- Joined
- Apr 2, 2004
- Messages
- 8,957
- Reaction score
- 1,686
he's just giving everyone a reason to talk. MOO!
Maybe he's smart enough to do this NOW just to have the media talk about the case again and keep Haleigh's face out there.
he's just giving everyone a reason to talk. MOO!
Oh - has he been charged ?
Not true, he can still be charged since they were not married at the time the statutory rape would have happened.
I want to puke.
Your daughter is missing a month and now you are planning a wedding?
I'm sorry - but - how can anyone let alone her father think about anything else?
Even I couldn't think about getting married right now with this going on!
I personally think they are already married. In the pictures were he is showing the tattoo he has a wedding band on. In the original pictures the first few weeks he does not have a wedding band on.
I wish the best for them. I do not think either of them is guilty of hurting Haliegh.
Ron may have felt the need to do it now as he has lost his daughter and cannot imagine losing anyone else in his life.
No it hasn't even been talked about except on these boards. We don't even know if LE has even said anything about it. They know more than we do that's for sure
Florida Evidence Code Section 90.504:
90.504 Husband-wife privilege.--
(1) A spouse has a privilege during and after the marital relationship to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, communications which were intended to be made in confidence between the spouses while they were husband and wife.
(2) The privilege may be claimed by either spouse or by the guardian or conservator of a spouse. The authority of a spouse, or guardian or conservator of a spouse, to claim the privilege is presumed in the absence of contrary evidence.
(3) There is no privilege under this section:
(a) In a proceeding brought by or on behalf of one spouse against the other spouse.
(b) In a criminal proceeding in which one spouse is charged with a crime committed at any time against the person or property of the other spouse, or the person or property of a child of either.(c) In a criminal proceeding in which the communication is offered in evidence by a defendant-spouse who is one of the spouses between whom the communication was made.
But it would be an extreme waste of tax payers money to prosecute a legally married couple in a statutory rape case. I think the county would get a lot of criticism for wasting money and a jury most likely would not convict him.
It is far beyond a faux pas. This is much more than a mis-step, much more than a break with social norms. This is down to a level where we as a society SHOULD judge. Ron might very well need comfort. I do not begrudge him comfort. I DO have reservations, and quite strong ones, that he would seek his comfort from a child. Misty is a child, no matter how street-wise she may appear. If he is not thinking with a clear head, then it should be the judgment of society to say "Dude, marrying a teenager while your daughter is missing and presumed in extreme danger at the very least and most likely dead is a bad idea." I simply don't believe that society saying that to Ron will make it heard. It will just be one more opportunity for him to believe it is him against the world.
If it is the second thing, "the felony he's looking at" (I assume you're speaking of him perhaps facing statutory rape charges) then should he be allowed to tie this young girl to him legally, when legally the world views her as a victim of a sexual predator? That's what statutory rape is. The child is taken advantage of.
In either case, her parents are obviously signing the paper. It makes one wonders how many times they've handed her over to be victimized.
There are so many things wrong with this picture, where do you start? This is not normal, you can try to color it and spin it anyway you want to, but folks this ain't right!
I'm just glad I didn't send them any money to pay for this:
![]()
That and/or he can't be arrested for statutory rape?![]()
I'm just glad I didn't send them any money to pay for this:
![]()