Misty C. #4

[Whisperer]

Bunny says that People do give inconsistent statements without lying and gave an example of how witnesses are bad describing perps...and I agree.

However; This was not a witness describing a perp...This is a parent searching for his precious child...different altogether.

1. You don't hide. You don't mistakes about where the child was last seen

2. You answer police when they get there and WHEN they are on the phone to get information.

3. You put on your big boy pants and pick yourself up off the ground to help LE find your daughter and answer them.

4. You don't call stating, "Hi, I just woke up and my back door is wide open and (oh, btw,) I think....er my daughter is missing"

5. And you don't hang up on dispatch!

 

[impatientredhead]

Without seeing the interview or knowing what the inconsistencies are about, I have no idea.

People do give inconsistent statements without lying. If you go to any bank robbery trial, and there are a number of witnesses in the bank at the time, and not one of them was at all involved in the crime, you still might get 8 different versions of what occurred and/or what the robber said etc....it doesn't mean any or all of them are lying. Again, life isn't always like you see on tv.

Eight people, eight versions does not equal lying.
One witness with eight versions of what they saw- liar.
Big difference there.

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

Eight people, eight versions does not equal lying.
One witness with eight versions of what they saw- liar.
Big difference there.

Who gave 8 versions of what they saw?

Many "honest" witnesses also come to Court and give versions inconsistent with their earlier statements. Even I had to give evidence in a criminal matter not too long ago, and I remembered things quite differently, though vividly, later on....this is not uncommon. What the person questioning usually does when confronted with that situation is get the person to agree that their memory was better at a time closer to the events in question. Again, inconsistencies may be significant, and might not be. But after all the hours they questioned her hooked up to a lie detector, unless she's some genius, if she's responsible, they should have a lot more on her by now than a few inconsistencies.

 

[impatientredhead]

Who gave 8 versions of what they saw?

Many "honest" witnesses also come to Court and give versions inconsistent with their earlier statements. Even I had to give evidence in a criminal matter not too long ago, and I remembered things quite differently, though vividly, later on....this is not uncommon. What the person questioning usually does when confronted with that situation is get the person to agree that their memory was better at a time closer to the events in question. Again, inconsistencies may be significant, and might not be. But after all the hours they questioned her hooked up to a lie detector, unless she's some genius, if she's responsible, they should have a lot more on her by now than a few inconsistencies.

I was commenting on your witness example of a bank robbery.
You reference multiple witnesses and their being inconsistencies among their statements. I was pointing out that is not the case here. They are not suspicious of Misty because her statement is different than someone elses.

And I have already stated that I understand slight inconsistencies between data given at different interviews. We are talking major inconsistencies, continuing to morph, multiple inconsistent versions of a events from the SAME witness.

And she is not a genius, that is clear.
She is lying. The police know she is lying.
That does not make them magicians that are going to be able to pull physical evidence out of a hat because their witness is BSing them and they know it.

Misty has been so inconsistent that you have to throw out everything she has said. That means they were handed a case of Ron left for work and Haleigh was there, Ron went to work- verified, Ron came home and Haleigh is gone. Not much to work with when you get right down to it.

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

Bunny says that People do give inconsistent statements without lying and gave an example of how witnesses are bad describing perps...and I agree.

However; This was not a witness describing a perp...This is a parent searching for his precious child...different altogether.

1. You don't hide. You don't mistakes about where the child was last seen

2. You answer police when they get there and WHEN they are on the phone to get information.

3. You put on your big boy pants and pick yourself up off the ground to help LE find your daughter and answer them.

4. You don't call stating, "Hi, I just woke up and my back door is wide open and (oh, btw,) I think....er my daughter is missing"

5. And you don't hang up on dispatch!

1. I don't see anyone hiding in this case.

2. You co-operate in their search for your daughter. This does not extend to assisting police in prosecuting you for a crime you did not commit, especially if it means the true perp will walk and your daughter will likely never be found.

3. You search with TES and any other proper searches being conducted. You get your daughter's pic out there. You plead for her return. You do not start or participate in side shows that might detract from the focus being on your daughter.

