Ontario police have made an arrest in the grave robbing case in Ohio discussed earlier. The police had succeeded in capturing the image of a woman stealing a toy off the grave of a dead infant. A number of such toys had been stolen off the grave of Hayden “Tank” Cole Sheridan. As expected, various people came forward and identified Frieda Kay Shade, 54, of Mansfield. She turned herself into police.
Tank died in 2007 at only 14 months. The family routinely left toys at the grave site. However, someone has been appearing shortly after such visits and stealing the toys. The police thankfully did not shrug off the complaint and set up the hidden camera. They did a terrific job. On April 19th, they nailed a woman removing a stuffed duck and are now seeking people to help identify the culprit from photos and a video. This have been going on since 2012.
They released this video of the alleged culprit.
Shade insisted that she took a stuffed toy animal from the grave of Hayden “Tank” Cole Sheridan because a dog was running loose in the area and she didn’t want it to destroy the toy. It is not the clear why she did not return the toy. Police seem to have the same uncertainty and charged her with one count of theft, a first-degree misdemeanor. Notably, they did not charge her with grave desecration, as discussed earlier.
Her lawyer Charles Robinson noted that “We all have sympathy for a child who has expired. We know how hard that is, and we sympathize with that.” It might be a tad better not to refer to the baby “expiring” to add a more sympathetic note.
One potential problem is that this is not Shade’s first arrest. She has faces charges for passing bad checks, unauthorized use of property and evictions. Shade also has two open cases related to state taxes. Those matters could come up in any sentencing, though this is a misdemeanor offense with a short likely sentence.
The big question remains: what happened to the stuffed duck? It is rather curious to take the duck to keep a dog from taking it . . . only to keep it. The news accounts do not shed light on what caused the police to reject her claim.
Some cemeteries remove mementoes after a short period of time, as well as dead flowers or artificial flowers. So, while she was caught this time, there is no evidence (that I know of) to convict her for the other stuffed animals–unless they find them at her home.
This woman obviously has more serious problems to face and may need psychological evaluation as well. One thought is that she was stealing the stuffed toys to sell and pay her bills–don’t know, just a thought.
Lord have mercy and get her the help she so badly needs.
Someone on another blog said that she was Chris Christie’s girlfriend. We thought he was gay. Anyone know anything about this rumor?
Annie you are so right. Thrift shops sell stuffed toys at a very reasonable price so why steal from a gravesite? What she did was despicable but she must be mentally unstable. I am guessing she will be convicted but not given a jail sentence. Unless her prior convictions are brought up of course. If they are – well she’s heading to the slammer for sure.
We’re you not the one making fun of my grammatical errors Paul? Didn’t Elaine basically tell you to go fornicate with thy self?
keebler – my elfy friend – I must have missed that post from Elaine, but I really don’t listen to her anyway, so even if I read it, it would not have stopped me. And you will notice that I said it was “a general rule.” I have commented on the grammar errors of some people, not sure if you were one of them. If you saved it for posterity, repost it so we can see.
A whole lot of fiddlin’…
“She turned herself into police.”
Wow, a metaphysical transformation! Professor Turley, proofread your items!
jay – it is my general rule not to be either a spelling nazi or a grammar nazi on blogs. I am well aware that when typing in a hurry I can and do make mistakes. So usually I let them go. Although sometimes they are fun, like the one you caught. 😉
Kettle meet smoking pot.
Mr Keebler
Passing bad checks, evictions and unauthorized use of property can all extend from a rental eviction. That does not phaze me as much as taking the stuffed animal. However, we still don’t know what her mental state is or if she is a person requiring treatment.
…
=======================
Good.
They need a Family Values candidate in that gerrymandered district.
Natch.
Paul Schulte
Darren – I am not sure how much any of those ‘prior bad acts’ will get in. I think when they looked at the statute grave desecration was a statute too far.
=======================
“The big question remains: what happened to the stuffed duck? It is rather curious to take the duck to keep a dog from taking it . . . only to keep it. The news accounts do not shed light on what caused the police to reject her claim.” – JT
I am glad you gave up t-totaling.
Dredd – can you keep on topic? All you seem to do lately is take cheap pot-shots at people.
Grandma, Thanks for the stuffed ducky. Why does it have grass stains?
Paul, I think the Twinkie Defense is her only shot.
Maybe she had a serious attack of affluenza?
What did Frieda Kay Shades grandchildren get for Christmas?
Your dead child’s toys.
Maybe she’s allergic to plastic flowers. But not to powdered sugar donuts.
She should move to Tennessee! Citizens of the Volunteer State fill cemeteries with plastic flowers. She could get her fill.
If a tape was discovered showing a dog it would not constitute a completely affirmative defense. If the accused had then, in fact, taken the stuffed animal to protect it from a dog, she then would have still been culpable to a theft charge because she converted it to her own usage by removing it from the property. This was evidenced also by the toy reportedly being later thrown from a passing vehicle back onto the property after the theft became public knowledge.
While she might have been permitted to so by seeing the dog grabbing the toy and then she took it to, for example, the cemetery office and put it where the dog could not reach it, she would have been deemed to be acting in a community caretaking function and would not be liable for a crime. But as I said previously, when a person has a legal ability to possess an item but then unlawfully transfers it to their possession or use it becauses an unlawful conversion.
I think she could use the excuse of ‘I panicked’ for the throwing it away. I just not sure how this thing is going to go.
I just did a quick background on this shitbird. The bad checks were a felony so it wasn’t just paying her light bill once. She got probation. She has not paid her taxes the last 2 years and several other years in the past. And, she is a mother so we should all thank the Good Lord she is not our mother and put in a prayer for her kids.
Grave Robbery is a colloquial term and not necessarily a legal definition related to robbery.
They seem to have charged her with first degree theft, not robbery.
Hypocrites abound.
But what if they run that tape and find the dog?