Theories on what happened to Haleigh

[Indigo]

There is something else that strikes me at times. For such a brief relationship, there appears to be much unity or solidarity between dad and gf--since initial appearance of anger during 911 calls, we've seen no further questioning at any time by dad of gf's story. What do others here think of possibility of co-complicity on perhaps some indirect level by dad and gf? Wish we knew dad's exact hours he reported to work because I continue wondering whether earlier in the day, either that afternoon or before dad actually left for work, could they possibly have both left children thus feel they share culpability for some sort of accident or abduction? We need to know exactly when dad left... and exactly when gf arrived! Was there perhaps a "grey area" of responsibility (ie such as changing of the guards between mom and dad when dad was supposed to be watching but mom discovered Haleigh face down in canal?) I'm not implicating either directly, only asking whether it's possible he may have been still trying to round up his babysitter while running late for work (and why was he there to get Haleigh off bus at 3:20 eg if his shift reportedly began at 3:00?), maybe puts in movies for the kids and tells them, "Misty will be here in a minute" but that "minute" turns into 45... or a few hours... ? And maybe this is why he asked someone to stop by and check on them a while later at some point? Of course a parent who took such a chance would indeed bear full responsibility, but if she failed to show up on time and whether or not she ever admitted to dad, neither would want this to jeopardize dad's custody and it may just be a case of unspoken but implicit shared blame. JMO

arrot:

ITA, with the strange solidarity between these two (just posted the same observation on a different thread) Where I run into trouble with this "changing of the guards" scenario is when considering that to tell the truth was to possibly find Haleigh. To delay and lie might mean a death sentence for her.

When Ron and Misty weighed these two outcomes, Haleigh's life should have mattered more to them than custody of the children. If not...well that's another theory.

 

[kikid]

There is something else that occurs to me. For such a brief relationship, there appears to be much unity or solidarity between dad and gf--since initial appearance of anger during 911 calls, we have seen no further questioning at any time by dad of gf's story. What do others here think of possibility of co-complicity on perhaps some indirect level by dad and gf? Wish we knew dad's exact hours he reported to work because I can't help wondering whether earlier in the day, that afternoon after picking up Haleigh from busstop but before dad actually left for work, could possibly neither have been there for children thus feel they share culpability for some sort of accident or abduction? We need to know since beginning his new late shift starting at 3 pm was dad usually the one expected to pick up Haleigh from her 3:20 bus? And we need to know exactly when dad left that day... and exactly when gf arrived! Could there have been perhaps a "grey area" of responsibility--such as eg changing of the guards between mom and dad when dad was allegedly supposed to have assumed responsibility--but shortly after which mom discovers poor Haleigh face down in canal? I'm not implicating either directly, only asking whether it's possible he may have been still trying to round up his babysitter while running late for work (and why was he there to get Haleigh off bus at 3:20 anyway if his shift reportedly began at 3:00?), maybe puts in movies for the kids and tells them, "Misty will be here in a minute" but that "minute" turns into 45... or a few hours... ? Maybe this is why dad asked someone to "stop by and check on the kids" later at some point? Was there a landline he could have even tried calling in such an instance to verify whether she was there? Of course a parent who took such a chance would indeed bear full responsibility but if she failed to show up on time as agreed, and whether or not she ever admitted exactly when to dad, neither would want this to jeopardize dad's custody--and it may just be a case of unspoken but implicit shared blame. JMO

arrot:

I thought his shift started at 4:30. I read it on another thread (sorry can't remember which one), the poster stated they called his place of employment and asked the number of shifts and hours for each shift.

 

[kiki the parrot]

ITA, with the strange solidarity between these two (just posted the same observation on a different thread) Where I run into trouble with this "changing of the guards" scenario is when considering that to tell the truth was to possibly find Haleigh. To delay and lie might mean a death sentence for her.

When Ron and Misty weighed these two outcomes, Haleigh's life should have mattered more to them than custody of the children. If not...well that's another theory.

