1153 users online (218 members and 935 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 19 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 281
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Foothills of Northern Colorado
    Posts
    2,369

    8/20 Ron takes plea, will testify in Haleighs trial

    Just thought it would be a good idea to start a new thread on the outcome of Ron's hearing today.


    Father Of Missing Girl Faces Up To 90 Years In Prison

    POSTED: Friday, August 20, 2010
    UPDATED: 12:21 pm EDT August 20, 2010



    Ronald Cummings talks with his attorney just before pleading guilty to three counts of drug trafficking.
    PALATKA, Fla. -- The father of missing girl Haleigh Cummings pleaded guilty Friday morning to three of five drug trafficking charges against him in exchange for him agreeing to testify in any future trial criminal involving the disappearance of his daughter.

    http://www.news4jax.com/news/24700021/detail.html
    100 years from now, it won't matter what kind of car you drove or how big your house was. What will matter is that you were important in the eyes of a child.


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Foothills of Northern Colorado
    Posts
    2,369
    It's disgusting to think he may have info regarding Haleigh's disappearance that he has kept secret. How can a father spit on his daughters grave like that?!?
    100 years from now, it won't matter what kind of car you drove or how big your house was. What will matter is that you were important in the eyes of a child.


  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    45
    The information being released said he would testify to the timeline in the case. It really does not sound like he has been withholding all of this important and pertinent information from the authorities. All of the evidence and information that I have seen makes me believe that Ronald was at work that night.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Knightsbridge
    Posts
    16,856
    Seems to me the only timeline Ron could testify to would be his own since he claims he was at work. If true, I fail to see the relevance. I went to work at X, I got off work at X. I called Misty at X (can't say for sure where she was just that she answered the phone). I called Tommy at X. I came in the door at X.

    All of which could be proved by either phone records, time cards or witnesses who saw him and so forth. They don't need Ron's time line if he was truly at work. JMO - he is missing some hours and now the SA is going to get those admissions from him, if he doesn't lie that is. This is all information irrelevant if Ron was actually at work. Looks to me he wasn't and has not truthfully accounted for his hours for over 18 months.
    Racing Doesn't Lie

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    1,045
    Quote Originally Posted by raisincharlie View Post
    Seems to me the only timeline Ron could testify to would be his own since he claims he was at work. If true, I fail to see the relevance. I went to work at X, I got off work at X. I called Misty at X (can't say for sure where she was just that she answered the phone). I called Tommy at X. I came in the door at X.

    All of which could be proved by either phone records, time cards or witnesses who saw him and so forth. They don't need Ron's time line if he was truly at work. JMO - he is missing some hours and now the SA is going to get those admissions from him, if he doesn't lie that is. This is all information irrelevant if Ron was actually at work. Looks to me he wasn't and has not truthfully accounted for his hours for over 18 months.
    Phone records indicate the time of a call and the calling and called numbers. They do not tell who was actually using the phone and what was said on a call. Ron's testimony can fill in the blanks. Ron can testify what he and other familiy members did and at what approximate times prior to his leaving work. He can testify as to the time he left for and arrived at work. He can confirm when he talked to family members at home on the phone and who he actually talked to. For example, he could testify that he called Misty or Misty called him at 8:30 pm and he spoke, not only to Misty but also to Haleigh, placing her alive and in the home at that time. He could testify as to the state of mind of Misty when he talked to her. He could testify that GGMS called him after she left the MH when she dropped off the clothes and what she said about the visit. He could testify as to the time that he called Tommy and what was said on that call and whether or not he talked to anyone else at the home.

    He could also testify about the details of his and Misty's conversations regarding that night and Haleigh in the months after her disappearance. he could testify as to Misty's demeanor, comments she may have made, and contradictions she might have expressed.

    None of this testimony means that he has not discussed this previously with LE! It merely means that he is willing to repeat it to the court under oath to assist the prosecution in the trial.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by kamky View Post
    Phone records indicate the time of a call and the calling and called numbers. They do not tell who was actually using the phone and what was said on a call. Ron's testimony can fill in the blanks. Ron can testify what he and other familiy members did and at what approximate times prior to his leaving work. He can testify as to the time he left for and arrived at work. He can confirm when he talked to family members at home on the phone and who he actually talked to. For example, he could testify that he called Misty or Misty called him at 8:30 pm and he spoke, not only to Misty but also to Haleigh, placing her alive and in the home at that time. He could testify as to the state of mind of Misty when he talked to her. He could testify that GGMS called him after she left the MH when she dropped off the clothes and what she said about the visit. He could testify as to the time that he called Tommy and what was said on that call and whether or not he talked to anyone else at the home.

    He could also testify about the details of his and Misty's conversations regarding that night and Haleigh in the months after her disappearance. he could testify as to Misty's demeanor, comments she may have made, and contradictions she might have expressed.

    None of this testimony means that he has not discussed this previously with LE! It merely means that he is willing to repeat it to the court under oath to assist the prosecution in the trial.
    The question still remains as to why RC would not testify to those "facts" in any potential trial anyway.