4. No, you don't....and nobody in this case did do that. Ron was bordering on hysteria when the call was made.

5. I would hang up on dispatch when/if I knew police were on the way (let's face it the lady couldn't do anything on the phone) and I'd be frantically running around trying to find my daughter instead.

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

I was commenting on your witness example of a bank robbery.
You reference multiple witnesses and their being inconsistencies among their statements. I was pointing out that is not the case here. They are not suspicious of Misty because her statement is different than someone elses.

And I have already stated that I understand slight inconsistencies between data given at different interviews. We are talking major inconsistencies, continuing to morph, multiple inconsistent versions of a events from the SAME witness.

And she is not a genius, that is clear.
She is lying. The police know she is lying.
That does not make them magicians that are going to be able to pull physical evidence out of a hat because their witness is BSing them and they know it.

Misty has been so inconsistent that you have to throw out everything she has said. That means they were handed a case of Ron left for work and Haleigh was there, Ron went to work- verified, Ron came home and Haleigh is gone. Not much to work with when you get right down to it.

They had her on a lie detector, at least once, so they should know what she is and isn't lying about (assuming she lied). If she is the perp, they should have gathered a fair bit of evidence from that interview, and if they could prove she was lying (and it doesn't seem they can as they haven't charged her), they would have charged her by now. They've had 6 months to investigate the statements she made and it seems they've done it to death, and they've come up with nada, nothing, zilch, and they are still whining about her in the press. She's 17....maybe all her inconsistencies can be explained by the fact she smoked a joint that night, doesn't think it's relevant to the search for Haleigh, and doesn't want to get in trouble for it....maybe she fears losing Junior if she admits something like that. I mean really, who knows? We are all just speculating. But all the same, imo, it's no excuse for LE. Frequently witnesses aren't telling the truth in criminal investigations but that shouldn't mean they focus on that person alone, particularly if they find no other evidence which points to them being involved in the crime, which seems to be the case here (though I acknowledge it might not be).

 

[Baxter]

Hmmm.....maybe the part where he refuses to eliminate anyone from the Griffis/Sheffield family as suspects and refers to the fact they don't have rock solid alibis for the night in question. Not to mention, as far as I'm aware they still have not ruled out the possibility of a stranger abduction, but if a stranger abducted her, I feel there is little chance of her being found as LE isn't even getting her pic out there anymore, all they seem to be doing is blaming Misty (and Ron) for the lack of progress in their investigation.

BBM Were you looking at the same article as I did? I thought Maj Bowlings said:


Bowling said it takes rock-solid alibis before detectives can eliminate anyone and those have not been established. He said the best that can be done is assign degrees of suspicion to people.

“Where is the responsibility in saying somebody is not a suspect?” he said.

He didn't just say the Sheffields/Griffis
http://www.jacksonville.com/news/met...6_months_later

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

BBM Were you looking at the same article as I did? I thought Maj Bowlings said:


Bowling said it takes rock-solid alibis before detectives can eliminate anyone and those have not been established. He said the best that can be done is assign degrees of suspicion to people.

“Where is the responsibility in saying somebody is not a suspect?” he said.

He didn't just say the Sheffields/Griffis
http://www.jacksonville.com/news/met...6_months_later

Yep, but I read the whole article...the 2 lines above it were spoken by MG, and I assume Bowling's statement is in response to what Marie said as it follows on...

The next step should be for detectives to name those who are no longer suspects, she said.

“You need to start excluding the people that you know do not have this information,” she said.

 

[Baxter]

Yep, but I read the whole article...the 2 lines above it were spoken by MG, and I assume Bowling's statement is in response to what Marie said as it follows on...

The next step should be for detectives to name those who are no longer suspects, she said.

“You need to start excluding the people that you know do not have this information,” she said.

Again IMO he says anyone and means anyone. Not answering Marie.

Bowling said it takes rock-solid alibis before detectives can eliminate anyone
and those have not been established. He said the best that can be done is assign degrees of suspicion to people.]

“Where is the responsibility in saying somebody is not a suspect?” he said.

