Ronald Cummings Jailhouse Interview: Part 1

Reading Between the Lines



Read more

What Ronald Cummings says in this jailhouse interview is quite revealing.

Interviewer: Have they asked you about Haleigh yet…What happened?

RC: …They just told me that their main focus is not on putting me in jail, its about finding Haleigh.

Why would the police say that, if they didn’t think Cummings knew something? Does this make any sense? It reveals to us that the police clearly believe Cummings knows more than he is telling us.

If Cummings was being looked at unfairly, you would have expected him to say something like, “Look man, they have the wrong person. The person who took my child is still out there, other children are at risk. I worry about my son!!”

Have you ever noticed he never has worried his son? That’s another huge red flag–two in one sentence.

Cummings goes on to say, “The 911 call, I haven’t changed my mind about the 911 call since the minute it was made.”

What?

What would he change his mind about in the 911 call? The fact that Ronald thinks there is something he could have changed his mind about the 911 call is a concern for me. I wish the reporter would have delved into this more to see what Ronald would have said. I suspect he may have been talking about his threat to kill the abductor (because that is what this segues into, but one can never be sure).

He then babbles on that if he finds out who did it, he’ll go after them. It’s ridiculous babble, if you want my opinion. He says, “That still remains that it don’t matter 40-50 years from now, if I found out whoever done it before they do, you know whatever, might be done whether they took Haleigh because they took because they lost a child, or whatever the case might be, you know, uhm…yeah….”

The word “yeah” here is indicative that Ronald is thinking as he is talking and he is confirming things to himself as if, “Yeah, that’s right. That’s what I want to say.” It’s uncommon for people to do this. When people are deceptive, some have a habit of verbal confirming to themselves that they are saying what they wanted to say. It’s like there is a cognitive overload, and their thoughts of self-censoring slip out unconsciously. I’ve seen it multiple times.

In his ramblings, Cummings talks about how someone “stole” his child. Later on, however, he talks about how if Haleigh is found it will be because someone is reporting a “homicide”. He says:

“They know I won’t be the first ones to know. I wouldn’t call’em or nothing else. They would probably be notified by the news media or…or somebody, you know…report’en a homicide, so that’s how they’ll know I haven’t found anything.”

Ronald is all over in what he believes. One minute he suggests someone may have stolen his daughter to replace their missing child. The next, he talks someone took his daughter and if she is found ,it will be cause it is a homicide. The two are contradictory. He seems to change his position as the wind blows… Then when the interviewer questions if Cummings is talking about him committing a homicide against the abductor, Cummings owns that, too, but that is clearly not what he was saying.

There is little sense to what Cummings says. When people have genuine feelings, their beliefs are consistent one way or another, or they don’t own anything, if they are ambiguous. They don’t blow in the wind like Cummings is here. Deceptive people often do this…

Interviewer: …Do you think she (Misty) know more?

RC: That’s a hard question to answer….It’s hard to believe that she don’t know more, but…It’s also hard to believe that if she did know more, she didn’t already talk, you know…especially if they got her locked up like they got me locked up…

Notice the pauses? They are suggestive that he is thinking as he speaks (hot spot for deception), rather than talking from his heart.

Cummings behavior towards Croslin is just crazy. If he truly was not involved and didn’t know anything, he would be demanding the truth from Croslin. But he never has. Instead, he insanely defends her which makes no sense whatsoever, unless they are both in on this. His reply above is just more senseless ramble, if you want my opinion.

And the idea that Crolin will talk in prison could still happen, but Cummings may have scared her that if she does, she could face the death penalty. That would be enough for Cummings to be confident that Croslin will never talk. Life in prison or the death penalty? I think the choice would be easy for most people: Keep your mouth shut.

Cummings says interestingly, “I want my girlfriend to know I love her.” Did Ron get a new girlfriend or is that a message for Misty (that he is still loyal to her so she stays loyal to him)???

This is plain creepy!

Thanks, KC, for the story lead.

Morgan Harrington’s Remains Found?

Skeletal remains found on a Virginia farm are suspected to be Morgan Harrington’s. Have you seen the sad news?

View of rolling hills in a rural setting

Read more here…

Ronald Cummings-Misty Croslin Arrested

Ronald Cummings and Misty Croslin were arrested last night after attempting to sell prescription drugs to investigators.

Thinkstock Single Images

From www.Jacksonville.com:

Misty Croslin, 18, faces six counts of trafficking in prescription medications, while Ronald Cummings, 26, is charged with three counts. Hank Croslin Jr., who is Misty’s brother, Sykes and Brock each face one count of trafficking in prescription medications.

You can read more here. Thanks to those of you who sent this story update!

Baby Gabriel’s Babysitter

Nancy Grace had on a woman who claims to have babysat baby Gabriel in December for Elizabeth Johnson. Her story, which seems credible to me, doesn’t look good for baby Gabriel. According to the babysitter, he was scared, dirty, without toys and Elizabeth said if he cried too much, to just drug him (that he was already drugged up!). Elizabeth picked the babysitter from Craiglist and didn’t know a thing about her, according to the babysitter.

Many of you have asked me to share my thoughts on the Smiths. I did so here on my Topic Suggestion Page.

A Word of Caution

(First published February 2009)

What is so fascinating about the Bruce Mullenix in the video is his body language when he speaks. After Erin Moriarity says Bruce had a “rock solid alibi” the night of the murder, if you only watched Bruce’s body language and tried to discern if he was honest or not here, you would likely conclude Bruce was being deceptive. He shakes his head no when he says yes, and he shrugs his shoulders when he says “Yeah, and I knew that” to Erin Moriarity.

Man with pensive expression

Read moreYet Bruce is NOT lying here. If you thought he was, you’d be clearly mistaken.

The reason I point this out is because there is not one universal clue to deception, and I want people to see this conclusively. Yes, shrugging of the shoulder, or shaking of the head opposite to verbal clues can indicate deception, but when you see it, it doesn’t always mean that someone is being deceptive.

We know that what Bruce is saying here is the truth. The police made him a suspect, their number one suspect at the time, and cleared him. Bruce Mullenix was also out of town when his ex-wife, Barbara, was murdered. And to back it all up, I believed Bruce when I saw him talk. His behaviors were very consistent with what he was saying to me.

Well, how could that be, you ask?

For me, deception detection is not all about the clues. I can’t stress that enough. When I look at a person, I have an immediate sense of their personality. I don’t know if it is facial features, or expressions, but I can usually tell people many facts about a stranger with stunning accuracy, without ever saying a word to them — by simply looking at them, or a photo of them (see what I call paralleling). With that, I listen to what a person says, to see if it matches their personality type, and their typical, expected behavior. That’s how I come to the conclusion whether someone’s behavior is natural and honest, or deceptive, much of the time. The clues only come as supportive evidence for me.

Dr. Maureen O’Sullivan says it best when she says, “They [wizards otherwise known as naturals] seem to have templates of people that they use to make sense of the behavioural deviations they observe… So it is not a set of disembodied cues, but embedded behaviours that are consistent with each other as well as with the kind of person exhibiting them (source).”

So next time you spot a clue to deception, don’t be quick to call someone a liar by one or two clues alone. The process is a lot more complex than what it appears on the surface. I personally recommend focusing on the facts and looking for inconsistencies, first. That will be much more reliable and trustworthy for the average person. Had we done that in this case as well, Bruce would have been cleared quickly, and focus would have fallen where it should, on Rachael Mullenix and Ian Allen.