Tommy Croslin claims mistreatment in Putman Jail per Att

New Posts

I havent been in the Haleigh furom in about a month, been following little Kyron, but I havent stopped thinking about our precious baby at all. I saw this thread and read the first two pages and had about all I can stand of it, but I will be nice.
First off, what in hello did Tommy expect, golden freakin toilet seats and a maid to wipe his behind? This is jail, at least in jail he is getting 3 square meals and doesn't have to worry about the power getting turned off. He is a drug addict, a theif and a liar, possably even a murderer, or at the least an accomplice. I dont know if LE "invaded on his constitutional rights" or not and honestly I dont give a rats head if they did because it apparently wasn't enough, because we still don't know where Haleigh is at, and thats if I even beleive this crap, which IF I did than that would mean I would have to beleive that Tommy or any of the Croslins are even capable of knowing how to tell the truth, and I dont beleive they were born with that gene. He has done nothing but lie and to beleive this would just be foolish, and even if I saw a video of them smashing his face into the table, I dont think I would be to upset about it. Look at everything that Crystal has gone through the past year and a half, I often wonder if Junior even still remembers Haleigh or if he still asks about her, so I could give two flips about what Tommy is going through and I want care either until he mans up and tells what happened to Haleigh and where she is!
 
badme102 said:
No they don't. Not in the context of the conversation we were having. I said if LE wanted to TALK to Tommy (or any one of their prisoners) they can do that at anytime they want. I said 'talk'--not interrogate.
Click to expand...

Sure they can, but if it is an inmate and the person is not free to get up and leave it is an interrogation.

The very minute he asked for any attorney to be present then it all needed to stop. Right there and right then.

Few pages back I posted a link where Rick Ryan made a statement about the
" investigation into what Tommy Croslin was saying", and it directly contradicts what Rick Ryan is saying now.
 
Missingmeds said:
Sure they can, but if it is an inmate and the person is not free to get up and leave it is an interrogation.

The very minute he asked for any attorney to be present then it all needed to stop. Right there and right then.

Few pages back I posted a link where Rick Ryan made a statement about the
" investigation into what Tommy Croslin was saying", and it directly contradicts what Rick Ryan is saying now.
Click to expand...

OK, so they can't interrogate Tommy?

in•ter•ro•gate

to examine by questions; question formally: The police captain interrogated the suspect.

www.dictionary.com
Click to expand...

Could you kindly point me, with links, to exactly what QUESTIONS they supposedly asked this documented liar?
 
aksleuth said:
That tells me no ABUSE was going on. It also appears they got a free continuation of his sentencing. I do think Werter and Baez must have studied under the same law professors. Similar strategies. :wink:
Click to expand...

Or the exact opposite is true and there has been some behind the scenes dealing going on that we aren't privy to.
 
Concerned Papa said:
OK, so they can't interrogate Tommy?



Could you kindly point me, with links, to exactly what QUESTIONS they supposedly asked this documented liar?
Click to expand...

They can interrogate Tommy. But the minute that he asked for a lawyer they need to stop. I don't know what questions they were asking, I don't know that they were asking any to be frank about it. I am just saying that there is a difference, a legal one between an interview and an interrogation and that difference is in the being able to walk out.

This all could be put to rest quite simply really. All PCSO needs to do is to release the video of the interview, interrogation, whatever one wants to call it.
 
Missingmeds said:
They can interrogate Tommy. But the minute that he asked for a lawyer they need to stop. I don't know what questions they were asking, I don't know that they were asking any to be frank about it. I am just saying that there is a difference, a legal one between an interview and an interrogation and that difference is in the being able to walk out.

This all could be put to rest quite simply really. All PCSO needs to do is to release the video of the interview, interrogation, whatever one wants to call it.
Click to expand...

