Defending Misty on Jan 10, 2011 in Putnam County

[Chablis]

Busted for drugs in the last year and a half plus, off the top of my head, and that I am aware of:

Hank C Sr. - Misty's father.
Lisa C. - Misty's mother.
Tommy C. - Misty's brother.
Joe O. - Misty's cousin.
WB Greg - Misty's alleged lover during Misty's alleged 3-day binge.
Nay Nay (and also some Joe? person mentioned in the 'Misty wasn't at the MH' letter) - Misty's friends.
Donna B. - Misty's friend.

Hope ? - Ron's cousin.

There was also the incident of Misty being robbed while buying drugs with 2 other women.

Just looking at this, IMO it's reasonable to assume if anyone had a network of connections for buying and/or selling drugs, it would be Misty.

Except we have Ron Cummings arrest record, and he was getting busted with hard stuff when Misty was 9? 10 years old?

And Rons family member thinks he can shoot off guns in a bar parking lot after a fight with one of his other family members, so I think the substance abuse stretches to both sides. Because if they are doing that stuff sober, thats scarier than the known drug users that are the Croslins.

Oh, and Donald Squires has been arrested in Putnam since this Haleigh stuff started, and I think he was trying to cause great bodily harm. If hes doing that sober, once again, that is just as scary.

jmo

 

[Concerned Papa]

Wow, don't think I've ever had a response to a post quite like that one before Phrasin, LOL.

I've been thinking about another defense tactic that might have been worthwhile, particularly as to the sentencing, would be arguing the fact that these arrests would likely never have come about if not for the Haleigh case.

I know Sheriff Hardy claimed:

Information was obtained that these individuals were unlawfully selling prescription medications in the community. Sheriff Hardy assigned detectives from the Drug/Vice Unit to the investigation. An undercover Putnam County Detective infiltrated this group, gaining the trust of these drug dealers.


http://pcso.us/2010-1-20-a

But, if these arrests were really about getting prescription medications off the community streets, why didn't the investigation go any higher up the food chain by way of arrests?

This bunch of "traffickers" all piled into the UC car, two and three at the time, having to collect the purchase price FIRST so they would be able to even buy the pills they were selling. THEN they had UC DRIVE all of them to where they bought the merchandise. Then and only then were they able to complete the sale.

WTH? How much easier does LE need it to be than THAT to bust, not only these criminals, but their suppliers as well? In one of the tapes, Ronald Cummings even tries to get UC to bite on another sale by pushing a different drug and supplier when he said "I guarantee you there’s 50 Percocets right around the corner there. I just don’t know...he’s supposed to go to the VA today or tomorrow”.

IMO, Barney Fife could have found that supplier!

But yet, to my knowledge, not a single source or supplier for Misty or any of the others has been busted. It's pretty clear what these arrests are really all about and I'm cool with that in it's entirety. But when it comes down to an 18 year old girl who's never even had a ticket for jaywalking before, being sentenced to 10 more years than her co-conspirator with 15 previous drug related arrests, her defense attorney has an obligation to her to shine a light on what this deal's really all about, and it's not these drug sales. If it were, they practically gave them a map to where their suppliers were located.

Why weren't any of the higher ups busted?

 

[kant]

Wow, don't think I've ever had a response to a post quite like that one before Phrasin, LOL.

I've been thinking about another defense tactic that might have been worthwhile, particularly as to the sentencing, would be arguing the fact that these arrests would likely never have come about if not for the Haleigh case.

I know Sheriff Hardy claimed:



But, if these arrests were really about getting prescription medications off the community streets, why didn't the investigation go any higher up the food chain by way of arrests?

This bunch of "traffickers" all piled into the UC car, two and three at the time, having to collect the purchase price FIRST so they would be able to even buy the pills they were selling. THEN they had UC DRIVE all of them to where they bought the merchandise. Then and only then were they able to complete the sale.

WTH? How much easier does LE need it to be than THAT to bust, not only these criminals, but their suppliers as well? In one of the tapes, Ronald Cummings even tries to get UC to bite on another sale by pushing a different drug and supplier when he said "I guarantee you there’s 50 Percocets right around the corner there. I just don’t know...he’s supposed to go to the VA today or tomorrow”.

IMO, Barney Fife could have found that supplier!

