Chad G., fiancé of Crystal S.

[Pondering Mind]

You know, the thing I can't understand about all this info KP put out there is that some believe it when it suits their theory and poo-poo it when it doesn't. Honestly, it's quite befuddling to say the least..

 

[cajun]

You know, the thing I can't understand about all this info KP put out there is that some believe it when it suits their theory and poo-poo it when it doesn't. Honestly, it's quite befuddling to say the least..

Well because she would have to have some documentation to present to the bar and why would Kim say that to Marie in that email if that is not what Marie told her to begin with. Kim didn't just make it up and she was still Crystal's lawyer back during the search, I believe.

 

[st777jo]

First of all, I must say I do enjoy your posts.

Second, its been posted many times that Chad is employed as an electrician, and in Marie's own words, *Chad and Crystal live 500 ft in front of Marie's home.*

Thirdly, ISTR that it was Roxie who kept her children hidden from Chad. jmo

And last but not least, re the crack pipes.

http://bakercountypress.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2322&Itemid=1

Let me add, that LE named who the truck belonged to that the crack residue was found in, and it was not Chad.

Wonder why it took so long for her to hop, skip and jump to her mothers after she received the call that Haleigh was missing?

 

[TxLady2]

The article states it was registered to J. Watkins. IMO, that does not mean it was not Chad's truck. Maybe Mr. Watkins signed for him to get the truck. I don't see why Kim would send that email if it wasn't Chad's. Yes, attorney's spin things but ususally it is in favor of their client, which Kim was trying to stop people from finding out the truck and pipes were Chad's. Or, that's the way it reads to me. moo.

eta: I am interested as to why y'all think Kim would send that email to CS & MG saying that about Chad if it was not true?

The way I read it is... she is not saying that the crack pipe did belong to Chad. She is saying that if this Diane person says that it belonged to Chad, it could look bad for them. And... generally when a truck is registered in someone's name, legally it is theirs.... no matter who pays for it.

 

[curvecuti]

The way I read it is... she is not saying that the crack pipe did belong to Chad. She is saying that if this Diane person says that it belonged to Chad, it could look bad for them. And... generally when a truck is registered in someone's name, legally it is theirs.... no matter who pays for it.

It says Marie needs to be careful about about what Diane KNOWS, about the truck and crack pipes were Chad's. Why would Marie's friend make up something about that would hurt her and "the case", imo that would make no sense. It says the truck WAS Chad's, maybe he had sold it, I have no idea why it came back as registered to someone else. Nor do I have any idea why Kim P., who was CS's lawyer at the time that email was sent, would make the statement to Marie about those items being Chad's. If they were not his, why even bother to include that in the email? moo.

 

[debs]

It says Marie needs to be careful about about what Diane KNOWS, about the truck and crack pipes were Chad's. Why would Marie's friend make up something about that would hurt her and "the case", imo that would make no sense. It says the truck WAS Chad's, maybe he had sold it, I have no idea why it came back as registered to someone else. Nor do I have any idea why Kim P., who was CS's lawyer at the time that email was sent, would make the statement to Marie about those items being Chad's. If they were not his, why even bother to include that in the email? moo.

And yet, LE never made any charges of any kind toward Chad. The truck was identified as being owned by someone else, parked on a remote corner of the property. I agree with you with regard to having no idea why KP would say such a thing about a man never accused by LE. Seems to me to be poorly worded at best........and well, I'll just leave it at that.

 

[elle1919]

I didn't know that Chad G had a prior history of cocaine use, well I take that back, was he charged with possession of cocaine back in 7/06?

That might lend insight into why someone might think that the drugs in the truck belonged to him, maybe?

 

[cuppy199]

Interesting to say the least. Sinse Im suppose to buy all the crap out there said about the other side Im gonna choice to believe this one to. Something is fishy here Im not sure what yet.

 

[atherella]

i didn't know that chad g had a prior history of cocaine use, well i take that back, was he charged with possession of cocaine back in 7/06?

that might lend insight into why someone might think that the drugs in the truck belonged to him, maybe?

bbm

7-3-06

ETA:

 

[debs]

Was there a corresponding conviction?

 

[Baxter]

Was there a corresponding conviction?

You are right Debs, How many charges did Ronald have?

 

[elle1919]

Was there a corresponding conviction?

A conviction is not necessary to throw suspicion in the direction of one person or another. It was Crystal's attorney who made the initial link, whatever the purpose.

 

[stilettos]

Was there a corresponding conviction?

debs...you made me spit yesterday's tea all over myself. You are priceless in this....enough said.

 

[debs]

A conviction is not necessary to throw suspicion in the direction of one person or another. It was Crystal's attorney who made the initial link, whatever the purpose.

Are there multiple charges? Is he a chronic offender? Has he multiple charges on his jacket whether convictions or no? Are any of those charges listing multiple drugs confiscated? Because barring the use of logic which says one charge for cocaine doesn't make one the owner of a pipe found on the property owned by your father, though you have a house on that same property, I can't see how one would draw that conclusion immediately, let alone that someone being an attorney for this person's fiancee.

Be that as it may, I am still looking for whether there was a conviction, and if there was, whether there is a completion of a drug awareness course on file. If not, why not. If so, then this issue is null and void for me, and still has no bearing on the disappearance of Haleigh Cummings. I assure you all, it wasn't her pipe.

 

[mkay882]

You are right Debs, How many charges did Ronald have?

How many of Ron's charges led to convictions?

 

[curvecuti]

How many of Ron's charges led to convictions?

None, still doesn't stop people from labeling him a drug addict. I will end my response there since this is the Chad G. thread. :angel:

 

[debs]

None, still doesn't stop people from labeling him a drug addict. I will end my response there since this is the Chad G. thread. :angel:

I've seen one charge for Chad; many many for Ronald, with multiple drugs listed. There IS a difference.

 

[Whisperer]

He(rc) is either an addict or a dealer...You don't carry around and get picked up for heroin, ectstacy, meth, cocaine, date rape drugs, marijuana for sale all in one arrest and not be doing something odd.

If people think we are picking on RC, how in the world do you explain his candy store of drugs? are you going to say the LE made another mistake and this was candy not contraband?


............this is in response to the statement that people don't stop labeling rc as a drug addict.

...........and some just can't understand why people would say that? He has about 29 different charges on him in the past, most of it for drugs.....good grief!

No comparison between Chad and RC. Very poor judicial system down there. They should have three felony strikes you're out.

 

[curvecuti]

We have not seen Chad's record from Ga. so we really don't know the full story on his drug charges, imo.

 

[curvecuti]

He(rc) is either an addict or a dealer...You don't carry around and get picked up for heroin, ectstacy, meth, cocaine, date rape drugs, marijuana for sale all in one arrest and not be doing something odd.

If people think we are picking on RC, how in the world do you explain his candy store of drugs? are you going to say the LE made another mistake and this was candy not contraband?


............this is in response to the statement that people don't stop labeling rc as a drug addict.

...........and some just can't understand why people would say that? He has about 29 different charges on him in the past, most of it for drugs.....good grief!

No comparison between Chad and RC. Very poor judicial system down there. They should have three felony strikes you're out.

There is no proof of this statement.