It's already been put to rest since Tommy and his attorney have dropped the Motion. Let me ask you, if the allegations had strength of merit, why would they drop it? Seems to me it could have been a heck of a good thing for an inmate to have in his pocket right before being sentenced for crimes he's pled guilty to.

Even with Miranda, LE can still talk to Tommy or any other inmate. If you believe every word Werter and Tommy Croslin said, all I heard was LE doing some talking to an inmate about the consequence of his actions.

LE has had a daunting challenge in this case having to wade through lies from seemingly every person in this little girl's life to find the truth about what happened to her. In today's politically correct society, they don't have a huge arsenal of weapons available to get the truth out of a liar. Threats and intimidation, sometimes, are all they have.

As for me? I say water-board every single one of them. But then again, I am still a believer in my friend Missingmed's former Signature line: Gun control = using two hands.

Maybe I'm a dinosaur bound for extinction, but I firmly believe where a missing child is involved the end justifies the means in obtaining the truth.
 
Concerned Papa said:
It's already been put to rest since Tommy and his attorney have dropped the Motion. Let me ask you, if the allegations had strength of merit, why would they drop it? Seems to me it could have been a heck of a good thing for an inmate to have in his pocket right before being sentenced for crimes he's pled guilty to.

Even with Miranda, LE can still talk to Tommy or any other inmate. If you believe every word Werter and Tommy Croslin said, all I heard was LE doing some talking to an inmate about the consequence of his actions.

LE has had a daunting challenge in this case having to wade through lies from seemingly every person in this little girl's life to find the truth about what happened to her. In today's politically correct society, they don't have a huge arsenal of weapons available to get the truth out of a liar. Threats and intimidation, sometimes, are all they have.

As for me? I say water-board every single one of them. But then again, I am still a believer in my friend Missingmed's former Signature line: Gun control = using two hands.

Maybe I'm a dinosaur bound for extinction, but I firmly believe where a missing child is involved the end justifies the means in obtaining the truth.
Click to expand...

BBM That's what the Inquisition used to say right before they burned you at the stake for the good of your immortal soul.

In my opinion, there is NO justification for torture - start torturing one group, end up torturing anyone who doesn't agree with you.
 
Concerned Papa said:
Most of you probably already know, but Tommy's attorney James Werter has opened a channel at YouTube called "werterlaw". He has had a running dialogue for the past few days seemingly to promote Tommy's claims and postion. I posted a few comments that essentially amounted to "Tommy lied about the alligators and failed his polygraph, why should I believe anything he says?"

This was his reply to me:

Quote:
"You're right as to the temperature but broadening all the circumstances and feeding habits to get a clear view of the situation."


WTH? Is there anyone who can translate this shuck and jive mumbo jumbo into something that I can understand?
Click to expand...

Sounds like word salad to me Papa.
 
dodie20 said:
well...I guess he's just doing his job. The problem for me, & I admit it's kind of wishy washy, is that I'm a strong believer in everybody, even the lowest of the low, having a right to representation. That actually makes me feel very secure, with the legal system...but then along comes a case like Haleigh's, or any child, for that matter, & my emotions take over my logic. I just want justice for the real victim, & I'm not too worried about the secondary victims-the victims of the law. I can't help but think if Tommy wasn't involved in this whole mess, he wouldn't be in the position, of having his civil rights violated. so, he has done this to himself. Nobody has ever made me sicker than John Couey, & I wonder how many nightmares his lawyers had. or Melissa Huckaby's lawyers? or the judges? I don't see how these lawyers can stand to have their own lives violated by these monsters, but somebdy has to defend them, to the best of their abilities. & when it's all said & done, I'm thankful for that. because you never know...it could be your mentally ill loved one, or even an innocent person accused of a horrible crime, & then we would want the best representation, out there, for them.
Click to expand...


I want the accused to have vigorous representation because then, when they are convicted, they don't have grounds to appeal their conviction based on inadequate representation. Lawyers should be ethical though. It's one thing to represent your client, it's another to insert yourself into the case and make it about yourself. Werter is toeing this line though and maybe is a millimeter over it, as far as i'm concerned.
 
