OH - Pike County: 8 people from one family dead as police hunt for killer(s) #32

[Betty P]

Off topic but here is part of the problem with drugs in Ohio. In possession of 17 pounds of marijuana but not charged with possession. He was given 60 months
of probation for trafficking. I guess they didn't want him to
https://www.earlybirdpaper.com/gettysburg-man-guilty-of-trafficking/

Looks like they're going to legalize it for recreational use. Grow your own with a license, sell it, etc. DeWine may be courting votes.

http://radio.wosu.org/post/ohio-attorney-general-approves-marijuana-legalization-petition#stream/0

Not sure if they're doing this because of the November election, but hopefully it will pass and free up LE to focus on more serious crimes.

 

[RAISINISBACK]

The insurance world is something I know - 33 years of it - lol. I haven't read whether DR or CR Sr. had life insurance. If Dana's place of employment provided it for full-time employees, she may have been covered. But CR Sr. was self-employed.

It is not unusual for parents to purchase a whole life policy on young children. It is inexpensive to purchase, builds some cash value and they typically plan to turn it over to the child when they reach adulthood.

The murder of an insured is considered to be an accident to the insured, so if there is an accidental death (or double-indemnity clause) on the policy, then this additional benefit would also be paid to the beneficiary.

Life insurance appears to be quite simple, however, it can also be quite complicated.

So if my research is correct DR could have gotten a one million dollar accidental death policy on her and CR1 for about 50.00 a month? It would have paid off 500,000.00 on CR1 and 250,000.00 on her right? If they had been killed in a public transport vehicle (bus, train, plane ect) it would have paid the full face value.

So it is entirely possible she had something like that on her and CR1 in case of a car accident.

What does everyone else think?

Such a policy would have been a strong motive for murder, especially since the four grandchildren would have inherited, with SW receiving about 1/4 and if little K had been JW's he would have gotten 1/2 of that. That's 187,500.00 per child, and 375,000.00 for 2 children.

Does it make sense she might have had that on her and CR1 since by having insurance on the kids proves she was of that mind set.

It could be the reason all those babies were left alive, since their parents, LM and Gr would have inherited otherwise.

JMO

 

[RAISINISBACK]

And to you Raisin!

And to you RSD

 

[MittenScarpetta]

So if my research is correct DR could have gotten a one million dollar accidental death policy on her and CR1 for about 50.00 a month? It would have paid off 500,000.00 on CR1 and 250,000.00 on her right? If they had been killed in a public transport vehicle (bus, train, plane ect) it would have paid the full face value.

So it is entirely possible she had something like that on her and CR1 in case of a car accident.

What does everyone else think?

Such a policy would have been a strong motive for murder, especially since the four grandchildren would have inherited, with SW receiving about 1/4 and if little K had been JW's he would have gotten 1/2 of that. That's 187,500.00 per child, and 375,000.00 for 2 children.

Does it make sense she might have had that on her and CR1 since by having insurance on the kids proves she was of that mind set.

It could be the reason all those babies were left alive, since their parents, LM and Gr would have inherited otherwise.

JMO

I’ve considered this many times.

BUT, then how does KR fit in with that?

At the end of the day, I truly have always felt these murders boil down to who had the most to gain from with these 8 people dead. Whether it be money, land, or other things.

 

[rsd1200]

Off topic but here is part of the problem with drugs in Ohio. In possession of 17 pounds of marijuana but not charged with possession. He was given 60 months
of probation for trafficking. I guess they didn't want him to lose his source of income....

https://www.earlybirdpaper.com/gettysburg-man-guilty-of-trafficking/

In the eyes of the law, possession means you did not intend to sell. Trafficking pretty much covers both; You are in possession of the illegal substance, and you intend to sell the illegal substance. Possession labels you a user, trafficking labels you a dealer.

 

[rsd1200]

molly12, would we be seeing insurance, on the adults, playing out, in probate court, if there were policies on the adults?
KR included? It appears folks want his sliver of the land, outside his kids, and I'm thinking that his three children have all rights to that, wouldn't they? Unless he had a will stating otherwise?

