Ron IS NOT a "person of interest" according to sheriff...???...

[Whisperer]

PB STATES..>>The story is very clear: the statements were made on Tuesday. The story is dated Tuesday. The second quotation is tagged with "he added," making it clear that both statements were made at the same time. If the reporter wrote that Greenwood said it on Tuesday, then he did. Reporters interview LE officers every day. Reporters and news editors don't rely on press releases to generate information for newspapers and TV. The reporter will either have a tape recorder, a notebook or a videotape of what was said--or some combination. If Greenwood didn't make these statements or didn't make them on Tuesday, there would have been a retraction today. LE would NOT let an official statement (coming from the rank of lieutenant) about who was or wasn't a suspect stand if it weren't correct. You will not always SEE or HEAR these interviews; the LE officer might have only agreed to answer questions off camera. The reporter might have done a phone interview; that would account for no video. But you can take it to the bank that Greenwood said it on Tuesday, August 17, 2010. Several close friends and relatives have been reporters for national and major daily newspapers, wire services, news editors and news radio reporters and producers. Only hacks and lazy reporters bother with press releases. Real reporters REPORT, which means getting on the phone, or out of the newsroom, and talking to people on and off the record...>>>>>
___________________________________________________________-
Not True: If you look you will not see a reporter for the article. Your word speak of a time when reporters did things differently and had sources and named them. I am still waiting for a retraction for the 2:13 time and ms. neves perhapes being there with laundry. I agree, most spokespeople for LE are almost perfect with their facts, but someting is different with this case in Putnam County because I don't see anywhere near perfection regarding public press releases.

I spoke with the newsroom directly, you can do the same. They did not inteview Greenwood. They told me he has nothing to say and that is all he would say. Greenwood said those things about a year ago. The story was updated and it was an old story and they simply added the news that occurred on Tuesday to it.

This happens all the time....and yes, everyone should be angry. It has been going on for the past ten years that I am aware of. I followed cases closely. Reporters will tell you exactly what they do. Since LE will not confirm anything in most cases anymore, they fill in the blanks with other reporters pieces and even quotes.

I was told Jacksonville did NOT interview Greenwood for this story.

 

[Whisperer]

Posters are suspicious of the "not a suspect" statement because LE tells nothing about the case. They didn't use the word "Cleared". Nobody was a suspect so there vocabularly leaves us questioning.

Greenwood also told us the first call came in at 2:13....never a follow-up and said it was a mistake either, so what are we supposed to think about LE? Perhaps if they were more forth-coming with their facts, it wouldn't be that way. Spokesman in the police dept. have always been accurate and watch every word they say and choose each word carefully.

It could be that this particular Sheriff's Office is just not sophisticated enough to deal with the public or media...IDK. I am growing weary with the way this is being handled in regards to their dispensing information. I prefer for them to use the word, "Cleared". That removes all doubt IOW, they have left us doubting their information due to their choice of words.

 

[Zoe Bogart]

The story is very clear: the statements were made on Tuesday. The story is dated Tuesday. The second quotation is tagged with "he added," making it clear that both statements were made at the same time. If the reporter wrote that Greenwood said it on Tuesday, then he did. Reporters interview LE officers every day. Reporters and news editors don't rely on press releases to generate information for newspapers and TV. The reporter will either have a tape recorder, a notebook or a videotape of what was said--or some combination. If Greenwood didn't make these statements or didn't make them on Tuesday, there would have been a retraction today. LE would NOT let an official statement (coming from the rank of lieutenant) about who was or wasn't a suspect stand if it weren't correct. You will not always SEE or HEAR these interviews; the LE officer might have only agreed to answer questions off camera. The reporter might have done a phone interview; that would account for no video. But you can take it to the bank that Greenwood said it on Tuesday, August 17, 2010. Several close friends and relatives have been reporters for national and major daily newspapers, wire services, news editors and news radio reporters and producers. Only hacks and lazy reporters bother with press releases. Real reporters REPORT, which means getting on the phone, or out of the newsroom, and talking to people on and off the record.


http://www.news4jax.com/news/24658375/detail.html

If you are remembering correctly, aksleuth, then take the statements at face value. LE is asked if Ron was a suspect and the answer is "he was at work." That would seem to clear up the issue. If someone asked me if my husband wrecked the car, and I said, "he was at work," the only way that response makes sense, linguistically, is if I am saying he didn't wreck the car because he was at work.