Concerned Papa said:
It's already been put to rest since Tommy and his attorney have dropped the Motion. Let me ask you, if the allegations had strength of merit, why would they drop it? Seems to me it could have been a heck of a good thing for an inmate to have in his pocket right before being sentenced for crimes he's pled guilty to.

Even with Miranda, LE can still talk to Tommy or any other inmate. If you believe every word Werter and Tommy Croslin said, all I heard was LE doing some talking to an inmate about the consequence of his actions.

LE has had a daunting challenge in this case having to wade through lies from seemingly every person in this little girl's life to find the truth about what happened to her. In today's politically correct society, they don't have a huge arsenal of weapons available to get the truth out of a liar. Threats and intimidation, sometimes, are all they have.

As for me? I say water-board every single one of them. But then again, I am still a believer in my friend Missingmed's former Signature line: Gun control = using two hands.

Maybe I'm a dinosaur bound for extinction, but I firmly believe where a missing child is involved the end justifies the means in obtaining the truth.
Click to expand...

Papa, my best guess would be that it was dropped because there was more to the agreement between PCSO or whoever was involved than just the LE agreeing to not do it again.

I understand the anger that everyone has about this whole case I really do. But to allow anyone's civil rights or even basic human rights to be violated and there be no consequence for doing so, really scares me. I am seriously afraid that we would started down a road that we couldn't get off of.

But again, I still have my doubts that everything about the allegations and the "agreement" is out in the open. I would love to see/hear the video/audio of the session with Tommy Croslin and I would love to see the agreement paperwork with my own two eyes.

I don't believe that we are hearing the whole story about either one.
 
When this Motion was filed about mistreatment, my concern was that something could have gone down that might have an affect down the road if and when charges could be brought against TC regarding Haleigh. Information or evidence illegally obtained cannot be used, and I did not want to see evidence that had been a long time coming be thrown out on a technicality.

I now feel that nothing illegal occurred because if it had, the issue would not have been dropped. I am convinced that if we were to see the video of the "interview" we would see nothing amiss. They dropped their complaint because there is no evidence to support it, IMO.
 
Helplessly Hoping said:
Kamky, ITA. :waitasec: But how does Lindsy go on with or without the truth being known? She has too know something. She's a mother for God's sake. Tommy can complain, Lindsy goes forward and nothing makes sense to me. :sick:
Click to expand...

I think it depends on what kind of person she really is. If she cares most about herself and her children and doesn't want to get involved, then she may have told LE only what she knows (but not what she suspects), and then felt like she did her part and has emotionally removed herself from the situation.

Or, if she is a caring person (which I hope), then she has told LE what she knows and what she suspects. And she may have been on the watchout for more information and relayed it to LE. Then, with a clear conscience, she has been able to go on with her and the kids' life.

We really don't know which it is or what she really knows. I suspect she knows something significant and helpful because she doesn't appear to be a dummy. Let's hope she has the decency and ethics to assist LE. She is very young to have such a burden of an immature husband with serious character flaws, a set of in-laws with obvious character flaws, and a household & three children (who I believe she loves) to raise and support mostly on her own.
 
Owlface said:
I want the accused to have vigorous representation because then, when they are convicted, they don't have grounds to appeal their conviction based on inadequate representation. Lawyers should be ethical though. It's one thing to represent your client, it's another to insert yourself into the case and make it about yourself. Werter is toeing this line though and maybe is a millimeter over it, as far as i'm concerned.
Click to expand...

I do agree with you. But, it looks to me like this whole issue was a lot of posturing on Werter's part. He saw an opportunity and ran with it to get some sympathetic publicity for his client. There may have been a very minor infraction but not one that would have passed muster. Otherwise, I don't think we would have seen this "settled" so quickly.
 
http://www.news4jax.com/news/24242370/detail.html

Judge Rules Against Croslin's Motion

PUTNAM COUNTY, Fla. -- A Putnam County judge has ruled against Hank Croslin Jr., who claimed detectives threatened him and treated him poorly in jail.

