OH - Pike County: 8 people from one family dead as police hunt for killer(s) - #24

[glf]

Hanna's tax refund would depend on whatever she and Jake worked out. Him being a truck driver, I would think he helped Hanna out with child support, even if it wasn't court ordered. So, we can't be certain who carried her as a dependent. The same goes with Frankie and Chelsie.

 

[jk204]

bbm, This makes me think that the the children would have been killed/murdered as well but were not seen.

I dont agree. Because infants were found in beds and assaillants knew victims

The Ohio attorney general says whoever killed eight members from the same family in Ohio were familiar with the victims, their homes and the surrounding area
http://nbc4i.com/2016/08/21/official-rhoden-family-familiar-with-killers/

 

[glf]

I still think the two babies are being dangled over family members heads like pawns in a chess game. You may have info we need, and we have the babies. HA! HA!

 

[RAISINISBACK]

How do you explain this in your theory?

“As the sheriff of this county, I fear if information is released it would put the minor children or their caregivers in grave danger"

Pike County Juvenile Court Judge Robert Rosenberger ruled that public access to court hearings and records related to a now five-month girl and 11-month-old boy “could harm the children or their custodians.”

"The Court does not believe that threat of harm has diminished with the passage of time,'' Rosenberg wrote.

I think the killers went out of their way to leave those babies alive that night, and I think that was done to leave a threat to the remaining family members.

In other words, keep your mouth shut or we will come back and kill the babies. I feel like that is the way Reader views it and why he said they were still in danger. By removing that leverage the killers have and keeping it safe from them, he thinks that would allow any remaining family to feel free to talk to LE. I think that is why he continues to insist the children are still in danger. Which they would be if the killers were using them as leverage to keep the remaining family quiet about anything they knew.

I feel that if the killers had wanted to harm the children they would have done so that night. There was nothing to stop them from killing them also.

Unless they left them alive as leverage I cannot think of any reason they would pass over them that night and then come back later and kill them. It wouldn't make sense and I believe that these killers thought out every aspect and angle of this crime before they committed it, including what to do with the children that were present at the scene.

But my theory is only that, a theory. It probably has some major holes in it. That theory would explain a lot though.

 

[rsd1200]

Or they didn't want to take a chance of having to kill BR who lived with FR and HHG so they waited for him to move out.

BBM
Just got to thinking, that would definitely mean that they were very close to the family.

 

[RAISINISBACK]

Hanna's tax refund would depend on whatever she and Jake worked out. Him being a truck driver, I would think he helped Hanna out with child support, even if it wasn't court ordered. So, we can't be certain who carried her as a dependent. The same goes with Frankie and Chelsie.

It would be almost certain Chelsie claimed BR. Unless FR had a Form 8332 Release/Revocation of Release of Claim to Exemption for Child by Custodial Parent he could not legally claim BR. Indeed most CPA's and others who prepare taxes would ask for a copy of that form before they would allow him to claim the child. I can't see Chelsie giving that to him because she was working and would have been entitled to claim the EIC and CTC.

The same goes for SW's father JW. I can't see HR giving that to JW if she worked any in 2015, because she would have been entitled to the credits.

I would like to add something here that is not common knowledge about who can legally claim a child living in a household. Legally a child must be claimed by the taxpayer living in the home that had the highest wages whether that child is the child of that taxpayer or not.

In that scenario taxpayer A owns or rents the house and taxpayer B and/or C if it is a married couple are living in the home with A. B and/or C have a child. A does not. A earns wages of 40,000.00 for that year. B and/or C earns wages of 20,000.00 for that year. Taxpayer A must claim the child. That is the IRS law. If B and/or C are audited, the IRS will disallow that child as their dependent and taxpayer A can then file an amended form and claim the child if they wish to do so.

In this case with HR living with DR for the year of 2015, DR would have legally been entitled to claim SW if she was the highest wage earner. That doesn't mean she did, indeed she probably did not, since by each claiming one child they would have collectively gotten more money back.

 

[rsd1200]

bbm, This makes me think that the the children would have been killed/murdered as well but were not seen.

.
As well as the assailant(s) did their homework on these folks, they had to know that there were babies there. The only one I could see them overlooking is the toddler, who they may not have realized was there, because he'd not normally not have been there, and who could have slept through it all.

 

[jk204]

You know LE is implying that they have been lied to by neighbor's, friends of the family, and family. Does everyone realize how intertwined some of these neighbor's are to this family? They "are " family! 1st cousins, 2nd , and third. Uncles , Aunt's, in-laws, grandparents, married to, divorced from. Because of tos rules I can't mention all the names. But I think CRsr rented some of his land to them, making them "close neighbor's" in more ways than one.

