Levi Page Guest Posts for WCI Tomorrow

by Levi Page

He’s been a longtime friend of the WCI contributors, and tomorrow, BlogTalk Radio show host and blogger, Levi Page, will guest post here, at Women in Crime Ink. 

Levi started his career as the relatively obscure BlogTalk Radio show host of War on Crime before he catapulted to host of the highly popular Levi Page Show on BlogTalkRadio.com, where Levi and a panel of experts from diverse perspectives give their take on the crime stories that hit home.

Levi has been covering some of the most high profile crime stories since starting his BlogTalk Radio show in 2008, including the Casey Anthony murder case, the Haleigh Cummings investigation, the Kyron Horman investigation, Drew Peterson, Natalee Holloway, and most recently the Holly Bobo case.

Levi's scored exclusive interviews with the people at the center of the most talked about crime stories, including a rare interview with Misty Croslin, the last person to see missing Florida child Haleigh Cummings alive. Levi's passion for justice has earned him a loyal following. In addition to hosting his own show, he has made numerous appearances on HLN’s Issues with Jane Velez-Mitchell, Prime News with Vinnie Politan, and Nancy Grace to discuss high profile investigations and court cases.

You can listen to The Levi Page Show weeknights at 9pm EST/6pm PST at www.blogtalkradio.com/levipage

Tweet

Haleigh: Year Later, Only Questions

by Pat Brown

A year ago today, a little girl named Haleigh Cummings was reported missing at 3:30 in the morning by her father and his underage, live-in girlfriend. They said five-year-old Haleigh somehow vanished from her bed in their Satsuma, Florida, home.

The case remains a train wreck. A year later, Haleigh is still missing, and both her father, Ronald Cummings, and his girlfriend/wife/ex-wife, Misty Croslin, remain suspects in her disappearance.

 There are those who still believe Haleigh will be found, perhaps hidden by her biological mother or sold into a child sex ring. Most, however, believe Haleigh died that night and someone has gotten away with her murder, at least for the past year.

The perplexing question is WHO got away with what? What happened to Haleigh? Did she accidentally ingest and overdose on the drugs Ronald Cummings and Misty Croslin clearly were dealing and/or using? Did someone fail to keep an eye her, leaving her to toddle off  down the path behind the house and drown? Did someone get angry with her and kill her in a rage? Or did drug dealers steal and murder her as some sort of message to Daddy and Misty, his drug-dealing partner in crime?

Some of the facts of the case still remain sketchy, and the police haven’t been exactly forthcoming with details to fill the gaping holes in the story. We know Haleigh was last seen sometime on February 9th, the day before she vanished. We know Ron went to work that evening and Misty, then 17 years old, was allegedly watching five-year-old Haleigh and her two-year-old brother, both Ronald Cummings’s biological children with another woman.

Exactly when Ron went to work and what exact hours he can prove he was there have never been made clear. But, at 3:30 in the morning, Misty Croslin placed a phone call to 911:

"I can't find our daughter," Croslin said to the 911 operator, referring to Cummings’s daughter. "She was in her pajamas. We were sleeping."

Then Ronald told them:

"I just got home from work. My five-year-old daughter is gone. I need somebody to be here now," Cummings said. "If I find whoever has my daughter before y'all do, I'm killing them. I don't care. I'll spend the rest of my life in prison. ... I don't care."

Misty claimed the little girl disappeared out of the very room where she and the younger brother slept and was carted out the back door, which was found propped open with a cement block when the police arrived.  She said that she found the child missing when she got up to go to the bathroom and just then, Ronald arrived home. 

Although they seemed to check out the house, they didn’t appear to do much of a yard or neighborhood search, but called 911. While Misty tried to describe the child’s clothing, Ronald ranted about how his “dumb bitch girlfriend” had told him that his daughter was missing. Ronald repeatedly said someone had taken his child and that “when I find him, I will kill him.”

  

In the days, weeks, and month to follow, no trace of Haleigh is uncovered. Ronald and Misty spend little time searching for her and more time on watching TV, getting tattoos (that hideous one of Haleigh that looks like Chucky on his leg and the name of Ronnie on Misty’s back, even though they supposedly weren’t romantically involved any more), marrying each other, divorcing each other, and, finally, spending their valuable time dealing drugs and getting arrested. Now, both of them are likely heading to prison where certainly they won’t be able to find Haleigh. 

Through all of these shenanigans, Misty came out looking much worse than Ronald. She failed the polygraph and voice stress tests, couldn’t keep her story straight, and didn’t pull off too good of an act of despair. Ronald, on the other hand, gained a fairly strong fan club, people who believed he was at work when Haleigh went missing and cried convincingly on the 911 call and on camera.

