Theories discussion: What could have happened to Haleigh? #3

[curvecuti]

Most often with no visible means of employment!

I know many young men in the south, that when they can't find steady employment, are paid "under the table" for landscape and construction jobs. I don't think it's an uncommon occurrence. At least he was trying to work to support his kids. The same can not be said about alot of fathers.

 

[debs]

I know many young men in the south, that when they can't find steady employment, are paid "under the table" for landscape and construction jobs. I don't think it's an uncommon occurrence. At least he was trying to work to support his kids. The same can not be said about alot of fathers.

I'm sure there are a lot of people paid under the table. One would wonder why he would be paid under the table and claim to be working at his aunt's landscaping business.

 

[curvecuti]

I'm sure there are a lot of people paid under the table. One would wonder why he would be paid under the table and claim to be working at his aunt's landscaping business.

Huh? :waitasec: I was posting to your statement about no visable means of income. Just because it wasn't visable doesn't mean there wasn't any. I don't understand what you last post means? If he was working for his Aunt's business then that was a visable means of income, was it not? I guess I've missed your point.

 

[Flossie JMO]

I don't believe Ron's work history has been disclosed.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

I know many young men in the south, that when they can't find steady employment, are paid "under the table" for landscape and construction jobs. I don't think it's an uncommon occurrence. At least he was trying to work to support his kids. The same can not be said about alot of fathers.

There's a huge underground economy--all kinds of people work "off the books" or "under the table" just to be able to work. Every illegal alien in the country who has a job, for example: under the table, off the books. There are also many self-employed people who work in trades (landscaping, etc.) who don't report most or any of the work they do to the IRS. So because someone doesn't have a wage-paying job on the books doesn't mean he isn't working.

Not to mention that the current figure on unemployment (10% or thereabouts) is much lower than actual unemployment because there are always fewer jobs than jobseekers and many don't sign up at the unemployment office after their UC benefits don't run out so they aren't counted. I'm glad Ron was working when he got custody and I hope he decides soon to get back to work. It would be good for him. Meanwhile, if his family is helping him during this time, good for them. If he were my son, I would mortgage the house to help him through.

 

[debs]

It sure hasn't been disclosed. But when convenient, working at Aunt Katrina's is always used to fill in the gaps when Ronald cannot produce records of employment.

 

[kiki the parrot]

I asked that a few pages back. I got fluff..... I worked hard on my theory, I tried to explain and back up with time, and distance of drives and as much as I could to support the theory. I think it needs to be done with the secreted away theory. If it holds water, then if should be sleuthed. JMO LE is not looking in this direction for a reason.

If it is NOT a stranger abduction is it:

A person who knew Haleigh, thus not a stranger abduction as in neighbor, family, friends...

Or is it an accident? That is not a stranger abduction. Is LE using semantics?

Draining ponds is not a family abduction.

Agree bern. Tips are all considered, but surely weighed and assigned varying degrees of credibility. And the most costly are not apt to be pursued aggressively in the absence of sufficient cause.

In addition, while watching other recent legitimate child stranger abduction cases, I am struck w the community warnings and appeals by LE which have been conspicuously missing throughout these eight plus months. JMO

I would more likely believe it was because of her having started school and the change in routine getting her to and from school which would cause him to want to get rid of her.

I gotta go w Flossie on this one... no way Ron abducted his own child imo this was a situation frought w far too many existing tensions and glaring risk factors. JMO

arrot:

 

[debs]

Agree bern. Tips are all considered, but surely weighed and assigned varying degrees of credibility. And the most costly are not apt to be pursued aggressively in the absence of sufficient cause.

In addition, while watching other recent legitimate child stranger abduction cases, I am struck w the community warnings and appeals by LE which have been conspicuously missing throughout these eight plus months. JMO



I gotta go w Flossie on this one... no way Ron abducted his own child imo this was a situation frought w far too many existing tensions and glaring risk factors. JMO

arrot:

I do believe that the change in routine brought with it upheaval in the home. I think her continued absences and tardys speak for themselves to that. Describing a temper tantrum about an outfit, and giving IN to that tantrum, just demonstrates more to me that the school routine plays a great deal in to what happened to Haleigh. I did not mean to imply that the statement earlier was what I believed happened. I was attempting to counter Bern's comment as to the unlikelihood of it happening.