This discussion about the land is interesting. I could be wrong, but in my opinion it's not worth a lot and the inheritance of it is not a large stake.

I think the main issue with the land was what was happening on it. It must have been uneasy sometimes to be a neighbor. I would not be surprised if the Rhodens had conflicts with some of them.

It probably got worst as the kids reached their teens and I am not sure all neighbors were happy to see them expanding on a second site.

I haven't heard tons of sympathies from people of UHR. We even discussed here our surprise on some comments made.

So I wonder if it was the reason why Reader showed up so quickly at the local church.

Killing a neighbor is rare. But if the neighbor is family or has some other personal issues with the Rhodens then it gets a lot more interesting

 

[Betty P]

This discussion about the land is interesting. I could be wrong, but in my opinion it's not worth a lot and the inheritance of it is not a large stake.

I think the main issue with the land was what was happening on it. It must have been uneasy sometimes to be a neighbor. I would not be surprised if the Rhodens had conflicts with some of them.

It probably got worst as the kids reached their teens and I am not sure all neighbors were happy to see them expanding on a second site.

I haven't heard tons of sympathies from people of UHR. We even discussed here our surprise on some comments made.

So I wonder if it was the reason why Reader showed up so quickly at the local church.

Killing a neighbor is rare. But if the neighbor is family or has some other personal issues with the Rhodens then it gets a lot more interesting

I found it interesting that Reader's recent message to the community included neighbors among those he felt were withholding information about the murders.

Not to say neighbors were responsible for the deaths, but that they may have seen or heard something that night or know something relevant about CR1's activities, circle of acquaintances, recent events, etc. Reader may be hearing rumors that someone saw a car, saw something that night. Perhaps some neighbor was a light sleeper, worked a late shift, or rose early to go turkey hunting that day.

I can certainly understand why they would be afraid to say something to LE.

 

[RAISINISBACK]

It would be almost certain Chelsie claimed BR. Unless FR had a Form 8332 Release/Revocation of Release of Claim to Exemption for Child by Custodial Parent he could not legally claim BR. Indeed most CPA's and others who prepare taxes would ask for a copy of that form before they would allow him to claim the child. I can't see Chelsie giving that to him because she was working and would have been entitled to claim the EIC and CTC.

The same goes for SW's father JW. I can't see HR giving that to JW if she worked any in 2015, because she would have been entitled to the credits.

I would like to add something here that is not common knowledge about who can legally claim a child living in a household. Legally a child must be claimed by the taxpayer living in the home that had the highest wages whether that child is the child of that taxpayer or not.

In that scenario taxpayer A owns or rents the house and taxpayer B and/or C if it is a married couple are living in the home with A. B and/or C have a child. A does not. A earns wages of 40,000.00 for that year. B and/or C earns wages of 20,000.00 for that year. Taxpayer A must claim the child. That is the IRS law. If B and/or C are audited, the IRS will disallow that child as their dependent and taxpayer A can then file an amended form and claim the child if they wish to do so.

In this case with HR living with DR for the year of 2015, DR would have legally been entitled to claim SW if she was the highest wage earner. That doesn't mean she did, indeed she probably did not, since by each claiming one child they would have collectively gotten more money back.

I cannot insert a link to these Publication from the IRS site because of security risks. But anyone interested can go to IRS.GOV and type Publication 501 or Publication 17 into the search bar. For those of you who are not enthused about reading the entire publications here is most of the pertintent information that would have applied to DR and HR.

IRS Publication 501

IRS Publication 17

Tiebreaker rules. To determine which person can treat the child as a qualifying child to claim these six tax benefits, the following tiebreaker rules apply.

• If only one of the persons is the child's parent, the child is treated as the qualifying child of the parent.
  
• If the parents file a joint return together and can claim the child as a qualifying child, the child is treated as the qualifying child of the parents.
  
• If the parents don't file a joint return together but both parents claim the child as a qualifying child, the IRS will treat the child as the qualifying child of the parent with whom the child lived for the longer period of time during the year. If the child lived with each parent for the same amount of time, the IRS will treat the child as the qualifying child of the parent who had the higher adjusted gross income (AGI) for the year.
  
• If no parent can claim the child as a qualifying child, the child is treated as the qualifying child of the person who had the highest AGI for the year.
  