    In other words, why would he NOT testify in any potential trial? Why would he purposely sit back in any potential trial and not offer up this same information? Why did it take a plea deal to get him to agree to do this? The victim in any potential trial is HIS OWN DAUGHTER.

    Why would he have to be given a plea deal to get on a witness stand and tell what he knows when it would mean justice for his missing and presumed dead baby daughter?

    What is he hiding?
    "I've always found brilliance untempered by failure is purely arrogance, but brilliance that has overcome failure can be truly useful to your fellow man." ~~~Paul Zuckerman, Attorney at Law


    All posts are my opinion only.


  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    1,045
    Quote Originally Posted by cleo612 View Post
    The question still remains as to why RC would not testify to those "facts" in any potential trial anyway.

    In other words, why would he NOT testify in any potential trial? Why would he purposely sit back in any potential trial and not offer up this same information? Why did it take a plea deal to get him to agree to do this? The victim in any potential trial is HIS OWN DAUGHTER.

    Why would he have to be given a plea deal to get on a witness stand and tell what he knows when it would mean justice for his missing and presumed dead baby daughter?

    What is he hiding?
    Ron and his lawyer aren't dumb. If Ron is willing to testify in a trial and it might help find his daughter, then he has something of value. If he has something of value, he would be stupid not to use it to help his own drug case. Ron is a pragmatist.

    Why would this be hiding anything??

    Let's put it this way, if you have money to purchase something at the grocery and you have a coupon for the product, would you not use the coupon? You want the product and would buy it in any case, but why not benefit from the added savings?

    Obviously, not the exact same thing, but the same concept.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    2,255
    Why would he purposely NOT testify when the end result would be justice for the disappearance and probable murder of his own daughter?

    Why would he even threaten to not testify?

    He obviously cares very little about his daughter's demise, or that she should have justice for having her life as she knew it taken from her.

    What would he have done if the SAO had said "No" to his plea offer? Would he still have refused to take the stand on his daughter's behalf?

    The only thing that rings true to me is that he is hiding SOMETHING--I know not what.
    "I've always found brilliance untempered by failure is purely arrogance, but brilliance that has overcome failure can be truly useful to your fellow man." ~~~Paul Zuckerman, Attorney at Law


    All posts are my opinion only.


  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    5,526
    Quote Originally Posted by kamky View Post
    Ron and his lawyer aren't dumb. If Ron is willing to testify in a trial and it might help find his daughter, then he has something of value. If he has something of value, he would be stupid not to use it to help his own drug case. Ron is a pragmatist.

    Why would this be hiding anything??

    Let's put it this way, if you have money to purchase something at the grocery and you have a coupon for the product, would you not use the coupon? You want the product and would buy it in any case, but why not benefit from the added savings?

    Obviously, not the exact same thing, but the same concept.
    I respectfully disagree. We are talking about a 5 yr old child. Ronalds child. He should of told LE any and everything from day one. Not use what happen to Haleigh as a pawn to reduce his sentence. JMO though..and respect yours fully

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    In the Atlantic
    Posts
    2,657
    Quote Originally Posted by cleo612 View Post
    The question still remains as to why RC would not testify to those "facts" in any potential trial anyway.

    In other words, why would he NOT testify in any potential trial? Why would he purposely sit back in any potential trial and not offer up this same information? Why did it take a plea deal to get him to agree to do this? The victim in any potential trial is HIS OWN DAUGHTER.

    Why would he have to be given a plea deal to get on a witness stand and tell what he knows when it would mean justice for his missing and presumed dead baby daughter?

    What is he hiding?
    Why did he phone home so many times that night? I too believe he's hiding something. I just can't believe Misty won't crack. A young girl like that. She must be awfully tough to withstand the hardball interveiws...if they have subjected to her any that is.

    Someone needs to come forward and give peace to Halleigh. She'll never rest in peace until this is solved.

    Dear little thing...it just breaks my heart.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    1,045
    Quote Originally Posted by cleo612 View Post
    Why would he purposely NOT testify when the end result would be justice for the disappearance and probable murder of his own daughter?

    Why would he even threaten to not testify?

    He obviously cares very little about his daughter's demise, or that she should have justice for having her life as she knew it taken from her.

    What would he have done if the SAO had said "No" to his plea offer? Would he still have refused to take the stand on his daughter's behalf?

    The only thing that rings true to me is that he is hiding SOMETHING--I know not what.
    How do you know he threatened to not testify?

    If Ron has a halfway decent lawyer, he would have stepped in and done what good lawyers are supposed to do! Example:

    Ron to LE: So this is what I know...blah, blah, blah.
    LE to Ron: Okay, good, thank you. Now, we'll need you to testify to that in court.
    Ron to LE: Oka-
    Ron's Lawyer stepping in quickly: He would be glad to testify for the prosecution IF you do something for him in the drug charges,
    LE to Ron's lawyer: Well, maybe. We'll see. What do you have in mind?