But yet, to my knowledge, not a single source or supplier for Misty or any of the others has been busted. It's pretty clear what these arrests are really all about and I'm cool with that in it's entirety. But when it comes down to an 18 year old girl who's never even had a ticket for jaywalking before, being sentenced to 10 more years than her co-conspirator with 15 previous drug related arrests, her defense attorney has an obligation to her to shine a light on what this deal's really all about, and it's not these drug sales. If it were, they practically gave them a map to where their suppliers were located.

Why weren't any of the higher ups busted?

I agree with all of this.

What confuses me now is that yesterday a poster (thank you whoever it was; now I've forgotten the screen name) a poster here explained to me that Misty's was in ____ county (forgot that name too (where's my ginko? If I could remember to take my ginko I wouldnt need my ginko) Sorry im back. Yeah, the poster said that Misty got the minimum in the county where she was charged (25 yrs) and that Ron got the minimum in the county where he was charged.

OK I do understand that different locales... counties.. states... have different laws and sentences and different mandatory minimums and whatnot.

What baffles me are the following: (a) from a video I thought I saw unless I've lost it both Ron AND Misty were in the car.

So were they not both deemed "dealing?" (meaning -- one of them in the car, Misty, was the kingpin dealer runnin the show, pullin the wagon, and callin the shots; and then the other one of them in the car, Ron, was completely uninvolved in the transaction and completely oblivious and untouched by any leg-work or procurement of the merchandise that made the transaction possible in the first place and hence was merely and innocent cherub who just happened to be catching a ride....? to the the mission....? to read the Bible to the blind?)

(b) If Ron got the minimum mandatory of 15 yrs in what way was his plea deal expressed? Was the deal that he'd get the minimum vs not-the-minimum or vs not the maximum? (Forgive my syntax, but I dont know if there are only two choices of minimum and maximum or if there is an option for anything in between)

It's kind of a wow moment to think that counties whose boundaries can be short distances apart can have such significantly divergent laws. One county -15 yr minimum vs ....but go a few blaocks this way or that way and.... bam! in this county it's a 25 yr minimum... for the same act? Big difference.

If any of this is incorrect please correct me. I'm a llittle slow to catch the train on these details.

And word, Papa very odd that there seems to have been no arrests of the honchos who appear to be easy pickins.

 

[krkrjx]

Wow, don't think I've ever had a response to a post quite like that one before Phrasin, LOL.

I've been thinking about another defense tactic that might have been worthwhile, particularly as to the sentencing, would be arguing the fact that these arrests would likely never have come about if not for the Haleigh case.

I know Sheriff Hardy claimed:



But, if these arrests were really about getting prescription medications off the community streets, why didn't the investigation go any higher up the food chain by way of arrests?

This bunch of "traffickers" all piled into the UC car, two and three at the time, having to collect the purchase price FIRST so they would be able to even buy the pills they were selling. THEN they had UC DRIVE all of them to where they bought the merchandise. Then and only then were they able to complete the sale.

WTH? How much easier does LE need it to be than THAT to bust, not only these criminals, but their suppliers as well? In one of the tapes, Ronald Cummings even tries to get UC to bite on another sale by pushing a different drug and supplier when he said "I guarantee you there’s 50 Percocets right around the corner there. I just don’t know...he’s supposed to go to the VA today or tomorrow”.

IMO, Barney Fife could have found that supplier!

But yet, to my knowledge, not a single source or supplier for Misty or any of the others has been busted. It's pretty clear what these arrests are really all about and I'm cool with that in it's entirety. But when it comes down to an 18 year old girl who's never even had a ticket for jaywalking before, being sentenced to 10 more years than her co-conspirator with 15 previous drug related arrests, her defense attorney has an obligation to her to shine a light on what this deal's really all about, and it's not these drug sales. If it were, they practically gave them a map to where their suppliers were located.

Why weren't any of the higher ups busted?

I agree that's why the drug arrests were made and as such, it should be possible to use it as a defense. However...Misty and Fields tried that in St. Johns County and it did not fly.

Misty got on the witness stand and stated she knew she would never have been arrested had it not been for the Haleigh case, and the judge stopped her dead in her tracks from saying any more. The judge told her no, she was not there because of the Haleigh case, she was there because of drugs.

