Ron C. # 11

[Dee10]

You are correct, Busy!

Hey, if Ronald did finally get the money owed to him for back support...would he have to declare it as income when filing an In. Aff to obtain a PD? Also, how does that work? I always thought it was if a person was under a certain income level per year and not contingent on how much money they had at the time.

First of all what do you mean IF? Not sure the rest but, if he had to declare any of it, it would be pro-rated.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

I say "IF" because I haven't seen the supporting document filed stating he received it. The last time I checked it only showed it to be held by the State, IIRC. Maybe I missed it.

 

[Helplessly Hoping]

Re lock bumping and Ron's mobile home--

The misconceptions include:
Bump keying leaves no detectable evidence behind. In fact, bump keying leaves tool marks on a lock cylinder that can be detected under a microscope by a trained eye. Just as in the case of lock picking, normal use of the lock after the event can obscure the evidence. It is also true in both cases that only a lock picking or bump keying attempt can be detected. It cannot be determined from tool marks, whether or not an attempt was successful.

http://www.rdc.ab.ca/future_students/departments/locksmith/news/bumpkey.html

 

[kiki the parrot]

Locks are worthless if a person has the desire and knowledge to break into your home. My friend just had his front door kicked in with a deadbolt and another lock on it. He thought they were secure, but learned a hard lesson. He has children. Maybe I should tell him that he is grossly negligent and reckless since one of his children had been home the day before alone due to illness. Here we considered them to be extremely lucky and thankful she wasn't there.

To my knowledge, Ronald or Misty NEVER left the children in the home unattended. If you have such proof...please post it.

As you well know there are many 'crimes of opportunity.' We increase our chances of being victimized or having our children victimized if we fail to take even the most basic precautions to prevent home invasion. It should go w/out saying and any LE would tell you the odds of your friend having been victimized sooner and w greater frequency rise astronomically had they never bothered to take any measures to secure their home. You give me no clue as to the age of the child to whom you're referring--but common sense and parental wisdom dictates that where my teenager eg could fend by himself on a sick day, arrangements would need to be made to have my kindergartner watched and cared for--even if she wasn't ill (anything can happen, a little playmate could knock on the door w an irresistible offer eg and there goes w/e pretense of "safety" there was).

To MY knowledge LE has expressed problems w Misty's account of that eve.

But for the first time, they don't think Haleigh was abducted by a stranger. They said, Misty Croslin, who was babysitting the girl when she vanished from her father's mobile home in February, "continues to hold important answers in the case."

"She has failed to provide any sort of detailed accounting of the hours during the late evening and early morning of Haleigh's disappearance. Furthermore, physical evidence at the scene contradicts Misty's sketchy account of her evening activities."

That's pretty plain.

http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/new...ter_Key_in_Missing_Florida_Girl_Case_36115585

arrot:

 

[SeriouslySearching]

I guess that is only if LE ever had it forensically tested. Big IF there, imo.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

As you well know there are many 'crimes of opportunity.' We increase our chances of being victimized or having our children victimized if we fail to take even the most basic precautions to prevent home invasion. It should go w/out saying and any LE would tell you the odds of your friend having been victimized sooner and w greater frequency rise astronomically had they never bothered to take any measures to secure their home. You give me no clue as to the age of the child to whom you're referring--but common sense and parental wisdom dictates that where my teenager eg could fend by himself on a sick day, arrangements would need to be made to have my kindergartner watched and cared for--even if she wasn't ill (anything can happen, a little playmate could knock on the door w an irresistible offer eg and there goes w/e pretense of "safety" there was).

To MY knowledge LE has expressed problems w Misty's account of that eve.

But for the first time, they don't think Haleigh was abducted by a stranger. They said, Misty Croslin, who was babysitting the girl when she vanished from her father's mobile home in February, "continues to hold important answers in the case."

"She has failed to provide any sort of detailed accounting of the hours during the late evening and early morning of Haleigh's disappearance. Furthermore, physical evidence at the scene contradicts Misty's sketchy account of her evening activities."

That's pretty plain.

http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/new...ter_Key_in_Missing_Florida_Girl_Case_36115585

arrot:

Since you mentioned it, she is 14 yo. However, she is still a minor and considered a child. He felt that he did secure his house, but now he has ordered an alarm system and done other things to cut the risk even more. Still, he knows now that no matter how much care you take...locks do not do anything to keep people out of your home if they want inside bad enough which was my point to begin with!