 

[nomoresorrow]

Frankly I hope & pray everynight that Ron & Misty will set aside "everything else" and start talking in full detail/disclosure to LE . . . and let the chips fall where they may on them . . . so that HaLeigh may be found - IMO

The Opinions Expressed Here Are My Own Opinions And Do Reflect anyone else's views . . . JMO

 

[Patty G]

If you want to discuss the recent arrest of DS, take it to the Parking Lot. Should this person become part of the Haleigh case, we can always move it back to the Main Forum.

 

[Shaymus at The Rock]

Inconsistency when telling someone what led to a child being missing equals lying in my book.
Even if it is a lie by omission.

Exercising your right to remain silent when the people you are refusing to speak to are trying to locate your child, that you supposedly think is alive, is the most illogical parental response I have ever heard. If you can't work with the local police you ask to speak to the state police. If they are out to get you too, you talk to the FBI. You tell the public what you suspect in hopes that someone else can show the cops what they need to look at.

This is not a money laundering case, they aren't trying to get them to rat out a big drug dealer, where you could comment on the ethics of not helping the police but see why they wouldn't. His child is missing and he is not searching for her, he is not helping the police look for, he doesn't know or care who walked into his home (allegedly) and walked away with his child that he will never see again?

Yeah, exercising my constitutional right to not speak to the police would be my highest priority too.

And Misty not having an attorney has nothing to do with her age.
Her age at the time of questioning may become relevant if she is charged with something.
But she apparantly hired one when she got the money or decided she needed one. She isn't charged with anything so legal representation is completely up to her to secure.

BBM

So, where did Misty who is 17 years old, and doesn't work, get the money to hire an attorney ?

1. Are her parents paying for the attorney ? If so, will they continue to do so now that she has taken out a RO on her brother and has refuted, in the media, their statements regarding Ron's assault on that brother ?

2. Is Ron paying for the attorney ? He filed an affadavit of insolvency when he was arrested and is apparently relying upon a PD to defend those charges. Does he have access to funds that can only be used for expense related to Haleigh's disappearance ?

3. Is Ron's family paying for the attorney ? Why would they do that for a brand new IL who happens to be the last person to see their granddaughter and who, Ron claims, is the focus of the LE investigation into that child's disappearance ?

4. Has the attorney taken her case pro bono ?

5. Has some mystery person(s) or organization become involved in funding a defense - as with Casey A ?

 

[Emeralgem]

BBM

So, where did Misty who is 17 years old, and doesn't work, get the money to hire an attorney ?

1. Are her parents paying for the attorney ? If so, will they continue to do so now that she has taken out a RO on her brother and has refuted, in the media, their statements regarding Ron's assault on that brother ?

2. Is Ron paying for the attorney ? He filed an affadavit of insolvency when he was arrested and is apparently relying upon a PD to defend those charges. Does he have access to funds that can only be used for expense related to Haleigh's disappearance ?

3. Is Ron's family paying for the attorney ? Why would they do that for a brand new IL who happens to be the last person to see their granddaughter and who is the focus of the LE investigation into that child's disappearance ?

4. Has the attorney taken her case pro bono ?

5. Has some mystery person(s) or organization become involved in funding a defense - as with Casey A ?

Does she really have an attorney, or is that just rumor, and do we have a name if she does have one?

 

[Shaymus at The Rock]

Does she really have an attorney, or is that just rumor, and do we have a name if she does have one?

Per LE, she does (see Post #15 for the link). In the video, the reporter did not give the attorney's name.

 

[Patty G]

Per LE, she does (see Post #15 for the link). LE did not give the attorney's name.

Adding link to video as posts are deleted from time to time.

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/topstories/news-article.aspx?storyid=143152&catid=3

I must add, it was the reporter that stated LE said: "Misty has an attorney." It has yet to be confirmed that Misty has an attorney. :crazy:

 

[debs]

IF, and it's a big if, she is lying to LE about something like smoking a joint, I can't disagree that that is wrong. However, it is in my mind a possibility that something like that may have happened, and may explain any inconsistencies in her statements.

I do get the feeling the focus of the investigation is about to shift elsewhere in a big way and/or already has.

Bunny, I fail to follow logic that states "IF she is lying to LE..." with anything other than the statement "She needs to stop and start telling the truth." Period. This is the life of a 5 year old little girl. They can't even bust Misty for smoking a joint based on her say-so. They can only bust her if she has it on her or is impaired when in the commission of some other infraction, like driving. She wouldn't even be in trouble for admitting something like that!!! She wouldn't be in trouble for saying she got snockered drunk, either. They can't do anything after-the-fact. If they didn't give her a tox-screen, they missed the opportunity to prove it in court.