And as far as their suppliers not even catching a glance from LE, I agree with you there! In most arrests for drugs, an offender gets their charge(s) reduced, and they do it by giving LE information about their suppliers. But Misty never got even one charge reduced. It seems to me that she should have been given an opportunity to snitch on her suppliers in exchange for reduced or dropped charges. But, I bet that was not even an option for Misty or Tommy. I believe they both offered, though. It just was not accepted.

Even though it is an offer that is routinely accepted statewide for charges such as this, it was not something afforded to Misty or her brother. Most drug offenders in Florida do way less time than Misty will do, even with similar or more serious charges, because they have full opportunity to plead those charges down by offering information about their suppliers, etc.

And in addition, an obvious defense for Misty is not even being allowed to be presented--or at least was not allowed in St. Johns court.

 

[krkrjx]

I agree with all of this.

What confuses me now is that yesterday a poster (thank you whoever it was; now I've forgotten the screen name) a poster here explained to me that Misty's was in ____ county (forgot that name too (where's my ginko? If I could remember to take my ginko I wouldnt need my ginko) Sorry im back. Yeah, the poster said that Misty got the minimum in the county where she was charged (25 yrs) and that Ron got the minimum in the county where he was charged.

OK I do understand that different locales... counties.. states... have different laws and sentences and different mandatory minimums and whatnot.

What baffles me are the following: (a) from a video I thought I saw unless I've lost it both Ron AND Misty were in the car.

So were they not both deemed "dealing?" (meaning -- one of them in the car, Misty, was the kingpin dealer runnin the show, pullin the wagon, and callin the shots; and then the other one of them in the car, Ron, was completely uninvolved in the transaction and completely oblivious and untouched by any leg-work or procurement of the merchandise that made the transaction possible in the first place and hence was merely and innocent cherub who just happened to be catching a ride....? to the the mission....? to read the Bible to the blind?)

(b) If Ron got the minimum mandatory of 15 yrs in what way was his plea deal expressed? Was the deal that he'd get the minimum vs not-the-minimum or vs not the maximum? (Forgive my syntax, but I dont know if there are only two choices of minimum and maximum or if there is an option for anything in between)

It's kind of a wow moment to think that counties whose boundaries can be short distances apart can have such significantly divergent laws. One county -15 yr minimum vs ....but go a few blaocks this way or that way and.... bam! in this county it's a 25 yr minimum... for the same act? Big difference.

If any of this is incorrect please correct me. I'm a llittle slow to catch the train on these details.

And word, Papa very odd that there seems to have been no arrests of the honchos who appear to be easy pickins.

kant...the sentences do not differ from one county to the next. Misty got her minimum mandatory. Ron got his minimum mandatory.

Where they were treated differently is that Ron was allowed to do away with his two most serious charges for agreeing to tell all he knows about "other people." Misty could only get the same consideration by telling where Haleigh is.

Ron got the OK to be a snitch so his 25-year charges were both dropped! Misty was not given the same opportunity so all her charges stood, and she was sentenced on the St. Johns offense on Friday. She still has the remainder to be sentenced on in Putnam; neither county allowed Misty any kind of a deal, other than to tell where Haleigh is.

 

[Concerned Papa]

I agree that's why the drug arrests were made and as such, it should be possible to use it as a defense. However...Misty and Fields tried that in St. Johns County and it did not fly.

Misty got on the witness stand and stated she knew she would never have been arrested had it not been for the Haleigh case, and the judge stopped her dead in her tracks from saying any more. The judge told her no, she was not there because of the Haleigh case, she was there because of drugs.

And as far as their suppliers not even catching a glance from LE, I agree with you there! In most arrests for drugs, an offender gets their charge(s) reduced, and they do it by giving LE information about their suppliers. But Misty never got even one charge reduced. It seems to me that she should have been given an opportunity to snitch on her suppliers in exchange for reduced or dropped charges. But, I bet that was not even an option for Misty or Tommy. I believe they both offered, though. It just was not accepted.

Even though it is an offer that is routinely accepted statewide for charges such as this, it was not something afforded to Misty or her brother. Most drug offenders in Florida do way less time than Misty will do, even with similar or more serious charges, because they have full opportunity to plead those charges down by offering information about their suppliers, etc.

