Found Deceased CA - Kiely Rodni missing from Party Near Prosser Family Campground in Truckee #8

[Beekarina]

BBM

From what I've seen, Kiely's suv wouldn't have had the bad airbags although plenty of Hondas did and they could be lethal. Resulted in a huge recall.

It is important to know if they deployed or not which, of course, LE obviously knew when the suv was recovered. It appears that they probably did not. If they had deployed they could have further impeded Kiely from escaping the vehicle.

JMHO

My Fit was part of the Takata recall.

• Honda
  • 2001-2012 Honda Accord
  • 2001-2011 Honda Civic
  • 2003-2011 Honda Civic Hybrid
  • 2001-2011 Honda Civic NGV
  • 2010-2015 Honda Crosstour
  • 2002-2011 Honda CR-V
  • 2011-2015 Honda CR-Z
  • 2003-2011 Honda Element
  • 2010-2014 Honda FCX Clarity
  • 2007-2013 Honda Fit
  • 2013-2014 Honda Fit EV
  • 2010-2014 Honda Insight
  • 2002-2004 Honda Odyssey
  • 2003-2015 Honda Pilot
  • 2006-2014 Honda Ridgeline

 

[Gemmie]

I have never heard of anything like this. I live in CA and unless your car is a birthday gift the registration renewal month will not match your birthday.

Thank you both for clarifying.

It is a not-so-fun birthday present here in New England. Register, and inspect, your vehicle during your birth month. ($$$)

I've lived in 2 states, and had 6+ cars, and they ALL reflect the month in which the car was bought, which is the same as when tags are gotten. They have never coincided with my birthday month. It's kinda neat and clean that way IMHO. You retag your car X years from when you got your first tags for it. Not X years and X months. Tell New England DMV to get with the program. lol

 

[Beekarina]

Another screenshot from the AWP video. I understand the water levels changed. I'm not faulting anyone. It is simply interesting to consider the area and position.

 

[SMK777]

As good as AWP are at their jobs, I don't think they carry any authority. Law enforcement is always in charge and has the sole discretion to give press conferences.

Yeah, I worded that poorly; I meant they have the respect of social media.

 

[Gemmie]

Can you tell how the CRV is oriented to the shoreline from this?

I did not quite follow where to find it, but am looking again.

Edited: What the heck??? I answered my own question, I think....? Where is Otto and his mapping ability...

View attachment 364395

It's found 1 second after the video I linked starts. I used the "Copy video URL at the current time" option when right clicking on the video when it's playing. I did that to make it easier for folks. Apparently I failed! LOLOL Also, it's at 39:45 if you're not using my linked vid and playing from the beginning.

 

[SMK777]

My belief is that they carry amazing authority, proven time and again, in the field of water search and recovery.

However, my opinion is that they carry no authority at all in the field of crime and possible crime investigation.

We need to draw a clear line of separation between those two things.

MOO

Yes, again, I ought to have said that social media posters look up to them. That’s what I actually meant to say….

 

[annpats]

I just checked the length of the middle rear seatbelt, and it stretches without effort/easily to about five feet outside of the car beyond the hatch area. (2016 Honda CRV)

Wow, Honda are very generous with the length of their belts!

 

[Gemmie]

The water level had dropped significantly since the car went into the water, making it seem the car had been much closer to shore. I believe the estimate was 85 feet from shore when it first went in and then 40-45 feet when it was located.
AWP found the car with sonar, they were right above and dropped a magnet, they could not see it with thru the water. LE searches had taken place at least a week earlier, and included flyovers.

GREAT point! With that said... they knew that the water had receded a lot and she was still not found. They could have gone back with a dive team and/or flew a drone over the area once the water had receded to see if they could see anything at that point. Maybe not use more man hours with divers but a drone could have worked wonders (and did, or we wouldn't have that picture).

 

[Beekarina]

When you look at the side/shoreline, there is plenty of green grass growing right to the water's edge.

So the water was just temporarily higher? (i,e, flooding?) I'm a bit unclear on the timeframe? It rained right after she disappeared? And then was warmer or?


Edited: I wonder what water levels are now? I know in earlier threads we saw people driving way out on the sand?

 

[MomMommyMom2]

I wondered what that was too, when I made the screenshot of the paint scrapes, but I had no idea. It almost looked like foam to me, so I did not know if it was something related to Nick the Diver.

I'm really glad you caught it.

Here is what I think. I think someone slammed the hatch shut in a hurry.

No opinion on it being any sort of restraint or seatbelt. It could also be something belonging to Kiely--backpack strap? Sleeping bag stuff sack bag strap, etc?

Just ideas!

For some reason it caught my eye. It could be anything you suggested, thank you for the ideas! Makes sense! IMO If it was a seatbelt it would’ve most likely been intentional because of it retracting.

I really want to believe that this was just an awful accident but there’s just something that doesn’t seem right. It could be because there are way more questions than answers at this point.