• If a parent can claim the child as a qualifying child but no parent does so claim the child, the child is treated as the qualifying child of the person who had the highest AGI for the year, but only if that person's AGI is higher than the highest AGI of any of the child's parents who can claim the child. If the child's parents file a joint return with each other, this rule can be applied by dividing the parents' combined AGI equally between the parents.

Subject to these tiebreaker rules, you and the other person may be able to choose which of you claims the child as a qualifying child.

Example 1—child lived with parent and grandparent.
You and your 2-year-old son Jimmy lived with your mother all year. You are 25 years old, unmarried, and your AGI is $9,000. Your only income was $9,000 from a part-time job. Your mother's only income was $20,000 from her job, and her AGI is $20,000. Jimmy's father didn't live with you or Jimmy. The special rule explained later for divorced or separated parents (or parents who live apart) doesn't apply. Jimmy is a qualifying child of both you and your mother because he meets the relationship, age, residency, and joint return tests for both you and your mother. However, only one of you can treat him as a qualifying child to claim the EIC (and the other tax benefits listed earlier for which that person qualifies). He isn't a qualifying child of anyone else, including his father. If you don't claim Jimmy as a qualifying child for the EIC or any of the other tax benefits listed earlier, your mother can treat him as a qualifying child to claim the EIC (and any of the other tax benefits listed earlier for which she qualifies).

Example 5—taxpayer who is a qualifying child. The facts are the same as in Example 1 except you are only 18 years old and didn't provide more than half of your own support for the year. This means you are your mother's qualifying child. If she can claim you as a dependent, then you can't claim your daughter as a dependent because of the Dependent Taxpayer Test explained earlier.

 

[jk204]

A case about a family of 5 killed by neighbor. First, people thought the family had fled because the father had the reputation of a fraudulous business man.

https://www.google.fr/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2003/sep/18/france.jonhenley?

 

[rsd1200]

If the person who lives up from KR, was living w/FR & HG, and had recently moved, when DR moved to her new place. Wouldn't he have been privy to family discussions, gossip, fears, etc...? He's a relative, a former roommate, and is also a neighbor.

 

[RAISINISBACK]

If the person who lives up from KR, was living w/FR & HG, and had recently moved, when DR moved to her new place. Wouldn't he have been privy to family discussions, gossip, fears, etc...? He's a relative, a former roommate, and is also a neighbor.

I have assumed all this time the victims were connected simply because they were family but KR never really fit. Now I think they were connected by the fact they all lived at 4077 in the months prior to the murders. I feel BR living there then moving out right before the murders is tied in somehow.

 

[rsd1200]

I have assumed all this time the victims were connected simply because they were family but KR never really fit. Now I think they were connected by the fact they all lived at 4077 in the months prior to the murders. I feel BR living there then moving out right before the murders is tied in somehow.

.
I would think that people who had lived there, and/or went there every day to help out, to work on cars, etc... and are still living, would likely have been privy to SOMEthing. CR1 was the one listed on the land titles but it was et al. So KR had every right to be on the properties. If the brothers had gotten annoyed at each other then they could have forced a sale. (At least that's the way I understand it to be here.)

Edit: Which I only mean to say, about the land, that they could have forced a sale to get their part of the money from the land w/o killing CR1 and KR. It would have been so much easier, w/o the fear of prison, and much less dangerous. The land would be so split up and held up (like it has been), in court, what with the pot grow on at least two sites, it may be confiscated by the state, so killing for the land just doesn't seem profitable to me. If it were hundreds of acres, in a site that was wanted for development, then I could maybe see that. Of course if you have a young person thinking this through, then they may not have looked at it in that way. KR said that if her father had any money she wouldn't be struggling to pay for college. College is expensive. I just helped one of mine pay for their last semester before graduation and it's not $600 a semester anymore.

 

[jk204]

Or they didn't want to take a chance of having to kill BR who lived with FR and HHG so they waited for him to move out.

- Why did he move in?
- Why did he move out?
- What happened when he was there?
- Did the family got involved in his personal issues?

These are good questions. I don't believe there is any media about this.

 

[jk204]

If the person who lives up from KR, was living w/FR & HG, and had recently moved, when DR moved to her new place. Wouldn't he have been privy to family discussions, gossip, fears, etc...? He's a relative, a former roommate, and is also a neighbor.

Good point.

 

[jk204]

Is it fair to assume that DR, HR, FR and HG were not involved in significant criminal activities?

The State has granted aid to pay for their funeral expenses. It was denied for CR.

http://www.dispatch.com/news/201701...istance-money-to-family-of-christopher-rhoden

Can anyone with knowledge of Ohio law explain this a little further? Am I reading too much into this?

