-05 6 NOTICE TO DEFENDANT (01-23-2007)
2007-01-12 7 NOTICE RETURNED UNEXECUTED - NO SUCH NUMBER
2007-01-23 8 ARRAIGNMENT MINUTES: DEFT NOT PRESENT IN COURT
2007-01-23 8 COURT ORDERED CAPIAS
2007-01-23 8 BOND SET AT $1004 FIRM
2007-01-23 9 CAPIAS ISSUED - BOND SET AT $1004 FIRM
2007-01-25 10 CAPIAS RECALLED - CASE SET FOR ARRAIGNMENT 02/06/2007
2007-01-25 10 NOTICE TO DEFENDANT (02-06-2007) IN OFFICE
2007-01-25 11 CHANGE OF ADDRESS
2007-01-26 12 CAPIAS RETURNED
2007-02-06 13 ARRAIGNMENT MINUTES: ON MOTION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA THE
2007-02-06 13 THE CASE WAS ORDERED NOLLE PROSEQUI IN OPEN COURT
2007-02-06 13 INFRACTION DISMISSED CIT # 6416EEN2 - CARELESS DRIVING
2007-02-06 13 INFRACTION DISMISSED CIT # 6418EEN4 - OPERATE ATV
2007-02-06 13 W/O HELMET
2007-02-06 14 WAIVER OF COUNSEL
************************************************** ****************
2007-04-03 1 COMPLAINT FILED: PCSO/ WALTER 04-02-07
2007-04-03 1 AFFRAY
2007-04-23 2 INFORMATION (AFFRAY)
2007-04-23 3 NOTICE TO DEFENDANT (05/10/2007)CERTIFIED
2007-05-10 4 ARRAIGNMENT MINUTES: COURT ORDERED CASE CONTINUED
2007-05-10 4 TO NEXT ARRAIGNMENT 06/12/2007
2007-05-10 5 NOTICE TO DEFENDANT (06-12-2007)
2007-05-18 6 NOTICE RETURNED UNEXECUTED - UNCLAIMED
2007-06-12 7 ARRAIGNMENT MINUTES: COURT ORDERED CASE CONTINUED
2007-06-12 7 TO NEXT ARRAIGNMENT 07/12/2007
2007-06-12 8 NOTICE TO DEFENDANT (07-12-2007)
2007-06-14 9 NOTICE TO DEFENDANT (07-12-2007) IN OFFICE
2007-07-12 10 ARR MIN: DEFT PRES, ADJ INS P D APPT MACK BRUNTON
2007-07-12 10 ARR ENT PLEA OF NOT GUILTY - PRE TRIAL SET 08/22/2007
2007-07-12 11 AFFIDAVIT OF INDIGENT STATUS
2007-07-12 11 DEFENDANT ADJUDGED INDIGENT
2007-07-12 11 $40.00 APPLICATION FEE IMPOSED
2007-07-12 12 ORDER APPOINTING PUBLIC DEFENDER
2007-07-12 13 PRE-TRIAL ORDER (08-22-2007)
2007-08-22 14 PRE TRIAL MINUTES: DEFT PRES, ATT BY MACK BRUNTON
2007-08-22 14 ON MOTION OF DEFENSE COUNSEL, COURT ORDERED CASE
2007-08-22 14 CONTINUED TO 09/19/2007
2007-08-22 15 NOTICE TO DEFENDANT (09-19-2007) IN COURT
2007-09-19 16 PRE TRIAL MINUTES: DEFERRED PROSECUTION AGREEMENT FILED
2007-09-19 16 AND ACCEPTED
2007-09-19 17 DEFERRED PROSECUTION AGREEMENT
2007-09-19 17 10 HOURS COMMUNITY SERVICE
2007-09-19 17 $50.00 COST OF PROSECUTION
2007-09-28 18 MEMO FROM HRDS: DEFT COMPLETED THE CONDITIONS OF HIS
2007-09-28 18 PRE-TRIAL DIVERSION PROGRAM
2007-10-18 19 NOTICE OF SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF DEFERRED
2007-10-18 19 PROSECUTION AGREEMENT
2007-11-28 20 $100.00 PAYMENT MADE TO CASE 09/18/2007
************************************************** ****************
2007-11-14 1 WILDLIFE CITATION - #132466-C GFFC/ EASON 11-02-07
2007-11-14 1 POSSESSION OF MODERN FIREARM DURING MUZZLELOADING
2007-11-14 1 SEASON
2007-11-14 1 TRESPASS
2007-11-14 2 NOTICE TO DEFENDANT (12-18-2007)
2007-11-29 3 NOTICE RETURNED UNEXECUTED
2007-11-29 4 NOTICE TO DEFENDANT (12/18/2007)CORRECT ADDRESS
2007-12-18 5 ARR MIN: DEFT PRES IN COURT WAIVING RIGHT TO COUNSEL
2007-12-18 5 ARR ENT PLEA OF NOLO CONTENDERE TO CT I - POSS OF
2007-12-18 5 MODERN FIREARM DURING MUZZELOADING SEASON - CT II -
2007-12-18 5 TRESPASS - NOLLE PROSEQUI - DEFT SWORN, PLEA ACCEPTED
2007-12-18 5 DEFENDANT ADJUDGED GUILTY
2007-12-18 5 $273.00 FINE AND COST SUSPENDED
2007-12-18 5 24 HOURS HOUSE ARREST
2007-12-18 6 WAIVER OF COUNSEL
2007-12-18 7 WRITTEN PLEA OF GUILTY OR NOLO CONTENDERE TO
2007-12-18 7 CRIMINAL CHARGES IN COUNTY COURT
2008-01-08 8 JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE CT I