 

[Beekarina]

For some reason it caught my eye. It could be anything you suggested, thank you for the ideas! Makes sense! IMO If it was a seatbelt it would’ve most likely been intentional because of it retracting.

I really want to believe that this was just an awful accident but there’s just something that doesn’t seem right. It could be because there are way more questions than answers at this point.

Same. So many things just feel off? I rarely spend this much time thinking about a case here. I can't quite figure out why I'm so bothered by this one?

 

[Arkay]

My belief is that they carry amazing authority, proven time and again, in the field of water search and recovery.

However, my opinion is that they carry no authority at all in the field of crime and possible crime investigation.

We need to draw a clear line of separation between those two things.

MOO

My sentiments exactly.

AWP does carry authority, in one very important field, due to their expertise in their defined specialty of underwater searches.

That does not translate into expertise in another field; that of investigation, interrogation, following through on hard evidence and all the other arenas in which LE has training and experience.

They did find her when LE did not, yes. LE is not properly trained nor equipped for this, especially in a small town. But AWP, bless them for locating Kiely, is not trained nor equipped to determine the veracity of a witness. Particularly one who could not provide the most essential and relevant facts.

Jared is terrific to have gotten AWP up and running. He also has a career teaching people how to monetize their social media. I don't doubt their sincerity nor their results, but they absolutely do want to turn their finds into gripping videos.

If AWP had checked with the family first, which they say is the highest priority after finding her, then they would not have to AFTERWARD expunge some personal family video, which the family had to demand be removed.

Jmo

If you scroll down through this particular website, (Jared has several, one with a touching life story), he talks about AWP and all their wonderful work. He also talks about being an influencer and how people can optimize their social media.

MrLeisek's Adventures with Purpose

MrLeisek is the host and creator of Adventures with Purpose, a YouTube series, focused on bringing awareness to Cleaning Up Our Ecosystem, Solving Crimes and Bringing Closure to Families Along the Way!

www.mrleisek.com

ETA: self-reporting to make sure this website is permitted, as it is from the actual AWP.

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

They could have gone back with a dive team and/or flew a drone over the area once the water had receded to see if they could see anything at that point

That water still wasn't to the point of a flyover picking it up, the difficulty of seeing this from the air has been discussed up thread.
They had not stopped searching, just having scaled back on the water and land searches, having covered most of the most likely areas. The car was found at the just outside the edge of the search area on the LE search map. I think it likely that it would have been searched again, eventually. A number of the vehicles AWP have found were close in and and missed in prior searches, nothing unusual or suspicious about this.

 

[Beekarina]

Hmmm....that may be moss and not grass. Nevermind.

 

[AlyssaAngel]

If AWP had checked with the family first, which they say is the highest priority after finding her, then they would not have to AFTERWARD expunge some personal family video, which the family had to demand be removed.

It's seems very possible to me that they did in fact have permission, but still had to remove it after the fact.

I'm a teacher, and no matter how careful we are to get permission slips signed for absolutely everything, I have had parents come screaming their heads off and threatening all kinds of legal action. One time the child's father saw the child's photo on the school district's website and had a meltdown that went all the way up to the school board. We had signed permission from the mother, who was the custodial parent, so ultimately his complaint went nowhere. But we still yanked the photo off the website and marked that child's file with ABSOLUTELY NO PHOTOS, EVER. So, then we got a meltdown from the mother because the child was excluded from the class group photo.

So, what if AWP did get permission from the family members who were recorded? Permission to record and permission to include the recording in the video. But the family members in the recording are not the immediate family (it was the aunt, I think). When the immediate family members heard the recording, they were upset enough to demand it be removed. Regardless of having permission and whatever other agreements, AWP did the right thing and removed the content. I don't see any reason to criticize AWP if that's what happened. California is a two-party consent state, so until I learn otherwise, I'm inclined to believe that they at minimum had permission to record the call. I'm inclined to believe that they also made it reasonably clear that the call could/would be included in the video that would eventually be released on social media. I just find it hard to believe that they would not have permission. I find it easier to believe that another family member objected after the fact, and that their request for removal was honored by AWP.

Notice that in the video, two of the people are blurred out when the dad is being notified of Kiely's death. It implies that they did in fact get permission to include people in the video, because at least two people had opted out.

I say this as someone who is quite uncomfortable with how AWP's earlier videos got the cameras right in grieving families' faces and even followed them around when they tried to get some space to grieve. I actually stopped supporting them for a while, because of how cringy it felt to me, around the time the original team broke apart. I feel like they're better about it now. Not perfect, but it's not as exploitative as it used to be.

 

[Arkay]

It's seems very possible to me that they did in fact have permission, but still had to remove it after the fact.

I'm a teacher, and no matter how careful we are to get permission slips signed for absolutely everything, I have had parents come screaming their heads off and threatening all kinds of legal action. One time the child's father saw the child's photo on the school district's website and had a meltdown that went all the way up to the school board. We had signed permission from the mother, who was the custodial parent, so ultimately his complaint went nowhere. But we still yanked the photo off the website and marked that child's file with ABSOLUTELY NO PHOTOS, EVER. So, then we got a meltdown from the mother because the child was excluded from the class group photo.