 

[amauet1]

Could this crime be as simple as "feed up"? Could the resentments of this family have started with the devision of the family over the "Clarence" thing. CRsr and KR verses TR and BRsr? One set of brothers siding with their father and the other set siding with their mother?
Remember these are "country people". I was brought up this way. A piece of land was important to have, it showed status and ownership of your own. On that land and in the home, it was your and your families business what happened there. You don't discuss what goes on in your home with "outsiders" and certainly nothing that would bring shame to the family name. This was a great wrong! Pride in the family name was the most important thing to my father!
CRsr and his family and influence on the "victim" got his father released from prison. Loose to do it again, or not getting his "come upins" for the terrible crime he commented. CRsr receiving the "lions" share of the land and buying up more, and him taking up for his father didn't set well with family, friends and neighbors.
Now add that the property looks like a "junk pile", Children are now young adults that are contributing to the mess. Growing and selling pot and maybe something else? Getting in fights, bragging about all they have, "Lording" themselves over these small communities (UHR, Camp Creek Rd, Left Fork Rd, maybe even BBL and Piketon). From what I've read and heard they seemed to have a sense of entitlement around there, that they were "better" than most of their peres. Ruling over the entire road of Union Hill carrying weapons and attitudes with them.
Could the neighbors, friends and family have finally said "enough is enough"? IMO they didn't see an ending of this behavior from this family. Now they have even more property and another place to fill with junk cars, drugs and teenagers partying or dealing drugs and causing more trouble.
IMO, all these people had watched as their neighborhood decline more and more. Maybe to them, these family was the reason for it all. IMO this had been "brewing" for a long time.
Maybe "they" saw the Rhoden family as immoral, trouble makers, with no end in sight or improvement of their bahavior. Others joined in because of their own reason's, but "all" had a common goal. To get rid of the Rhoden's, once and for all.
The babies were left because they were to young to be corruped by the family yet, and maybe to give them a chance to "redem" this branch of the Rhoden family.
Could it have been that simple?
(These are my thoughts and opinions)

(If this is true, it would explain "why" no one is talking. They all know why it was done, and maybe not who did it.)

 

[RAISINISBACK]

.
I would think that people who had lived there, and/or went there every day to help out, to work on cars, etc... and are still living, would likely have been privy to SOMEthing. CR1 was the one listed on the land titles but it was et al. So KR had every right to be on the properties. If the brothers had gotten annoyed at each other then they could have forced a sale. (At least that's the way I understand it to be here.)

Edit: Which I only mean to say, about the land, that they could have forced a sale to get their part of the money from the land w/o killing CR1 and KR. It would have been so much easier, w/o the fear of prison, and much less dangerous. The land would be so split up and held up (like it has been), in court, what with the pot grow on at least two sites, it may be confiscated by the state, so killing for the land just doesn't seem profitable to me. If it were hundreds of acres, in a site that was wanted for development, then I could maybe see that. Of course if you have a young person thinking this through, then they may not have looked at it in that way. KR said that if her father had any money she wouldn't be struggling to pay for college. College is expensive. I just helped one of mine pay for their last semester before graduation and it's not $600 a semester anymore.

In my house any incident would be cussed and discussed at length. Me or hubby talks to our son and all grandkids every day. Sometimes five times a day. It's like "hi Nana, I know I live in a different state but I just called to tell you I am going three blocks down the street to Walmart". Hubby spends hours on the phone with our son every day discussing everything from the price of gasoline to politics to sports. My DIL calls to tell me if someone says hello to her in the store. My siblings call to tell me what the Vet said. And what their kids said. And what their kids neighbors said. You get the idea. But I know that there are some families that are not as close. Some are downright secretive.

I don't think that is the case with the Rhodens though. I think if any incident occurred DR shared with her family and CR1 shared with his.

IIRC I think BR stated early in some interview that he was not home the night of the murders.

By the way does anyone recall why IJ was on UHR and what that incident was about? I don't have time to look for it. Also the incident involving CR2 and the woman. Those are two fairly serious incidents that occurred shortly before the murders and were discussed with other family members since LM knew about them.

Do we know if IJ or any of his friends were friends with any of the victims or any other family members? Had he or any of his friends ever been in the homes? Was BR friends with him?

We pretty much know the woman involved in the incident with CR2 had probably been in the homes since she was extended family.

 

[Dudly]

Good point.

Could he be a suspect?