Misty C #6

[elle1919]

I believe the first use of the word "stole" came from RC himself during the 911 call, as an aside to Misty. I think it went something along the line of "how could you let my child get stole, beotch!". It was in a distressed, highpitched, whiney, breathy voice. I remember it because it was the first time my hinky meter topped the chart. I also wondered if he had already drunk the beer he picked up on the way home. Its not uncommon for night shift workers and long distance drivers to drink beer after work to put themselves to sleep. The hops in beer is a medicinal herb that has been used to induce sleep throughout the ages. Any idea if LE breathalized him, or 'tried' to, that night? Maybe its partially why he was so unable/unwilling to give 911 and responding LE information that night/morning.

Good Morning. Welcome to WS by the way, I am looking forward to your views and idea's on Haleigh's disappearance.

Yes, we get quite a visual just by listening to the 911 call and also by reading the information in the police report. It seems as though you have read the PR, probably over and over again as many have, I don't remember reading any police narratives that refer to RC as being under the influence of alcohol, or exhibiting physical characteristics that would warrant a breathalyzer test to be administered. I for one hope that LE in Putnam County are trained to observe and immediately recognize those warning signs and make note of them in their police narratives.

Since we see no mention of such on the police report I hope that we can take that as a sign that no such physical characteristics were noted. I am interested in understanding your statement with regard to RC being unwilling to give information to the police officer. In my opinion there is quite a difference in being UNABLE as opposed to UNWILLING to give information. Is there any particular narrative or report that made you feel that way?

 

[kamky]

Blue,

If he did that, everyone would be even more convinced he was protecting her and it was some kind of pay off.... She can't win here, and neither can he. Misty really needs to tell what she knows. I don't know why she wouldn't stay up in TN with the grandmother either. The only reason to come back here is Ron. Maybe she thinks she can still get this to work out.

Hi Bern, I think the compelling reason that Misty came back to FL was to reunite with her family. She is a product of this environment and it is what she knows. I think she went to her grandmother's in TN only because she needed a safe (& cheap) place to stay until the RO was lifted and she could move in with Tommy, Lindsy, and her mom & dad. It would have been more expensive to travel all the way to MA to stay with Timmy & Chelsea until she returned from FL.

IMO, there is one big reason Misty has come back to FL and moved in with her family. It does not have anything to do with Ron or working out their relationship. IMO, Ron has finally seen the light and is moving on. The biggest reason to have returned is Tommy. It's becoming abundantly clear to me that this brother and sister have some knowledge between them, relating to the Haleigh case, that unites them. There is tension between them at times because of things each has said or done that affect the other. However, the bottom line is that there is a bond between them and they are more protected when they are together. Note that Misty is now surrounded by her security blanket, including Nay Nay. As rough and tumble this world might be, it's her world. JMO.

 

[Flossie JMO]

Jmo of course, but, RC knew she was an uneducated minor with drug addiction problems

bbm, I am not sure why this is posted as fact, this is an allegation and rumor at this point.

 

[Whisperer]

think we can safely say that Misty and Ron are not amateurs in the drug world. Whether they use it, abuse it or have knowlege of it, it is part of them, imo.

It also appears that some are taking the Police report as fact concering what they don't see on it.

A LE incident report is NOT an investiagative report. Responding officers do not investigate the scene. The bare and basic facts that they can observe and listen to are reported. they do make judgements nor do they test for drugs or write even if they suspect them. It is an eye and ears report only....BARE facts of observation is what is found on report. All we know is who was there and who they spoke to at the scene. times are sometimes off because they write the report in completion after they are all done. They review their notes and if two things occur around the same time, it is not always clear of the exact minute. Close but not always accurate. These are the only BARE facts we have. They write what the witnesses tell them and make no judgments. Detectives follow up. We have never seen their observations and findings. Furthermore the statements and information given by witnesses are not always accurate. Many People lie for various reasons during this time. The only thing we know for sure is what the officer observed at that moment in time with no assumptions on the LE's part.

 

[OneLove]

Good Morning. Welcome to WS by the way, I am looking forward to your views and idea's on Haleigh's disappearance.