And in addition, an obvious defense for Misty is not even being allowed to be presented--or at least was not allowed in St. Johns court.

IMO, you can't simply have your client get up on the stand and say it. Like all other aspects of a viable defense, a foundation must be laid and hopefully proven.

For example, why not call Sherff Hardy or one of his officers to the stand and ask if they recognize such and such an address? Why not ask if Misty got out of the UC car and went inside with LE's money and came back out with illegal narcotics, how hard is it to determine who and where their supplier is? Why not ask Sheriff Hardy if this arrest is really about getting illegal narcotics off the Putnam County streets, why are these higher ups allowed to continue to operate without being busted?

Then you have a foundation laid that goes a long way toward establishing a basis for Misty and her attorney's statements regarding what these arrests were really all about. At that point, if nothing else, I would want to know why Ronald Cummings was offered a deal and Misty wasn't. If she was the "kingpin" that this sentence indicates compared to his, wouldn't she be likely to have that much more information about illegal drugs to bargain with? That alone lends support to the argument that this arrest and sentence is not about illegal narcotics.

IMO, the punishment should fit the crime actually being adjudicated, not one that has not been brought.

 

[krkrjx]

I agree they did not go about it appropriately, if it was hoped to be viewed as a defense.

Actually, I do not understand why Misty pleaded as charged. She should have gone to trial. Her minimum is 25 years but those charges are a maximum of 30. Even if a jury trial resulted in the maximum, it's only 5 years more and basically makes 30 as palatable as 25, IMO. And possibly--just possibly--a jury might have seen through some of the *tactics* being applied. If I were Misty's attorney I would have either gotten some charges reduced, or not allowed her to plead Nolo as charged. When faced with having to go to trial, perhaps the SA would have considered dropping or lowering Misty's most serious charges, just like they did with RC.

She had nothing to lose taking this to a jury...even going with a plea to the court, she still could get 30 instead of 25!

 

[krkrjx]

Fields could really have sent an important message with Misty's case had he gone to trial. At trial he would have been allowed to argue the very reason for mandatory minimum sentencing being to catch the big fish! Then he could show that LE had absolutely no interest whatsoever in those big fish!

Of course, I am speaking without knowing what the UC tapes showed in their entirety. Likely we saw redacted versions. Also, Fields could know things about his client that no one else knows.

But with what I do know, Misty's case looks like one for a jury rather than a Nolo plea as charged.

 

[Dr. Know?]

My OP is that maybe the largest supplier bust was made last year. The $24mil drug bust. One sent away for life just recently. A handful of big dealers smaller than this group also were sentenced about the same time this year.

Just last week, the night before Ron was moved out of Putnam, 6 or 7 known dealers were busted, some no bond, some $100K all for trafficking. One had been busted last Oct. along with Chad E and 6 others. Another one busted last week had been arrested in May, I believe along with Josh Imm. Those are examples. There's several more like WBG and another older man who's yet to be sentenced.

Sadly, I have a long list....

Sorry for the O/T

 

[dodie20]

Wow, don't think I've ever had a response to a post quite like that one before Phrasin, LOL.

I've been thinking about another defense tactic that might have been worthwhile, particularly as to the sentencing, would be arguing the fact that these arrests would likely never have come about if not for the Haleigh case.

I know Sheriff Hardy claimed:



But, if these arrests were really about getting prescription medications off the community streets, why didn't the investigation go any higher up the food chain by way of arrests?

This bunch of "traffickers" all piled into the UC car, two and three at the time, having to collect the purchase price FIRST so they would be able to even buy the pills they were selling. THEN they had UC DRIVE all of them to where they bought the merchandise. Then and only then were they able to complete the sale.

WTH? How much easier does LE need it to be than THAT to bust, not only these criminals, but their suppliers as well? In one of the tapes, Ronald Cummings even tries to get UC to bite on another sale by pushing a different drug and supplier when he said "I guarantee you there’s 50 Percocets right around the corner there. I just don’t know...he’s supposed to go to the VA today or tomorrow”.

IMO, Barney Fife could have found that supplier!

But yet, to my knowledge, not a single source or supplier for Misty or any of the others has been busted. It's pretty clear what these arrests are really all about and I'm cool with that in it's entirety. But when it comes down to an 18 year old girl who's never even had a ticket for jaywalking before, being sentenced to 10 more years than her co-conspirator with 15 previous drug related arrests, her defense attorney has an obligation to her to shine a light on what this deal's really all about, and it's not these drug sales. If it were, they practically gave them a map to where their suppliers were located.