 

[MittenScarpetta]

molly12, would we be seeing insurance, on the adults, playing out, in probate court, if there were policies on the adults?
KR included? It appears folks want his sliver of the land, outside his kids, and I'm thinking that his three children have all rights to that, wouldn't they? Unless he had a will stating otherwise?

I know you asked Molly about insurance but I wanted to give input on the land. I’ve personally dealt with probate twice. One time directly with my father a year ago. In that instance, everything was granted to me (mainly possessions etc) because I am an only child. Even with his mother, (my grandmother) being alive, I was still considered the immediate next of kin. I was also legally responsible for the funeral expenses. Now, when my grandmother passes away some day (hopefully years and years from now), my fathers share of her assets, go to me.

So, for KR, his children are the ones who have the rights to his share of the land. If he had a will, probate wouldn’t have gone on this long as his wishes would have been followed from his will through the probate court.

I hope that makes sense.

 

[Dudly]

In the eyes of the law, possession means you did not intend to sell. Trafficking pretty much covers both; You are in possession of the illegal substance, and you intend to sell the illegal substance. Possession labels you a user, trafficking labels you a dealer.

But only probation for a dealer with 17 pounds of pot?

 

[MittenScarpetta]

But only probation for a dealer with 17 pounds of pot?

I’d guarantee he took a plea deal. His original charges were prob both trafficking and possession. They most likely offered him a plea, threw out one of the charges and offered him probation and fines to plead guilty. It was probably his first offense and after all, it was marijuana, not cocaine, meth, heroin, or pills, ya know?

 

[rsd1200]

I know you asked Molly about insurance but I wanted to give input on the land. I’ve personally dealt with probate twice. One time directly with my father a year ago. In that instance, everything was granted to me (mainly possessions etc) because I am an only child. Even with his mother, (my grandmother) being alive, I was still considered the immediate next of kin. I was also legally responsible for the funeral expenses. Now, when my grandmother passes away some day (hopefully years and years from now), my fathers share of her assets, go to me.

So, for KR, his children are the ones who have the rights to his share of the land. If he had a will, probate wouldn’t have gone on this long as his wishes would have been followed from his will through the probate court.

I hope that makes sense.

Agree, with his land, I cannot understand why others feel they have a claim. I just don't see that unless he may have owed them money? They may try to recoup that way I guess but I don't see any other way. Lots of family places go to the remaining children, equally, when parents pass. Some break it up, but most let the kids work it out. It can get a bit touchy, sometimes, depending on the family and sibs, though.

 

[molly1255]

So if my research is correct DR could have gotten a one million dollar accidental death policy on her and CR1 for about 50.00 a month? It would have paid off 500,000.00 on CR1 and 250,000.00 on her right? If they had been killed in a public transport vehicle (bus, train, plane ect) it would have paid the full face value.

So it is entirely possible she had something like that on her and CR1 in case of a car accident.

What does everyone else think?

Such a policy would have been a strong motive for murder, especially since the four grandchildren would have inherited, with SW receiving about 1/4 and if little K had been JW's he would have gotten 1/2 of that. That's 187,500.00 per child, and 375,000.00 for 2 children.

Does it make sense she might have had that on her and CR1 since by having insurance on the kids proves she was of that mind set.

It could be the reason all those babies were left alive, since their parents, LM and Gr would have inherited otherwise.

JMO

Accidental death and dismemberment coverage is inexpensive and as to exactly what is covered and the percent of the benefit paid for the kind of loss incurred, it really depends on the policy language and how much coverage you buy.

Young people who are healthy tend to think they are most likely to die by accident and they would be correct in that assumption. There is another component to many accidental death policies and that is the dismemberment benefit and given the Rhoden's situation, I can see this as being an additional incentive to buy a policy like this. It's called an AD&D policy and it's very common, very inexpensive, comes in many forms and since CR Sr. was self-employed (no Workers' Compensation) and he did carpentry work, car work, etc., he was at risk of losing a finger, fingers, a hand, etc. and this kind of loss would put him out of business. The dismemberment benefits tend to be quite generous under these policies and they are also tax-free.

I can totally see a wife and mother who wants to try to protect her family being very interested in this kind of low-cost coverage.