Yes, we get quite a visual just by listening to the 911 call and also by reading the information in the police report. It seems as though you have read the PR, probably over and over again as many have, I don't remember reading any police narratives that refer to RC as being under the influence of alcohol, or exhibiting physical characteristics that would warrant a breathalyzer test to be administered. I for one hope that LE in Putnam County are trained to observe and immediately recognize those warning signs and make note of them in their police narratives.

Since we see no mention of such on the police report I hope that we can take that as a sign that no such physical characteristics were noted. I am interested in understanding your statement with regard to RC being unwilling to give information to the police officer. In my opinion there is quite a difference in being UNABLE as opposed to UNWILLING to give information. Is there any particular narrative or report that made you feel that way?

Thank you for your kind welcome. I've loved Websleuths silently from the bleachers for a long, long time.

As to possible alchohol intoxication that night, I am not insinuating that he was drunk, just possible that he could have been and the signs of it written off as due to the stress of the situation. You can certainly hear that in his voice on the 911 call.

Same concept with the unable/unwilling to give information. I used both as an either/or because it would be impossible to differentiate between them in this situation. I have seen this extensively over the years in my line of work.....using dramatics and hysteria to bird-walk away from the issue at hand. Again, I am not saying this is what I think RC did, just that it is certainly a possibility that cannot be proven or disproven. If innocent and unknowledgable as to what had happened to Haleigh before he arrived, he could have been genuinely too distraught to aid LE, although few (sober) parents in similar situations behave in this manner.

Being attached to defending EITHER 'unable' OR 'unwilling' (to aid LE) would show a distinct and curious bias, which of course then leads to further pondering. KWIM?

Peace to all ...

 

[curvecuti]

IMO, LE has had enough dealings w/ intoxicated persons that they would have been able to easily detect if RC was intoxicated that night.

 

[debs]

Its not illegal to be drunk in one's own home. However, I would still like to know whether Misty ever received a tox screening.

 

[curvecuti]

Its not illegal to be drunk in one's own home. However, I would still like to know whether Misty ever received a tox screening.

True, but if he was, I believe it would have been noted in the report.

 

[debs]

True, but if he was, I believe it would have been noted in the report.

I'm not particularly worried about that; I'm wondering about whether Misty was given a tox screen. Do you think they'd have done that as a matter of routine?

 

[OneLove]

IMO, LE has had enough dealings w/ intoxicated persons that they would have been able to easily detect if RC was intoxicated that night.

Under the circumstances, no. The "distress" could have easily masked intoxication. Only a breathalizer or blood alcohol test could have given a definitive answer to that. LE guesswork would not stand up in court either. I will also add that I have seen people come to their court dates intoxicated and not be "detected" by experienced LE. Happens more than you would like to know.

 

[curvecuti]

Under the circumstances, no. The "distress" could have easily masked intoxication. Only a breathalizer or blood alcohol test could have given a definitive answer to that. LE guesswork would not stand up in court either. I will also add that I have seen people come to their court dates intoxicated and not be "detected" by experienced LE. Happens more than you would like to know.

No offense but LE is specifically trained to detect intoxicated persons. Especially in "stressed" situations. Standardized Field Sobriety Testing is a mandated in-service course in the state of NC, and probably something similar is required in other states. It is a 40 hr. class that covers specifically detecting intoxicated persons and further testing if they are believed to be intoxicated. And I am not speaking of court personnel, I am speaking of Law Enforcement Officers. If LE suspected that night that RC was intoxicated it would have been further investigated, especially as to how & why, since he had just gotten home from work. This info. would have been included in the incident report. All moo.

 

[curvecuti]

I'm not particularly worried about that; I'm wondering about whether Misty was given a tox screen. Do you think they'd have done that as a matter of routine?

As routine, no, unless the officers on the scene felt she was "under the influence". I wish it was a matter of routine to tox screen everyone at the scene of a missing child, i.e. Shaniya Davis.

 

[Whisperer]

If noticed it would not be put in the report. the LE report is an objective one, not the LE"s subjective views.

 

[curvecuti]

If noticed it would not be put in the report. the LE report is an objective one, not the LE"s subjective views.

