OH - Pike County: 8 people from one family dead as police hunt for killer(s) #20

[rsd1200]

Maybe killers threw something out windows to accomplice, loot or guns. Who cares, the point is who did this!

I agree Traveller. We're just rehashing stuff from early threads at this point, but I've found if nothing else, it does keep things fresh in my mind. I go back and re-read, look at pictures, and think of different scenarios, and theories, each time.

 

[rsd1200]

Just a thought about this "sophisticated crime"

IMO, sophistication of a crime has nothing to do with its motive. A crime is sophisticated when:

- perps have good knowledge of the victims and the crime scene
- perps have brain power in number or time to think it through
- perps have some experience in executing crime. Eventually with good reflex in improvisation

But it doesn't mean the motive is very sophisticated. It could be a very simple motive.

Killing a family of 8 is horrendous. Whatever motive is revealed it the end, we'll find the crime disproportionate in regards to the motive

I tend to agree.

 

[Jax49]

The case notes are a good reread. Maybe some day something will pop out at one of us.

 

[CSIDreamer]

I agree Traveller. We're just rehashing stuff from early threads at this point, but I've found if nothing else, it does keep things fresh in my mind. I go back and re-read, look at pictures, and think of different scenarios, and theories, each time.

It'd be nice to get some new information. So much rehashing. I can't think of anything that hasn't been gone over with a fine tooth comb, LOL. We had some interesting discussions many threads ago!

 

[rsd1200]

It'd be nice to get some new information. So much rehashing. I can't think of anything that hasn't been gone over with a fine tooth comb, LOL. We had some interesting discussions many threads ago!

I think that about the only thing we've not gone over is extraterrestrials. I understand why they are keeping things so very quiet, but, I'd be lying if I said I wasn't hoping for a bit of new information, or better still, an arrest, every morning when I check in here.

 

[Daisy47]

I thought we talked ET at the same time as Bigfoot.

Yes, and the butler. [emoji6]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jk204]

It'd be nice to get some new information. So much rehashing. I can't think of anything that hasn't been gone over with a fine tooth comb, LOL. We had some interesting discussions many threads ago!

Since many threads ago, there were a few interesting piece of information. Like this one we got last week:

Sheriff Reader said "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."

In your opinion, what information could be disclosed in custody hearing that could put children and caregivers in danger? And why?

I thinking, as options in purely speculative scenarios:
- paternity
- history of abuse
- address of caregivers

Any idea?

 

[CSIDreamer]

Since many threads ago, there were a few interesting piece of information. Like this one we got last week:

Sheriff Reader said "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."

In your opinion, what information could be disclosed in custody hearing that could put children and caregivers in danger? And why?

I thinking, as options in purely speculative scenarios:
- paternity
- history of abuse
- address of caregivers

Any idea?

I'm just throwing my thoughts out there, no real theory on that. But .... there are 4 children associated with the family.

2 of them are currently with their biological parents and we all know who has them and where they are located. It's no secret.

Which leaves 2 children under the age of 1 (or close to 1) in undisclosed locations. Those are the children in the middle of custody hearings. Do you suppose the sheriff/child services has a concern about the "who" that has filed for custody? Or extended family/friends/associates of the "whos"?

 

[jk204]

I'm just throwing my thoughts out there, no real theory on that. But .... there are 4 children associated with the family.

2 of them are currently with their biological parents and we all know who has them and where they are located. It's no secret.

Which leaves 2 children under the age of 1 (or close to 1) in undisclosed locations. Those are the children in the middle of custody hearings. Do you suppose the sheriff/child services has a concern about the "who" that has filed for custody? Or extended family/friends/associates of the "whos"?

I think there is something about the children. It is a big decision to remove children from parents.

now it doesn't mean the problem is with the requestors (Who's ). The risk may well come from someone else not requesting.

When Reader is talking about information, IMO, he is not only talking about the address of caregivers. He is talking about something else. If it is not about paternity or health, I don't know what it is...

AG and judge might have other opinion. What matters here is the reason behind the risk Reader perceives. Could hold the key to motive.

 

[rsd1200]

Since many threads ago, there were a few interesting piece of information. Like this one we got last week:

Sheriff Reader said "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."

In your opinion, what information could be disclosed in custody hearing that could put children and caregivers in danger? And why?

I thinking, as options in purely speculative scenarios:
- paternity
- history of abuse
- address of caregivers

Any idea?

Possibly information that would tie someone close to, or one of, the family members, to the murders as suspect It could be that he feels that a potential arrest of that person(s) could put the children in danger.

 

[Tiff23fr]

I have wondered if it's possible that the paternity of the youngest child did not match to one of those that submitted for testing and Reader does not want that released for some reason just yet.

 

[glf]

Possibly information that would tie someone close to, or one of, the family members, to the murders as suspect It could be that he feels that a potential arrest of that person(s) could put the children in danger.

