Found Deceased OH - Sierah Joughin, 20, Fulton County, 19 July 2016 #7 *Arrest*

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
tlcya

tlcya

Old and Re-Tired Websleuth
Joined
Oct 28, 2009
Messages
42,229
Reaction score
65,546
attachment.php

Desperate search for Ohio Woman Sierah Joughin Who Vanished While on Bike Ride

Sierah Joughin was out riding with her boyfriend Tuesday before the pair parted ways around 6:45 p.m. near Evergreen High School in Metamora, Ohio. The University of Toledo junior was reported missing by her family later that night when she didn't return home. Her purple bicycle was discovered several rows into a cornfield not far from where she was last seen, Fulton County Sheriff Roy Miller said Thursday. He added that there were signs of struggle.

Ex-con charged in murder of Ohio college student

A sheriff's investigator filed a criminal complaint Tuesday accusing an ex-convict of aggravated murder after a University of Toledo student's body was found following her disappearance last week.James Worley, is charged in the death of 20-year-old Sierah Joughin. She was last seen July 19 riding her bike along a country road with her boyfriend, reports CBS affiliate WTOL. The two parted ways after their ride, but Joughin never made it home.Worley was initially arrested Friday on an abduction charge in the disappearance.[...]The sheriff later confirmed that the remains found in a cornfield Friday were that of Sierah Joughin

.Murder, abduction suspect to remain in jail without bond

WAUSEON — A Fulton County judge today ordered that a murder and abduction suspect should remain in jail without bond.

Case Map [compliments of steelman]

Thread #1
Thread #2
Thread #3
Thread #4
Thread #5
Thread #6

Known and potential victims of accused killer James Dean Worley Thread

Search and Seizure Warrant
 
The warrant is saying these things MAY be on the property and we have reason to believe they MAY be on the property so we are asking for permission to search for these things that MAY be there.

Nowhere does it state remains of any sort were found the property. If they were, it hasn't been released in any paperwork or to the media at this time.
 
Responding to the one of the last posts on the last thread....

Deltucky said:
Reason to believe? Not necessarily known to be there? I'm not much on the legal stuff.
Click to expand...


That is correct. When reading the material the warrant seeks to find these things in support of the charges listed below them.
 
2Hope4 said:
The warrant is saying these things MAY be on the property and we have reason to believe they MAY be on the property so we are asking for permission to search for these things that MAY be there.

Nowhere does it state remains of any sort were found the property. If they were, it hasn't been released in any paperwork or to the media at this time.
Click to expand...
They wouldn't ask for it, if they didn't have reason to believe. They were there for a week. They asked for the warrant for the remains bc they found it and could not take it without a warrant. IMO look at all the warrants, the items increase with each warrant bc it's what they found as they kept searching. IMO

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
 
Notnice26 said:
They wouldn't ask for it, if they didn't have reason to believe. They were there for a week. They asked for the warrant for the remains bc they found it and could not take it without a warrant. IMO look at all the warrants, the items increase with each warrant bc it's what they found as they kept searching. IMO

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I'll read through so I'm up to date not just the cliff notes.

Sent from my HTC6545LVW using Tapatalk
 
2Hope4 said:
The warrant is saying these things MAY be on the property and we have reason to believe they MAY be on the property so we are asking for permission to search for these things that MAY be there.

Nowhere does it state remains of any sort were found the property. If they were, it hasn't been released in any paperwork or to the media at this time.
Click to expand...
Yes, I think they had enough probable cause to believe they would find something and LET and I think all of us were surprised that they didn't.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk
 
I agree, LE just listing what they are looking for. A search warrant has to state what is being looked for, it does not give LE free reign of everything on your property, just what they are looking for. I think they were covering bases and expected to find remains.
 
Notnice26 said:
They wouldn't ask for it, if they didn't have reason to believe. They were there for a week. They asked for the warrant for the remains bc they found it and could not take it without a warrant. IMO look at all the warrants, the items increase with each warrant bc it's what they found as they kept searching. IMO

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You are correct that they wouldn't ask if they didn't have reason to believe. The reason to believe there may be human remains is based on number 11 in the warrant.

From that application for a warrant:

"11. Based on Worley's criminal history and in discussing the evidence in this case with other officers, deputies, agents with the FBI and BCI, Worley fits the profile of a serial offender and could potentially have additional unknown victims who could have been kept at the above described location. The affiant knows based upon his knowledge and experience that these types of offenders will often keep trophies; 1 They also are known to record their activities on cameras, videos. and digital media. Additionally these offenders will keep journals with detailed records of the offenses and descriptions of the events. They also keep receipts, travel records, and other documents related to their criminal activity.

12. In the attached exhibit there are numerous items that further corroborate the belief that Worley fits the profile of a serial offender.

1 A trophy Is an item kept from a victim which allows the offender to relive the experience.

13. Based upon ihe above evidence, I have probable cause to believe Mr. Worley is a serial offender and that evidence of prior acts will be fowid at the above described premises. "
 
CZL496 said:
I'll read through so I'm up to date not just the cliff notes.

