Ron C. #9

[bunnyphoenix1]

Any famous parents of murdered and missing children supporting this family?......all are keeping a distance.

Not even Ron's lawyer wants a part of it...He has said he has decided to stay out of the "fray"....interesting word there!

I think you are reading too much into that, unless you also think KP had a reason to leave the case.

I may be wrong, but it seems to me both Crystal & Ron's lawyer were happy to be involved pro bono when they were getting some good press out of it, and I'm not surprised they got out of the case when the press dried up and there was no money. I wouldn't have expected either lawyer to act for free forever in a case like this.

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

Is it just me or are we finally seeing some movement on the case:

1. Ron's former attorney clarifies his position - he won't be going back into the "fray".

2. LE clarifies their needs - Ron and Misty are not cooperating and LE needs to talk to them.

3. Ron clarifies his concern that he and/or Misty are LE's focus.

4. The Croslins clarify their relationship with their new SIL/BIL - they regret oking the marriage.

And Marie Griffis has made the statement that her family is getting the blame....so who knows what is going on?

 

[LaLaw2000]

I have just now caught up on this thread.

The old DNA debate is not applicable here. (as was referenced in a previous post) DNA does clear a person as well as convict a person. It goes both ways. DNA has cleared some who were convicted in the past as well as lead to the actual guilty party. DNA technology has progressed to a point that it is a fool proof tool now.

So LE are the bad guys? No. LE takes what they have to the SA, or DA as we call them here. The SA or DA puts the case further together for prosecution. There has to be merit and evidence in a case in for it to go to court. Then the case goes to court, then a jury. A jury either finds not guilty, or guilty. So, why be all over LE? Why is LE so criticised in this case?

JMO, but there is no proof that Ronald is not responsible for Haleigh's disappearance. There is no proof that you or I have that he is guilty of Haleigh's disappearance. JMO, but I think we are all going on our gut feelings on this. And we are all passionate about what we believe in this case. I know I am.

Ronald has not been cleared. He will no longer talk to investigators even with a lawyer present. He will not talk to investigators, yet he expects them to call him? I think not since he will not answer any questions investigators have. If a person (albeit the father) has not been cleared, can you really expect investigators to call and tell him just what they have and what angle they are working on? No, IMO.

In my opinion, Ronald and his child wife know what happened to little Haleigh. If there is an entire trail of ducks (his family) walking, looking, and talking like a duck, then it is my belief that they are ducks. We all know that LE has to start with the people in the home where Haleigh went missing from. Then LE works outward. Well, LE cannot clear the home circle. That tells me a lot. JMO. Thank God this is the U.S., and in this country we are entitled to our own opinion.

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

very sad for Haleigh that two of the last people to see her refuse to give 100% to finding her, hope shes not watching and hearing this.....very sad...IMO

How do you know they aren't giving 100% to finding her?? Just because they want LE to focus on finding who took Haleigh, doesn't mean they aren't giving 100%. I'd want them to focus on that too.

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

uh you're wrong.....it would be part of the case if it were about Haleigh....remember they are investigating Haleigh being gone.....not Ronolds indescetions

Actually I think you are wrong, not SS. I think common sense says the same LE were involved. Why wouldn't they be? A missing child case is a very serious case and of course the detectives investigating it would want to know as much as they could about both Crystal & Ron and any possible criminal activity on their parts, whether it be involvement with crack, marijuana or whatever....at least until they were certain they could eliminate them as suspects, which apparently has not yet occurred with either of the two parents here.

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

Hey, don't forget Bill Clinton's other famous statement " I did not have sexual relations with that woman"

Are you comparing Ron with Bill Clinton? Wow...lol.

 

[LaLaw2000]

How do you know they aren't giving 100% to finding her?? Just because they want LE to focus on finding on who took Haleigh, doesn't mean they aren't giving 100%. I'd want them to focus on that too.

Well, with all due respect, bunnyphoenix1, what would lead you to believe that they are giving them 100% when they (Ronald and Misty) will not talk with investigators?

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

Bold & red by me --

Didn't Mark Klaas and Josh Duckett offer help and support? And maybe more we haven't heard about . . . .

Yes, they did. And even the As tried to get in on it, but thankfuly RC had the good sense to send them home.

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

Since cutting off communications with LE, what has Ron done to stay proactive in the hunt for Haleigh?

If you look back a few pages, you'll find a link to his most recent press interview where he got Haleigh's name back out there in relation to her upcoming birthday. He is releasing helium balloons with "Haleigh Missing" flyers attached to them on her birthday. He also did another video plea for her return a few months ago that was posted on his lawyer's website.

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

I have read many criminal files....pretty hard to find anyone that makes you question their innocence...BUT if you do have a question of innocence for the last crime, there are so many others in their files, it boggles your mind. Their rap sheets go in for pages and pages. So, if you think they may have not done the most recent, you can justify it usually because they have got away with numerous others. The jury never hears about the pages and pages of their crimes.