They could easily have had and afforded $1,000,000 or more each in coverage. Murder by life insurance does happen. I've seen several happen in my career, but the one I will never forget happened years ago and involved the murder of a man who had pretty close to $1,000,000 in coverage, with multiple carriers. The beneficiary on all of these policies was listed as his fiance. The problem was, he didn't know about any of these policies, and he also didn't know the woman who purchased them. She did it all through the mail. And yes, she was the killer.

 

[rsd1200]

But only probation for a dealer with 17 pounds of pot?

It's weed. They don't even take you in, here, anymore, unless it's over a certain amount. They just write up a citation. He'd have been out in no time. They fined him $5k, he has to work community service and have drug testing, and they got his weed. If he'd had a pound of Heroin, or Meth, with some scales, he'd be looking at jail time. Meth is so bad in some communities, and they are so over run, that if you are paying your court fees, or fines, checking in on time, they don't worry about folks with weed charges. They are worried about the stuff that's killing folks off. Weed won't kill you but that other stuff definitely will.

 

[rsd1200]

Accidental death and dismemberment coverage is inexpensive and as to exactly what is covered and the percent of the benefit paid for the kind of loss incurred, it really depends on the policy language and how much coverage you buy.

Young people who are healthy tend to think they are most likely to die by accident and they would be correct in that assumption. There is another component to many accidental death policies and that is the dismemberment benefit and given the Rhoden's situation, I can see this as being an additional incentive to buy a policy like this. It's called an AD&D policy and it's very common, very inexpensive, comes in many forms and since CR Sr. was self-employed (no Workers' Compensation) and he did carpentry work, car work, etc., he was at risk of losing a finger, fingers, a hand, etc. and this kind of loss would put him out of business. The dismemberment benefits tend to be quite generous under these policies and they are also tax-free.

I can totally see a wife and mother who wants to try to protect her family being very interested in this kind of low-cost coverage.

They could easily have had and afforded $1,000,000 or more each in coverage. Murder by life insurance does happen. I've seen several happen in my career, but the one I will never forget happened years ago and involved the murder of a man who had pretty close to $1,000,000 in coverage, with multiple carriers. The beneficiary on all of these policies was listed as his fiance. The problem was, he didn't know about any of these policies, and he also didn't know the woman who purchased them. She did it all through the mail. And yes, she was the killer.

Wow! What a horrible woman! So, even though DR and CR2 were not married, DR could have gotten this coverage on CR1, or so it seems.

 

[molly1255]

I’ve considered this many times.

BUT, then how does KR fit in with that?

At the end of the day, I truly have always felt these murders boil down to who had the most to gain from with these 8 people dead. Whether it be money, land, or other things.

I agree 100%.

 

[molly1255]

Wow! What a horrible woman! So, even though DR and CR2 were not married, DR could have gotten this coverage on CR1, or so it seems.

Because of the story I told above, and others like it, insurance companies are tougher in their underwriting in terms of making certain the proposed insured actually knows there is an application out on them and also making sure the person who is buying the coverage has an insurable interest in the life of the proposed insured. In the case I mentioned, the woman was indeed a horrible person and she killed herself before the sheriff was able to arrest her for murder.

A fiance typically does not have an insurable interest in the life of her husband-to-be and vice versa. An exception might be made if there is a court order for child support.

A divorced couple might have an insurable interest in the life of their former partners when alimony and/or child support is involved. In those cases, pretty sure the underwriter would want to see the court order.

There are cases where an ex-wife or ex-husband purchased a policy on their ex-spouse when they were married (and had an insurable interest) and also named themselves as the owner of the policy. When someone owns the life insurance policy of another, they are in charge of the policy, as long as they make the premium payments to keep it in force. The owner can also change the beneficiary whenever they wish. In cases like this, the ex-spouse may not even be aware that this old life insurance policy is still in force!

 

[amauet1]

Thank you!

I went and looked. It looks like FR’s is settled, but there’s another hearing for HMR & CRjr on 6/11.

