One of the bodies found in the Ohio River in western Ky has been identified as a local suicide victim so she was not thought to be related to the other two deaths, which have not been publicly identified. An unidentified man pulled from the river had wounds consistent with a homicide.
OH - Pike County: 8 people from one family dead as police hunt for killer(s) #12
- Thread starter tlcya
- Start date
- Status
RAISINISBACK
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2016
- Messages
- 4,622
- Reaction score
- 21,551
Wow. The bottom photo gives a pretty good sense about the additions.
Odd seeing these spaces with the trailers removed. Heightens the realism of the severe abruption in people's lives.
It that a trailer under that one addition? Looks like a black trailer with chrome wheels. That is a trailer. Geez are they taking the additions also? Whats next? Outbuildings?
CSIDreamer
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2015
- Messages
- 9,873
- Reaction score
- 79,863
Curtains and accents if I recall.
I know what your saying, not giving a free pass but I've often wondered if she could've possibly found out and that's one of the reasons she moved yes CRs purchased it but I wonder if she said something along the lines of your gonna do what your gonna do but I don't want to be around it. Who knows but I agree not a free pass but I think the less likely to be deeply involved.
I would imagine any heir could fight it, however I would bet that it would be both a lengthy battle, as well as an expensive one. This is not to say that the trailers themselves won't be returned once they have a conviction. Honestly, though, the cost to repair them might well be more than the worth of the trailer as a whole. Mobile homes do not hold their value for long at all. These were old homes that had clearly not been very well cared for, and as with anything like this (be it a mobile home, camper or car) their value can depreciate quickly.
rsd1200
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2016
- Messages
- 11,477
- Reaction score
- 30,748
For me, it's that most everything I've seen throughout this, she seemed like a genuinely nice person who loved her children, enjoyed her job, was well-liked by others and she seemed to like others. I don't know if she knew about the marijuana or not (and that's the only thing that we know of thus far that was illegal and we don't know which locations). If she did, she probably did like a lot of women in this region, and turned a blind eye and took care of her family in her own way. By the time you're DR's age, you're probably not going to leave Appalachia, mostly b/c you're not going to leave your family, and you can't afford to take them with you. I knew a lady who had no clue her husband was one of the biggest Oxy dealers in our area. He put a safe in a room, locked the door, told her not to go in that room, and she did not. She was a loving mother, grandmother, hard worker, and when LE came to her house she had not a clue. She lost her home and her husband, (who, btw had a mistress w/a new baby that she also knew nothing about). She may have had an inkling he was into something but he was the man of the family and what he said she did. He gambled big too. So she probably figured it was money, and it was, lots. But based on the woman I knew, I can see how this could happen DR.
There is no need to try any case. LE can confiscate assets by a process of Civil Forfeiture without charging anyone with any crime. If they can show probable cause that an asset was purchased with money earned by an illegal activity, they can take it. I wish I could say this is JMO, but as I understand it, this is a fact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States
If the dead drug dealer is killed before being caught they most certainly do allow the family to keep the assets. There is no case without a defendant, unless they can link the spouse or kids to the drugs also.
Yes but you can go to court and contest it also
They don't need a defendant, case, trial, or conviction. If an asset was purchased with money from any illegal activity, they can take it - and probably will.
See more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States
newtonskeyz
Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2016
- Messages
- 71
- Reaction score
- 17
very true
The courts will generally uphold a Civil Forfeiture if LE can show probable cause and any proof of illegal activity for profit. IMO, this would be (will be) a slam dunk for the State.
RAISINISBACK
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2016
- Messages
- 4,622
- Reaction score
- 21,551
If they were intending to seize it for drugs why would they tow it? Why not leave it on the property where it would bring more money in an auction. Because if the trailers are fruits from illegal activity, wouldn't it follow that the land is also? IMO they wouldn't tow trailer houses already established on land for asset seizure. They would just auction them off where they stand.
Except in CIVIL forfeiture. No need for anyone to be found guilty in a civil forfeiture.
http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/10/ohios_civil_asset_forfeiture_l.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2981
Honestly? The land is worth far more without trailers, the cars,the rooster huts....easier to get rid of down the road, if the state chooses to seize it, without the stuff on it.
