Was Joe involved?

[lorann]

I am not sure that we can sleuth what Jr says because we don't know his vocabulary. But we do know he has been around blacks as RC's once friend Orlando is a black man, pictures of all of the kids at the beach, etc. So he does know black people - it could be he saw a black man or a person dressed in black. Not sure any who don't know this child can judge. I was disappointed that this tape was allowed to be made, I feel it should have stayed in the hands of professionals.

 

[Justin Tyme]

aoibhinn -#577 - in reference to the work boots - This has me wondering why Lindsey thought that it was important that he knew that she threw ToC's & TiC work boots away. I don't recall hearing that his work boots were squeaky. It would seem if they were used during a crime that they would have dumped them along time ago. Did TiC & ToC work for the same company and if not why were TiC's boots at ToC's house?

 

[Hthr1]

I am not an expert at reading people at all, but I am bothered that Jo seems to be the only one out of this bunch that seems really affected by what happened to HaLeigh. (He shows emotion, can't imagine what her family is going through, can't look at her picture on Granny's t-shirt without feeling some degree of regret for something "F-it!". According to Granny has become a different person since coming home---sounds like he is going through depression.) Jo only met the little girl once or twice. Misty and Tommy on the other hand just go on with their lives business as usual showing only sympathy for themselves. What does this say? I am not sure. Doesn't show Jo as a crazy sociapath type who has no feelings.....but the other two....that is exactly how they act.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

Then that would also mean that it involved Ron too, right? If Ron is denying it but others are saying "yeah that's what happened", I would assume that Ron is trying to stay away from that angle and maybe he has reason to. I don't think we have heard the whole story about this "gun".

It seems that not only Ron but some of his family members were also denying Jr's story.

Not necessarily. It could just mean that Ron was misinformed or just wrong. It could also mean that he emotionally and psychologically preferred to think that "someone out there" took Haleigh rather than someone he had let into his own house (the whole Croslin extended family, via Misty.) Remember that denying Misty's involvement for Ron is also a way of denying that he was responsible for introducing her into his kids' lives.

Ron is also a drug user, who may have memory deficits and who likely also uses denial as a coping mechanism. As a drug dealer, he also may want to avoid areas that might expose his criminal activities. So there are any number of reasons why a person might "believe" something that is false or not believe something that is true. As former prosecutor Vince Bugliosi has said regarding the Kennedy assassination, if we know who the guilty parties are (and Misty and Tommy have more or less confessed and have NOT implicated Ron) then whatever Ron has said or done does not point to his guilt. So it doesn't matter if Ron thinks Joe is guilty; it matters if Joe is guilty and LE can prove it through witnesses and forensics.

I've always thought that the "black" men probably referred to clothing and the shadows in a dark room at night.

 

[waltzingmatilda]

aoibhinn -#577 - in reference to the work boots - This has me wondering why Lindsey thought that it was important that he knew that she threw ToC's & TiC work boots away. I don't recall hearing that his work boots were squeaky. It would seem if they were used during a crime that they would have dumped them along time ago. Did TiC & ToC work for the same company and if not why were TiC's boots at ToC's house?

Perhaps Joe borrowed TiC's boots for the alleged trip down to Shell Harbor to get rid of evidence. Then left them with ToC when the deed was done.

 

[Justin Tyme]

The odd thing about this is that Ron discredited this recollection by Junior, saying that it was Crystals family that put him up to saying it. Doesn't make sense. You'd think Ron would jump at the chance to reinforce the theory someone strange was in the MH that night.

That was strange, wasn't it? It makes you wonder if he did this out of habit...always discrediting any thing that C says. OR - Was he trying to make it appear that C was making it up, so that it looks like she was perhaps involved in Haleigh's disappearance. OR - Is the real truth he knew it wasn't true and he really knows what happened to Haleigh.

 

[lorann]

I am not an expert at reading people at all, but I am bothered that Jo seems to be the only one out of this bunch that seems really affected by what happened to HaLeigh. (He shows emotion, can't imagine what her family is going through, can't look at her picture on Granny's t-shirt without feeling some degree of regret for something "F-it!". According to Granny has become a different person since coming home---sounds like he is going through depression.) Jo only met the little girl once or twice. Misty and Tommy on the other hand just go on with their lives business as usual showing only sympathy for themselves. What does this say? I am not sure. Doesn't show Jo as a crazy sociapath type who has no feelings.....but the other two....that is exactly how they act.

I don't think Joe is the killer but, he has a past, was locked up and knows what it is like. Because he may have been involved in a cleanup/coverup, he may have come home changed because of the fear of going back to prison.

I can't find it now so I may be misremembering - was he on probation? I'm thinking he did get in trouble for leaving the state without permission - does anyone know?

 

[debs]

Not necessarily. It could just mean that Ron was misinformed or just wrong. It could also mean that he emotionally and psychologically preferred to think that "someone out there" took Haleigh rather than someone he had let into his own house (the whole Croslin extended family, via Misty.) Remember that denying Misty's involvement for Ron is also a way of denying that he was responsible for introducing her into his kids' lives.