But, finally, doubt is beginning to surface about Ronald’s character. He swore up and down to Geraldo that he had absolutely no involvement with drugs, and whaddya know, turns out he was a liar.

Okay. So now we know Ronnie is not a saint. And he lies. And he is a drug dealer. What else might Ronald be lying about? Let’s rewind back to the night Haleigh vanished. Here are some questions I have. What do you all think?

•  Does Ronald do enough of a search for Haleigh when he arrives home?
•  Do we have proof that Haleigh couldn’t have died before Ronald went to work?
•  Could Ronald have disposed of Haleigh’s body on the way to work, at the work location, or on the way home?
•  Could Ronald have instructed Misty to dump Haleigh’s body somewhere while he was at work so he would have an alibi?
•  Was Ronald faking sobs on the 911 call and during his television interviews?
•  Why does Ronald immediately say he is going to kill the guy who stole his child rather than hoping police find her and save her life?
•  Could the guy Ronald be talking about actually be himself? Sometimes liars pick a truthful situation and change either the person involved or the time of the event in order to tell the story somewhat truthfully but take themselves out of the perpetrator’s role.
•  Why is Ronald willing to get himself the death penalty for killing the guy or guys who “took his child” but not willing to beat up Misty for lying to him about what happened to his daughter?
•  Why would Ronald continue to live with, sleep with, and marry a woman who won’t tell him what she knows about his child’s disappearance?
•  Why doesn’t Ronald seem to care about his other child, Junior?
•  Why would Ronald say Haleigh would be happy he was marrying Misty? Wouldn’t he want his daughter to be able to attend the wedding and celebrate with him this special day?
•  How could Ronald get married while his daughter was somewhere dead or being raped and tortured?
• Why would Ronald spend money on a tattoo of Haleigh rather than use the money to find her?
•  Why, if Ronald thinks some guys came and took Haleigh, doesn’t he try to find those guys?

I believe Ronald is a manipulative, calculating, pathologically lying criminal who exhibits all the traits of psychopathy.

Usually, in cases where children go missing in the night, the male is responsible for the death of the child and the girlfriend/wife lies for him and sometimes takes the rap. I think that’s what happened in this case.

What do you think? Does Ronald know what happened to Haleigh, and is he the perpetrator of a crime against this child?

Tweet

Fuhrman's Persuasive Polemic

By Laura James

There is much wrong with the portrayal of criminal justice in the media today. Even those who work for the crime media will tell you that the way it's done today, it's cheap, profitable, and wrong. In a scathing new book, FOX analyst Mark Fuhrman details his criticisms of "The Murder Business." "All the claims they make on these shows about justice and crime-stopping," he writes, "are a mockery of the English language." The book is The Murder Business: How the Media Turns Crime Into Entertainment and Subverts Justice.

He backs up his sturm und drang with compelling examples. Once I overcame the tinnitus caused by reading incendiary analysis by an insider who admits he played a "notorious role in the OJ Simpson trial," I found myself agreeing with many of his points.

Per Fuhrman, crime TV commits these sins. Do any of his criticisms ring true (or false) to you?

1. "They don't actually investigate... Facts have mostly been replaced with opinion, conversation, debate, and argument... Investigative journalists don't do much investigating. They stand in a pack outside Drew Peterson's house shouting, 'Did you kill Kathleen Savio?' I mean honestly, what did they expect him to say?"

2. They deliberately drag out stories, misrepresenting the facts if it helps to do so. It was obvious immediately that Caylee Anthony was dead, Fuhrman writes; but she was "missing" according to the press. "They want a big, loose time-line filled with "leads" and "possible suspects" and "persons of interest"... They didn't want a grim and depressing Search for Caylee Anthony's Body, but a suspenseful, heart-rending Search for Caylee Anthony. A story they could drag out for months, long after it was clear to me, the police, and every realistic observer or participant, that the child was dead."

3. They shell out huge sums for interviews and/or photos.

4. "They manufacture questions, but never try to answer them."

5. They relentlessly focus on attractive, middle class females as either culprit or victim. Haleigh Cummings' case fell from the TV screen because of the class of her family, which turned the story into "a white-trash nightmare, too much of a freak show."

Fuhrman goes on to analyze several recent cases of prominence.

Fuhrman on Drew Peterson: "He's got personality disorders they don't have a name for yet."

Fuhrman on Scott Peterson: "The media played along [with him]. They made his relationship with Amber Frey the centerpiece of the story, rather than the overwhelming evidence against him, mounting each day."

Fuhrman on his experiences as a true crime reporter in the Martha Moxley case: "I have never in my life been treated more shabbily than I was in Greenwich, CT. And that includes the Simpson trial."

