2010.10.08 - MISTY's St. Johns Co. FELONY SENTENCING @1:30PM (secret witness?)

[lonetraveler]

IMO, this was absolutely the wrong time for the 'poor me' stuff. Sure, get your mama to take the stand and tell what a terrible mother she was and how badly you were treated, but to sit in court and tell a judge you are not a drug dealer when you have been caught on tape dealing drugs numerous times is not going to help your case, not to mention her blaise attitude about the whole thing. I deal drugs because I am poor and that is what poor people do, but I'm not a drug dealer.
I'm a mom. My kids are not perfect. There have been many instances where my kids have done something wrong. In dealing with them, and their 'punishment', the #1 factor for me was their attitude about what they had done. They got into a lot less trouble if they admitted what they did and exhibited an understanding they did wrong than if they lied to me, argued with me, and showed no inclination to not do it again.

Because of what Misty said in court today, had I been the judge, though it would have pained me dearly, I would not have considered her for the YO status, and I would have sentenced her to the 25 years, also. It would have had not one thing to do with Haleigh. The BBM above, it has been reported the judge told Misty she was NOT there because of Haleigh, she was there because of drugs, after Misty and her attorney both played the Haleigh card as the reason Misty was arrested for dealing drugs.

BBM: I don't think that the poster I was replying to was using the "drug dealing" was the "poor me" statement. I can't reply for them though. At sentencing mitigating factors are suppose to be considered. At this time "the poor me" factors are usually entails her life, events that may have impacted her decisions made in life, tragic impacts, crimes against her are considered, etc., but anyway I can tolerate a "poor me" statement when the charged is 18 yrs. old and is facing the rest of their life behind bars.

 

[impatientredhead]

But... minimum over what?? That's a bare minimum if you ask me! Maybe that's as a layperson who looks at 25 years equal to 30 years equal to (you get the picture). It's all big time in prison to me! Prison is prison. Minimum to ME is like... uh... 6. So, I do wait for the picture to get clearer on what happened that night to reduce the sentence, hence solving HaLeigh's case. I understand what you are saying, but I can't believe it would take this sentence to get thru to someone to talk. KWIM?

To me you only take this sentence because the alternative is worse, which means you are responsible for the death of a child and 25 years on a drug charge is better than life on a capital murder charge.

The other alternative is your really don't know and can't help, but in that scenario I think you see a very cooperative Misty, wearing a wire, trying to get someone else to tell her what happened. And from what we have seen our only undercover attempt was by Donna Brock who Misty told nothing to and Ron warned Misty that DB was undercover.

That is my opinion.
I don't think anyone is going to jail over teenage love, protecting anyone else. It is self preservation. And if she truly didn't know I think she would be screaming that from the roof tops or cutting a deal that is just based on trying to help (wire, etc....)

 

[gibby207]

Yes ... Misty and team played into LE's hands and gave them the chance they needed ... to hold them for the duration until they spill.

Time will tell.

Misty will blame the system for a while but as she matures she will come to terms and realize. I think the prosecution wanted Misty to get a harsher sentence to force her to spill on Ron.

She has a stark reality to ponder. She also has the worst case scenario, so can work on that to reduce her sentence based on real cooperation and the truth.

Yes... Misty did. I think their plan is for her to have a harsher sentence to spill, but like you said, time will tell. Maybe this sentence of 25 years and more to come will make her think more "clearer" of the events of that night. One can hope!

 

[gibby207]

hahahahahahah....you have a great sense of humor!!

She does! She's the grandma I wanna have, although I think we are the same age so it's kinda weird. lollll

 

[lonetraveler]

The drug sting would not have happened if they were not selling drugs. So blaming Haleigh's case for it was stupid. Does she think selling drugs is okay if you are not under suspicion for another crime?

And they were very much in the spotlight so it was not SMART to do what they did. I also think that having her mother testify today was just one more person she could blame for what she is and not accept responsibility for herself or her actions. jmo

This is just my humble opinion but I think that LE has known that Ron deals drugs way before Haleigh's case. LE just decided to use it to catch him and Misty to get evidence for Haleigh's case. It worked, all they had to do was wait and watch. Unfortunately, the stories that have come forth can not be validated and therefore LE can't make an arrest in Haleigh's case.