Yes as we both recognize, should have mattered more. Except maybe if one figured there was any chance of their child still being found, or if one bore some responsibility but was still holding onto a hope in h#[[ of maintaining custody of the second child... it's just really hard to tell what fears, priorities or values may be motivating someone kwim... :waitasec:

I thought his shift started at 4:30. I read it on another thread (sorry can't remember which one), the poster stated they called his place of employment and asked the number of shifts and hours for each shift.

Thank you We still don't really know tho that Misty arrived in time or before dad left... JMO

 

[kikid]

Thank you We still don't really know tho that Misty arrived in time or before dad left... JMO

no we don't know. I just wanted to share what I'd read about his work hours. I think that if his shift began at 4:30, it makes it more possible Ron could have done something (or neglected to do something) before leaving for work.

 

[kiki the parrot]

no we don't know. I just wanted to share what I'd read about his work hours. I think that if his shift began at 4:30, it makes it more possible Ron could have done something (or neglected to do something) before leaving for work.

Ok I see what you're saying, even if he had reported by that time, this still allows a window of time. I also remember hearing (in what is thus far only rumor, by a number of people but never officially substantiated) that dad had to find Misty after she'd allegedly been on three-day binge (over what was presumably dad's weekend), while we've heard little if anything about Misty's day w dad or Junior, either her whereabouts or activities earlier that day... Guess I'm also still somewhat skeptical that gf of just five months would agree, or be trusted by dad, to cover or be capable of concealing from LE for this length of time direct knowledge of a death, disposal, cover-up etc. But I'm just thinking aloud... JMO
arrot:

 

[kikid]

Ok I see what you're saying, even if he had reported by that time, this still allows a window of time. I also remember hearing (in what is thus far only rumor, by a number of people but never officially substantiated) that dad had to find Misty after she'd allegedly been on three-day binge (over what was presumably dad's weekend), while we've heard little if anything about Misty's day w dad or Junior, either her whereabouts or activities earlier that day... Guess I'm also still somewhat skeptical that gf of just five months would agree, or be trusted by dad, to cover or be capable of concealing from LE for this length of time direct knowledge of a death, disposal, cover-up etc. But I'm just thinking aloud... JMO
arrot:

I know I keep asking myself, who would lie for & cover up for Misty? for Ron?

Why would Ron not blame Misty at this point? He acted as though he was angry with her and blamed her during the 911 call, I'd think those emotions would have grown rather than disappeared.

Why would Ron cover for Misty? I don't think he would, unless he felt guilty or was complicit.

Why would Misty cover for Ron? Fear? Love? Guilt?

Why would family members lie? (I'm not saying they are lying, just asking who would cover for who?) parents will lie for their kids sometimes. Sometimes siblings will cover for one another. Although I can't say i think any of the family (Ron's) is lying at this point.

I sure wish we had access to phone records!!!

 

[tehcloser]

I know I keep asking myself, who would lie for & cover up for Misty? for Ron?

Why would Ron not blame Misty at this point? He acted as though he was angry with her and blamed her during the 911 call, I'd think those emotions would have grown rather than disappeared.

Why would Ron cover for Misty? I don't think he would, unless he felt guilty or was complicit.

Why would Misty cover for Ron? Fear? Love? Guilt?

Why would family members lie? (I'm not saying they are lying, just asking who would cover for who?) parents will lie for their kids sometimes. Sometimes siblings will cover for one another. Although I can't say i think any of the family (Ron's) is lying at this point.

I sure wish we had access to phone records!!!

My very first thoughts about this was Misty and her Brother T. His van, he lives close....he would help her especially if she had been hanging out with him and something happened to Haleigh. I think he would be motivated by fear....KWIM?

 

[MeoW333]

The blanket thing needs to be revisited. There are three blankets in question.