So you are saying Ronald was NOT neglect in that he did the right thing to minimize the chances of his home being broken into by buying a deadbolt lock and installing it which was done in order to try to protect his children and property. Good!

BBM

 

[kiki the parrot]

And yes SS I would say your friend is EXTREMELY fortunate that this break-in did not happen when this child was there unprotected by themselves. Btw, I was happy to provide the link for what I explored even as a possibility, but when *I* say "IF" that's just what I mean...

To adopt the attitude that "locks are worthless anyway" would be grossly negligent and reckless at any time IMO but particularly if children are ever left in a home alone. JMHO

(bbm) and the same goes for "IMO" and "JMHO."

arrot:

 

[kiki the parrot]

Since you mentioned it, she is 14 yo. However, she is still a minor and considered a child. He felt that he did secure his house, but now he has ordered an alarm system and done other things to cut the risk even more. Still, he knows now that no matter how much care you take...locks do not do anything to keep people out of your home if they want inside bad enough which was my point to begin with!

So you are saying Ronald was NOT neglect in that he did the right thing to minimize the chances of his home being broken into by buying a deadbolt lock and installing it which was done in order to try to protect his children and property. Good!
BBM

(bbm) If you wish to learn what I believe, a better approach is to simply inquire, and I will gladly share my opinions.

I would personally never rent w/out changing locks and would advise anyone, but particularly parents, to do the same as this can be an effective deterrent eg to any previous tenant or workman w a copy thus reducing the chances of a break-in. A deadbolt is an effective reinforcement but particularly if used in addition to a standard doorlock. This is, of course, provided it is done in conjunction w a few additional steps..
:idea:
These would include such things as first and foremost USING the deadbolt eg... ie from inside prior to exiting one's home by another door--which would need to be locked as well, w a key, from the outside.
:doh:
No SS I'm sure you're quite aware that the mere act of purchasing or installing a deadbolt in and of itself simply is NOT sufficient security for one's family. I'd say there are a few other things implicit upon any responsible parent to secure their home and be vigilant in protecting their loved ones. An alarm system is even better. Ultimately, whereever small children are concerned, one must also attempt to ensure one's family is not left totally vulnerable and defenseless in the event all other measures fail--particularly so for extended periods, nighttime or overnight. This would include ensuring there is mature, reliable supervision present at all times, consistently employing those safeguards, equipped to handle emergencies when one is absent. JMHO

arrot:

 

[texasmommy39]

I just want to mention something. The theory that someone could have been hiding in the mobile home is not so far fetched. When I was young someone did just that at my home.
My brother and I were there alone and someone came through the house, and it was determined they had hidden in a closet in the living room which was separate from the other part of the house. We didn't get hurt and my father confronted the man who he believed was the guilty party. And then, I keep thinking about Jr. saying someone came out of the wall and I'm perplexed. I wish I could figure this out.

I had suggested this in a theory of mine. The searching done by LE in the areas under the master tub and water closet (places that could have concealed someone in the home) suggested to me that they believed it was a possibility and Jr. did make that statement.

 

[kiki the parrot]

Iwould also add that a parent needs to be able to assess each individual child (their maturity, capabilities, responsibility level) as well as any prospective caregiver. Obviously there are some "babysitters" who pose more risks than they afford protection. RC seemingly has more confidence in MC's credibility than does LE. JMO

arrot:

 

[Whisperer]

Regarding looking beneath the tub and behind the water closet , I think they were ruling out drugs or guns.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

I thought they were ruling out places where someone could hide Haleigh.

 

[Blackwatch]

Does anyone have a link or anything about a man coming out of the wall? There is something hinky here and it's been on my mind for quite a while. TIA

 

[Flossie JMO]

YouTube - Geraldo - 3/28/09

 

[Helplessly Hoping]

Re lock bumping and Ron's mobile home--

The misconceptions include:
Bump keying leaves no detectable evidence behind. In fact, bump keying leaves tool marks on a lock cylinder that can be detected under a microscope by a trained eye. Just as in the case of lock picking, normal use of the lock after the event can obscure the evidence. It is also true in both cases that only a lock picking or bump keying attempt can be detected. It cannot be determined from tool marks, whether or not an attempt was successful.

http://www.rdc.ab.ca/future_students/departments/locksmith/news/bumpkey.html

SeriouslySearching I guess that is only if LE ever had it forensically tested. Big IF there, imo.