 

[Kimster]

Okay, read the MSM reports and all I can say is W@W!!! I thought she'd get 15 years like everyone else. VERY interesting. Since day 2 I've felt she knew exactly what happened to Haleigh. Maybe LE in St. John's does too?

 

[Kimmer]

Here is a thought that I have after MC sentencing...For moths now when she has been questioned by Investigators they have been telling her that she better start getting to the truth of what happened to Haleigh or she would be put away for a very long time on the drug charges, but if she would be truthful to them they would put in a good word for her and get the charges or the sentencing reduced....Well MC did not believe anything they said, after all she was 18 when arrested with a clean record and surly she would be sentenced under the youthful offender program...It is obvious to me from some of the jail house visits and phone calls that she thinks that LE is only lying to her...Well today reality smacked her in the face with a 25 yr sentence and she still has the majority of the charges to yet be sentenced on in PC so after a couple of this sinking into her and her finally realizing that LE was not lying to her Maybe just Maybe she will decide that it is time to get real serious and have a truthful conversation with Investigators....But with that said if she has been trying to tell them that RC is involved and they refuse to hear it that puts her in a tough spot...Hopefully if she does have info on him she will be able to tell them what happened and then they can look for the evidence to back it up....The other thing that I think is that she has had 10 months to get comfortable with where she is at, when she hits the big house I bet her mug shot there will look alot like RC like a deer in the headlights and scared out of her mind...I really hope she will come up with what really happened that night before her next sentencing.

 

[gibby207]

To me you only take this sentence because the alternative is worse, which means you are responsible for the death of a child and 25 years on a drug charge is better than life on a capital murder charge.

The other alternative is your really don't know and can't help, but in that scenario I think you see a very cooperative Misty, wearing a wire, trying to get someone else to tell her what happened. And from what we have seen our only undercover attempt was by Donna Brock who Misty told nothing to and Ron warned Misty that DB was undercover.

That is my opinion.
I don't think anyone is going to jail over teenage love, protecting anyone else. It is self preservation. And if she truly didn't know I think she would be screaming that from the roof tops or cutting a deal that is just based on trying to help (wire, etc....)

Right... so to the books it's supposed to be a drug charge, although we all know it's more than that, hence accepting the 25 years. But... she has more! Is she willing to accept MORE years on that sentence? Does that mean she's guilty??? Hmm. Would that be sole guilt?? I don't think teenage love either, I think self-preservation, but I think it's self-preservation on several there. I DO think there may be a few involved, and they might be all sinking with the ship, only because they know these are drug charges. I think they tried to blame Joe... didn't work... because there is more than one culpable.

Thanks to you and cyberborg... yawl are in my mindset so far, so I suspect cyberborg is either Aquarian or Libra. HA!

 

[Kimster]

People who have been abused all their lives oftentimes learn the art of manipulation in order to survive. They are quite good at it. I think Misty thought her street smarts in that area would get her out of this, even though a family member said she thought she would get even more time. Down deep inside, I think she quite probably was in denial that she would really get 25 years.

I sure hope that in some way, this will bring Haleigh home.

 

[epiphany]

Interesting...

http://www.gainesville.com/article/...lames-Haleigh-case-for-drug-prosecution&tc=ar

SNIPPED:
...and that she was raped by several men, including a man who repeatedly raped her when she was between the ages of 7 and 14.


Versus

http://www.news4jax.com/news/25325313/detail.html

SNIPPED:

Misty told Judge Wendy Berger that she was raped by two people between the ages of 7 and 14 while she was taking care of her great-grandmother. She said that while Ronald Cummings was rough with her, it was an upgrade in her life and she loved him.

 

[mck16]

Since this has been mentioned several times I thought it would be interesting to review this again. Each line is not a separate instance but court information on the charges. Dates for court, etc. Not an easy read but gives the charges and the decisions. Just FYI for those who have not been on the forum since the start of this tragedy.


