OH - Pike County: 8 people from one family dead as police hunt for killer(s) #19

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
I want to know why the three children were spared but are still in danger. It makes no sense to spare the children, then come back later and harm them. Unless this was a hit and the children were supposed to be murdered but the killers couldn't bring themselves to hurt the kids?

I am still of the opinion that they were overlooked. jmo idk
 
No, in the scenario you described, TOD would be listed on death cert as 12:15. There would be no way or no reason for the doc to try and estimate actual TOD as being 12:11. No way would a hypothesis be used or necessary.
The times I used where hypothetical. The original question wasn't "would" it was "could". And in everthing I've read suggest yes they could. Maybe the original question was poorly worded, but they could depending on the evidence.

Sent from my SM-G550T1 using Tapatalk
 
[video=twitter;761295907996434432]https://twitter.com/LynnHulseyDDN/status/761295907996434432[/video]

Chris Graves ‏@chrisgraves 3h3 hours ago Waverly City, OH
There are at least two killers in #pikecounty killings, sheriff says in court hearing. @Enquirer #cgnow
 
I want to know why the three children were spared but are still in danger. It makes no sense to spare the children, then come back later and harm them. Unless this was a hit and the children were supposed to be murdered but the killers couldn't bring themselves to hurt the kids?
It maybe just their strategy to keeping the info from the case quiet.

Sent from my SM-G550T1 using Tapatalk
 
There's a little more at this link.

Ohio law presumes juvenile-court hearings to be open and that some (but not all) of the accompanying records are a matter of public record. In the case of the Rhoden children, Pike County Children Services has asked Rosenberger to close the courtroom and seal the records, saying that the potential danger to the children outweighs any public good.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2016/08/04/Pike-County-homicides-custody-case.html#
 
Here is another link from cincinnati.com

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/new.../?hootPostID=77498052f2299c4d0e224428c38c0c83

"at least two killers" he says.

"children and caregivers would be in grave danger"

I am attempting to read into this, welcoming other's responses.

I'm trying to make sense of this. HR's oldest daughter is living with her father right now. She isn't in hiding. Her father isn't in hiding. Why not? 2 of those 3 children cannot possibly identify the killers. If it's an inhertance thing, then why is that particular little girl seemingly not in mortal danger?
 
I'm trying to make sense of this. HR's oldest daughter is living with her father right now. She isn't in hiding. Her father isn't in hiding. Why not? 2 of those 3 children cannot possibly identify the killers. If it's an inhertance thing, then why is that particular little girl seemingly not in mortal danger?

And Frankie's other child is with the mother, right? So, why wouldn't that child also be in danger? Shouldn't it be 4 that might be in danger? All 4 would be Rhodens by blood.

Although, HR's oldest was not there at the time of the murder.

I'm confused.
 
It maybe just their strategy to keeping the info from the case quiet.

Sent from my SM-G550T1 using Tapatalk

I completely agree with you: just trying to keep all details from the public. Otherwise, the other 2 children (and surviving parent) would be in protective custody somewhere, not giving media interviews.
 
I'm trying to make sense of this. HR's oldest daughter is living with her father right now. She isn't in hiding. Her father isn't in hiding. Why not? 2 of those 3 children cannot possibly identify the killers. If it's an inhertance thing, then why is that particular little girl seemingly not in mortal danger?

Did he say no one else was in danger? Or did he mention only the two because their custody was being discussed? In other words, he may be just as concerned about the other children, but the discussion was not about them specifically.
 
Did he say no one else was in danger? Or did he mention only the two because their custody was being discussed? In other words, he may be just as concerned about the other children, but the discussion was not about them specifically.

He used the numbers 9, 10, and 11. Which accounts for the 3 children who survived unscathed and were on the properties during the murders. He used 3 numbers, not 4.
 
"Have the medical people developed a way of telling a TOD within a 4 hour period? Last I knew, they could possibly narrow it down to a 4 hour period as the closest. Dr. G, Caylee's case."

Sent from my SM-G550T1 using Tapatalk
Last time I had discussed this, with some other nurses, we believe time of death could be narrowed down to three or four hrs. For example, if you had talked to your neighbor at 11a, and he was discovered dead at 8p, the doctor could narrow it down a 9hr window, just from the info he has been given. He could then narrow the time by a complete physical exam to a four he time stretch, which is most commonly used by a doc. If there was an autopsy done, the doc performing that would have the original docs notes to compare facts with, and by examining the stomach contents lividity, and rigor mortis, and body temp, TOD could possibly be narrowed down to two and a half to fours with the findings possibly 85 to 90% accuracy.
 
Here is another link from cincinnati.com

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/new.../?hootPostID=77498052f2299c4d0e224428c38c0c83

"at least two killers" he says.

"children and caregivers would be in grave danger"

I am attempting to read into this, welcoming other's responses.

BBM
I take that more to mean that potential "caregivers" or other family members, that the children might be around, might be in danger, thereby placing the children in danger. The potential caregivers may be in danger from those closest to them, or persons they associate with in some way, and not even realize it.
 
This article has been updated a little and it appears Reader is concerned about the two youngest and the three people who want to adopt them. One of those three (people or couples) might be somewhat of a suspect possibly?

Sheriff: At least two killers in Pike County slayings

Reader did not offer any further information related to the killers Thursday, but repeated several times that he remains very concerned for their safety and that of their caregivers. Currently, the two children remain in the care of foster parents, whose identities have never been disclosed.

“As the sheriff of this county, I fear if information is released it would put the minor children or their caregivers in grave danger,’’ he said. “I don’t want to receive another call about another homicide, a brutal homicide in my county or another county.”

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/new...st-two-killers-pike-county-slayings/88061172/

eta, should have read back. oops
 
They have ( finally ) said at least two shooters. We know the oldest child left alive was possibly old enough to identify someone if they recognized them. Maybe that's why the concern for the children?
Maybe the killer did not see that particular child....
LE knows more than we do, I am thinking perhaps this is not a "closer to home hit"... something more "personal" rather than a hit over drug money owed. When time allows I am going to the beginning and read things over again in hopes I can find SOMETHING I did not catch first time around. My personal thoughts are IF there is arrests made its going to scare a bunch of us to death when we realize how geographically close the murderer(s) have been.
Just offering my two cents worth, trying to make sense of it all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
107
Guests online
2,233
Total visitors
2,340

Forum statistics

Threads
601,862
Messages
18,130,877
Members
231,161
Latest member
Kaffro
Back
Top