----------------------------

SS--What if they (FDLE or FBI) did do forensics testing? I mean wasn't lock bumping brought up right off the bat? And what if that lock shows no signs of anything? That is a possibility too--Isn't it...?

 

[Dee10]

SeriouslySearching I guess that is only if LE ever had it forensically tested. Big IF there, imo.

----------------------------

SS--What if they (FDLE or FBI) did do forensics testing? I mean wasn't lock bumping brought up right off the bat? And what if that lock shows no signs of anything? That is a possibility too--Isn't it...?

It makes sense that they did test the lock as what would be the point of removing the door? So what did the test show? So glad that lock was only a few months old and they probably only used an actual key (there's that word again lol) in that door a number of times. :bananalama:

 

[stilettos]

I don't think he would SS as support is not considered income as it is used for the children.

Unfortunately, I know for a fact that not all custodial parents use their child support for the children. It is criminal the way some children are treated. IMO

 

[Whisperer]

From the little bit I hear about these children, they both seem to have fears. Haleigh woke up at night and cries and wants to sleep with mommy an is afraid of the dark. Jr has fears also when he speaks about walls and somebody bursting through them. It is my opinion the reason these were supposed to have slept all three in the same room was to assure CS that they were being well taken of and not sleeping alone.

IMO, in reality they were most likely being trained to sleep in their own rooms. I can't imagine Misty or RC allowing the children to share a bed with them....and it may have been a bone of contention with at least one person out of the couple.

I think the toddler bed was staged. I have not seen a PIC of Rj's room but I assume there is a toddler bed in their also.

 

[texasmommy39]

Regarding looking beneath the tub and behind the water closet , I think they were ruling out drugs or guns.

Hi Whisperer
At that time in the investigation it was a reasonable speculation. But now 6 months later is this still a plausable reason for that type of search in those locations?
Why would LE focus on ruling out drugs or guns in those areas? Is that a normal place to stash drugs and guns? What evidence (at that time) would suggest those locations needed to be searched in the manner that has been mentioned for those reasons?
IMO I can not see now that LE believed those spaces where hidding drugs, guns or HaLeigh.
Rumors suggested drugs where in the home and the cause for HaLeighs ABDUCTION. Ron was forthcoming with the fact he was a gun owner and where it was located in the home. LE was searching a water closet and and under the master tub to the extent of tearing out walls and they had found no foul play in the home to indicate harm came to HaLeigh in the MH why would they search there and again to that extent?
Someone was either in the home already or gained access thru one of those two locations or possible two where in the home hidding already.
If they where laying in wait they had prime hiding spots and would explain the no forced entry the comfort level of using a light and the fact Misty could of been asleep and the abductors knew exactly when to act. I would like to dig into the bathroom statements from Misty and who went to the bathroom first. Was it a rumor that HaLeigh got up and went to the bathroom and never returned to bed? If it is a truth and LE has kept that "inconsistancies" statement in the for front it would make sence they are using Misty has the key to open up a few doors of motive from some of these players. The have all made statements on camera and to media that can be used by LE for the purpose of an investigation or to convict. One piece is all they are missing they say. what if it was just a slip of the tounge and it is in print or on audio somewhere or needs to be repeated by a third person.

 

[Malesherbes]

From the little bit I hear about these children, they both seem to have fears. Haleigh woke up at night and cries and wants to sleep with mommy an is afraid of the dark. Jr has fears also when he speaks about walls and somebody bursting through them. It is my opinion the reason these were supposed to have slept all three in the same room was to assure CS that they were being well taken of and not sleeping alone.

IMO, in reality they were most likely being trained to sleep in their own rooms. I can't imagine Misty or RC allowing the children to share a bed with them....and it may have been a bone of contention with at least one person out of the couple.

I think the toddler bed was staged. I have not seen a PIC of Rj's room but I assume there is a toddler bed in their also.

I agree, I think the toddler bed was staged, I dont think she went to sleep in there at all, sadly I don't even think she made it to bed that night-

jmo