Teresa N., Haleigh's paternal grandmother #2

[LFlorida]

I am not sure what "this" is in LFlorda's post; from looking back, "this" seems to refer to LE downplaying their recent investigative activities. I have no idea whether those statements bother Teresa. My guess is she feels like the people I have known or read about who have had missing or murdered loved ones--angry and frustrated at not knowing what's going on in the investigation. But that's just a guess on my part.

lol - sorry, pitts, there were way too many "this" in those posts.

I think I, too, would feel angry and frustrated at not knowing what's going on in the investigation IF there was no apparent investigative effort going on. Since Teresa said she worked for LE before, I guess I just assume that she would understand the need to keep some searches and other actions secret from everybody including the family.

Even if Teresa, Ron, and Annette are not suspects, perhaps LE worries that they might repeat it to extended family or friends. IDK. Not a cop, not a grandma, not in her shoes, so IDK.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

-snipped by me - If so, that might be why LE has not said those words. LE isn't responsible for other people's insisting on misrepresenting what they actually did say or intentionally putting words into their mouths.

Here are the media sources. The first is from the Ocala Star-Banner, August 18:

Contrary to initial comments from officers that Haleigh possibly was abducted, the Sheriff's Office reported that evidence gathered so far doesn't support that theory.
"At this point, the evidence and investigatory effort has minimized the likelihood that Haleigh's disappearance is the work of a stranger," the statement reported.
And the agency said Haleigh's biological parents, Ronald Cummings and Crystal Sheffield, are not considered suspects.

http://www.ocala.com/article/20090818/articles/908181007

This is a useful story because it indicates that the material came from a "statement" issued by LE. That statement indicates that current evidence as of August 18 does not support the theory of abduction by a stranger and that the "biological parents" are "not considered suspects."

The sheriff's office also has said Ronald Cummings and Haleigh's mother, Crystal Sheffield, have been cleared of suspicion in connection with the child's disappearance.

http://www.palatkadailynews.com/articles/2009/09/22/news/news01.txt

Officers have also interviewed Ronald Cummings numerous times, but he has been cleared of suspicion in the disappearance.

http://www.baynews9.com/content/36/2009/9/19/522955.html

What else does anyone need to see that Ronald Cummings is not a suspect? It seems apparent from the first article quoted that LE has at least eliminated two of the most obvious possibilities (strangers, bio parents) and has moved on, with Misty and perhaps unknown others at the center of the investigation. LE has made these statements to the mainstream media. There have been no retractions or corrections by LE made in that same media. We have three different sources reporting the same story in almost the same words, so there can't be one rogue reporter getting the story wrong. It doesn't matter that LE is not quoted directly. News reporters can summarize or paraphrase so long as they do not distort the meaning of a source's words. That is Journalism 101--quoting and attribution. So: Ronald Cummings is not a suspect according to statements made by the Sheriff's Office and reported in the mainstream media.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

lol - sorry, pitts, there were way too many "this" in those posts.

I think I, too, would feel angry and frustrated at not knowing what's going on in the investigation IF there was no apparent investigative effort going on. Since Teresa said she worked for LE before, I guess I just assume that she would understand the need to keep some searches and other actions secret from everybody including the family.

Even if Teresa, Ron, and Annette are not suspects, perhaps LE worries that they might repeat it to extended family or friends. IDK. Not a cop, not a grandma, not in her shoes, so IDK.

You are no doubt right. And I think that they worry about letting any information out, even things that might not seem important at the time because it's not just family and friends that can find out--it's the national media who can then tell the whole world. A good book that looks at how police conduct missing children's cases is Lisa R. Cohen's After Etan, a retrospective of the Etan Patz case. But nearly every article I have ever read about any case says that family members are often frustrated by not knowing what LE is doing or exactly what LE knows.

 

[Novice Seeker]

Ya reckon there's any chance in the world that LE suspects Teresa of lying or anything?