 

[curvecuti]

It sure hasn't been disclosed. But when convenient, working at Aunt Katrina's is always used to fill in the gaps when Ronald cannot produce records of employment.

And do we know for a fact he didn't work there between "visable" employment? I wish I had a relative I could work for between jobs.

 

[kiki the parrot]

I do believe that the change in routine brought with it upheaval in the home. I think her continued absences and tardys speak for themselves to that. Describing a temper tantrum about an outfit, and giving IN to that tantrum, just demonstrates more to me that the school routine plays a great deal in to what happened to Haleigh. I did not mean to imply that the statement earlier was what I believed happened. I was attempting to counter Bern's comment as to the unlikelihood of it happening.

Oh I realize that deb. I was merely expressing my doubts that any family member has Haleigh safely tucked away in seclusion. Thought I'd bump my own post, as I see the same problems regardless of which family member we insert in this role (as "secreting" Haleigh away) or for what reason.

Many of us have considered this very scenario... in which Haleigh's mother (or father) kidnaps just one of two children w no means of concealing nor escaping inevitable consequences nor explaining in the long run circumstances surrounding this one child in the distant hope that her one child who's vanished mysteriously off the face of the earth and yet manages to stay out of sight as they go on eluding every LE agency for the remainder of their lives might be eventually presumed dead... whilst LE goes on surveilling and exhaustively investigating every facet of her entire family's activities and background yet nevertheless being awarded custody of Junior all while managing for the rest of their years to arrange clandestine meetings w her cloistered child and simultaneously either putting both families thru a neverending nightmare and/or making the entire family complicit, all in a desperate plot...

arrot:

 

[kiki the parrot]

I do believe that the change in routine brought with it upheaval in the home. I think her continued absences and tardys speak for themselves to that. Describing a temper tantrum about an outfit, and giving IN to that tantrum, just demonstrates more to me that the school routine plays a great deal in to what happened to Haleigh. I did not mean to imply that the statement earlier was what I believed happened. I was attempting to counter Bern's comment as to the unlikelihood of it happening.

Oh I fully realize and referred myself to the tensions and risk factors I was merely expressing doubts that any family member has Haleigh safely tucked away in seclusion. Thought I'd bump my own post, as I frankly see the same problems regardless of which family member we insert in this role (as "secreting" Haleigh away) or for what reason.

Many of us have considered this very scenario... in which Haleigh's mother (or father) kidnaps just one of two children w no means of concealing nor escaping inevitable consequences nor explaining in the long run circumstances surrounding this one child in the distant hope that her one child who's vanished mysteriously off the face of the earth and yet manages to stay out of sight as they go on eluding every LE agency for the remainder of their lives might be eventually presumed dead... whilst LE goes on surveilling and exhaustively investigating every facet of her entire family's activities and background yet nevertheless being awarded custody of Junior all while managing for the rest of their years to arrange clandestine meetings w her cloistered child and simultaneously either putting both families thru a neverending nightmare and/or making the entire family complicit, all in a desperate plot...

arrot:

 

[azwriter]

Huh? :waitasec: I was posting to your statement about no visable means of income. Just because it wasn't visable doesn't mean there wasn't any. I don't understand what you last post means? If he was working for his Aunt's business then that was a visable means of income, was it not? I guess I've missed your point.

Just wanted to add: debs post said "No visable means of employment."

 

[curvecuti]

Just wanted to add: debs post said "No visable means of employment."

Ok, well sub. employment for income in my post.

 

[Flossie JMO]

How does anyone know his employment history??

 

[cyberborg]

IIRC Jr; is alleged to have said that Misty was "there" and that a man in black took Sissy.

Nothing about where they were, a time, or sleeping or bed etc.

That makes a LOT of sense if there was an accident or rage and this guy was helping Misty remove the body. I doubt Misty did that part.

 

[cyberborg]

With Misty's penchant for pointing fingers at anyone and everyone, you would think she would quickly point at someone who had been at the house that night, if someone else had been there. She has never done that. She's pointed at her cousin, and her brother.

IF there was someone else, why wouldn't Misty point to them? She has no fear of her family....they're bringing her back in to the fold. Is it fear keeping her from pointing at the person she knows is responsible? Fear of what??