I suppose denial is a strong force, strong enough to embrace and defend Misty and marry her. I do notice he wasn't in denial enough to get HER name tattooed anywhere on himself. "Why did you let my daughter get stole, b!t@h?" seems to give listeners a clear understanding of Ron's state of mind. There's no denial present there. He's laying blame right at Misty. He didn't deny her involvement. But Ronald does deny he was responsible, not for introducing her into his children's lives. He denies it's any of anyone's business what he does in his personal life. He denies he knows anything (even though he attempts to control Misty's retelling of events at every turn) and defends himself with "I was at work." Denial, or artful presentation?

Ron is also a drug user, who may have memory deficits and who likely also uses denial as a coping mechanism. As a drug dealer, he also may want to avoid areas that might expose his criminal activities. So there are any number of reasons why a person might "believe" something that is false or not believe something that is true. As former prosecutor Vince Bugliosi has said regarding the Kennedy assassination, if we know who the guilty parties are (and Misty and Tommy have more or less confessed and have NOT implicated Ron) then whatever Ron has said or done does not point to his guilt. So it doesn't matter if Ron thinks Joe is guilty; it matters if Joe is guilty and LE can prove it through witnesses and forensics.

All this says is that Ron's a liar and will lie to protect his own tukus, which has been the point of view of many people from the get-go. What most of those people have chosen not to do is excuse him for it. We do not know what Misty and Tommy have said to LE, and just like you make excuses for Ron, I'll bet they're now making sure they point out their drug use and denial that someone they could have brought into THEIR family (Ron) could do such things. It's possible, and cannot be excluded as a likelihood. And since Ron has always distanced himself from Joe, never ever wanting any link to him, I have to wonder why a man who is on tape stating he'll shoot out the back of a squad car to get the perp would then leave his beloved girlfriend to walk around with that perp and hang up posters of HIS missing child.

I've always thought that the "black" men probably referred to clothing and the shadows in a dark room at night.

I have nothing to add regarding the story Jr told his mother. I believe Jr was another victim in this whole mess.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

"Why did you let my daughter get stole, b!t@h?" seems to give listeners a clear understanding of Ron's state of mind. There's no denial present there. He's laying blame right at Misty. He didn't deny her involvement.

Why not take this statement at face value? Misty was babysitting and told Ron that someone came into his home and took his daughter. If he's blaming Misty, it's for letting his "daughter get stole." Even the sentence construction--very unconscious in speakers under great emotion--is passive voice, indicating that he doesn't KNOW who stole the child. If the sentence was just a statement--"My daughter got stole"--the passive might also indicate RC was avoiding stating his own responsibility, as that is one major use of the passive. But the other use is when the speaker does not know who is responsible. In this case, the passive statement is embedded in a question; Misty is the subject ("you" since RC is speaking directly to her); "let" is the verb, meaning "to allow" and the object is the passive sentence "my daughter get stole." And all of that is positioned in a WHY question indicating that RC doesn't know who "stole" Haleigh and has already accepted that Misty allowed Haleigh to be stolen, at least in the first emotional moments after he was told what happened. He's not asking what happened to his daughter; that in this moment seems obvious to him. His question for Misty is why she let that happen. And that's surely a good question. That response might actually be a strong indication of his first thoughts and his first instinct, before his usual denial and bad judgment got him in still deeper with Misty.

It would be very tough for someone to "fake" that kind of syntactic structure and get the sentence to come out "right" in spite of Ron's non-standard use of "stole". Even that word "stole" is telling, if less than Standard English, with it's implication that she "belonged" to him and someone unknown took her away. In a spontaneous utterance like this, statement analysis says to look at places where the speaker can't get the syntax right, or the syntax doesn't match the message, or the syntax shows a different underlying relationship between agents and objects. Here it is a dead match for what he says: Misty let someone "steal" his daughter by a person unknown to him at that moment.

Thus, you are right: he is not denying her "involvement" in terms of not protecting Haleigh from whoever took her. That's clear as crystal to me.

 

[debs]

Except that I believe that the scene was staged to look like a kidnapping, when in fact it was not.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

Except that I believe that the scene was staged to look like a kidnapping, when in fact it was not.

I agree, staged by the people who have apparently confessed, Misty and Tommy, and perhaps Cousin Joe.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

We do not know what Misty and Tommy have said to LE, and just like you make excuses for Ron, I'll bet they're now making sure they point out their drug use and denial that someone they could have brought into THEIR family (Ron) could do such things.

I am not making excuses for Ron. He is a drug user, drug dealer, and brought killers into his family home. He will have to live with that. I just see no evidence that he killed his daughter or covered up her murder. And the chief "evidence" I don't see is any indication that the people we know are involved point to him as part of the conspiracy or that LE sees him as a suspect.

 

[debs]

I agree, staged by the people who have apparently confessed, Misty and Tommy, and perhaps Cousin Joe.

Now, we have come to a momentous occasion! I DO agree that these three were charged with staging the scene. Now I'm left with the question why, and the question of who instructed them to do so. Their free-thinking abilities have always seemed to be rather........loosely applied.

