ND - Several bodies found at Mandan business, 1 April 2019 *Arrest* #2

[ilovechili]

Perhaps the victim being given CPR told the person who made the 911 call something CI said before he passed away which could relate to motive. A motive isn't necessary but it would certainly be nice to know what it was. Not knowing makes me want to tear my hair out.

I feel the same frustration, it is driving me almost nuts. We know that no motive would justify killing four people or solve any issue except maybe in his mind but it would at least show us why them, why there and why those four (or one) were targeted and how he knew, if he did, who would be there and when.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Police had said the attack "was specific to the victims," and they didn't feel the public was in danger. Ziegler declined to say whether all four were targeted.

Suspect held in slayings of 4 at North Dakota business

LE may have an idea about motive because they said the attack was specific to the victims. Something prompted this comment.

 

[Rocco]

Police had said the attack "was specific to the victims," and they didn't feel the public was in danger. Ziegler declined to say whether all four were targeted.

Suspect held in slayings of 4 at North Dakota business

LE may have an idea about motive because they said the attack was specific to the victims. Something prompted this comment.

I wonder if the video surveillance inside the building also had audio.

 

[JudgeJudi]

I wonder if the video surveillance inside the building also had audio.

Good thinking. If you were going to have audio anywhere, inside would be the place.

 

[Via Marple]

I wonder if the video surveillance inside the building also had audio.

In order for audio recording to be legal, whether it is in an office, a store, a building, a car, or in a room, all parties must be literally told that recording is occurring, and there must also be a sign posted that clearly reveals that audio recording is taking place. Since audio recording is generally not legal, most people stick to video and picture evidence.
[...]
North Dakota law (N.D. Gen Stat.15A-287(a)) states it is a Class C felony to intercept a communication without the consent of at least one of the party giving consent.
[...]

Audio Surveillance Laws by State:Everything You Need to Know

 

[ilovechili]

RBBM
Here is a link to the report:

Just saw this--thank you! I will be watching it shortly.

 

[NumbersGal0906]

In order for audio recording to be legal, whether it is in an office, a store, a building, a car, or in a room, all parties must be literally told that recording is occurring, and there must also be a sign posted that clearly reveals that audio recording is taking place. Since audio recording is generally not legal, most people stick to video and picture evidence.
[...]
North Dakota law (N.D. Gen Stat.15A-287(a)) states it is a Class C felony to intercept a communication without the consent of at least one of the party giving consent.
[...]

Audio Surveillance Laws by State:Everything You Need to Know

In Missouri, the “one party giving consent” can be the person doing the recording...am I reading ND wrong? It looks they same as our laws, except states it’s a Class C felony. It’s listed under the One party consent state like we are? I can’t come up with a scenario in this instance that doesn’t meet that one party consent.

 

[ilovechili]

In Missouri, the “one party giving consent” can be the person doing the recording...am I reading ND wrong? It looks they same as our laws, except states it’s a Class C felony. It’s listed under the One party consent state like we are? I can’t come up with a scenario in this instance that doesn’t meet that one party consent.

That is how I understand it nowadays too in the states that I am familiar with. It changed some years ago that only one side needs to be aware of the recording. I would like to point this out as well because if you have one side of say a phone recording, it is now admissible in courts in many states. It used to be both needed to know. Nowadays you can record the other person in a call in say a custody case, domestic abuse, threats, etc. and it is admissible. It may not be true in ND, I do not know, nor do I know how it applies in a business setting or if that is any different...

 

[Rocco]

In order for audio recording to be legal, whether it is in an office, a store, a building, a car, or in a room, all parties must be literally told that recording is occurring, and there must also be a sign posted that clearly reveals that audio recording is taking place. Since audio recording is generally not legal, most people stick to video and picture evidence.
[...]
North Dakota law (N.D. Gen Stat.15A-287(a)) states it is a Class C felony to intercept a communication without the consent of at least one of the party giving consent.
[...]

Audio Surveillance Laws by State:Everything You Need to Know

All parties do not have to be told in ND. It's a one party consent state, as stated in your link.

 

[Via Marple]

All parties do not have to be told in ND. It's a one party consent state, as stated in your link.

Thanks. Then the front office might have audio security cameras, I can imagine... in case staff are copping abuse from complaining customers.

I am in Australia A few years ago I bought a security camera from a US site. They didn't sell ones with audio, to my disappointment.

I have no trouble getting audio recording Netgear or uniden in Aus.

 

[human]

I have seen more than one moved and it is a pretty big undertaking, but far from impossible, and not so uncommon. People buy land and buy a new or used one and put them on, buy them new and place them, move from one trailer court to another. There are services that both move and set them.

I honestly have not heard of them not being able to be moved due to wiring, that is a new one to me but I suppose different states do vary.

In what I was talking about, it somewhat traps the owner and allows the trailer court to be guaranteed at least five years of lot rent, etc. The girl I talked about previously was well and truly stuck. It was an affordable option to her at the time but when she wanted out, there were few options. If I could have rented it out, even if I had to leave it on site and even if the renters had to be approved by the park, I would have bought it, but they nixed that option as well, even though they themselves rented units to people. Five years is a long time and much can happen, deaths, change of jobs, divorce--it seems pretty unfair to lock something in that long. If one buys a house and has a mortgage, at least one can always rent it if it cannot be sold.

Anyhow, it is probably not the case here but it is a thought. Perhaps if his practice was not doing so well he planned a move...