Let me think about that for a bit....ok thought about it, yep, yada, yes I also think LE is aware of TN's loyalties and is treated as such.

Novice Seeker

 

[Novice Seeker]

Thank you, Animal.
[I never can decide which species of animal to imagine you are - grizzly bear, kitty-cat, orca, pelican, etc.]

Can we ask if what the basis is for Teresa's opinion of LE?

tia

Just from experience with following these cases, I've learned LE will play mind games, word games and out and out lie b/c their only responsiblity is to search for Haleigh. I'm all for any of the games LE plays if it helps find the victim and catch those who are guilty. If TN is accusing LE of lieing to her she needs to get over that b/c LE will do everything with the boundaries of the law to do their jobs.

Novice Seeker

 

[Novice Seeker]

Here are the media sources. The first is from the Ocala Star-Banner, August 18:



http://www.ocala.com/article/20090818/articles/908181007

This is a useful story because it indicates that the material came from a "statement" issued by LE. That statement indicates that current evidence as of August 18 does not support the theory of abduction by a stranger and that the "biological parents" are "not considered suspects."



http://www.palatkadailynews.com/articles/2009/09/22/news/news01.txt



http://www.baynews9.com/content/36/2009/9/19/522955.html

What else does anyone need to see that Ronald Cummings is not a suspect? It seems apparent from the first article quoted that LE has at least eliminated two of the most obvious possibilities (strangers, bio parents) and has moved on, with Misty and perhaps unknown others at the center of the investigation. LE has made these statements to the mainstream media. There have been no retractions or corrections by LE made in that same media. We have three different sources reporting the same story in almost the same words, so there can't be one rogue reporter getting the story wrong. It doesn't matter that LE is not quoted directly. News reporters can summarize or paraphrase so long as they do not distort the meaning of a source's words. That is Journalism 101--quoting and attribution. So: Ronald Cummings is not a suspect according to statements made by the Sheriff's Office and reported in the mainstream media.

It has everything to do with the rule book of games that LE utilize everyday for every victim to solve the crime. Don't believe everythink LE says until someone has been arrested. It's that simple.

 

[Novice Seeker]

I think we all can agree that they are not obligated to tell the public anything
however….. instead of saying… “at this time we have no comment” they lied…
and that IMO is the problem!

I don't think they lied. LE refusing to comment on a case prevents the entire investigation becoming tainted and having the risk of having the arrest thrown out. No comment, to me, simply means that at that moment there are issues that are very sensitive and to guard and protect the investigation it's a regular statement used to protect all the evidence.

Novice Seeker

 

[Jersey*Girl]

Let me think about that for a bit....ok thought about it, yep, yada, yes I also think LE is aware of TN's loyalties and is treated as such.

Novice Seeker

I really really really wish I could thank you way more than once for this post. Oh, did I forget to say I agree with ya?

 

[pittsburghgirl]

It has everything to do with the rule book of games that LE utilize everyday for every victim to solve the crime. Don't believe everythink LE says until someone has been arrested. It's that simple.

See earlier post. If LE BELIEVES Ronald is a suspect, and they are investigating him and expect to arrest and have him tried for a crime related to his daughter's disappearance, then they have handed his defense a giant weapon in stating, evidently in writing, that he is not a suspect. Either LE is incompetent or Ronald is not a suspect. There isn't a middle ground here. They wouldn't "lie" about his status.

 

[debs]

See earlier post. If LE BELIEVES Ronald is a suspect, and they are investigating him and expect to arrest and have him tried for a crime related to his daughter's disappearance, then they have handed his defense a giant weapon in stating, evidently in writing, that he is not a suspect. Either LE is incompetent or Ronald is not a suspect. There isn't a middle ground here. They wouldn't "lie" about his status.

Except those are media quotes stating what they interpret the information they got from LE to mean.