Defendant
CUMMINGS, RONALD LEMYLES
Date # Docket Description
2004-11-16 1 ARREST REPORT - PCSO EDGAR (ARREST 11/12/04)
2004-11-16 1 POSSESSION OF CANNABIS IN EXCESS OF 20 GRAMS
2004-11-16 1 POSSESSION OF DRUG PARAPHERNALIA
2004-11-16 1 MAINTAINING A DRUG VEHICLE
2004-11-16 3 TRAFFIC CITATION - #7877-DBJ 2
2004-11-16 4 AFFIDAVIT OF INSOLVENCY
2004-11-16 5 ORDER APPOINTING PUBLIC DEFENDER FOR 1ST APP HEARING
2004-11-16 6 APPEARANCE BOND - UNSECURED $ 2,012
2004-12-03 7 INFORMATION (CT 1-POSSESSION OF CANNABIS IN EXCESS
2004-12-03 7 OF 20 GRAMS)
2004-12-07 8 NOTICE TO DEFENDANT (01-07-2005)
2005-01-07 9 ARRAIGNMENT MINUTES: DEFT PRESENT, SWORN, ARRAIGNED,
2005-01-07 9 PUBLIC DEFENDER APPOINTED, ENTERED PLEA OF NOT GUILTY,
2005-01-07 9 SET FOR PRE TRIAL 02/03/2005.
2005-01-07 10 AFFIDAVIT OF INDIGENT STATUS
2005-01-07 10 DEFENDANT ADJUDGED INDIGENT
2005-01-25 17 PUBLIC DEFENDER, DEFT SCREENED BY TREATMENT AND DEEMED
2005-01-25 17 APPROPRIATE FOR DRUG COURT, DEFT DECLINED THE DRUG COURT
2005-02-03 18 ADI - LEVEL II
2005-03-03 20 DEFT SWORN, W/D FORMER PLEA, PLEAD NOLO A/C, ADVISED
2005-03-03 20 MAX PENALTY 5 YRS DOC &/OR $5000 FINE, PSI WAIVED,
2005-03-03 20 PLEA ACCEPTED, SENTENCING SET SAME DAY
2005-03-03 20 ADJUDICATION OF GUILT WITHHELD
2005-03-03 20 $370.00 COURT COSTS (6 MONTHS TO PAY)
2005-03-03 20 ADI PROGRAM - LEVEL II
2005-09-08 21 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION OF ADI LEVEL II PROGRAM
************************************************** ****************
Date # Docket Description
2006-11-14 1 TRAFFIC CITATION - #6417-EEN 3 PCSO OFF/MANNING
2006-11-14 1 LEAVING THE SCENE OF ACCIDENT INVOLVING INJURIES
2006-12-12 2 MOTION TO TRANSFER CASE TO COUNTY COURT
2006-12-19 3 ORDER TO TRANSFER CASE TO COUNTY COURT
************************************************** ****************
2006-08-01 1 ARREST REPORT - PCSO/ MAY (ARREST 07-29-2006)
2006-08-01 1 TRESPASS
2006-08-01 2 AFFIDAVIT OF INSOLVENCY
2006-08-01 3 $504.00 CHUCK'S BAIL BOND POSTED - #00601638 07-29-06
2006-08-11 4 INFORMATION (TRESPASS)
2006-08-31 6 ARR MIN: DEFT PRES, ADJ INS P D APPT MACK BRUNTON
2006-08-31 6 ARR ENT PLEA OF NOT GUILTY - PRE TRIAL SET 10/04/2006
2006-08-31 7 AFFIDAVIT OF INDIGENT STATUS
2006-08-31 7 DEFENDANT ADJUDGED INDIGENT
2006-08-31 7 $40.00 APPLICATION FEE IMPOSED
2006-08-31 8 ORDER APPOINTING PUBLIC DEFENDER
2006-08-31 9 PRE-TRIAL ORDER (10-04-2006)
2006-09-06 10 NOTICE TO BONDSMAN (10-04-2006)
2006-10-04 11 PRE TRIAL MINUTES: DEFT PRES, ATT BY MACK BRUNTON
2006-10-04 11 STATE AND DEFENSE ANNOUNCED READY FOR TRIAL
2006-10-04 11 CASE SET FOR NON JURY TRIAL 10/30/2006
2006-10-04 12 WAIVER OF JURY TRIAL
2006-10-04 13 NOTICE TO DEFENDANT (10-30-2006)