If LE goes on later to say that the parents are on the bottom of the pile or aren't suspects (etc.), that simply confirms what LE already was saying--that RC didn't kill Haleigh or abduct her (?? that would be odd, anyway) and they know he didn't because he was at work. Think of other cases--the details that go into the prosecution of a case are never revealed to the public because they don't want to jeopardize the case. Talking in the media about aspects of the case just provides a road map for the defense, which otherwise would have to plow through thousands of pages of discovery and then guess at what the prosecution's line of attack would be. Perhaps more important, they don't want to reveal anything important before an arrest is made in order to make it harder for suspects to implicate others. For example, if LE suspected Tommy, a detailed revelation of Ron's work hours would just give TOMMY and his lawyer a chance to cook up a story that implicated Ron. LE doesn't want suspects knowing what LE knows. They want suspects guessing. And worrying.

When LE clears a suspect, they are clearing a suspect from their own list, not satisfying the emotional needs of the public. In particular, they probably want to clear the parents because they always start with them as potential suspects and work outward.

pittsburghgirl, I can hear your scolding and see your finger shaking in my face. :smile: Maybe I need that every once in a while, or maybe I need it every day. Sometimes I need to sit down and say, hmmmm. :waitasec:

What you say makes sense. In fact, people who think RC is innocent make good points. Those who think RC is guilty make good points, too. No doubt about that.

LE has been known to say certain people aren't suspects, then sometime later, guess who's being cuffed and booked? Yep, the non-suspects.

Take my advice. Don't believe every word you read in the newspaper or online and don't believe every news report you hear. There are many errors made and lots of inaccurate information is given to the public very often these days. Sometimes it's an honest error, other times it's pure deception.

I'm not arguing with you. I understand your point of view. Maybe I've lived so long that I see things differently, and what I see isn't pretty. It would be a wonderful world if all parents and grandparents put their children's welfare first. Sadly, in too many cases, we've seen the opposite.

I respect your opinion. :heart:

I think the sheriff's statement about RC wasn't that he was at work, I believe he said, "we have his schedule" or "we have his work hours", meaning he had a record of RC's work time that night. Something like that. Of course, don't quote me. I'm old.

 

[Zoe Bogart]

Not True: If you look you will not see a reporter for the article. Your word speak of a time when reporters did things differently and had sources and named them. I am still waiting for a retraction for the 2:13 time and ms. neves perhapes being there with laundry. I agree, most spokespeople for LE are almost perfect with their facts, but someting is different with this case in Putnam County because I don't see anywhere near perfection regarding public press releases.

I spoke with the newsroom directly, you can do the same. They did not inteview Greenwood. They told me he has nothing to say and that is all he would say. Greenwood said those things about a year ago. The story was updated and it was an old story and they simply added the news that occurred on Tuesday to it.

This happens all the time....and yes, everyone should be angry. It has been going on for the past ten years that I am aware of. I followed cases closely. Reporters will tell you exactly what they do. Since LE will not confirm anything in most cases anymore, they fill in the blanks with other reporters pieces and even quotes.

I was told Jacksonville did NOT interview Greenwood for this story.

Thank you for all of that.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

Posters are suspicious of the "not a suspect" statement because LE tells nothing about the case. They didn't use the word "Cleared". Nobody was a suspect so there vocabularly leaves us questioning.

Greenwood also told us the first call came in at 2:13....never a follow-up and said it was a mistake either, so what are we supposed to think about LE? Perhaps if they were more forth-coming with their facts, it wouldn't be that way. Spokesman in the police dept. have always been accurate and watch every word they say and choose each word carefully.

It could be that this particular Sheriff's Office is just not sophisticated enough to deal with the public or media...IDK. I am growing weary with the way this is being handled in regards to their dispensing information. I prefer for them to use the word, "Cleared". That removes all doubt IOW, they have left us doubting their information due to their choice of words.

I agree that many LE departments are inexperienced with the media. This might be one of them.