 

[Muffet]

Here are the media sources. The first is from the Ocala Star-Banner, August 18:
http://www.ocala.com/article/20090818/articles/908181007

This is a useful story because it indicates that the material came from a "statement" issued by LE. That statement indicates that current evidence as of August 18 does not support the theory of abduction by a stranger and that the "biological parents" are "not considered suspects."
http://www.palatkadailynews.com/articles/2009/09/22/news/news01.txt
http://www.baynews9.com/content/36/2009/9/19/522955.html

What else does anyone need to see that Ronald Cummings is not a suspect? It seems apparent from the first article quoted that LE has at least eliminated two of the most obvious possibilities (strangers, bio parents) and has moved on, with Misty and perhaps unknown others at the center of the investigation. LE has made these statements to the mainstream media. There have been no retractions or corrections by LE made in that same media. We have three different sources reporting the same story in almost the same words, so there can't be one rogue reporter getting the story wrong. It doesn't matter that LE is not quoted directly. News reporters can summarize or paraphrase so long as they do not distort the meaning of a source's words. That is Journalism 101--quoting and attribution. So: Ronald Cummings is not a suspect according to statements made by the Sheriff's Office and reported in the mainstream media.

Ya can't defend one thing by justifying something quite different, PG. It's equivocation by shifting the ground.

There's also a huge strawman there, since no one has disputed that LE said Ron wasn't "considered a suspect," indeed I and others post it ourselves to make our points.

The issue is in your continuing to push the "cleared" line, as in:

However, LE doesn't lie about things that can come back to bite them in the investigation or the criminal trial, once a suspect is arrested. Thus, when LE says Ronald Cummings (and the bio mother) are "cleared of suspicion," that is believable to me because if LE lied about that, the defense would ride that horse to an acquittal. (No one ever said Scott Peterson was "cleared of suspicion.")

Nowhere is LE quoted as saying the word cleared or cleared of suspicion in reference to Ron. His own lawyer says he hasn't been cleared.
... and I strongly doubt anyone would claim LE need worry about a defense atty riding a "not considered a suspect" horse to acquittal. LOL

...At least not someone who understood the important difference in terms as thoroughly as at least 3 of your recent posts show you to do. For example.


Your claims about trusting journalists to paraphrase accurately were also already answered back here.



ETA: I apologize to the mods for the lack of direct pertinence to TN, but I feel we should keep this quite pivotal claim corrected wherever it's posted anywhere upstairs, because people want to get dependable facts from these threads.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

Ya can't defend one thing by justifying something quite different, PG. It's equivocation by shifting the ground.

There's also a huge strawman there, since no one has disputed that LE said Ron wasn't "considered a suspect," indeed I and others post it ourselves to make our points.

The issue is in your continuing to push the "cleared" line, as in:

​

Nowhere is LE quoted as saying the word cleared or cleared of suspicion in reference to Ron. His own lawyer says he hasn't been cleared.
... and I strongly doubt anyone would claim LE need worry about a defense atty riding a "not considered a suspect" horse to acquittal. LOL

...At least not someone who understood the important difference in terms as thoroughly as at least 3 of your recent posts show you to do. For example.


Your claims about trusting journalists to paraphrase accurately were also already answered back here.



ETA: I apologize to the mods for the lack of direct pertinence to TN, but I feel we should keep this quite pivotal claim corrected wherever it's posted anywhere upstairs, because people want to get dependable facts from these threads.

I do trust journalists to paraphrase or summarize or quote accurately, particularly when I see three stories with the same content from three different mainstream sources. I'm not "pushing" anything, as I have no dog in this hunt. I am sincerely perplexed as to why people on this thread do not believe that LE has stated in writing, according to the first quotation I posted, that the biological parents are not considered suspects. My reading of that first source is that LE made a written statement that was then summarized by the reporters of the media outlets. It doesn't matter if the reporter uses a direct quote or not. The reporter is OBLIGATED to report the MEANING of the source accurately. So either THREE REPORTERS AT THREE OUTLETS tanked a story badly and burned their LE sources badly, or LE has officially, publicly, stated that the bio parents are not suspects. Take your pick. Are all these the reporters mistaken and then not corrected? Is LE lying and risking the case? Or did LE say what the reporters say they said?