Fuhrman on Nancy Grace: "She all but convicted the Duke University lacrosse players... and didn't apologize later when the accusations proved bogus... Grace flat-out declared suspect Richard Ricci guilty [of the abduction of Elizabeth Smart] several times on air... Grace didn't apologize for that one either... [Her interview of Melinda Duckett would] establish a new low, even by the standards of crime TV... Nancy Grace fired blindly. All she did was work herself into a lather and make Duckett clam up. The next day, Duckett was dead, and the investigation effectively died with her."

Fuhrman on the future of crime reporting: "Crime as entertainment has become so intoxicating, it's very difficult to go back. But all it takes is one person -- one journalist willing to step outside the circle and investigate the facts. One Woodward or one Bernstein could change the entire industry, remind reporters of their responsibility tot he public, and balance out the soap opera on the air."

Tweet

Going to the Chapel

by Donna Pendergast

After twenty-two years as a prosecutor, I thought that nothing could surprise me.

I was wrong!

Last weekend, Ronald Cummings, the father of Haleigh Cummings— who has been missing since February 10th—popped the question. With family and friends looking on, Cummings, 25, proposed to his 17-year-old girlfriend, Misty Croslin, at Chili's restaurant. She said yes. On Monday, Croslin showed off her ring outside of the Putnam County courthouse in Palatka where the couple went to apply for a marriage license.

What the heck?

As you may recall, five-year-old Haleigh was with Croslin on that night a month ago when she was reported missing from her mobile home in Satsuma, Florida. Left to care for Cummings' two children, Croslin put Haleigh to bed around 8:00 p.m. that night in the bedroom that Haleigh shared with her brother, her father, and Croslin herself.

Croslin has told authorities that someone came into the home to take the girl in the middle of the night. She claims to have discovered Haleigh missing when she woke up to go to the bathroom around 3:00 a.m. The back door was found ajar, propped open by bricks. Haleigh's 4-year-old brother, Ronald Jr., later told family members that a man dressed in black came into the mobile home and took Haleigh from her bed.

An Amber Alert was issued immediately and a massive search initiated using tracking dogs, sonar equipment, and helicopters. The search revealed nothing. Despite investigating thousands of tips, authorities in Putnam County have made no arrests in the case to date. Intense scrutiny has been focused on a number of registered sex offenders who live within a short distance of the 5,000-member Satsuma community.

The case gained attention from the onset with the national press focusing on tawdry family information as much as Haleigh's disappearance. A 17-year-old girlfriend left to care for her 25-year-old boyfriend's children, and a biological mother who is engaged to her stepbrother all make for great fodder on Internet message boards and TV talk shows.

But this family is certainly fanning the fire with their recent escapades. After begging for donations in the frenzy of media attention, Haleigh's father went out of town last week to have a tattoo of Haleigh inked on his leg. This week, news of an engagement and a ring to accompany the "happy" news have caused people to ask where the money is coming from to fund the tattoo, the ring, and the dinner at Chili's.

The most recent Internet speculation—that the marriage is intended to create a spousal privilege so one spouse cannot be compelled to testify against the other—appears unfounded. Florida statutes do not provide for spousal immunity when it relates to a situation where a child is injured.

So why are they doing it? I don't understand. What is with these people? Where are their priorities? How can Cummings even contemplate getting married while his daughter is missing and possibly dead, or in the hands of a sex offender? You would think that any father would be more focused on getting his daughter back than on proposing to an underage girlfriend who had to drag her mother along to the courthouse to fill out paperwork for the marriage. What is going on here?

Cummings has recently been quoted as saying, "Everybody is probably going to take this marriage thing the wrong way, but it's not."

I don't know what it's "not" but I know what it is. In a word, incomprehensible.

Statements made in this post are my own and are not intended to reflect the views, opinions or position of the Muchigan Attorney General or the Michigan Department of Attorney General.

Tweet

Why Defense Attorneys Tell Clients to Shut Up

by Pat Brown

We see it over and over, again and again, especially in this 24-hour-a-day media world we live in: suspects giving interview after interview on nationally televised news shows—CNN, FOX, and MSNBC, and, if they get the opportunity, The Today Show and CBS's Early Show as well. They are like moths drawn to camera lights. They speak of their innocence, they give details of the crime, and, if they are Drew Peterson, talk about their dating life and send out a few winks to the ladies. All this public attention gets the suspect two possible results: a bad image and/or a prison sentence.

First off, if the person is a psychopath, he or she will not understand that their behavior on-camera is not coming across all that well to the public and a future jury. Scott Peterson? He was cold as ice with a smirk you just wanted to wipe off his face. Casey Anthony? Each time she opens her mouth, she just digs herself a deeper hole. With each interview, they increase the public's negative opinion of them.