However, not all newspaper stories or stories posted by TV stations to the internet carry bylines. That doesn't mean that someone didn't write them or do the reporting. It's more likely that the news organization only bylines certain stories or allows certain reporters to use their byline. It may mean that the story was reported by one person and re-written by another, perhaps the editor, or the story was put together by more than one reporter. It is rare to see bylines on stories posted on the internet by TV stations, probably because the stories are re-written by staff writers after the news reporter brings the story in. So the lack of a byline means nothing.

"Investigators are still working this case diligently, and we believe we will find out what happened to Haleigh, but it's going to take time," Lt. Johnny Greenwood, of the Putnam County Sheriff's Office, said Tuesday. "We don't know if the break in Haleigh's disappearance will come from behind bars or from the public."
"Everyone is considered a person of interest in Haleigh's disappearance except Crystal Sheffield and Ronald Cummings, Haleigh's parents," he added.

I stand by my interpretation. If he didn't say this on Tuesday, the story should by retracted. If you have absolute information that the story is untrue, you should contact the news editor and ask for a correction.

aksleuth, I don't mean to wag my finger at you or anyone else. I was trying to respond to your stated confusion. I don't think this is very complicated. There are no indicators I am aware of in the public arena that the bio parents in this case are suspects.

Of course I don't believe everything I read, any more that you do. I said in my posts above that LE could be wrong. LE is also capable of making statements that are outright lies, usually as part of a cover-up, as Dave Cullen shows about Jefferson County Colorado LE and political officials in his book about Columbine. Those statements were printed in national papers and left to stand until reporters like Cullen set the record straight. The news organizations who printed what LE said were printing the "truth" in terms of the official stories. They weren't involved in a coverup. And some news sources were skeptical.

But I can't see why LE would engage in a cover up of this case, now that RC is in custody for drug sales. that was an argument that could have made sense while RC was running free in the community, if people believed he was "protected." That is clearly not the case, as we can now see.

What I will stand behind is that while legitimate news organizations "rewrite" and rehash stories, they don't rehash and then add specific dates and times that are complete fabrications. That would be a major violation of journalistic ethics. I can't prove that Greenwood said what the news source reported, but I will say that one way to settle the issue would be to call the news editor of the internet page and ask.

 

[Emeralgem]

Now that TN has stated...."Whatever it is, it needs to be proven"...

I want proof w/o reasonable doubt Ron C was at work the entire evening. I want proof he arrived at PDM 30 to 45 minutes before his shift started as his attorney has stated, and I want proof he was there the entire night/early morning until 3:00 am....Unless he can be accounted for the entire afternoon, night, early morning I am not belieiving he is not responsible for whatever it is that happened to Haleigh..JMO


Let me add..
I also want proof he picked her up like he claims he did...
I want proof Misty didn't pick her up and drive in the opposite direction of the MH like witnesses have come forward and stated she did.
I want proof the air conditioning man saw Haleigh at 202 Green Lane that afternoon.
I want proof a neighbor saw Haleigh that afternoon playing..
I want proof GGMS saw Haleigh alive and well eating dinner outside in the dark on a cold screened in porch..
I want proof Misty and Ron had worked things out on Sunday night like TN claims they did.
I want proof of time TN called Misty and asked her to babysit...

And the list goes on...

 

[kamky]

~SNIP~...the details that go into the prosecution of a case are never revealed to the public because they don't want to jeopardize the case... they don't want to reveal anything important before an arrest is made in order to make it harder for suspects to implicate others. For example, if LE suspected Tommy, a detailed revelation of Ron's work hours would just give TOMMY and his lawyer a chance to cook up a story that implicated Ron. LE doesn't want suspects knowing what LE knows. They want suspects guessing. And worrying...~SNIP~

This is a good explanation of the stance that LE has taken on this case. I know it's been frustrating, but it gives LE an edge on finding the solution. The more details LE reveals, the more we may know, as well as whoever did this crime. The perps can use the information to help themselves evade LE.

If we had a choice of learning more details at the risk of helping the person(s) who hurt Haleigh VS not knowing the details and keeping those persons in the dark, which would you choose? --I'd much rather not know.

 

[1Chump]

BBM

Being married doesn't grant spousal immunity in crimes against children. Popular belief is that he married her to protect himself and his image in the public's eyes due to her being underage. Hope this helps.