2006-10-06 14 NOTICE TO BONDSMAN (10-30-2006)
2006-10-10 15 STATE ATTORNEY WITNESS SUBPOENA ISSUED:
2006-10-10 15 WILLIAM P MORRIS
2006-10-10 16 STATE ATTORNEY WITNESS SUBPOENA ISSUED:
2006-10-10 16 DS JOHN MAY
2006-10-16 17 STATE ATTORNEY WITNESS SUBPOENA RETURNED SERVED:
2006-10-16 17 WILLIAM P MORRIS
2006-10-16 18 STATE ATTORNEY WITNESS SUBPOENA RETURNED SERVED:
2006-10-16 18 DS JOHN MAY
2006-10-16 20 STATE ATTORNEY WITNESS SUBPOENA RETURNED SERVED:
2006-10-16 19 MS. TAMMY PINKNEY
2006-10-26 21 AMENDED INFO (TRESPASS ON PROPERTY OTHER THAN A
2006-10-26 21 STRUCTURE OR CONVEYANCE)
2006-10-30 22 TRIAL MINUTES: DEFT PRES ATT BY MACK BRUNTON
2006-10-30 22 FOR NON JURY TRIAL- STATE REP BY DAVID HOLLANDER
2006-10-30 22 DEFT W-DREW FORMER PLEA - ENT PLEA OF NOLO CONTENDERE
2006-10-30 22 TO TRESPASS, DEFT SWORN, PLEA ACCEPTED,
2006-10-30 22 ADJUDGED GUILTY
2006-10-30 22 PROB HRDS 6 MONTHS
2006-10-30 22 1 DAY PCJ WITH CREDIT FOR TIME SERVED OF 1 DAY
2006-10-30 22 $273.00 FINE AND COST
2006-10-30 22 $ 40.00 PD FEE SUSPENDED
2006-10-30 22 RANDOM DRUG TEST
2006-10-30 23 WRITTEN PLEA OF GUILTY OR NOLO CONTENDERE TO
2006-10-30 23 CRIMINAL CHARGES IN COUNTY COURT
2006-10-30 24 ORDER OF PROBATION
2007-01-17 25 $ 60.00 FINE AND COST PAYMENT 11/14/2006
2007-02-07 26 SUCCESSFUL TERMINATION OF PROBATION
2007-02-14 27 $120.00 FINE AND COST PAYMENT 12/28/2006
2007-03-16 28 $ 93.00 FINE AND COST BAL PAID 01/25/2007
************************************************** ****************
2006-11-14 1 TRAFFIC CITATION - #6417EEN-3 PCSO/ MANNING 10-30-06
2006-11-14 1 LEAVING THE SCENE OF AN ACCIDENT
2006-12-12 2 MOTION TO TRANSFER CASE TO COUNTY COURT
2006-12-19 3 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO TRANSFER CASE TO COUNTY COURT
2006-12-19 3 FROM CIRCUIT COURT 06-002339-CF53
2006-12-19 4 NOTICE TO DEFENDANT (01-23-2007)
2007-01-02 5 NOTICE RETURNED UNEXECUTED - NO SUCH NUMBER
2007-01-05 6 NOTICE TO DEFENDANT (01-23-2007)
2007-01-12 7 NOTICE RETURNED UNEXECUTED - NO SUCH NUMBER
2007-01-23 8 ARRAIGNMENT MINUTES: DEFT NOT PRESENT IN COURT
2007-01-23 8 COURT ORDERED CAPIAS
2007-01-23 8 BOND SET AT $1004 FIRM
2007-01-23 9 CAPIAS ISSUED - BOND SET AT $1004 FIRM
2007-01-25 10 CAPIAS RECALLED - CASE SET FOR ARRAIGNMENT 02/06/2007
2007-01-25 10 NOTICE TO DEFENDANT (02-06-2007) IN OFFICE
2007-01-25 11 CHANGE OF ADDRESS
2007-01-26 12 CAPIAS RETURNED
2007-02-06 13 ARRAIGNMENT MINUTES: ON MOTION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA THE
2007-02-06 13 THE CASE WAS ORDERED NOLLE PROSEQUI IN OPEN COURT
2007-02-06 13 INFRACTION DISMISSED CIT # 6416EEN2 - CARELESS DRIVING
2007-02-06 13 INFRACTION DISMISSED CIT # 6418EEN4 - OPERATE ATV
2007-02-06 13 W/O HELMET
2007-02-06 14 WAIVER OF COUNSEL