Why weren't any of the higher ups busted?

Misty was called a mid level dealer. No Way! There was a drug murder at the University of Texas, & the reports ,in great detail, described, the different level dealers, & this particular victim, a mid level dealer, traveled to Mexico to pick up his stuff, & sold & fronted bookoos of drugs to his employees, who in turn sold it on the streets. Also, this guy was rolling in the dough, & was buying a restaurant. He & his gf were murdered by an employee, who owed him almost $10,000. He operated a booming business. I wouldn't even categorize Misty or Ron, for that matter, on the same level as a mid level dealer's employees. They were on down the chain. IDK why LE didn't arrest their suppliers, & their suppliers, etc...I can only guess that they weren't concerned with getting thse drugs off the streets. But, I would think that since they were 'already there', so to speak, LE wouldn't have passed up the opportunity.

 

[impatientredhead]

Fields could really have sent an important message with Misty's case had he gone to trial. At trial he would have been allowed to argue the very reason for mandatory minimum sentencing being to catch the big fish! Then he could show that LE had absolutely no interest whatsoever in those big fish!

Of course, I am speaking without knowing what the UC tapes showed in their entirety. Likely we saw redacted versions. Also, Fields could know things about his client that no one else knows.

But with what I do know, Misty's case looks like one for a jury rather than a Nolo plea as charged.

The jury would have been shown multiple tapes in which Misty exchanges controlled narcotics for cash. They would have no option but to find her guilty. She has no defense. It is not mistaken identity, she is not suffering from multiple personality disorder, etc.... she is on tape selling drugs.

Once the jury came back with that verdict his hands are tied by the sentencing guidelines.

The argument you are outlining needs to be heard by the lawmakers, and then the voters would have to decide if they were having unintended effects and want to change them.

Fields has no ability in a criminal trial to defend Misty on the basis that she was the intended target of these laws. She sold the pills, she is guilty of trafficking under the current laws.

No question she would not have been targeted for an undercover investigation if a child in her care was not missing. Zero question on that. But a five year old is dead, they can't solve the case, and Misty was idiotic enough to sell drugs to an undercover cop KNOWING she was a major irritant to local LE, a suspect in a homicide case, and the target of an FBI investigation. The "why did they choose her for an undercover sting" does not change the fact that she committed the crime.

You can absolutely disagree with the tactic, but it is legal and she had zero defense at trial. She risked having the book thrown at her and risked consecutive rather concurrent sentencing.

moo

 

[bessie]

Fields could really have sent an important message with Misty's case had he gone to trial. At trial he would have been allowed to argue the very reason for mandatory minimum sentencing being to catch the big fish! Then he could show that LE had absolutely no interest whatsoever in those big fish!

Of course, I am speaking without knowing what the UC tapes showed in their entirety. Likely we saw redacted versions. Also, Fields could know things about his client that no one else knows.

But with what I do know, Misty's case looks like one for a jury rather than a Nolo plea as charged.

Respectfully, Fields could not make that argument, krkrjx, because it's not true. Mandatory minimum sentences for drug convictions included in the Anti Drug Abuse Act of 1986 were originally intended to target high level drug dealers and kingpins. Two years later, the Omnibus Drug Act of 1988 and amendments to conspiracy laws changed the scope of the mandatory minimum sentences to include anyone who conspires to buy or sell illegal drugs.

I admire your passion, but the odds of Misty benefiting from a trial are astronomical. The 5-6 minutes of video that were released are nothing compared to the hours of video that were recorded. From the moment Misty entered the UC's car until the time she departed, the camera was rolling. Not only that, the phone calls between them were recorded. A jury might've felt sorry for her, but faced with that kind of evidence and the detective's first hand testimony, they would have no choice but to find her guilty. Thats why drug trafficking cases rarely go to trial in Florida. They're not like other crimes where the evidence is often questionable and reasonable doubt is a factor. On the contrary, LE monitors the dealer(s) activities and documents everything before they make an arrest. I still maintain she would've had a better chance facing a charge of manslaugther, even in the first degree.