When spousal privilege does apply, it is not retroactive. Anything before or after the marriage is not privileged.

IMO, I still think he was forced to marry Misty to get her away from her parents who were telling Misty to tell the truth.

 

[1Chump]

WTH!!!! You have got to be freakin kidding me.
Lt. Johnny Greenwood, of the Putnam County Sheriff's Office, said Tuesday. "We don't know if the break in Haleigh's disappearance will come from behind bars or from the public."

"Everyone is considered a person of interest in Haleigh's disappearance except Crystal Sheffield and Ronald Cummings, Haleigh's parents," he added.
http://www.news4jax.com/news/24658375/detail.html

Surely they have not come to this conclusion based on the fact that Ron "was at werk", he could have killed Haleigh before leaving work, he could have set this in motion for Misty and Tommy to dispose of her, he could have offered Tommy or Joe drugs to get rid of her, there are so many possabilities. How in the heck did they come to the conclusion that Ron is not a POI , when they have NO IDEA what happened or where Haleigh is?

Greenwood said that Ron was not a "person of interest." He never said that Ron was not a "suspect."

Maybe Ron is not a POI because he is one of the main suspects.

 

[the seeker]

Wow, I am a person who is relieved too know that a Father had nothing to do with the death of his daughter. I am certainly in the minority here.
I guess now that FDLE says Ron isn't a suspect, everyone can go on blaming his Mom. When I watched the tour of the moble-home, I instantly felt that Theresa was a grandparent desperate to find her child. Nancy ask her why she was doing the show, and Theresa responded tearfully " I hope this is helping". I am be the only one, but I will be shocked if Theresa is involved.
All of this is only my opinion..

You are not alone nightfall, I dont believe TN had anything to do with it. Im on the fence about Ron (I feel he may know what happened, but I dont believe he was the cause).

 

[Whisperer]

I agree that many LE departments are inexperienced with the media. This might be one of them.


I stand by my interpretation. If he didn't say this on Tuesday, the story should by retracted. If you have absolute information that the story is untrue, you should contact the news editor and ask for a correction.


Of course I don't believe everything I read, any more that you do. I said in my posts above that LE could be wrong. LE is also capable of making statements that are outright lies, usually as part of a cover-up, as Dave
What I will stand behind is that while legitimate news organizations "rewrite" and rehash stories, they don't rehash and then add specific dates and times that are complete fabrications. That would be a major violation of journalistic ethics. I can't prove that Greenwood said what the news source reported, but I will say that one way to settle the issue would be to call the news editor of the internet page and ask.

I called them and have posted exactly what I was told. They did NOT speak with Lt Greenwood. The only thing Greenwood said is "I am not commenting on the case" to them. This is from the NewsRoom at Jacksonville.

Once again, they told me that was an old statement and they are standing by it. LE stated last year that Crystal and Ron were not suspects and they have repeated it because that is what was said LAST YEAR and they believe it still stands today. They were not backing down. This type of writing has been used over and over in this case. Because there are no facts, they use what they have and make it appear freshl.

My opinion is that they should have removed the quotes but hey, this is the way things are done nowadays. I don't think it is fair or ethical. The same thing happened when they quoted PDM. The reporter mixed in his own opinion in the middle of the quotes of PDM and it appeared PDM said itl....not so.

BOTTOM LINE...the Jacks4com believe that ron and crystal are not suspects, poi or in any way related to the disappearance of Haleigh Cummings. It is my opinion that News sources have become political and biased and their reporting will reflect it. We just have to make sure we are able to sift through the stuff for the facts....not easy.

 

[Maia]

When spousal privilege does apply, it is not retroactive. Anything before or after the marriage is not privileged.

IMO, I still think he was forced to marry Misty to get her away from her parents who were telling Misty to tell the truth.

BBM

Thank you for your post adding this. I, too, believe this was part of the reason RC married MC but when I went back to edit my original post, the time for editing had passed.

 

[Whisperer]

It is a much easier case to solve when you remove ron cummings from any involvement. This is not sarcasm. It keep the case more simple. I have had a difficult time placing him in it due to never having the work hours. Basically, I never have come up with a scenario that involves him but have always left the door open due to his odd behavior. His odd behavior runs through every part of his personality and being, as we used to say...it is pervasive. He will act and speak in a bizarre way even if he were not involved.