IF she's lying, for any reason, Misty has hindered an investigation for 6 months. At this point, I would believe LE is starting to consider that obstruction of justice. Depending on the level of inconsistencies, and now the public statement that LE have been "resisted" in being able to communicate with her (and Ronald), I wonder how much longer they have before they ARE charged with obstruction.

 

[Emeralgem]

Bunny, I fail to follow logic that states "IF she is lying to LE..." with anything other than the statement "She needs to stop and start telling the truth." Period. This is the life of a 5 year old little girl. They can't even bust Misty for smoking a joint based on her say-so. They can only bust her if she has it on her or is impaired when in the commission of some other infraction, like driving. She wouldn't even be in trouble for admitting something like that!!! She wouldn't be in trouble for saying she got snockered drunk, either. They can't do anything after-the-fact. If they didn't give her a tox-screen, they missed the opportunity to prove it in court.

IF she's lying, for any reason, Misty has hindered an investigation for 6 months. At this point, I would believe LE is starting to consider that obstruction of justice. Depending on the level of inconsistencies, and now the public statement that LE have been "resisted" in being able to communicate with her (and Ronald), I wonder how much longer they have before they ARE charged with obstruction.

BBM IMHO..Hopefully soon, what I don't completely understand is why they haven't already been charged with obstruction of justice considering all of the inconsitences that have been revealed in the statements both Ron C and Misty have made concerning this case..

 

[Donjeta]

We don't know what all the inconsistencies in Misty's account are but I bet that after hours and hours of interrogations trying to clear them up Misty knows by now at least some of them and knows what she needs to talk about to set the record straight with LE. If she chooses not to, well, shame on her. This may be wishful thinking but I'm hoping that if she now has a lawyer on her side that person can make her feel more secure, help her pinpoint the problems LE have with her story and aid and encourage her to help LE with whatever it was that she was too afraid or confused to make straight before.

 

[mysticrose]

This is the Misty thread!

All that statement says to me is that in all these months the investigation seems to have gone nowhere and that they are trying to put the blame for that on a 17 year old's inconsistent statements.

LE " Let's blame Misty since she was the last to see Haleigh and because we have know idea what is happening here."
Now how ridiculous does that sound. The investigation to our knowledge has went nowhere but LE isn't saying either way. But what they are saying is they need to speak with Misty again along with Ron, and they are saying from day one Misty's statements remain inconsistent. I'm sure as this investigation has moved along there have been more tips that need answers given to LE since they last talked to the Cummings.
IE someone has said they last saw Haleigh in the van at a certain time that doesnt add up to Misty's account, of course LE will want to ask about it and get an answer from Misty so they can rule it out or not. Or someone states Ron did not pick up Haleigh Misty did from the bus stop, LE needs to ask to get their account of what is being said. I could go on and on with examples but you get my point. It is highly important that they speak with LE so they can move on from fact or fiction in tips..
JMO of course..

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

Bunny, I fail to follow logic that states "IF she is lying to LE..." with anything other than the statement "She needs to stop and start telling the truth." Period. This is the life of a 5 year old little girl. They can't even bust Misty for smoking a joint based on her say-so. They can only bust her if she has it on her or is impaired when in the commission of some other infraction, like driving. She wouldn't even be in trouble for admitting something like that!!! She wouldn't be in trouble for saying she got snockered drunk, either. They can't do anything after-the-fact. If they didn't give her a tox-screen, they missed the opportunity to prove it in court.

IF she's lying, for any reason, Misty has hindered an investigation for 6 months. At this point, I would believe LE is starting to consider that obstruction of justice. Depending on the level of inconsistencies, and now the public statement that LE have been "resisted" in being able to communicate with her (and Ronald), I wonder how much longer they have before they ARE charged with obstruction.

It is what it is and LE have to deal with it. We don't know that she's hindered an investigation...she's certainly not been charged with hindering an investigation, nor has Ronald and I highly doubt they will be.