As for attorney Fields, we don't know what effort he put forth to cut a deal for Misty. If he failed to win one for her, it's because of Misty herself. Under the mandatory minimum sentencing system, only two avenues exist for a defendant in a drug trafficking case to obtain a reduction of charges. The first is by providing "substantial assistance", which means basically snitching on other drug defendants whether in a related or unrelated case. Misty's repeated lying and storytelling throughout Haleigh's investigation proved her to be an unreliable witness. There is no way that Fields could guarantee that Misty would stand up to her end of a bargain and provide viable testimony if called upon to do so.

The second option is drug probation/youth offender probation. Either Fields wagered that was her best chance, or he had no choice because the SA wouldn't agree to a plea bargain. We don't know. Unfortunately for Misty, the judge denied it. Regardless, I think Fields has done about as much as anyone could to defend Misty.

We shouldn't forget that he was ready to drop her case at least twice that we know of because she wouldn't follow his advice. The first time was last August when he counselled her against submitting to the LDT/LVA/hypnosis examinations. The second time was this past spring during the "dock search"/Joe-did-it baloney. IMO, she's d**n lucky he's stuck around this long.

 

[tlcya]

Excellent post ticox.

We have seen of late how two different crimes can become intertwined in a case (Kyron and Haleigh) and it is very hard to separate those two different crimes and weigh each crime and not mingle them together.

I am not taking up for Fields but sometimes defense attorneys are just handed an unwinnable case. Imo he would not have been successful in Florida with keeping the jail house videos under wraps that had to do with Haleigh's case. Why? Because he absolutely has no right to at this time. Unless a charge is lodged against his client in Haleigh's case he cant even make a motion to suppress. Once and if that is done then he can file a motion to suppress certain things. Whether he will even be successful then is left up to the Judge.

I honestly don't see why some are so upset with Misty's sentence. Others here were wanting Ron Cummings to go away for 50-85 years or more for his drug trafficking and right up front he did not have as many charges against him as Misty did.

People were remarking about how Ron was selling drugs that could windup in the hands of children. Well that same thing applies to Misty Croslin. She would have never stopped trafficking drugs, imo. I think her parents taught her how a long time ago.

She told the Judge this is what poor people do. Really do they? I know plenty of poor people that get up every morning and work everyday at menial labor to make a living. Yet, Misty seems to think if a person is poor they don't need to better themselves with a real job but just be a drug trafficker instead.

So for me, I think Misty got what she deserved and I am very glad another drug trafficker is off the streets for years. She can deny until the cows come home and make excuses galore but it was Misty Croslins illegal actions that got her 25 years. Those images weren't Misty mannequins in the stings. That was the real deal.
Now I can only hope that this wont be the last charges we see against Misty Croslin. In the end the drug issues were side issues in this case and all I really care about is Haleigh being found and justice being served.

IMO

Just to be clear, I also support Misty's sentence. She did the crime, the time was within the sentencing guidelines and the judge's discretion.

This was just my own mental exercise in seeing if I could separate myself from my own personal opinions enough to attempt to do the job of defense attorney representing Misty in the trafficking cases.

 

[bessie]

Wow, don't think I've ever had a response to a post quite like that one before Phrasin, LOL.

I've been thinking about another defense tactic that might have been worthwhile, particularly as to the sentencing, would be arguing the fact that these arrests would likely never have come about if not for the Haleigh case.

I know Sheriff Hardy claimed:



But, if these arrests were really about getting prescription medications off the community streets, why didn't the investigation go any higher up the food chain by way of arrests?

This bunch of "traffickers" all piled into the UC car, two and three at the time, having to collect the purchase price FIRST so they would be able to even buy the pills they were selling. THEN they had UC DRIVE all of them to where they bought the merchandise. Then and only then were they able to complete the sale.

WTH? How much easier does LE need it to be than THAT to bust, not only these criminals, but their suppliers as well? In one of the tapes, Ronald Cummings even tries to get UC to bite on another sale by pushing a different drug and supplier when he said "I guarantee you there’s 50 Percocets right around the corner there. I just don’t know...he’s supposed to go to the VA today or tomorrow”.

IMO, Barney Fife could have found that supplier!