    Negotiations ensued. Obviously the prosecution feels that Ron's testimony will be helpful so they benefit. Ron gets to help find his daughter and to reduce his drug sentence.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,077
    Quote Originally Posted by MADJGNLAW View Post
    I respectfully disagree. We are talking about a 5 yr old child. Ronalds child. He should of told LE any and everything from day one. Not use what happen to Haleigh as a pawn to reduce his sentence. JMO though..and respect yours fully
    this is exactly why I don't like these minimum mandatorys...they reward criminals for witholding information. These things prove that if you're gonna be a drug trafficker, then you need to be withholding IMPORTANT information in a child's murder. Too danged bad for the common 1 dimensional druggie, who just deals. So, Hope got 15 years for almost nothing, & I expect the same for Donna Brock. They should've taken a few lessons from Ron...& been holding on to some Haleigh information. I pity the fool who just tells what he knows, out of conscience, morals, or whatever. & cops wanna know why witnesses never talk??? are they serious??? that information might come in handy some day.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,077
    Quote Originally Posted by kamky View Post
    How do you know he threatened to not testify?

    If Ron has a halfway decent lawyer, he would have stepped in and done what good lawyers are supposed to do! Example:

    Ron to LE: So this is what I know...blah, blah, blah.
    LE to Ron: Okay, good, thank you. Now, we'll need you to testify to that in court.
    Ron to LE: Oka-
    Ron's Lawyer stepping in quickly: He would be glad to testify for the prosecution IF you do something for him in the drug charges,
    LE to Ron's lawyer: Well, maybe. We'll see. What do you have in mind?

    Negotiations ensued. Obviously the prosecution feels that Ron's testimony will be helpful so they benefit. Ron gets to help find his daughter and to reduce his drug sentence.
    Ron 'gets to help find his daughter'? I'm sorry, but realistically speaking, I don't see that...he could've done that a looong time ago, but I just remember him refusing to talk to LE, because he didn't know anything. & then he gave Misty sanctuary. I guess he really loved that girl.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by kamky View Post
    How do you know he threatened to not testify?

    If Ron has a halfway decent lawyer, he would have stepped in and done what good lawyers are supposed to do! Example:

    Ron to LE: So this is what I know...blah, blah, blah.
    LE to Ron: Okay, good, thank you. Now, we'll need you to testify to that in court.
    Ron to LE: Oka-
    Ron's Lawyer stepping in quickly: He would be glad to testify for the prosecution IF you do something for him in the drug charges,
    LE to Ron's lawyer: Well, maybe. We'll see. What do you have in mind?

    Negotiations ensued. Obviously the prosecution feels that Ron's testimony will be helpful so they benefit. Ron gets to help find his daughter and to reduce his drug sentence.
    BIBM

    Using your hypothetical scenario here, RC is saying that he will only testify if they drop/reduce the charges against him.

    WHY? Why would he even negotiate testifying in a potential trial when that trial would be to seek justice for his missing and presumed dead baby daughter?

    So, if the SAO had not agreed to drop/reduce some of the charges, he is in effect saying that he could care less about seeing justice for HaLeigh and would not testify to those ends.

    He made a deal on his daughter's dead body and in seeing justice for her demise.
    "I've always found brilliance untempered by failure is purely arrogance, but brilliance that has overcome failure can be truly useful to your fellow man." ~~~Paul Zuckerman, Attorney at Law


    All posts are my opinion only.


  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    5,526
    Ronald Cummings Pleads Guilty to Three of 5 Drug Charges in Plea Deal
    Crystal Sheffield, the mother of Haleigh was in the courtroom, joined by several family members.


    TJ Hart Posted: Friday, 20 August 2010
    "Snip" http://www.thesky973.com/pages/7956251.php


    Ronald Cummings withdrew his not guilty plea in the drug trafficking cases against him.
    Prosecutors agreed to drop two of the five cases against Cummings, and he entered a guilty plea in the other three.

    One case carries a minimum sentence of 3 years with a 10-year max in prison, .

    Two have minimums of 10 years each with maximums of 30.

    Ronald Cummings is slated to be sentenced Sept. 24.


    A blogger claims Sheffield and her mother were seen outside the courthouse this morning pointing at Lisa Croslin who was standing near a bus stop at that time.

Page 1 of 19 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. GUILTY VT - Shaun Bryer for student sex abuse, Morrisville, 2009
    By Missizzy in forum Recently Sentenced and Beyond
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-30-2011, 06:19 PM
  2. GUILTY CA - Clark Mahoney for sex abuse, child pornography, Loma Linda, 2010
    By Missizzy in forum Recently Sentenced and Beyond
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-29-2011, 09:39 PM
  3. Replies: 512
    Last Post: 04-15-2010, 05:54 PM
  4. KY - Escaped killer Ralph Annis lived 15 years on lam, takes plea deal
    By mysteriew in forum Past Trial Discussion Threads
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-07-2006, 02:39 PM