Sentences vary.....broad differences in counties and Judges...makes you just shake your head!

I find that statement (which I have bolded) very disturbing and do hope you are kidding. Do you not want to see the real perp caught for their crimes? And it seems you are fine with people doing time for crimes they didn't commit and were wrongly convicted of? Wow.

 

[LaLaw2000]

I would certainly send the A's packing myself! But I would welcome Mark Klass and Josh Duckett's help. They have been there and done that, so to speak, and would have invaluable advice for Ronald, IMO.

ETA: Too bad he chose not to accept any help from those two. I read that somewhere, so I am correcting this to IIRC.

 

[Whisperer]

Bunny, you are shocked about my post? Not disturbing at all Bunny...if an inmate is doing time, for say, drug sales...and he maybe wasn't guilty this time ( I am not the judge) and he is doing time and he tells you he is not guilty on this charge (?)...you can check his file....more than likely he will have numerous drug charges and worse that he never did time on...it really shouldn't disturb you!

What should disturb you is the number of crimes that people are walking on. What should disturb you is the number of rapist that are released because our laws are weak. In fact robbery has more time than rape. Criminals will plead out the rape for a reduced sentence. Many robbers are rapists but they are doing time just on the robbery. What should disturb people are the court system and judges that are letting these people off.

Ron's record is quite disturbing to me...so is his behavior!

 

[LaLaw2000]

Not disturging at all Bunny...if an inmate is doing time, for say, drug sales...and he maybe wasn't guilty this time ( I am not the judge) and he is doing time and he tells you he is not guilty on this charge...you can check his file....more than likely he will numerous drug charges and worse that he never did time on...it really shouldn't disturb you!

I am not Bunny, but I do know exactly what you are referring to, Whisperer.

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

How could LE just bring Ron in to talk if he is not willing to talk with them?? I might be wrong, but I don't think that he has to go with them unless they charge him or maybe I'm looking at too much tv.

Where I come from you don't have to be charged to be taken into custody, just arrested. Then there are rules (at least where I am) as to how long you can keep someone in custody without charging them.

 

[fortytwo]

Not disturging at all Bunny...if an inmate is doing time, for say, drug sales...and he maybe wasn't guilty this time ( I am not the judge) and he is doing time and he tells you he is not guilty on this charge...you can check his file....more than likely he will numerous drug charges and worse that he never did time on...it really shouldn't disturb you!

How many innocent people is it okay to imprison or execute in the effort to convict the guilty?

How many does it need to disturb you?

Don't worry about being specific. Round numbers will do.

 

[fortytwo]

I am not Bunny, but I do know exactly what you are referring to, Whisperer.

Same question.

 

[LaLaw2000]

Where I come from you don't have to be charged to be taken into custody, just arrested. Then there are rules (at least where I am) as to how long you can keep someone in custody without charging them.

Where I come from, LE has to have a reason for an arrest. You cannot just take anyone in and question then without sufficient cause. And you'd better have a statute listed on the arrest slip when you take them for booking. You have to list the statute in the booking computer or you cannot complete the booking process.

MOO

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

I feel safe in saying that the percentage of overturned convictions vs. convictions not overturned is extremely small.

Where do you get that statistic from? Are you saying the lawyers are recording how many people contact them requesting to be DNA tested, and that by far, most people are matching the DNA???? I doubt very much that information would be released by the lawyers as it would be a huge conflict of interest to disclose matters of a confidential nature like that. But if you've got a link which shows that, I'd love to see it...

In any event, this is from USA Today in April 2007. If you want to, you can google the exoneration project yourself and get the info...you say you kept up on it, but you said only a few had been exonerated, when we know it was already at 200 in 2007.....hmmmm. Is 200 a few? To me a few is 3-4. Maybe "a few" has a different meaning in the USA?

A former Army cook who spent nearly 25 years in prison for a rape he did not commit is scheduled today to become the 200th person exonerated by DNA evidence, underscoring the quickening pace of overturned convictions, according to the Innocence Project.
The New York-based legal group says the 100th exoneration occurred in January 2002, 13 years after the first exoneration. It took just more than five years for the number to double.
LEGAL 'DEFECTS': Jerry Miller finally free after 25 years
"Five years ago, people said that the number (of exonerations) was going to dry up because there just weren't many wrongful convictions," said lawyer Barry Scheck, who co-founded the Innocence Project in 1992 to help prisoners prove their innocence through DNA evidence. "But clearly, there are plenty of innocent persons still in prison. There's no way you can look at this data without believing that."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-04-22-dna-exoneration_N.htm

 

[LaLaw2000]

Same question.

With all due respect, fortytwo, I will not sparr with you.

 

[LaLaw2000]

As for DNA, we are talking about past convictions that are not applicable here. These cases were before DNA was brought to the forefront in aiding in convictions. This has nothing to do with Ronald.