As to the strawman issue, you may well have used these articles to make your own points. That doesn't mean that I have to agree that Ronald Cummings is still a suspect, in spite of LE stating he has been cleared. As to the pertinence of this discussion to the thread, the allegation has been made that Teresa Neves is covering up for her son. If he isn't a suspect in Haleigh's disappearance, that idea is not pertinent her case.

 

[Muffet]

- no one has disputed that LE said Ron wasn't "considered a suspect,"
- The issue is in your continuing to push the "cleared" line,
- Nowhere is LE quoted as saying the word cleared or cleared of suspicion in reference to Ron.
- His own lawyer says he hasn't been cleared.

And this is the reply (BBM):

I do trust journalists to paraphrase or summarize or quote accurately, particularly when I see three stories with the same content from three different mainstream sources. I'm not "pushing" anything, as I have no dog in this hunt. I am sincerely perplexed as to why people on this thread do not believe that LE has stated in writing, according to the first quotation I posted, that the biological parents are not considered suspects. My reading of that first source is that LE made a written statement that was then summarized by the reporters of the media outlets. It doesn't matter if the reporter uses a direct quote or not. The reporter is OBLIGATED to report the MEANING of the source accurately. So either THREE REPORTERS AT THREE OUTLETS tanked a story badly and burned their LE sources badly, or LE has officially, publicly, stated that the bio parents are not suspects. Take your pick. Are all these the reporters mistaken and then not corrected? Is LE lying and risking the case? Or did LE say what the reporters say they said?

As to the strawman issue, you may well have used these articles to make your own points. That doesn't mean that I have to agree that Ronald Cummings is still a suspect, in spite of LE stating he has been cleared.

As to the pertinence of this discussion to the thread, the allegation has been made that Teresa Neves is covering up for her son. If he isn't a suspect in Haleigh's disappearance, that idea is not pertinent her case.

More strawmen, outright flipping of positions, and shifting not considered a suspect thing with "cleared", even though the posts I linked and our previous discussions clearly show that you understand the difference.

I'm done here. Please read my last post, and earlier posts, in which I answered these questions.


You might not want to feel or say you have a dog in the hunt, but if you honestly think Ron's own lawyer is less believable than non-legal reporters' paraphrases of a document you can read and thus see the actual words they misinterpreted, well, I'd respectfully but strongly suggest a bias-check.

PS. Reporters commonly "copy" each other's works, and/or that of AP, etc. so having three say the same thing is meaningless. And they did not even pretend to be quoting LE.

 

[LFlorida]

Are you questioning SS credibility around ws? Don't beg for me. Members of ws are our community, makes us unique and special. When we're wrong, we're not really wrong, we're working together in an effort to help those in need. Make a difference, shine a light into a place where light has been robbed in the lives of those who are maligned to crime.

Quite a leap, or lack of comprehension regarding my posts to Seriously. Credibility?! Please consider re-reading my posts, Koo.

"Don't beg for me." Okay, fault my own reading comprehension skills or lack thereof. What does that mean? Is that a turn of phrase that I'm not familiar with? [I'm serious and sincere as I ask.]

Anybody? Please? (btw - I AM begging now.)

Also help with the final sentence, from "shine" to "crime".

Thank you to anybody who can tutor this poor, pitiful intellect of mine.

 

[LFlorida]

Muffet, you did a great job, imo, of explaining the suspect, suspicion, cleared stuff. [I wasn't about to admit that I don't possess the ability to really understand it. It was something I knew, but I didn't know how/why I knew it.]

Thank you.

eta -

But DADGUMMIT, this is the TERESA N thread. We never fail to fail in sleuthing her out. Look at this carp - we're only on thread #2 for her?! That's just crazzzy. imo.