Excellent point!

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

She does have fear of Ron and Ron has clearly threatened her life and controlled her in all media interviews to ensure that the story stays with what he is comfortable with. Hmmmm?

Why not tell LE even if you risk some minimal time in jail for your involvement --- maybe because a murder/suicide has been suggested?

 

[cyberborg]

Your post intrigues me a bit. The "I don't know, Miss Nancy" and "So be it", "Let em fry" and "she's not being inconsistent with me, Miss Nancy" statements are his constants. Like a broken record. Not what you would expect after so many months with his first born child missing. This post has set off a whole new theory for me but I can't talk about it in here.

Exactly. Ron statements are defensive, overly cautious, non informational, limited, deflecting, etc.

Like Misty he limits comments to common phrases and does not venture anything further, it is as if he does not want to say something that opens himself up to further questioning or trip up. It is like he is being questioned by a foreign enemy and only wants to recount his name, rank and, number.

Ron does not engage in discussion where there are comments like the girl and Larry, he is not proactive, investigative, explorative, even interested.

When asked one time by NG Ron simply stated that it was the job of LE to investigate so he was not asking hard questions or following up on inconsistencies. WTH? I would be personally and passionately involved not dismissive and delegating.

Finally, when talking about Misty, Misty's inconsistencies and, whether Misty has the key --- Ron always makes me feel he knows two versions of the story -- the public version we all know and the private version --- that's why he struggles there and cannot confuse the two with details.

 

[debs]

I hear ya, Cyber.......I'd make that drill scene in "Marathon Man" look parochial in comparison to how I'd go about asking the questions and getting answers!

(I may have dramatized a lil. Cinematic license.)

 

[cyberborg]

I asked that a few pages back. I got fluff..... I worked hard on my theory, I tried to explain and back up with time, and distance of drives and as much as I could to support the theory. I think it needs to be done with the secreted away theory. If it holds water, then if should be sleuthed. JMO LE is not looking in this direction for a reason.

[snip]

Bern -- the best post in this thread is your theory. I still go back to that and my original post on the steps it takes to break into the MH that night and the research, preparation and, knowledge required by a perp.

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Theories discussion: What could have happened to Haleigh? #3


This all gets lost and some theories just deserve their own thread to not get mixed up in all of the other random thoughts and ideas --- to benefit from a structured analysis, dissection and, conclusions.

I applaud you for your work!!!!

We need a thread for theories that are presented and analyzed in a structured approach and then this thread that throws out ideas and discusses them ad-hoc.

As such I started a new thread and brought those posts over.

HaLeigh Cummings Missing Case Theories - Structured Analysis

HaLeigh Cummings Missing Case Theories - Structured Analysis - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

 

[elle1919]

Exactly. Ron statements are defensive, overly cautious, non informational, limited, deflecting, etc.

Like Misty he limits comments to common phrases and does not venture anything further, it is as if he does not want to say something that opens himself up to further questioning or trip up. It is like he is being questioned by a foreign enemy and only wants to recount his name, rank and, number.

Ron does not engage in discussion where there are comments like the girl and Larry, he is not proactive, investigative, explorative, even interested.

When asked one time by NG Ron simply stated that it was the job of LE to investigate so he was not asking hard questions or following up on inconsistencies. WTH? I would be personally and passionately involved not dismissive and delegating.

Finally, when talking about Misty, Misty's inconsistencies and, whether Misty has the key --- Ron always makes me feel he knows two versions of the story -- the public version we all know and the private version --- that's why he struggles there and cannot confuse the two with details.

I can't remember a specific time in Ronald's limited television appearances where any interviewer has opened up the floor for Ronald to speak or pass judgment on anyone in this case much less Misty. He answers the questions that are asked of him.

For the part of your post that I bolded, can I ask who you think is more appropriate to be handling the investigation into the disappearance of a missing child? I have no problem telling you who I think should be handling it, Law Enforcement. We are talking about a father that said that if he found who took her before they did...he would kill them...and he didn't care if they got that on recording or not. At this point however, if Ronald is feeling frustrated with LE's progress I can't say I blame him. Perhaps it would be in Ronald and Crystal's best interest to spend some time camped out on the sheriffs front lawn. I don't know that is just my personal opinion.