The only thing I can come up with is Charlie may be saying that because there has been no arrest. And if that's the reason, I hope they "really DO know" much more info than when the murders occurred.

 

[rsd1200]

I have wondered if it's possible that the paternity of the youngest child did not match to one of those that submitted for testing and Reader does not want that released for some reason just yet.

I'm not sure if TOS allows us to broach that topic, but, I've wondered that as well, on either or, of the two infants. If one is unmarried, then a paternity test is ordered, by law, unless it was already done, or an Acknowledgement of Paternity is completed at the hospital, shortly after birth.

 

[Tiff23fr]

I'm not sure if TOS allows us to broach that topic, but, I've wondered that as well, on either or, of the two infants. If one is unmarried, then a paternity test is ordered, by law, unless it was already done, or an Acknowledgement of Paternity is completed at the hospital, shortly after birth.

Thanks. I wasn't going to divulge into the conversation on the children any further than that. The children are innocent in all of this. I was just thinking it could be a reason to seal the proceedings.

 

[rsd1200]

The only thing I can come up with is Charlie may be saying that because there has been no arrest. And if that's the reason, I hope they "really DO know" much more info than when the murders occurred.

I may not have worded that right, but, yes. Maybe by putting them w/family, they'd be near the people (maybe friends/acquaintances/or even other family) who murdered their family (the caregivers wanting the babies most likely would not know this though). I'd not want the children near the people who murdered their parents either. I could definitely see situations that could put them in danger if that were the case. It seems that they aren't concerned about the children's 1/2 siblings though, so I think there's something there.

 

[rsd1200]

Thanks. I wasn't going to divulge into the conversation on the children any further than that. The children are innocent in all of this. I was just thinking it could be a reason to seal the proceedings.

I think it could be a reason as well.

 

[jk204]

I may not have worded that right, but, yes. Maybe by putting them w/family, they'd be near the people (maybe friends/acquaintances/or even other family) who murdered their family (the caregivers wanting the babies most likely would not know this though). I'd not want the children near the people who murdered their parents either. I could definitely see situations that could put them in danger if that were the case. It seems that they aren't concerned about the children's 1/2 siblings though, so I think there's something there.

Thanks for feedback.

Added to a few other comments by family, this comment by the Sheriff leads me to believe:

A) One child could end up being placed in the family or close to suspects. (Make your short list privately).

Or

B) One child is linked to the motive. For instance: separation, refusal to recognize paternity, custody dispute, abuse...

Are we making progress here? At least in reading Reader's concerns...which may not be the truth in the end.

Personally, I am going with (B) for several reasons including coincidence of HR's delivery.

Dear moderator, I can't go any closer than this within TOS at this point. Awaiting the public release of other info.

 

[jk204]

Thanks for feedback.

Added to a few other comments by family, this comment by the Sheriff leads me to believe:

A) One child could end up being placed in the family or close to suspects. (Make your short list privately).

Or

B) One child is linked to the motive. For instance: separation, refusal to recognize paternity, custody dispute, abuse...

Are we making progress here? At least in reading Reader's concerns...which may not be the truth in the end.

Personally, I am going with (B) for several reasons including coincidence of HR's delivery.

Dear moderator, I can't go any closer than this within TOS at this point. Awaiting the public release of other info.

And when I make reference to comments made by family, I mean :

- perps knew dogs, knew cameras
- doesn't believe in cartel
- thinks KR was killed by someone he trusted and his gun is missing
- was told family is still under suspicion
- reported incidents, which links to crime cannot be established, whereas:
- family was stalked before the murders
- masked intruder at grand mothers place

The sheriff or AG also reported they believed the perps intentionally spared the children.

We could discard these comments one after the other. But, honestly it starts to be a lot. So clearly, it points to family, extended family or friends of the family.

I really hate the idea of sleuthing the victims family but can't see it differently after 4 months. I just hope an arrest is made soon.

 

[CSIDreamer]

And when I make reference to comments made by family, I mean :

- perps knew dogs, knew cameras
- doesn't believe in cartel
- thinks KR was killed by someone he trusted and his gun is missing
- was told family is still under suspicion
- reported incidents, which links to crime cannot be established, whereas:
- family was stalked before the murders
- masked intruder at grand mothers place

The sheriff or AG also reported they believed the perps intentionally spared the children.

We could discard these comments one after the other. But, honestly it starts to be a lot. So clearly, it points to family, extended family or friends of the family.

I really hate the idea of sleuthing the victims family but can't see it differently after 4 months. I just hope an arrest is made soon.

I completely missed that one. When did that happen?

 

[jk204]

I completely missed that one. When did that happen?

Earlier in july. If I recall it is in the same article as the KR2 interview. Intruder was on property. Not in home if I remember.