But yet, to my knowledge, not a single source or supplier for Misty or any of the others has been busted. It's pretty clear what these arrests are really all about and I'm cool with that in it's entirety. But when it comes down to an 18 year old girl who's never even had a ticket for jaywalking before, being sentenced to 10 more years than her co-conspirator with 15 previous drug related arrests, her defense attorney has an obligation to her to shine a light on what this deal's really all about, and it's not these drug sales. If it were, they practically gave them a map to where their suppliers were located.

Why weren't any of the higher ups busted?

How do you know they weren't? Because they weren't busted with Misty and the gang doesn't mean they weren't arrested at a later date. Thanks to Misty and her friends, LE knows who they are if they didn't before. But they weren't part of this investigation. It makes sense that LE would hold off and conduct a separate investigation to get the goods on them and see who else the trail might lead to.

 

[tlcya]

How do you know they weren't? Because they weren't busted with Misty and the gang doesn't mean they weren't arrested at a later date. Thanks to Misty and her friends, LE knows who they are if they didn't before. But they weren't part of this investigation. It makes sense that LE would hold off and conduct a separate investigation to get the goods on them and see who else the trail might lead to.

IA. Excellent point. Can anyone say they werren't arrested? Have any of them been named? Or as often sadly happens in drug cases, has LE become so enamored of getting to the big mucky mucks that they are quietly making deals with the higher ups in order to pursue the ever elusive next higher up? Wo knows? Certainly not Jane Q. Public.

 

[Dr. Know?]

Mr. Fields has no choice other than to get his client to confess, and honestly, asap. Like Bessie, I think she would/could get off with less (if she spilled it all.) If not, I feel she could be looking at least 50 years. She was 17 when Haleigh went missing. Sure she can be charged as an adult, but she won't face the death penalty per law being a juvie at the time, maybe life with reviews for an earlier release and way better than 50 years. Maybe 20 to 30?

Her current sentence can be argued down. 7 days and counting....

Tommy still being at St. Johns jail is hopeful too. jmo

 

[Dr. Know?]

How do you know they weren't? Because they weren't busted with Misty and the gang doesn't mean they weren't arrested at a later date. Thanks to Misty and her friends, LE knows who they are if they didn't before. But they weren't part of this investigation. It makes sense that LE would hold off and conduct a separate investigation to get the goods on them and see who else the trail might lead to.

I agree Bessie, how do you know they weren't? I posted earlier, there are many to follow, some with traceable connections to the drug trade and also to Misty, Ron, & Tommy. It's not over. Some that I follow end up a dead end, but some are still standing. You just have to read the bookings, dockets, and read the scanner thread. Plus read informatiive posts and facts.

 

[bessie]

I know, Dr Know?, that you scanner peeps are staying on top of the drug busts down in PC. Up until April or so when I got very busy, I was listening to the scanner a lot, and I there were quite a few large busts after Misty and Ron were arrested. I have to start spending time in the scanner forum again.

And yes, it's interesting that Tommy is still in St. Johns.

ETA: No lwop, either, since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in unconstitutional for children under 18. IIRC, 20-25 years is average prison time for first degree manslaughter in Florida. No worse than what she's facing now. When I think about that, I can't help but wonder if the truth is worse than I suspect.

 

[Dr. Know?]

Guess I better fess up, I'm not rooting for Ron. I feel he has a hand in his daughters demise. I just wanted to clear up a fact that many have been involved and many have been busted by their connections to the group of 5 or so.

Yes Bessie the scanner thread! I learned so much from them. Thanks Scanner Friends! (lol, now I feel like my "skater" grandson, I'm in a group) lol

 

[kant]

kant...the sentences do not differ from one county to the next. Misty got her minimum mandatory. Ron got his minimum mandatory.

Where they were treated differently is that Ron was allowed to do away with his two most serious charges for agreeing to tell all he knows about "other people." Misty could only get the same consideration by telling where Haleigh is.

Ron got the OK to be a snitch so his 25-year charges were both dropped! Misty was not given the same opportunity so all her charges stood, and she was sentenced on the St. Johns offense on Friday. She still has the remainder to be sentenced on in Putnam; neither county allowed Misty any kind of a deal, other than to tell where Haleigh is.

Thank you for that.

Wow. That seems even more.... I-dont-know-what.

Good grief, is it all really that seemingly luck-of-the-draw arbitrary?