 

[kiki the parrot]

Ya can't defend one thing by justifying something quite different, PG. It's equivocation by shifting the ground.

There's also a huge strawman there, since no one has disputed that LE said Ron wasn't "considered a suspect," indeed I and others post it ourselves to make our points.

The issue is in your continuing to push the "cleared" line, as in:

​

Nowhere is LE quoted as saying the word cleared or cleared of suspicion in reference to Ron. His own lawyer says he hasn't been cleared.
... and I strongly doubt anyone would claim LE need worry about a defense atty riding a "not considered a suspect" horse to acquittal. LOL

...At least not someone who understood the important difference in terms as thoroughly as at least 3 of your recent posts show you to do. For example.


Your claims about trusting journalists to paraphrase accurately were also already answered back here.



ETA: I apologize to the mods for the lack of direct pertinence to TN, but I feel we should keep this quite pivotal claim corrected wherever it's posted anywhere upstairs, because people want to get dependable facts from these threads.

ITA All I can say is thank heaven for sharper memories than my own, wanted to post myself had I, well, better instant recall, knew how to create links, and was er halfway articulate or even coherent at this hour :blush: but w/out question we've seen reporters taking liberties then running around eachother w those... in circles. JMO

arrot:

 

[Muffet]

Muffet, you did a great job, imo, of explaining the suspect, suspicion, cleared stuff. [I wasn't about to admit that I don't possess the ability to really understand it. It was something I knew, but I didn't know how/why I knew it.]

Thank you.

Thank you, LF! (And Kiki! lol) I feel better now.

ETA: I reeeally hate being off-topic, but I had to go away for a few months, and when I came back to read, i saw several people say Ron was cleared - in whatever threads - and I believed them. It was extremely annoying to me to have to spend hours digging to finally realize what happened. I don't like being mislead, and that can happen on any thread.

 

[LFlorida]

So, back on topic...

1. Where did Teresa live on 2/7/09?

2. Where did Teresa work on 2/7/09?

3. Where was Teresa on 2/7 - 2/9/09?

4. Did Teresa watch the children for Ron that weekend, or did Annette? Or both?

5. Where does Teresa purport to live now?

6. When did Teresa work for Alachua County Sheriff's Office?

7. Where does Teresa work now?

8. When was the last time Teresa saw Haleigh?

9. When was the last time Teresa went to the mobile home on Green Ln before the early morning hours of 2/10?

10. What kind of vehicle does Teresa drive?

Let's Sleuth!

 

[kiki the parrot]

Regrettably LFL I'm just as woefully ill-equipped to explain or tutor you on that one I'm honestly still just trying to interpret TN's reference to (I believe) MC's "dysfunctional family," pot and kettle kinda thing, mind still somewhat reeling, sorry I'm so little help... :waitasec:
arrot:

 

[pittsburghgirl]

And this is the reply (BBM):


More strawmen, outright flipping of positions, and shifting not considered a suspect thing with "cleared", even though the posts I linked and our previous discussions clearly show that you understand the difference.
I'm done here.
You might not want to feel or say you have a dog in the hunt, but if you honestly think Ron's own lawyer is less believable than non-legal reporters' paraphrases of a document you can read and thus see the actual words they misinterpreted, well, I'd respectfully but strongly suggest a bias-check.

PS. Reporters commonly "copy" each other's works, and/or that of AP, etc. so having three say the same thing is meaningless. And they did not even pretend to be quoting LE.

As someone who has actually written for newspapers, I know that reporters rewrite each other, TV and wire services. In this case, however, they are rewriting the press release you linked in your post:

The biological parents, Ronald Cummings and Crystal Sheffield, are not considered to be suspects in the case.

http://www.pcso.us/2009-8-17-a

Thanks for the link. If there is a significant difference between "not considered to be suspects" and "cleared of suspicion" it's not evident to me. If you aren't a suspect, you are cleared of suspicion, aka "cleared." And now I'm done.