The 911 Call, LE Radio Call & Police Report

[SeriouslySearching]

You know, I've been thinking about this Police Report and the Beretta. I think a lot of us thought the Beretta was confiscated that night and the confiscation was on the LE Report. I know I did until I started looking at the LE Report line by line. Turns out the Beretta isn't on the Report after all. But there were quite a few posts saying that it was.

I wonder how many other things have become "Urban Legends" as this case goes on and on with so little solid information released. I wonder how much hearsay, we now use as if it were fact. That's why I think it's important to challenge our fellow posters to identify the source of their comments - whether that source is a published one, a rumor, or their own good idea and/or opinon. And I think it's important to be sure that source is included when an idea is passed along. You know - something like "I agree with so and so's opinion that...." I'm not sure I've done that consistently - but I'm going to try to do so in the future. JMO and not directed at anyone.

BBM

The Beretta IS mentioned in the police report!! Let me quote from the report narrative which would be in the 2nd paragraph and the 4th sentence under Additional Information:

"Ronald referred to a 9MM Beretta which he owned inside of his residence and said that if Law Enforcement found whoever had his child, he would shoot them through the back window of the patrol car."

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/02/13/putnam.pdf

 

[SeriouslySearching]

I thought that unless we were stating an opinion we had to have a link. That is why so many ask for them...and others just say they do not have to give them....??????

Some people state everything as their "opinions" so they never have to back it up with a link. Other people don't bother to open the link when provided and can't follow along later when the subject is brought up again....yet are the first to scream for a link that has been posted many, many times for them to read. It is so frustrating to go back to find every link for every sentence because some don't want to bother to look them up before they give their "opinions" or read the ones already posted.

Another example is in my post prior to this one in which a poster supposedly read the report line by line...then posted the Beretta was never mentioned in that report which was incorrect. The only way to correct those things is to go back and bring up the link again to prove it was incorrect. The poster did not provide a link when stating the Beretta was not in the report.

 

[MaedchenX]

Some people state everything as their "opinions" so they never have to back it up with a link. Other people don't bother to open the link when provided and can't follow along later when the subject is brought up again....yet are the first to scream for a link that has been posted many, many times for them to read. It is so frustrating to go back to find every link for every sentence because some don't want to bother to look them up before they give their "opinions" or read the ones already posted.

Another example is in my post prior to this one in which a poster supposedly read the report line by line...then posted the Beretta was never mentioned in that report which was incorrect. The only way to correct those things is to go back and bring up the link again to prove it was incorrect. The poster did not provide a link when stating the Beretta was not in the report.

It would be nice if we could give one another a little credit and leeway when it comes to sifting through fact and rumor as there has been so much of it. I certainly know from my participation elsewhere that it is easy to confuse and misremember certain details. Is it so wrong to politely remind one another of the facts?

 

[Emeralgem]

Perhaps, the poster didn't word his phrase properly. I think most of us are aware that the 9 mm beretta was referenced in the report. I thought the problem was whether police took the gun and if they did, was the gun returned to Ronald Cummings.
To my knowledge there is nothing on the report that says they took the gun. And if they didn't, they should have under the circumstances
.BTW, how many guns did Ronald Cummings have. do we really know? One is in the house, one found in a ditch, maybe there was another one that hasn't been found.
Also, I just looked at the report again and noticed for the first time that they not only have Haleigh listed as a male,but her DOB is wrong on that report. Wonder who gave the officer that incorrect information. JMO

 

[Tom'sGirl]

Lets not go off topic and into a discussion of whether or not someone should post a link. Some will ask over and over for a link that's been posted prior and it becomes irritating. If you've supplied a link and continually get asked to supply again, let the poster search your posts for it, don't argue the point.

IF you're stating something to be FACT without a link, be prepared to supply one if asked.

IF you've referenced something that you've read in an article or a document, supply a link.

IF you're offering your opinion or thoughts some want you to spell it out for them that's the case.

 

[Tom'sGirl]

Perhaps, the poster didn't word his phrase properly. I think most of us are aware that the 9 mm beretta was referenced in the report. I thought the problem was whether police took the gun and if they did, was the gun returned to Ronald Cummings.
To my knowledge there is nothing on the report that says they took the gun. And if they didn't, they should have under the circumstances
.BTW, how many guns did Ronald Cummings have. do we really know? One is in the house, one found in a ditch, maybe there was another one that hasn't been found.
Also, I just looked at the report again and noticed for the first time that they not only have Haleigh listed as a male,but her DOB is wrong on that report. Wonder who gave the officer that incorrect information. JMO

The Police Report does not mention whether a gun was taken.

To my knowledge nothing has been published as to how many firearms RC may have owned.

Yes, there are errors on the Police Report, errors happen. We don't know if another corrected report was entered later.