 

[bessie]

I was looking for something else and ran across this Art Harris post in from November 2009, G Hollars talking about Joe and Tommy:



I just thought it was interesting that she seemed to have an idea about Tommy and Joe six months ago. That lends some credibility to her statements in the phone calls that she suspected Joe was involved (even if she doesn't tell Tommy that she suspected him, too).

In this same interview, she also tells AH that she doesn't believe Misty was involved, but on 04/22/10 she admitted to NG that she had changed her mind.
GRACE: What led you to change your mind? You first insisted to me several weeks ago no way was Misty remotely involved. But then you changed your mind and you yourself called police.

HOLLARS: Yes, I did. I changed my mind when I put two and two together that she knowed where to go to at the river. She`s involved.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1004/22/ng.01.html

Obviously, the story is still emerging for FH and she is no more certain of the truth than any of us. She merely repeats the various stories she hears from her grandchildren, sometimes confusing the details and sometimes interjecting her own observations and opinions. She can hardly be considered an objective source.

After the split with Ron in September and the road rage incident with DB on 10/07/09, Misty found herself homeless. Her parents were living with T and L, but Misty couldn't stay there because of the restraining order against Tommy which was subsequently lifted on 11/05/09. So, she spent the better part of October 2009 staying with FH in TN. The interview with AH in early November came fresh on the heels of that visit. It's reasonable to assume that while staying with FH, Misty played on her granny's sympathies and planted the seeds for the "Tommy and Joe did it" story.

 

[Dr.Fessel]

I agree, staged by the people who have apparently confessed, Misty and Tommy, and perhaps Cousin Joe.

Nobody has confessed to a crime as far as we know. We do know that 2 people in jail facing possible long prison sentences have lied numerous times in what is probably an attempt to get out of jail or shorter sentences on the drug charge. Cousin Joe's involvement as far as we know is just part of these liars story.

 

[debs]

Why not take this statement at face value? Misty was babysitting and told Ron that someone came into his home and took his daughter. If he's blaming Misty, it's for letting his "daughter get stole." Even the sentence construction--very unconscious in speakers under great emotion--is passive voice, indicating that he doesn't KNOW who stole the child. If the sentence was just a statement--"My daughter got stole"--the passive might also indicate RC was avoiding stating his own responsibility, as that is one major use of the passive. But the other use is when the speaker does not know who is responsible. In this case, the passive statement is embedded in a question; Misty is the subject ("you" since RC is speaking directly to her); "let" is the verb, meaning "to allow" and the object is the passive sentence "my daughter get stole." And all of that is positioned in a WHY question indicating that RC doesn't know who "stole" Haleigh and has already accepted that Misty allowed Haleigh to be stolen, at least in the first emotional moments after he was told what happened. He's not asking what happened to his daughter; that in this moment seems obvious to him. His question for Misty is why she let that happen. And that's surely a good question. That response might actually be a strong indication of his first thoughts and his first instinct, before his usual denial and bad judgment got him in still deeper with Misty.

It would be very tough for someone to "fake" that kind of syntactic structure and get the sentence to come out "right" in spite of Ron's non-standard use of "stole". Even that word "stole" is telling, if less than Standard English, with it's implication that she "belonged" to him and someone unknown took her away. In a spontaneous utterance like this, statement analysis says to look at places where the speaker can't get the syntax right, or the syntax doesn't match the message, or the syntax shows a different underlying relationship between agents and objects. Here it is a dead match for what he says: Misty let someone "steal" his daughter by a person unknown to him at that moment.

Thus, you are right: he is not denying her "involvement" in terms of not protecting Haleigh from whoever took her. That's clear as crystal to me.

I believe his comment "How did you let my daughter get stole, b!t@h" is more like product placement than excited utterance.

 

[Maryann123]

aoibhinn -#577 - in reference to the work boots - This has me wondering why Lindsey thought that it was important that he knew that she threw ToC's & TiC work boots away. I don't recall hearing that his work boots were squeaky. It would seem if they were used during a crime that they would have dumped them along time ago. Did TiC & ToC work for the same company and if not why were TiC's boots at ToC's house?

Here's the problem I have with seeing anything wrong with Lindsy telling Tommy she threw the boots away. She knows her words are being recorded, and everything she says will probably be played back on NG. If she thought for one minute those boots played a part in Haleigh's disappearance, she would have never mentioned throwing them away. And then there's Tommy's reaction to that news! "Why did you throw away my perfectly good boots?" "I'll just go out and buy me some more!" I don't find anything sinister in her throwing the boots out. She's moving, he hasn't worked in months, (work boots) and now he's looking at 3 years in jail. I'd probably throw them out too.

 

[Dr.Fessel]

I don't think Joe had any involvement in what happened to Haleigh and I base that on the fake 911 call.

 

[Maryann123]

Right, what was that about? Why did he want to deny that?

Maybe for the same reason he denied he and Joe got in a fight over a gun. I don't know why he did that either. I think in the beginning they wanted it to look like a total stranger came in and took Haleigh. Once LE stated this was no "stranger abduction" they had to go to plan B.

 

[Maryann123]

If this were a movie, I'd march right back out to the box office and demand my money back! A 12 year old could have written a more believable script!