Haleigh's blanket:
1. peed on the night before and Misty was washing it
2. peed on that night and Misty was washing it
3. had crime scene evidence on it and Misty was washing it

Misty's blanket:
1. left in the van so she washes a window blanket instead of going outside to get it.
2. left in the van so she washes a window blanket instead of getting it because the van is not there (but it does return)
3. used to transport Haleigh to the van and left there (meaning the van was returned after disposing of her)

Window blanket:
1. washed to be used as a replacement for Misty's blanket (that she didn't want to walk outside to get OR is in the van that is no longer there
2. used to transport Haleigh and then returned along with the van and washed by Misty
3. washed because it had evidence on it

Wondering if anyone can see a window near Haleigh's bed that would have held the blanket??

Was Misty even home the night before to know that Haleigh "peed" on the blanketIf Haleigh did wet the blanket, it would be dry by nighttime anyhow, so why do the wash then and not earlier in the day? That way she wouldn't have had to take a blanket off the window to begin with; she's making more work for herself.

 

[kikid]

My very first thoughts about this was Misty and her Brother T. His van, he lives close....he would help her especially if she had been hanging out with him and something happened to Haleigh. I think he would be motivated by fear....KWIM?

how old are his kids? fear of losing his kids (if haleigh got into someone's stash or something of that nature) may be just enough to make him help and keep him quiet! or fear of Ron, although I doubt that - the pics I saw of her brothers look like they're just as hard if not harder than Ron.

 

[kikid]

My very first thoughts about this was Misty and her Brother T. His van, he lives close....he would help her especially if she had been hanging out with him and something happened to Haleigh. I think he would be motivated by fear....KWIM?

one other thought, his wife is going to school to be an lpn - not sure how that would fit in here.... but just thought it was interesting if we are talking about an "Accident" in the home....

 

[kiki the parrot]

In situations where there is culpability on any level there's likely a strong tendency to deny responsibility altogether. If dad had no prior knowledge until arriving home, gf was no doubt afraid of being blamed by dad for the slightest infraction including leaving a door unlocked--and certainly letting cuz and co. come by the house. I'm sure in such a situation she would've realized only too well that she could either be viewed by dad and LE as having nearly been another potential innocent victim--or as being complicit by putting his child in harm's way. While it seems dad never considered gf a suspect he was clearly accusing Misty of negligence in those angry 911 calls. No acknowledging, "Omg you and Jr. could've been hurt," instead dad instantly blames her on some level... had there been negligence before? I don't think it was a planned B&E but a crime of sheer opportunity. SO's often lurk until an opportunity presents itself. Like I said, it's so brazen I think someone quite possibly either left Misty incapacitated, had been there earlier or had some other possible "reason" for being in the home had they been caught. The culpability on gf's part that she could be hiding may be having had some less than upstanding people over, and failing to stay in an alert frame of mind. JMO

arrot:

 

[winterrose]

I wish we had a thread for "what can we learn if this was neither parent".Looking at that video and seeing how easy it would be for a SO.My goodness all the whole family's lives have been laid out and it could be any one of them.But the thing I would stress in any of our households with children,especially is,secure your home.Do not give opportunity.This child wasn't decked out as an adult and paraded like a Barbie Doll as Jon Benet,but SO's do not care.It's our responsibility to protect our children.

 

[gypsyblue]

IMO If Le would just go with what they DO HAVE from day one, and quit looking for other things that MAY have happened, they would have already in my opinion had a suspect.....Maybe arrest some people for reasonable suspicion from day one and they might have had a suspect and possibly Haleigh by now.JMOO

 

[Crazy Canuck]

There has been a lot of focus on the family members in this case because of their lifestyle choices. I would like to remind everyone of the Groenes. In the early days of the investigation, there was a lot of discussion about the possiblity of a drug related abduction because both parents were known to do drugs. As well, an older brother was in jail. I think everyone was pretty blown away when little Shasta turned up with a SO.

I really don't think either parents or Misty are directly responsible or know where she is but who knows?

It is quite possible that it was a stranger abduction or abduction by one of the SO relatives.