We have attributed much to his words and actions and rightly so because the man/child is an [unusual person].

 

[Emeralgem]

It is a much easier case to solve when you remove ron cummings from any involvement. This is not sarcasm. It keep the case more simple. I have had a difficult time placing him in it due to never having the work hours. Basically, I never have come up with a scenario that involves him but have always left the door open due to his odd behavior. His odd behavior runs through every part of his personality and being, as we used to say...it is pervasive. He will act and speak in a bizarre way even if he were not involved.

We have attributed much to his words and actions and rightly so because the man/child is an [unusual person].

Whisp, Nah..
IMHO..In the first place there isn't a Croslin anywhere who could have pulled this off.. And thus far Ron C, for the most part, has been completely left out of the equation as far as any involvement and this case has not been solved..
The inconsistant stories being told about the person who Misty, Tommy, Grannie Flo and Chelsey have drawn attention to don't even begin to make sense unless Ron C and his family being involved are interjected into the mix...

I maintain my stance.. The Croslins couldn't have pulled this off..They were called in to assist Misty and were set up by the Cumings/Sykes..

 

[cyberborg]

My concern is the major distraction caused by Gma Flo. She speaks authoritatively about conversations that Misty and Tommy had with her about what happened. It gives her a LOT of credibility.

However, she tells as many as 6 different versions and switches between them interchangeably and even mixes them. Gma Flo typically inserts JO into these theories as the Perp based on her own assumptions and interpretation, she was NOT directly told but injected him.

Gma Flo seems to play like a double agent in as much as while she is throwing Tommy and even Misty (at times) under the bus, she is minimizing their role and trying to reinforce JO's role.

I was stunned when on HLN Gma Flo broke down crying about how much she loves Misty and I think she was bravely trying to point the finger at JO while saving Misty as best she could.

A LOT of damage has been done by Gma Flo in the media that just makes the whole thing even more complex and confusing -- enabling Misty and Tommy to run with the JO did it theory and seek to use it as leverage in any plea deal (Misty) or later reduced sentencing (ToC).

Misty is the key and maybe she called in Timmy/Chelsea to help but Ron is also in on the story and cover-up. He knows.

 

[Bobbisangel]

Now that TN has stated...."Whatever it is, it needs to be proven"...

I want proof w/o reasonable doubt Ron C was at work the entire evening. I want proof he arrived at PDM 30 to 45 minutes before his shift started as his attorney has stated, and I want proof he was there the entire night/early morning until 3:00 am....Unless he can be accounted for the entire afternoon, night, early morning I am not belieiving he is not responsible for whatever it is that happened to Haleigh..JMO


Let me add..
I also want proof he picked her up like he claims he did...
I want proof Misty didn't pick her up and drive in the opposite direction of the MH like witnesses have come forward and stated she did.
I want proof the air conditioning man saw Haleigh at 202 Green Lane that afternoon.
I want proof a neighbor saw Haleigh that afternoon playing..
I want proof GGMS saw Haleigh alive and well eating dinner outside in the dark on a cold screened in porch..
I want proof Misty and Ron had worked things out on Sunday night like TN claims they did.
I want proof of time TN called Misty and asked her to babysit...

And the list goes on...

You will never get all of that because LE doesn't owe us anything. We aren't entitled to all of the answers or any part of the investigation. You will have to wait for your proof of everything you want at trial if there ever is one. Otherwise you will just have to keep wanting proof.

 

[saqqara]

Firstly thank you Kimster.

This is an incredibly frustrating thread/forum to participate in. I came to websleuth to read up on cases where brilliant minds sleuthed and pointed out discrepancies and theories on cold cases that others missed.

This forum still has some of those people but has a tonne of people who are so emotionally tied to their "heart felt" opinion that they see everything through glasses coloured with that opinion and it becomes very hard to weed out the sleuthers and information that exists for solving this case and the opinions and rampant emotion that exists to further ones own beliefs.

While I know mistakes are made, information is withheld, polygraphs are not infalliable and yes sometimes people in authority are corrupt - those things are still in the minority. The majority of police are honest and diligent, the majority of polygraphs are used as a reliable tool to solve crimes, and mistakes are not the norm. This case should be looked at with a view to what do the known facts tell us. Which discrepancies (not opinions) need further examination and how.