As far as the home owners insurance on DR, I would speculate that she did not have to have PMI insurance on it since there was a 30k down payment and the mortgage would’ve then only been for 30k. PMI is typically only used when a down payment is less than 20% OR when the loan to value ratio is high, I.e when there’s no equity. So my best guess is that no, DR would not have had that type of insurance that would pay off her home in the event of a death. Unless of course, she paid the extra on her standard house insurance to have that clause. Just from experience, most people don’t choose that option because it can be pricey and insurance companies try to not even tell the insured it’s an option.

In regards to the life insurance on the 3 Rhoden kids, I need to research, BUT it used to be in the event of a homicide, life insurance will not disperse funds until the crime is solved OR the beneficiary has been 100% cleared of any wrong doing. I would tend to believe that DR would have listed the beneficiary as herself and probably CRsr as the secondary. Since they’re both deceased, I wonder who she had listed as the 3rd beneficiary (if she even did). If there’s not a 3rd beneficiary, I’m not sure how an insurance company would handle that. Would they default the payout to the next of kin? Or in the event that CRsr wasn’t the 2nd listed beneficiary, who was? And did that person know prior to the murders?

Also, I did an address search of BJM on a couple different databases I use. One came up with zero results (odd). The other two case up with an address I’ve never seen mentioned anywhere. So, if she lived or lived on the property on LFR, she never used the address.

For BJM I was talking about the Camp Creek Rd property that only CRsr owned. The 1.906 acre.

 

[molly1255]

molly12, would we be seeing insurance, on the adults, playing out, in probate court, if there were policies on the adults?
KR included? It appears folks want his sliver of the land, outside his kids, and I'm thinking that his three children have all rights to that, wouldn't they? Unless he had a will stating otherwise?

Life insurance proceeds are paid directly to the named beneficiary and if the named beneficiary is deceased, they then get paid to the named contingent beneficiary.

In cases where both the named beneficiary and the named contingent beneficiary are both deceased (or if no contingent beneficiary is named in the policy), the life insurance proceeds may fall into probate court,
.
On KR, there has to be "something" about the land, IMO, that makes others believe they have an entitlement to it. If he didn't have a will and he left behind biological children, it makes sense to me that this would go to his children by rights of inheritance. I don't know what's going on with that!

 

[amauet1]

Does anyone know if DR and CR1 had life insurance on themselves? It doesn't make sense they would have it on the kids but not themselves.

Hubby and I have it on ourselves, our son and DIL and our grandsons. That reminds me, we need some on our great grandson and and our grandson's wife, just haven't had time yet.

But the point is, why would DR insure the kids but not herself? Funerals are very expensive these days and her kids would have been left with that expense to come up with so I would think she had it on herself also.

One more thing, if they all had accidental insurance, of which you can get a lot higher dollar value for a lot less money, would it pay off in the case of murder? Could that be considered an accident since it was an unexpected and unnatural death?

I am lost in the insurance world unfortunately.

Maybe she (Dana), like most adults had life insurance through her job. I think that was a new job/place of employment. I think life insurance usually kicks in after 90 days? Noticed that Citizens Deposit Bank was listed as the bank holding insurance monies.On FR's account about 6,000.00 was taken from the original 25,000.00 amount. Wonder if that was what was owned on the funeral?

 

[amauet1]

I’ve considered this many times.

BUT, then how does KR fit in with that?

At the end of the day, I truly have always felt these murders boil down to who had the most to gain from with these 8 people dead. Whether it be money, land, or other things.

Well there's an awful lot of people fighting for piece of a pie of KR's estate. I don't see anything in the probate records that is looks like he had a whole lot. Maybe he did?

 

[amauet1]

Life insurance proceeds are paid directly to the named beneficiary and if the named beneficiary is deceased, they then get paid to the named contingent beneficiary.

In cases where both the named beneficiary and the named contingent beneficiary are both deceased (or if no contingent beneficiary is named in the policy), the life insurance proceeds may fall into probate court,
.
On KR, there has to be "something" about the land, IMO, that makes others believe they have an entitlement to it. If he didn't have a will and he left behind biological children, it makes sense to me that this would go to his children by rights of inheritance. I don't know what's going on with that!

What I find strange is the Dennell Rhoden who is one of the ones listed. She was KR's uncles daughter, his cousin? So why is she going after KR's estate?