 

[Helplessly Hoping]

I am not that well versed in how tracking dogs works work so maybe someone can help me out here. They used the sheets to get her scent but if Haleigh had been playing outside during the day--wouldn't that attract the dogs too. TIA

 

[AlwaysShocked]

From an article on cadaver dogs:

"One of the questions surrounding human cadaver dogs is how soon after death they can recognise a corpse, and how long a "fresh" corpse must remain in one place for a dog to detect that it has been there. In a study published last year, the forensic pathologist Lars Oesterhelweg, then at the University of Bern in Switzerland, and colleagues tested the ability of three Hamburg State Police cadaver dogs to pick out – of a line-up of six new carpet squares – the one that had been exposed for no more than 10 minutes to a recently deceased person.

Several squares had been placed beneath a clothed corpse within three hours of death, when some organs and many cells of the human body are still functioning. Over the next month, the dogs did hundreds of trials in which they signalled the contaminated square with 98 per cent accuracy, falling to 94 per cent when the square had been in contact with the corpse for only two minutes. The research concluded that cadaver dogs were an "outstanding tool" for crime-scene investigation."


Full article: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...uth-behind-the-crimescene-canines-835047.html

 

[kiki the parrot]

I am not that well versed in how tracking dogs works work so maybe someone can help me out here. They used the sheets to get her scent but if Haleigh had been playing outside during the day--wouldn't that attract the dogs too. TIA

For HH if you're asking re trailing and tracking dogs--I'd researched and posted in this thread (Post #400). Here's a recap of articles, w links:

"Trailing Dogs are trained to follow a specific human scent, which may or may not approximate the path the person took because of factors affecting the dispersal of scent such as wind and temperature. To start trailing a specific individual, the dog needs a scent article that the person has directly handled. The dog is then started on the trail at the point where the victim was last seen (PLS). Trailing dogs will follow the route of scent deposited on the ground as a person moves through an area. This deposited scent trail is affected by wind and other weather conditions so the dog may not follow the person's exact footsteps. The trailing dog may work parallel to the path the individual actually walked. A trained trailing dog can follow the steps of someone who passed by several days earlier, discriminate between it and another's trail, and follow it over hills and through marshland. Dogs can even trail people in cars, from the scent that blows out of the window or through the vents of the car..."


"The trailing dog is often referred to as a "tracking" dog although tracking and trailing are not exactly the same. The trailing dog is directed to find a specific person as he or she travels. These heavier-than-air particles, which contain this person's scent, will normally be close to the ground or on nearby foliage, so the trailing dog will frequently have its "nose to the ground," unlike the air scent dog.

A bloodhound is typically trained for scent discrimination. Each dog is usually worked in a harness, on a leash, and given an uncontaminated scent article (such as a piece of clothing) belonging to the missing person. The dog follows that scent and no other. At times, the dog may track, following the person's footsteps, or air scent, and hone in on the subject's scent.

Field contamination (scent of others) should not affect his work. He should be able to trail scents on pavements, grass, water etc. If there is a good scent article and a point where the person was last seen, these dogs can work effectively.

Tracking dog is trained to follow the path of a certain person. It physically tracks the path of the person, without relying upon air scenting. This dog is usually worked in a harness and on leash. This type of dog is effective when pursuing an escaped criminal if no scent article is available. These dogs are also used successfully in search and rescue operations.