Sent from my HTC6545LVW using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
That's why I got it!! Read up!!! The date of the warrant I'm referring to is 7/24. Her body was found 7/23 and not on his property. They had "reason to believe" there was a human remain. That's the legal aspect. The reality is IMO they found a body, but couldn't do anything with it bc they didn't have a warrant. Besides it COMPLETELY matches up with local rumors. Not that, that means anything, but people talk, and that's the reality.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
 
Notnice26 said:
That's why I got it!! Read up!!! The date of the warrant I'm referring to is 7/24. Her body was found 7/23 and not on his property. They had "reason to believe" there was a human remain. That's the legal aspect. The reality is IMO they found a body, but couldn't do anything with it bc they didn't have a warrant. Besides it COMPLETELY matches up with local rumors. Not that, that means anything, but people talk, and that's the reality.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Didn't the article read "no FURTHER remains have been found"? So, loosely reading between the lines, there were previous remains but none since then?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk
 
kaen said:
You are correct that they wouldn't ask if they didn't have reason to believe. The reason to believe there may be human remains is based on number 11 in the warrant.

From that application for a warrant:

"11. Based on Worley's criminal history and in discussing the evidence in this case with other officers, deputies, agents with the FBI and BCI, Worley fits the profile of a serial offender and could potentially have additional unknown victims who could have been kept at the above described location. The affiant knows based upon his knowledge and experience that these types of offenders will often keep trophies; 1 They also are known to record their activities on cameras, videos. and digital media. Additionally these offenders will keep journals with detailed records of the offenses and descriptions of the events. They also keep receipts, travel records, and other documents related to their criminal activity.

12. In the attached exhibit there are numerous items that further corroborate the belief that Worley fits the profile of a serial offender. 1 A trophy Is an item kept from a victim which allows the offender to relive the experience....."
Click to expand...
I find it odd that everything was found but the human remains. Everything on that warrant. I find it odd that everyone in Delta has been told they found a body. And then the statement made by the Attorney General saying, "no FURTHER remains were found" the town has been talking about a dead body found for days before that statement was made.
 
Notnice26 said:
That's why I got it!! Read up!!! The date of the warrant I'm referring to is 7/24. Her body was found 7/23 and not on his property. They had "reason to believe" there was a human remain. That's the legal aspect. The reality is IMO they found a body, but couldn't do anything with it bc they didn't have a warrant. Besides it COMPLETELY matches up with local rumors. Not that, that means anything, but people talk, and that's the reality.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Actually that document was July 27th...many days after all discovery. Do you think they just haven;t been able to identify and therefore come out publicly? But wouldn't that be against their last news blip about "No remains found"?
 
ChiefsGranddaughter said:
Didn't the article read "no FURTHER remains have been found"? So, loosely reading between the lines, there were previous remains but none since then?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Yes!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
 
Thank you for those timelines, Otto & Jashrema. and the links.

The more I read, the less I remember it seems.

So he has had an arraignment. Then another appearance regarding public defender. Is that it? Is his next appearance scheduled?
I think the investigation is very much ongoing, so I don't expect to see the omnibus hearing right away; the defense would not be ready to schedule it either imo. I anticipate the case to go into the labyrinth of continuances and preliminary motions.

If we are lucky those will be public record. The judge could seal them for the purposes of getting a fair and impartial jury and/or impose a gag order.

I hope the LE agencies working together will soon file additional indictments.
 
TDW59 said:
Thank you for those timelines, Otto & Jashrema. and the links.

The more I read, the less I remember it seems.

So he has had an arraignment. Then another appearance regarding public defender. Is that it? Is his next appearance scheduled?
I think the investigation is very much ongoing, so I don't expect to see the omnibus hearing right away; the defense would not be ready to schedule it either imo. I anticipate the case to go into the labyrinth of continuances and preliminary motions.

If we are lucky those will be public record. The judge could seal them for the purposes of getting a fair and impartial jury and/or impose a gag order.

I hope the LE agencies working together will soon file additional indictments.
Click to expand...
Next trial scheduled for Aug. 18th

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk
 
Asking permission to bring Otto & Jashrema's timeline(s) to this thread,please.
 
kat913 said:
Actually that document was July 27th...many days after all discovery. Do you think they just haven;t been able to identify and therefore come out publicly? But wouldn't that be against their last news blip about "No remains found"?
Click to expand...
No that's when it was stamped. Look, it's the 24th.

12bcca908df149b8937a40ea8c2f44d0.jpg
0aaa6589e88b8e647ba5c3a952c396e7.jpg
 
kat913 said:
Actually that document was July 27th...many days after all discovery. Do you think they just haven;t been able to identify and therefore come out publicly? But wouldn't that be against their last news blip about "No remains found"?
Click to expand...
No they said, no FURTHER remains found.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
 
I believe if they found a body, they would disclose it. There is no reason not to do so. The monster is in jail-- not on the loose---so hysteria would not reign. If there were human remains, the coroner would have been called and taken the remains away. I don't recall any talk of a coroner working a site or a forensic anthropologist. I think the
"no further remains" refers to no more bodies besides Sierah's body. Sierah's remains are mentioned in the first no. 11 of the search warrant (I don't know why the typo is not corrected in the legal copy).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 236 more.
Total: 4,182 (members: 237, guests: 3,945)

Online statistics

Members online
237
Guests online
3,945
Total visitors
4,182
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,571
Messages
17,955,251
Members
228,540
Latest member
unimog
Back
Top