 

[Shaymus at The Rock]

Perhaps, the poster didn't word his phrase properly. I think most of us are aware that the 9 mm beretta was referenced in the report. I thought the problem was whether police took the gun and if they did, was the gun returned to Ronald Cummings.
To my knowledge there is nothing on the report that says they took the gun. And if they didn't, they should have under the circumstances
.BTW, how many guns did Ronald Cummings have. do we really know? One is in the house, one found in a ditch, maybe there was another one that hasn't been found.
Also, I just looked at the report again and noticed for the first time that they not only have Haleigh listed as a male,but her DOB is wrong on that report. Wonder who gave the officer that incorrect information. JMO

Thank you for bringing this to my attention, Emeralgem. I did omit the phrase "confiscation of the Beretta in that one sentence, assuming, as you said that all would know that the Narrative included Ron's threats to use it. Bad to assume, I know - especially if we have new posters come on line. I have made the clarification. Thanks again !

By the way, the Property Section, which does not include the Beretta is right below the Claimant/Witness Section.

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/02/13/putnam.pdf

 

[Whisperer]

Where was jr doing this whole thing? Was he with Misty...never heard him. Was he with his dad? never heard him. In fact, the entire description of the incident did not involve jr at all. We heard absolutely nothing about him or concern for him at the time. Neither of these two mentioned his name. With all the noise RC was making, the poor little guy should have been screaming...

 

[Shaymus at The Rock]

Where was jr doing this whole thing? Was he with Misty...never heard him. Was he with his dad? never heard him. In fact, the entire description of the incident did not involve jr at all. We heard absolutely nothing about him or concern for him at the time. Neither of these two mentioned his name. With all the noise RC was making, the poor little guy should have been screaming...

No hushing on the 911 call. No one hushing a crying Jr. No Misty hushing Ron to keep him from waking Jr. It's as if there's just the two of them in that mh. We know they're inside because we hear what sounds like cabinet doors slamming.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

Rj wouldn't neccesarily have awakened if this was all taking place in the kitchen or other rooms of the house. Most kids sleep very deeply especially at 3:00am. I am not at all surprised he isn't heard on the 911 tape.

LE confirms he was present when they arrived and they did have him taken to a place to be "interviewed" at some point, IIRC.

 

[TxLady2]

Or he could have been too scared to cry out. Many children that hear loud talking, arguing, banging noises, etc. will just huddle up in a corner and try to be invisible, so they don't end up getting hurt. I'm sure as soon as TN got there, she took him outside or even handed him off to someone in the family. LE probably would not have been in a hurry to interview him, but if they were, they had to get a child psychologist to talk to him and I'm sure there wasn't one at the scene at 4:00 a.m.

 

[Whisperer]

Is that because he is listed on the report as a witness?

 

[Busylady]

No because he is discussed in the narrative.

Is that because he is listed on the report as a witness?

 

[Whisperer]

Are you referring to the statement from Misty?

 

[Shaymus at The Rock]

OH, the police report confirmed he was there?

Well, like most everything else about this case, that's kind of confusing, Whisperer.

1. The LEO does not specifically state that he saw Jr in the Narrative.

I then made contact with Misty Croslin, Ronald's girlfriend. Misty told me she had put the children to bed at approximately 8:00PM. Misty said that they were sleeping in her bed, and when she laid down at around 10:30PM., both children were still in bed. I asked Misty who the other child was, and she advised me that the other child was Haleigh's brother.

BBM

Only 3 parts of the Narrative are blacked out:

A. What looks like the address of Misty's brother's mh.
B. A portion of the route the canine's took.
C. A paragraph following the LEO's description of his conversation with TN. Maybe some additional comments were made about Jr in that blacked out portion.

2. TN is listed as the 4th Complaintant/Witness. The 5th Complaintant/Witness is blacked out and most folks speculate that is Jr.

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/02/13/putnam.pdf

Just to be sure, are you trying to confirm that Jr was there when LE arrived or that he was in the mh when the 911 call was made ?

 

[Busylady]

I am referring to the officer asking who the other child is and Misty informing LE that it is Haleigh's brother. I can already tell where this is going so you we will just leave it I am going by what the police report states, if you want to interpret what it states differently thats your option of course.

Are you referring to the statement from Misty?

 

[Whisperer]

Please provide a link to the police report. I need to see that question from LE to Misty

 

[Whisperer]

I want you to show me how you know that JR was in the MH when the police arrived. You made the statement just now that he was because it is in the incident report.

 

[cajun]

The police report is in a sticky in this forum

 

[Busylady]

I don't know how else to show you other than you take the time to go read the police report. In the narrative it refers to JR being the other child. No where does it say JR arrived after LE arrived, like it does with Teresa. I really don't know how it can be interpreted any differently.

I want you to show me how you know that JR was in the MH when the police arrived. You made the statement just now that he was because it is in the incident report.