A cadaver dog reacts to the scent of a dead human. The dog can be trained for above ground and buried cadaver searches. Although many dogs have the potential to detect human scent, whether dead or alive, the cadaver dog is trained to locate only human remains. The training process includes detection of very minute pieces of cadaver or even blood drops in a specified area."


http://www.ussartf.org/dogs_search_rescue.htm

http://www.westjerseyk9.org/types/index.html

arrot:

 

[Onthetrail]

Finally, at least televised tours of Haleigh's home provide some clarification. While we know nothing further about KEYS, we have at least now seen rear doors so know now eg exterior wooden door is inswinging (vs outswinging); and that cinderblock eg was indeed needed to prop door open (vs shut); that exterior wooden door does appear to at least close w/out use of deadbolt from inside (making it unnecessary eg for Misty to prop cinderblock against either wooden or screen door to keep closed in the event she left). As was pointed out, I too find it interesting that inswinging wood door falls naturally closed, given that both gf and dad both reported rear door was found "wide open" (?) And despite speculation that laundry could have been in rear entry (due to proximity to washer/dryer) I don't recall any mention by either Misty or dad of having found laundry or anything else used in this manner. But it does seem clearer than ever now that someone would have to have either left Misty in an extremely incapacitated condition--or had some other justification for being in the home, had they been caught. On neither GVS or NG's tour did I catch any footage of Haleigh's own personal room, or wherever children's toys and things were kept (did I miss??) Where did children play, very stark through areas shown (perhaps all reminders of Haleigh were removed by family upon re-entering, but other rooms were not even shown). I'd like to know how many of the lights were on in the home, and what Misty was wearing when LE arrived. I'd also still like to be able to see proximity of home to outbuilding, inside outbuilding itself, and exactly what LE found that might reveal what if any activities--by children or adults--may have been taking place there. I'd like to know more re vehicle LE impounded. But especially still to know what KEYS Misty or dad were able to produce the am in question. Anybody else refine their theories at all after house tour/s? JMO

arrot:

The tour of the home on NG was interesting and informative...but why did we not see the other rooms in the house and the FRONT DOOR too. I think too much attention is paid to back door and I think that it was staged!! Not very well but it sure has kept out attention away from the front door. What kind of lock was on that door? Was it locked? How about the front porch?
I did see two locks on back door. Did the front door have a dead bolt? Someone could have entered via front door and left by the back door!!
When Ron was first interviewed he said the back door had a little "plastic lock, like the screen door lock." I remember that quite well.
Too much info given in 911 call, changing stories by Ron, Misty, Sykes, and others.
...Ron's initial anger at Misty seems to have vanished quickly
...Staged back door scene
...Sykes visit at 7pm and weather too cold for kids to be on porch eating
...The blanket story
...Ron says there was no fight, his mom and grandma says there was
...The dumpster hit
...Does the van belong to Misty (a homeless girl without a job) or to her brother

I hope it turns out well but it does not look good. So many children are neglected and a huge number disappear and are never seen again!
Sad.

 

[Skully]

I just want to say something about Ron denying any fight when we know there was one; according to Misty, and her parents.

If and this is a if, Misty staged the back door to "look" like JO, did this, because she thought he did it while she was gone, Ron would fear that JO would maybe killl her if he thought LE or Ron was out to get him. And if it wasn't staged and Misty did find the house like that, door, Haleigh gone, she would think it was JO, because of his record, this was his MO for break ins, and his tendency for little girls. I don't know if JO has a SO record, so I am saying tendency.

I would lie too, if I thought it would save my daughters life. His 911 call felt like she had already said something to him about JO. His statement on TV, recanting the "I will kill you" to I just want my daughter back, no revenge.

 

[Helplessly Hoping]

I just want to say something about Ron denying any fight when we know there was one; according to Misty, and her parents.

If and this is a if, Misty staged the back door to "look" like JO, did this, because she thought he did it while she was gone, Ron would fear that JO would maybe killl her if he thought LE or Ron was out to get him. And if it wasn't staged and Misty did find the house like that, door, Haleigh gone, she would think it was JO, because of his record, this was his MO for break ins, and his tendency for little girls. I don't know if JO has a SO record, so I am saying tendency.



I would lie too, if I thought it would save my daughters life. His 911 call felt like she had already said something to him about JO. His statement on TV, recanting the "I will kill you" to I just want my daughter back, no revenge.

TO me what is curious about this denial is that later his mother, TN, acknowledges it happened. It is as if his mother needs to okay everything first. MOO