So, what if AWP did get permission from the family members who were recorded? Permission to record and permission to include the recording in the video. But the family members in the recording are not the immediate family (it was the aunt, I think). When the immediate family members heard the recording, they were upset enough to demand it be removed. Regardless of having permission and whatever other agreements, AWP did the right thing and removed the content. I don't see any reason to criticize AWP if that's what happened. California is a two-party consent state, so until I learn otherwise, I'm inclined to believe that they at minimum had permission to record the call. I'm inclined to believe that they also made it reasonably clear that the call could/would be included in the video that would eventually be released on social media. I just find it hard to believe that they would not have permission. I find it easier to believe that another family member objected after the fact, and that their request for removal was honored by AWP.

Notice that in the video, two of the people are blurred out when the dad is being notified of Kiely's death. It implies that they did in fact get permission to include people in the video, because at least two people had opted out.

I say this as someone who is quite uncomfortable with how AWP's earlier videos got the cameras right in grieving families' faces and even followed them around when they tried to get some space to grieve. I actually stopped supporting them for a while, because of how cringy it felt to me, around the time the original team broke apart. I feel like they're better about it now. Not perfect, but it's not as exploitative as it used to be.

I taught for 25 years in NYC, and I understand absolutely EVERYTHING you're saying about permission slips.
I've never had a problem because we hand out contracts on the first day of school. The parents must opt-in for things like their child being photographed, in prom videos, and so on. If there is a conflict between parents, the custodial parent has the final word. If they don't sign, we cannot include their child, just like a consent slip for a school trip.

I personally also always sent consent slips if we had a party, in case parents or guardians had dietary or religious objections to whatever pizza and snacks we had.

In Kiely's case, it seems that her mother had physical and likely legal custody, but the father probably needed to be notified at the least. He isn't blurred out and was present at the time of filming, so I imagine it's tacit permission.

However, we don't know if the mother, who is the next of kin, gave permission. AWP said they weren't able to reach her, and she is the primary person whose permission must be granted.

Also, the father surely saw he was being recorded, but did not necessarily know that private family conversations were recorded and made public. The pictures of Kiely's car underwater, with strangers poring over it trying to discern if they could see her hand---as a mother and grandmother, I would NEVER give permission for that.

Which is why I believe the family demanded that some video be expunged.

IMO

 

[Warwick7]

I just checked the length of the middle rear seatbelt, and it stretches without effort/easily to about five feet outside of the car beyond the hatch area. (2016 Honda CRV)

Thank you for this!

Granted I haven't read all the posts yet.

Yet I've been sitting here for the last couple hours wracking my brain trying to figure out how in the world she can get from the front seat to the back all the while there's a strap back there for her to get past......
Ugh....
Grrr....

 

[ifindedout]

Water level in Prosser Creek Reservoir, from July 29 to Sept. 05 (data from USGS NWIS)
so about a 4-foot drop from 8/6 to 8/21, for about a 10-foot drop to today, and counting:

 

[Sparx]

Can you tell how the CRV is oriented to the shoreline from this?

I did not quite follow where to find it, but am looking again.

Edited: What the heck??? I answered my own question, I think....? Where is Otto and his mapping ability...

View attachment 364395

Doug from AWP just answered this question on DutyRons livestream that just aired today on YouTube. He said the vehicle was upside down with the front facing away from shore. He said some other interesting things in answer to the panels questions (one of the panel members was former head of NYPD scuba and marine unit), like he mentioned if AWP was in charge of the removal they'd have towed it out onto the shore bottom up, and then flipped it, but the FBI did it underwater instead.

 

[Truckeeite]

I really doubt she was secured in the hatch. Per my previous post 1003:

For me, he was trying to see if he could locate a body and would only mentioned seeing shoes if they were on her. Once he saw them he moved to the opposite end of the window of where shoes (on feet) were. Why mention things in the car? He hadn't said "I see a Truly can, some paraphernalia, a brush, a phone charger, etc". He wasn't giving inventory, he was looking to see if he could see her body.

ETA - the above wasn't the post I was looking for. D'oh! It was post #989 below...

she could have had the cover open or closed. If closed, and she was under it (inside the trunk area), the diver would not have been able to see her when he peered through the window. He'd have seen the top of the cover. So due to that, she was either on top of the cover (IOW... roof on the bottom of the lake bed, then Kiely, then the closed cover (if it was closed), and then the trunk space. Or the cover was open to store stuff, or whatever. So the above "IOW scenario" minus the cover in-between.

Again, IMHO, if he saw her through the rear window, she was laying on the roof and NOT under the trunk cover.

On my SUV, there is a gap between the back seats and where that cover secures. Anyone know how big that gap is on the CRV if it has one?