They have to prove that it was purchased via illegal activity. The family the heirs etc can contest. Correct me if I'm wrong most of this land was inherited or owned by other family previously, other land was bought for just taxes owed. The only land that could even be in question is that of DR that was most recently purchased. Here is the exact laws:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/983
I think there are several answers to that. First, they took the vehicles, equipment, and trailers to preserve evidence (like they said). Anything they leave there unattended would have likely been stolen, tampered with, or destroyed. Removing all these assets will protect them as the investigation continues. The second purpose (and one which they aren't saying) is to preserve the value and maintain control of the assets if they do move to seize them. As someone already mentioned, the cleanup of the trailers would likely cost more than they are worth. I think the trailers are worth less than zero no matter where they sit.
It has also been mentioned that the land is probably worth more without the trailers (or cars and equipment) on it. If the State has any intention of seizing land (and I think they might), then it will be quicker and easier to sell it for more money this way as well.
I do not like civil forfeiture and I don't think the government should be able to take things as easily as they can. I am only pointing out what they can (and will likely try to) do.
The state's argument in this case will be the total cost of the investigation. They will claim it is only fair to the taxpayers to recover some of the cost - especially if there were any illegal activities involved.
They keep saying that everything will be turned back over to the family soon. I am skeptical that anything ever will be returned. JMO
Not in Ohio...not purchased, but involved.
"Civil-asset-forfeiture laws traditionally are used to fight large drug-trafficking organizations by seizing cash, vehicles and other assets that law-enforcement agencies and prosecutors believe were involved in a crime."
"The bill now would allow for asset forfeitures after 12 months if there is probable cause that the asset was used in the commission of a felony and the property owner is unavailable because he is dead, cannot be located, or is facing felony indictment and cannot be extradited. Property also can be seized if no one claims ownership." (BBM)
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/12/23/legislators-honing-reform-bill.html
Audrey Horne
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2016
- Messages
- 606
- Reaction score
- 468
I say this with all due respect. To be honest, it's not for you to "give her a pass." None of us knows the struggles this family faced, or what they believed in terms of how safe they were, or whether or not they felt morally okay with growing marijuana. There's no evidence to suggest that the family knowingly would place their children in danger, and I would suggest that it's more likely than not that they believed they were safe and secure. This is a hardworking family, and Dayna seemed to be doing her best to make a living and care for her children, grandchildren, and the rest of her family. In an area that's this economically suppressed, the options can be close to nothing. These days, the so-called American Dream can be so far out of reach that simply providing the basics in terms of stability (food, housing, clothing) is no longer a given even for someone who works their rear ends off. I personally don't think I would have engaged in such an enterprise, because I would be terrified of going to jail and other repercussions, but that is me. It may be that people see the marijuana laws being changed and enforcement looking the other way, and so believe that the risks are worth the rewards in terms of trying to provide for self and loved ones. I just don't know.
And this isn't meant to be directed at you. I'm upset because I just find it so gauche to engage in victim-blaming, and yes, that IS what's going on here. There's absolutely no need to try to stand in judgment of them now. These people were victims! There's nothing to be done about the mistakes they may have made. What, do you (not you individually, I mean collectively) want to dig them up and lecture them about their bad decisions? For me, getting up on a high horse about them seems incredibly myopic and judgmental. We are not in their shoes, it is not something that we CAN even judge, and it's certainly not something that we SHOULD even judge at this point. I don't think most people who are looking askance at the Rhoden family are doing so out of bad will, but I DO think most lack empathy and likely are ignorant about certain realities, which often comes from a place of privilege. I have no doubt that a lot of the crap being thrown around, whether intentionally or not, has to do with the perceived class and lifestyles of this family. I think it's much more important to have empathy and to try to gain some understanding of the root causes of such situations.
I'm sorry if this sounds harsh or if it's taken personally. This is just something that means a lot to me, so much that I felt it was important to at least say something.
- Status