************************************************** ****************
2007-04-03 1 COMPLAINT FILED: PCSO/ WALTER 04-02-07
2007-04-03 1 AFFRAY
2007-04-23 2 INFORMATION (AFFRAY)
2007-04-23 3 NOTICE TO DEFENDANT (05/10/2007)CERTIFIED
2007-05-10 4 ARRAIGNMENT MINUTES: COURT ORDERED CASE CONTINUED
2007-05-10 4 TO NEXT ARRAIGNMENT 06/12/2007
2007-05-10 5 NOTICE TO DEFENDANT (06-12-2007)
2007-05-18 6 NOTICE RETURNED UNEXECUTED - UNCLAIMED
2007-06-12 7 ARRAIGNMENT MINUTES: COURT ORDERED CASE CONTINUED
2007-06-12 7 TO NEXT ARRAIGNMENT 07/12/2007
2007-06-12 8 NOTICE TO DEFENDANT (07-12-2007)
2007-06-14 9 NOTICE TO DEFENDANT (07-12-2007) IN OFFICE
2007-07-12 10 ARR MIN: DEFT PRES, ADJ INS P D APPT MACK BRUNTON
2007-07-12 10 ARR ENT PLEA OF NOT GUILTY - PRE TRIAL SET 08/22/2007
2007-07-12 11 AFFIDAVIT OF INDIGENT STATUS
2007-07-12 11 DEFENDANT ADJUDGED INDIGENT
2007-07-12 11 $40.00 APPLICATION FEE IMPOSED
2007-07-12 12 ORDER APPOINTING PUBLIC DEFENDER
2007-07-12 13 PRE-TRIAL ORDER (08-22-2007)
2007-08-22 14 PRE TRIAL MINUTES: DEFT PRES, ATT BY MACK BRUNTON
2007-08-22 14 ON MOTION OF DEFENSE COUNSEL, COURT ORDERED CASE
2007-08-22 14 CONTINUED TO 09/19/2007
2007-08-22 15 NOTICE TO DEFENDANT (09-19-2007) IN COURT
2007-09-19 16 PRE TRIAL MINUTES: DEFERRED PROSECUTION AGREEMENT FILED
2007-09-19 16 AND ACCEPTED
2007-09-19 17 DEFERRED PROSECUTION AGREEMENT
2007-09-19 17 10 HOURS COMMUNITY SERVICE
2007-09-19 17 $50.00 COST OF PROSECUTION
2007-09-28 18 MEMO FROM HRDS: DEFT COMPLETED THE CONDITIONS OF HIS
2007-09-28 18 PRE-TRIAL DIVERSION PROGRAM
2007-10-18 19 NOTICE OF SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF DEFERRED
2007-10-18 19 PROSECUTION AGREEMENT
2007-11-28 20 $100.00 PAYMENT MADE TO CASE 09/18/2007
************************************************** ****************
2007-11-14 1 WILDLIFE CITATION - #132466-C GFFC/ EASON 11-02-07
2007-11-14 1 POSSESSION OF MODERN FIREARM DURING MUZZLELOADING
2007-11-14 1 SEASON
2007-11-14 1 TRESPASS
2007-11-14 2 NOTICE TO DEFENDANT (12-18-2007)
2007-11-29 3 NOTICE RETURNED UNEXECUTED
2007-11-29 4 NOTICE TO DEFENDANT (12/18/2007)CORRECT ADDRESS
2007-12-18 5 ARR MIN: DEFT PRES IN COURT WAIVING RIGHT TO COUNSEL
2007-12-18 5 ARR ENT PLEA OF NOLO CONTENDERE TO CT I - POSS OF
2007-12-18 5 MODERN FIREARM DURING MUZZELOADING SEASON - CT II -
2007-12-18 5 TRESPASS - NOLLE PROSEQUI - DEFT SWORN, PLEA ACCEPTED
2007-12-18 5 DEFENDANT ADJUDGED GUILTY
2007-12-18 5 $273.00 FINE AND COST SUSPENDED
2007-12-18 5 24 HOURS HOUSE ARREST
2007-12-18 6 WAIVER OF COUNSEL
2007-12-18 7 WRITTEN PLEA OF GUILTY OR NOLO CONTENDERE TO
2007-12-18 7 CRIMINAL CHARGES IN COUNTY COURT
2008-01-08 8 JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE CT I