Yes it would have, i.e., subject appeared to be under the influence. And then what further testing was done or if the subject refused testing. LE doesn't just make this up as they go, there is protocol.

 

[PorcineGranny]

Also, as distressed and not knowing what crime was committed and if a crime was actually committed, I think maybe it was up to the investigating officer who may not have decided to give a tox screen. I'm pretty sure in NC it was not automatically done. JMO LE in this case was either sheriff or police. If it had been State Highway Patrol, I think you would have seen more interest in a sobriety test.

I want to add this gross note since I read Curvi's note. It would have been noted on the original warrant that subject appearted intoxicated while having sex with chicken. This is in violation of ordinance xxxxxxxx of the State of N.C. Now, I have actually seen this. The sheriffi's dept was the arresting dept and they did not do a sobriety test, but rather left it to the DA to determine intoxication based on defendants testimony.

 

[Whisperer]

IF a chld is missing and that is the report and the two people are talking, they are not going to write in the report about a missing child that these two parents were on drugs. The word "appears" is done for a reason. It is not a testimony of fact.

I have written incident reports in the past and I do and could not have passed judgement on R or M the night in question in a simple LE incident report. We have not been privy to the investigative report where these things may have been written with the word"appears". That is subjective, not objective claims. An incident report is an objective report.

 

[Whisperer]

If the victim of a crime appeared drunk as a skunk, it would still be up to the investigating officers to do a drug screen (better have a real good reason) not the responding officers. I am talking about arriving at a situation where a child is missing not a house call on welfare checks or odd behaviors. Since RC was uncooperative, if were offered a screen, I am sure he would have refused. At this point he and M are victims, not perps. I am not familiar with officers giving drug and alcohol tests to victims frequently.

Testing parents of missing children at the scene of the crime for drugs and alcohol is not the way it goes down....sorry.

 

[curvecuti]

IF a chld is missing and that is the report and the two people are talking, they are not going to write in the report about a missing child that these two parents were on drugs. The word "appears" is done for a reason. It is not a testimony of fact.

I have written incident reports in the past and I do and could not have passed judgement on R or M the night in question in a simple LE incident report. We have not been privy to the investigative report where these things may have been written with the word"appears". That is subjective, not objective claims. An incident report is an objective report.

Just curious, do you mean you have written criminal investigation incident reports, or an incident report, such as a work related injury incident report?

I assure you in a criminal investigation report if someone involved at the scene of an alleged crime appears to be intoxicated it will be noted in the report. I can only speak from experience of NC LE, but I would think this is SP in any department.

Suppose LE was called to a missing child scene and one of the parents was intoxicated, this could be vital info. and the responding officers better make note of it in the report. If they do not and it goes to court and the officer is called to testify and he is asked if anyone at the initial scene was intoxicated and/or under the influence, and his answer is yes, one of the parents appeared to be, and it's not noted in his initial report, somebody is going to be in hot water.

 

[kellync]

Just curious, do you mean you have written criminal investigation incident reports, or an incident report, such as a work related injury incident report?

I assure you in a criminal investigation report if someone involved at the scene of an alleged crime appears to be intoxicated it will be noted in the report. I can only speak from experience of NC LE, but I would think this is SP in any department.

Suppose LE was called to a missing child scene and one of the parents was intoxicated, this could be vital info. and the responding officers better make note of it in the report. If they do not and it goes to court and the officer is called to testify and he is asked if anyone at the initial scene was intoxicated and/or under the influence, and his answer is yes, one of the parents appeared to be, and it's not noted in his initial report, somebody is going to be in hot water.

Wonder if they thought Misty was intoxicated or sober as a judge? LOL
She had been on a three day bender, and possibly, if you believe the hype, she was getting high with her bro that day and God knows what else, right? So, in theory, she was probably sober enough that it wasnt noted on the report? I dont buy it.:innocent:

 

[curvecuti]

Wonder if they thought Misty was intoxicated or sober as a judge? LOL
She had been on a three day bender, and possibly, if you believe the hype, she was getting high with her bro that day and God knows what else, right? So, in theory, she was probably sober enough that it wasnt noted on the report? I dont buy it.:innocent:

You don't buy what? That Misty may have needed a drug tox?