Croslin is the brother of Misty Cummings, the last person known to have seen 5-year-old Haleigh Cummings before she disappeared last year.

Croslin's motion claimed detectives threatened to charge him with Haleigh's murder if he didn't cooperate. As a result, he wanted to be moved out of the Putnam County Jail.

But the judge dismissed the motion, saying Croslin is not being harassed by detectives and they have every right to question him about Haleigh's disappearance.

Croslin is set to be sentenced on drug charges Aug. 2.
Click to expand...
 
I think if LE had forcibly removed Tommy from his cell, Werter wouldn't have dropped these charges. too serious. So Tommy's allegations kind of remind me when he & Werter were adament that he hadn't talked to his GMFlo about Joe. He had talked to her & the recording proved it, & personally, I think a tape of this meeting would've done the same thing. proved, once again, that Tommy is a liar.
 
kamky said:
I do agree with you. But, it looks to me like this whole issue was a lot of posturing on Werter's part. He saw an opportunity and ran with it to get some sympathetic publicity for his client. There may have been a very minor infraction but not one that would have passed muster. Otherwise, I don't think we would have seen this "settled" so quickly.
Click to expand...

Agree, kamky - especially the statement I bolded.

Being sympathetic toward Tommy (for me) has been all but impossible since he and his Mom Lisa decided it would be okay to steal from the elderly blind man who had befriended him and the C's numerous times. Where was their compassion and humanity? Where was the concern for the old gentleman's rights? :furious:

I do not feel bad (morally) for my lack of concern for Tommy and the Croslins. From a legal standpoint - I want everything done by the book to ensure justice for Haleigh. Nothing to date concerns me about LE's actions.

Always, MOO
 
aksleuth said:
Now we know why his legal motion didn't make much sense. His response to my comment at You Tube was a bit more coherent, except the football reference :wink: :

ak: Mr. Werter, why are you not concerned about the rights of a poor innocent child, instead of worrying about the rights of a known liar and drug addict? For shame. You should be the first one pleading for Tommy Croslin to come clean and tell the truth so justice can be served for the CHILD.

werterlaw: This has been one of the most emotionally distressing cases of my 20 year career. But I stand by my oaths, the Bar, law enforcement and military, that everybody is entitled to those rights. Even you. However, the only thing that Tommy is guilty of, is succumbing to his own fears. Monday morning quarterbacking rarely is applicable.

Notice, he made no mention of THE CHILD. Why does he think I'd need his services? Heck, I'd call Jose Baez first! :crazy:
Click to expand...
When you consider that an adversarial justice system such as we enjoy in the United States, where two opposing parties follow a pre-determined set of rules which ensures fairness by affording both sides an equal advantage, the sports reference is fitting, IMO. Just as sports fans who spout off about what they perceive as bad calls made against their teams, as members of crime forums with a particular concern for victims, our criticism of legal proceedings is often uninformed and seldom impartial.
 
I wouldn't shed a tear or lose a moments sleep over any of them. I don't care if their cells are sweltering in the heat, freezing when it's cold, the commode over flows, there are bed bugs or roaches in the food. ALL of that is a much better fate than it seems Haleigh met.
IMO we are too polictly correct & nice in this country. I know it's "innocent until proven guilty" & no one's talking, at least not in any truthful sense. However, I have to wonder if were reveresed & "guilty until proven innocent" how the tongues would wag. I betcha one would give up the other in that case. Works for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 219 more.
Total: 4,253 (members: 220, guests: 4,033)

Online statistics

Members online
220
Guests online
4,033
Total visitors
4,253
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
595,893
Messages
18,036,351
Members
229,821
Latest member
BHoca
Back
Top