Logged

 

[Emma Peel]

To me you only take this sentence because the alternative is worse, which means you are responsible for the death of a child and 25 years on a drug charge is better than life on a capital murder charge.

The other alternative is your really don't know and can't help, but in that scenario I think you see a very cooperative Misty, wearing a wire, trying to get someone else to tell her what happened. And from what we have seen our only undercover attempt was by Donna Brock who Misty told nothing to and Ron warned Misty that DB was undercover.

That is my opinion.
I don't think anyone is going to jail over teenage love, protecting anyone else. It is self preservation. And if she truly didn't know I think she would be screaming that from the roof tops or cutting a deal that is just based on trying to help (wire, etc....)

It is hard to believe that after all this time we'd come down to something as obvious as Misty, Haleigh's last seen, as Haleigh's murderer.

I wish none of this was necessary. (The pressuring of 3 people to get to the truth of what happened to Haleigh.) However, if it's coming down to Tommy vs. Misty, I hope Misty is smart enough that her reasons for not giving information about Haleigh are self-preservation reasons. Because as this may work out - she will get what she has coming.

But if she's a pawn, or a scapegoat, or scared for the life of her nieces and nephews, or that of her brother, and - and she's simply not smart enough to figure out what to do about it, in spite of having the best representation her money (cough) can buy - well then that's just tragic. Because they are now throwing away the KEY to Haleigh's mystery.

Because I think Misty has shown us how selfish she truly is, however, I am leaning towards Misty's motives being self-preservation.

I suppose we can still hope that Ron has provided specific, verifiable, useful and truthful information to the detectives in exchange for his lighter sentence.

 

[impatientredhead]

That, my friend, is why I'm questioning her counsel tonight. I can't believe that was their angle at all.

Misty translation- it is Haleigh's fault, they wouldna come after me if it wasn't for that

Fields- my client was unfairly targeted by law enforcement, she was the subject of a drug sting that was designed to pressure her into cooperating with them on an unrelated missing child case, this is an abuse of their power and these charges never should have been filed against my client


One sounds better than the other, but the outcome is still the same, his client is on video tape selling narcotics to an undercover officer on multiple nights. In her state the voters said that is a crime they would like to pay to house people for at least 25 years (which coincidentally is why the officers purchased those amounts).

Misty had adequate counsel.
Misty's counsel had an unwinnable case.

Misty saying it was Haleigh's fault she was in this mess not helpful to the youthful offenders consideration, for which I don't think she had a shot at anyway, but that really sealed her fate on that. Just like Hope's other charges and her attitude on her jailhouse tapes did. That program is for people who accept responsibility and want to do the work to make a change. It is considered a privilege and you have to show you are a good risk for the limited resources they have for it.

 

[azwriter]

There are few things that I would like to say in response to some posts...but I will not go there...as I do not want a TO....

IMO, we will see Justice for Haleigh.....and it's coming soon..

This will not be the last time we see this bunch....the Cummings or the Croslins.

JMO of course

suspicious1, I so agree with you.
Let's do lunch. We have so much to talk about.

Part of Ron's plea deal was to testify truthfully in ANY court proceedings in the future.

jmo

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I think this statement speaks volumes.

They aren't asking Misty to tell them where so and so put Haleigh's body. They were asking her directly to take them to Haleigh's body.

She is the key alright and LE have known it a long time imo.

Croslin said that a Florida Department of Law Enforcement agent who worked on the drug investigation told her when they were about to ride in the same car to "just take me to (Haleigh's) body. Do it before (Oct. 8) because you are going to be sentenced and you are going way for a long, long time."

That agent, Travis Smith, testified he told Croslin he wished she would take him to the body. He said Croslin was a mid-level drug dealer who investigators target for undercover operations.

Smith said Croslin had multiple sources from whom to get drugs, an indication that she was versed in trafficking.