The law was made in Minnesota because there were so many fire deaths do to wiring that was screwed up when a trailer was moved. Maybe companies have addressed the issue or other places are more lax in their laws

 

[human]

In order for audio recording to be legal, whether it is in an office, a store, a building, a car, or in a room, all parties must be literally told that recording is occurring, and there must also be a sign posted that clearly reveals that audio recording is taking place. Since audio recording is generally not legal, most people stick to video and picture evidence.
[...]
North Dakota law (N.D. Gen Stat.15A-287(a)) states it is a Class C felony to intercept a communication without the consent of at least one of the party giving consent.
[...]

Audio Surveillance Laws by State:Everything You Need to Know

One party would be the rental company

 

[Rocco]

Thanks. Then the front office might have audio security cameras, I can imagine... in case staff are copping abuse from complaining customers.

I am in Australia A few years ago I bought a security camera from a US site. They didn't sell ones with audio, to my disappointment.

I have no trouble getting audio recording Netgear or uniden in Aus.

I spoke with someone this afternoon who installs security systems in ND and Mn. He said all the systems he installs have audio. I asked if he also places signs that say ''This property is surveillance'' or anything similar, when he installs the systems. He said he doesn't, however some businesses do that on their own as a deterrent.
I guess it may depend on how old the system is that they have in place as to whether or not they have audio. Can you imagine though how horrific the audio is if they do have it. Ugh.

 

[NumbersGal0906]

I spoke with someone this afternoon who installs security systems in ND and Mn. He said all the systems he installs have audio. I asked if he also places signs that say ''This property is surveillance'' or anything similar, when he installs the systems. He said he doesn't, however some businesses do that on their own as a deterrent.
I guess it may depend on how old the system is that they have in place as to whether or not they have audio. Can you imagine though how horrific the audio is if they do have it. Ugh.

A lot of businesses here use that, “Smile, you’re on camera” sign. And in regard to the audio, I’m really hoping they didn’t have interior audio/video. The likelihood of CI pleading guilty is probably between zero & forget about it. Having to watch/listen to those tapes at trial is going to rip those poor families apart once again.

 

[Rocco]

A lot of businesses here use that, “Smile, you’re on camera” sign. And in regard to the audio, I’m really hoping they didn’t have interior audio/video. The likelihood of CI pleading guilty is probably between zero & forget about it. Having to watch/listen to those tapes at trial is going to rip those poor families apart once again.

The only positive would be the case would be a slam dunk, but it sounds like it pretty much is anyway with the evidence they have.

 

[Via Marple]

The only positive would be the case would be a slam dunk, but it sounds like it pretty much is anyway with the evidence they have.

If there is comprehensive audio/video where the murders occurred, and at his entry/exit, it would definitely go a long way to remove any doubt. Such as seeing him change his clothes, hiding his weapons in a bundle etc. There should be no need to go through the most gruesome parts for public view, I would hope.

CCTV is supposed to deter petty crimes. Who would have thought someone would commit a mass murder on camera. Those who ever did usually committed suicide after. Just incomprehensible....

 

[ilovechili]

If there is comprehensive audio/video where the murders occurred, and at his entry/exit, it would definitely go a long way to remove any doubt. Such as seeing him change his clothes, hiding his weapons in a bundle etc. There should be no need to go through the most gruesome parts for public view, I would hope.

CCTV is supposed to deter petty crimes. Who would have thought someone would commit a mass murder on camera. Those who ever did usually committed suicide after. Just incomprehensible....

A jury may be shown in its entirety though. The family will likely be advised ahead of time such things will be shown and they may wish to leave the courtroom. It happens with pictures of victims and autopsy photos and such too.

He has given so little indication of anything. In court he seemed quite calm I thought for the charges he is facing. I wonder if he will plead guilty, the evidence seems to ample and stacked against him.

Yes this crime seems to not be a whodunit, it is pretty clear the evidence is there, it remains a "whydunit" though. I wonder if they know what his motive or his own perceived reason for it was.

 

[The 13th]

RBBM
Here is a link to the report:

John Oliver has done some in-depth pieces over widely-overlooked issues that affect poor and working class Americans. I remember him doing one about predatory lending from car lots just offhand. I'm very sorry to hear that big investors have moved from sprawling overdevelopment to intense city gentrification to exploiting the housing options for mobile homes. This has been an option for people who have been forced out of housing options already. Just like with the cars, these rich people and companies "sell" the house over and over and over again with exorbitant interest rates designed to drive out the existing resident and "sell" or rent it again.

Somewhat O.T.; not saying this is what happened in this terrible situation, obviously. Thanks for the link. Oliver is a sharp and smart man. I mean comedian.

 

[dansbia]

I just watched the video of last week tonight and altho that is terrifying and happening to people all over, I don't get the feeling that is the case here. If RJR or the new owner raised the lot rent to a point where he felt like slaughtering people I feel other tenants would complain about the hike in rent. I felt like from the reviews the owners were fair hard working people. Just my opinion.

Also has it been confirmed wether he lives in a mobile home or an RV? It's my understanding he lived in an RV park.

 

[Inthedetails]

I just watched the video of last week tonight and altho that is terrifying and happening to people all over, I don't get the feeling that is the case here. If RJR or the new owner raised the lot rent to a point where he felt like slaughtering people I feel other tenants would complain about the hike in rent. I felt like from the reviews the owners were fair hard working people. Just my opinion.

Also has it been confirmed wether he lives in a mobile home or an RV? It's my understanding he lived in an RV park.

There was a picture of his place in the media. It's a mobile home.

jmo