The other risk these new television stars run is slipping up in their interviews; a bit of truth may escape or their retelling of the story may not match a previous version, sending up red flags to the investigators. Everything that is said on television can be used against them in the courtroom, so each word spoken is like playing Russian roulette with one's freedom.

A good example of a client who should have listened to his attorney's admonition to shut up would be Dino Pantazes. On March 30, 2000, the idyllic life of Clara and Dean Pantazes came to an abrupt end with the discovery of Clara shot to death in their suburban Maryland garage. Their successful life and partnership—a long happy marriage and the booming family business—came to a devastating finale.

Worse yet, Dean Pantazes, known as "Dino" to his friends and family, was arrested a month later and charged with ordering the execution of his wife. Relatives on both sides of the family stood staunchly behind Dino, swearing up and down that Dino would never have committed such a crime. They believed the police had rushed to justice and unfairly condemned a man who dearly loved his wife.

However, Dino was not your ordinary man. He was a bail bondsman, a man who made his living from dealing with some the worst criminals the Washington D.C.-area had to offer. And, being a bondsman, violence and sordid behavior can become normal features of life, criminal behavior can become ordinary.

Did Dino succumb to this world and find his wife a liability? Did he, as police believed, want out of the marriage to enjoy an alternative lifestyle, taking up with transgendered prostitutes like Mimi Kim Young (pictured left) who would later testify that Dino asked her to kill his wife? Was Clara on to some bad behavior by Dino and wanted a divorce? Or was he the loving husband and family man his supporters believed him to be? The story was heartbreaking.

A former Prince George's County bail bondsman convicted of hiring a prostitute to kill his wife was sentenced yesterday to life in prison without parole, despite his pleas that he was an "innocent lamb" tortured by police and framed by headline-seeking prosecutors.

"I am a victim, not only by the loss of my wife, but because of the judicial proceedings," Dean J. "Dino" Pantazes, 46, told Prince George's Circuit Judge James J. Lombardi.

Weeping in the courtroom, Pantazes said that police suspected him of the killing immediately after they arrived at his Upper Marlboro home on March 30, 2000.

I had met Dino and Clara once when I was working as a private detective. When this story broke, I couldn't really remember them clearly nor did I have any opinion as to Dino’s character. I do remember being stunned that it was the Pantazes that were in the news because they were pretty much fixtures next to the courthouse in Upper Marlboro, Maryland, and the Pantazes name was synonymous for decades with bail bonds in Prince George’s County. So, while I couldn't attest to what kind of guy Dino was, I found it hard to believe, from a distance, that this man would hire a hit on his wife and business partner.

Then I read a newspaper story in the Washington Post that changed my mind. Dino had given an interview to the press and as soon as I read his words, I could see good reason for him to be a suspect in his wife’s murder. He had made two fascinating statements that struck me as very concerning. The first was a comment on the killing:

Dino stated: “I had no reason to want her dead. No insurance policy out on her. Greeks don’t get divorced. That’s the ultimate shame, and we wouldn’t have done that. She was my best friend.”

Is there a sentence here that does not belong? What does getting divorced have to do with killing Clara? Dino was admitting that he WOULD have a reason to kill his wife in spite of the fact he said he didn’t have one. Dino is informing us that he could not divorce his wife because that would be the worst humiliation imaginable. One would think murder would be the ultimate shame . . . but, according to Dino, asking for a divorce would be worse.

Dino went on to make the second fascinating statement: “Now I know what O.J. felt like when he was accused of killing his wife," Dino said. "He didn’t do it either and was hunted down for it.”

Huh? Was he the last person in America to believe in O.J.’s innocence? This is a man who had worked on the fringes of law enforcement for years. He knew criminals and he knew evidence. He undoubtedly was aware there was a mountain of evidence against O.J. Simpson. So, why this statement? I believe Dino was already preparing for his defense. He was pandering to his future jury, which in Prince George’s County, Maryland, was bound to be heavily African-American. This bereaved and innocent man was already calculating his trial strategy.

Dino Pantazes should have avoided anyone with a camera or a pen and paper.

Now many of us are watching the saga of little missing Haleigh Cummings of Satsuma, Florida. Her father, Ronald Cummings, and her caretaker, Daddy's 17-year-old girlfriend, Misty Croslin, have been doing interview after interview, show after show.

Armchair detectives on the blogs have been analyzing these two every time they tell their story. While neither Ronald nor Misty has been labeled a suspect in the disappearance of Haleigh, I bet there are defense lawyers across the nation shouting at their television sets, "Just shut up already! They might be totally innocent of any wrongdoing, but, if they are not, they should take the advice of these attorneys and just say, "No comment."

Dino got nailed and is serving life in prison. The conviction was based mostly on circumstantial evidence and witness testimony. But, in the end, it was Dino's big mouth that got him caught and put away.

Tweet