This case is still worthy of our attention and our time and our efforts to assist authorities AND grieving families find answers... perhaps if everyone takes a step back and realizes no matter how strongly you feel.... your "gut reaction" and what you "know" without proof or evidence....does nothing, furthers nothing.

Examining evidence, exploring new theories, discussing (with compassion and open mindedness) assists and helps those here heal even if we never find answers.

Everytime I see a report from the news or an officially and I see someone jump all over it as wrong because they "know" I have to force myself to not turn off the computer. I have to read through so I can find those of you who are making the calls, finding the clarification and helping educate those of us who just want answers.

I don't believe Ron is involved. However if he is, I will be just happy the case was solved and there are answers. I believe that the constant (inconsistent) stories from all of the Crosllins never (or rarely) involve Ron and to me that says something. I believe grieving oddly doesn't make you guilty. I do not think this is a sheffields vs the cummings vs the croslins puzzle. I think its about a little girl and a tragedy that has unfolded.

Thank you to all of you who are so diligent about this case and the search for the truth. I appreciate you. I appreciate your time and your effort to bring me the information I only have time to read, and I appreciate the extraordinary effort it must take to always be correcting the misinformation that such an emotional charged forum creates.

 

[Emeralgem]

My concern is the major distraction caused by Gma Flo. She speaks authoritatively about conversations that Misty and Tommy had with her about what happened. It gives her a LOT of credibility.

However, she tells as many as 6 different versions and switches between them interchangeably and even mixes them. Gma Flo typically inserts JO into these theories as the Perp based on her own assumptions and interpretation, she was NOT directly told but injected him.

Gma Flo seems to play like a double agent in as much as while she is throwing Tommy and even Misty (at times) under the bus, she is minimizing their role and trying to reinforce JO's role.

I was stunned when on HLN Gma Flo broke down crying about how much she loves Misty and I think she was bravely trying to point the finger at JO while saving Misty as best she could.

A LOT of damage has been done by Gma Flo in the media that just makes the whole thing even more complex and confusing -- enabling Misty and Tommy to run with the JO did it theory and seek to use it as leverage in any plea deal (Misty) or later reduced sentencing (ToC).

Misty is the key and maybe she called in Timmy/Chelsea to help but Ron is also in on the story and cover-up. He knows.

Truth be known a lot of damage has been done by the media and most of the talking heads too..JMO

 

[Zoe Bogart]

aksleuth, I don't mean to wag my finger at you or anyone else.

:wave: Don't worry, it's all good. I know you were just trying to make your point clear. We're good. :cool2:

There comes a time when we all need to take a break, relax, and attend a basement party. I believe it's time for me to head down there for a bit of fun and games. All are invited. I'll bring the chips and dip. :martini: Sometimes these cases are just too much and we need a moment to save our sanity.

Let's remember why we're here.

 

[Zoe Bogart]

Now that TN has stated...."Whatever it is, it needs to be proven"...

I want proof w/o reasonable doubt Ron C was at work the entire evening. I want proof he arrived at PDM 30 to 45 minutes before his shift started as his attorney has stated, and I want proof he was there the entire night/early morning until 3:00 am....Unless he can be accounted for the entire afternoon, night, early morning I am not belieiving he is not responsible for whatever it is that happened to Haleigh..JMO


Let me add..
I also want proof he picked her up like he claims he did...
I want proof Misty didn't pick her up and drive in the opposite direction of the MH like witnesses have come forward and stated she did.
I want proof the air conditioning man saw Haleigh at 202 Green Lane that afternoon.
I want proof a neighbor saw Haleigh that afternoon playing..
I want proof GGMS saw Haleigh alive and well eating dinner outside in the dark on a cold screened in porch..
I want proof Misty and Ron had worked things out on Sunday night like TN claims they did.
I want proof of time TN called Misty and asked her to babysit...

And the list goes on...

Yep, that's what we've been saying. Thank you for listing it so clearly. :clap: Without proof, everyone is a suspect. I understand why LE wants to keep the information quiet. Until they say "so and so" has/have been cleared beyond a reasonable doubt, I will suspect everyone, including strangers.