"A person who is naive to the drug business or new to the drug business isn't going to have multiple sources of supply, isn't going to have the credibility," Smith said.

http://www.gainesville.com/article/20101008/ARTICLES/101009491/1118?p=2&tc=pg

 

[pittsburghgirl]

Misty was babysitting that night. Every story she has told put her at the mobile home. Every story involves some other person or person taking Haleigh. Shr's the one who told the story when she called 911 (and as that tape shows, it was pretty clear that she was lying even then). LE has said the story did not match evidence at the scene.

Misty has never claimed that RC was there, but has pointed to her own brother (and her cousin). It is quite clear that she is one person who definitely knows what happened. (Tommy's words put him at the scene, too, but we can't know when he came and went.) Misty seemingly was there the whole time.

Fastforward to the drug tapes, where she is sitting in the car and giving RC and the undercover cop directions, or to the phone call she made after the separation from Ron when she was robbed while trying to buy drugs. Where is the innocent victim of RC here? This girl whose parents let her drop out of school just past grade school?

We know she knows what happened to Haleigh and she won't tell--other than to spin tale after tale. Had she cooperated with LE, she could have reached a plea on the drug dealing. That there was no deal or even talk of a deal indicates that she couldn't cooperate. Some here are blaming the attorney--but why wouldn't a young innocent girl, or a simple witness or accessory, give up what she knows and potentially not only get a plea deal and charges dropped, but potentially
treatment as a youthful offender? What attorney wouldn't make it blindingly clear to her--even the most pathetic attorney would explain that alternative. And she watches Donna, Tommy and Ron get sentences almost as long as her young life to date. We know Misty's father and Chelsea begged her to tell what she knows--and still she says nothing that helps find Haleigh.

LE wants information on Haleigh--and we see Misty standing on the dock during the river search.
Clearly this is not the only moment where she has a golden opportunity to tell, to get a plea deal started.

Misty doesn't tell who killed Haleigh because she can't without incriminating herself. If she could
throw Ron or his mother or Crystal or her own father under the bus, as she did with Tommy and Joe, she would. But she can't name anyone who can prove he or she wasn't there. So her options are limited. She was there. People want a resolution for Haleigh? Justice for Haleigh? The person who can deliver it was sentenced today, without a word about thewhereabouts of this little girl. Misty knows and she won't tell because she can't tell.

Misty knows what happened to Haleigh and won't tell. She knows where Haleigh is and won't tell. She knows who else is involved and won't tell. I can't imagine why, when those FACTS are blindingly clear, Misty is the sympathetic figure in this story. In my view--she's cold as ice. She knows and she won't tell.

 

[Kimster]

This thread will be closing tonight. Please feel free to take topics raised from today and make new threads. :grouphug:

 

[Lanie]

BBM: I don't think that the poster I was replying to was using the "drug dealing" was the "poor me" statement. I can't reply for them though. At sentencing mitigating factors are suppose to be considered. At this time "the poor me" factors are usually entails her life, events that may have impacted her decisions made in life, tragic impacts, crimes against her are considered, etc., but anyway I can tolerate a "poor me" statement when the charged is 18 yrs. old and is facing the rest of their life behind bars.

What I am trying to say is there is a big difference between 'poor me' mitigating circumstances and 'poor me' not taking any responsibility for your actions.

A lot of criminals have had bad lives, but not all people who have had bad lives become criminals.

IMO, where Misty went so wrong was to use this as a justification.

 

[dodie20]

If I'm not mistaken, Misty, according to a LDT, doesn't know where Haleigh is...or was. or who took her? She even showed deception on Ron not being involved, I think. So cops need to either test her again, or throw those other ones out, because they seem convinced that Ron wasn't involved. Maybe Misty is one of those people who just can't pass one. & as for that LVA test, I'm not convinced of its validity. Why didn't these testers just ask her the obvious questions. Did you kill Haleigh? Did Ron kill Haleigh? Did Tommy kill Haleigh? Why not take advantage of all of those opportunities? & for what that LE agent said in court...he should've been forced to back up the claim that Misty knows where Haleigh is. How does he know that? & if he does know that, he should be able to get Haleigh's location from the same source that told him she knows.

 

[B4igo2it]

This thread will be closing tonight. Please feel free to take topics raised from today and make new threads. :grouphug:

did this topic make a record for the amount of posts and viewings? Wow, a lot of posts in one day!