VIDEO: 'Anonymous' sends message about Limberios protest

Click here to watch video from group threatening action against public officials
May 1, 2013

Watch the video in the player below

"We are 'Anonymous.' We have come together to demand the truth. We shall find justice," a computer enhanced voiceover in the video states with the image of the lead character from the movie "V For Vendetta" on the screen.

The voiceover script goes on to warn officials involved in "massive public corruption" that "there will be consequences for your actions."

Check back here at for updates as they become available.  

Click here for demand viewing, to read related articles, view photo galleries or watch related video. 



This was done by a local.

The Bizness

Your point being? Can you prove this?

It isn't like you can't be a local and part of the group. Not too mention this could get the rest of the organization interested.

I have no dog in this fight, and could care less about the exhumation but I just wouldn't like anonymous being on the opposing end of me.


its not. its real.

Kottage Kat

God bless them and the SR for their tenacity
The SR has done a great job and hopefully will continue until.there. is;



voice of fremont

This is a all time low for a newspaper. I cant believe that you are showing video threatening public officials. Why are you doing this? This is terrible encouraging violence!



sandtown born a...

Moderators have removed this comment because it contained Off-topic comments.


"I cant believe that you are showing video threatening public officials."
"This is terrible encouraging violence!"

But it is A-OK if the powers that be threaten citizens and political activists with prison and punishment if they ask too many questions and seek the truth? It is A-OK for public officials to thumb their noses at this family of Jacob? Honest public officials have nothing to fear. Who is threatening violence? Exposing corrupt public officials is not violence. Shooting a man asleep on his couch is violence. Shooting a man on his own porch is violence. The exhumation will not reveal any new evidence except if evidence will be planted.

The best thing that the powers that be in Fremont, Ohio would be to admit that they dropped the ball by not sending the body to Toledo, Ohio in the first place and also by not collecting all evidence from the site of the shooting. Somebody is CYA for others in corrupt Sandusky County, Ohio.

Julie R.

"Exposing corrupt public officials is not violence. Shooting a man asleep on his couch is violence. Shooting a man on his own front porch is violence."

That comment was excellent!

Matt Westerhold

Thanks Voice. The reason we reported on this is because it happened. It wouldn't be correct to have information and choose to withhold it from readers unless there's an overwhelming reason to do that. No such reason exists here. 

And thanks Centauri, for your keen comment. 

It's just more ...

Translation: "It's just more Sensationalism"

"keen comment" Matt? - way to show your true colors. One would think that a Managing Editor of a newspaper would be objective, impartial, and fair; but I guess that's too much to ask from you.

Matt Westerhold

The comments section is where people offer their opinions. By nature, people form opinions, and by practice editors do also and write about those opinions. There's nothing new here. Editors can have opinions and remain objective.

And really, what would anyone have to do to "sensationalize" this story. Evidence was destroyed; the death ruling is oxymoronic; and the government is exhuming a body against the wishes of the family. There's no need to sensationalize any of that. It's pretty sensational without any help.

It's just more ...

If only you could keep your opinions confined to the Opinion Section of the paper and the Comments Section. The problem is that you can't keep your opinions, bias, and partiality out of what are supposed to be truthful, accurate, and objective new stories. It might do you some good to review what you were taught in the Journalism Ethics classes I assume you attended.

It's just more ...

Sensationalism = the use of exciting or shocking stories or language at the expense of accuracy, in order to provoke public interest. Or in other words, common practice at the SR

voice of fremont

Mr. Westerhold this video does nothing to help Jake or his family. It is shameful and should not be given news!

Matt Westerhold

It is news. It would be incorrect to ignore this or withhold reporting on it, in my opinion. Get Thursday's Register for more information on the group, and the message. 


Seems to me that many people have made this same comment regarding the editor and we no longer see their names in here. Apparently, when you speak against the Register they delete you. So, be very careful what you say or.......


Voice of Fremont all they are saying they will help get the truth. What are you on the side of the crooked officials that did not do there job right and are covering something up. If you do not like what register puts then do not read it.


They dont threaten with violence, they threaten with exposure. The only people that have anything to worry about are those hiding something.

And maybe, just maybe, it is time we question and threaten our public officials and remind them that they too are human and not above the law.

Random Thoughts

I fully support the family in their search for the truth, but I am extremely disturbed by recent postings here and on the Justice for Jake website, especially what is essentially a $5,000 bounty for Detective O'Connell. I ask any of you who are trashing or believing the trash about Detective O'Connell to talk to Michael or Shannon Limberios (NOT their attorney) about their dealings with him. If they tell you that he has been anything other that professional, courteous, and forthcoming with them (prior to him being instructed by Dean Henry to stop communications without his permission), I will eat my words and every Register article about this case. From what I've seen and heard about Mr. and Mrs. Limberios, they are extremely nice Christian people who would not approve of the attacks on Detective O'Connell.


Nice try, RT. After talking with Henry, his conclusion did a 180 degree turn. He wasn't "shut" up.

Random Thoughts

luvblues - do you have first hand knowlege of this, or is it something you read here or something someone told you they heard from someone else? Like I said, talk to the parents yourself.


The parents have said enough live on video from this website. I don't have to ask them. You need to start categorizing your thoughts instead of letting them float around randomly.

Random Thoughts

I have watched all the videos and I HAVE spoken to the parents. Please luvblues, point to one instance that the parents of Jake (not their attorney) have said one thing disparaging about Detective O'Connell.


What Detective O'Connell said after talking to Dean Henry was completely different than what he was saying during the process of the investigation. In an email he stated, if I had to make an educated quess,______________ shot Jacob accidentally. I won't say the witness he named. Now after talking to Henry, he claims Jake shot himself, stippling can be washed away (lie), and formaldehyde ruined the tissue sample (lie). He also told someone who signed a formal statement saying that they heard a witness say something contradictory to Jake having shot himself that that witness could get in big trouble because he "knows" what happened (per the JusticeforJake page). Meaning, he "knows" Jake shot himself so any evidence to the contrary is going to be ignored...

You must have spoken to the parents before O'Connell turned into Henry's puppet...

Random Thoughts

The "educated guess" comment came before he conducted any interviews himself and after only reviewing the statements made the night of Jake's death, and came during a time when he was allowed to be completely open to the family. As for the "lies" you mention, listen again to that recording. He tells Gasser he picked up the sample from Dr Wecht for the purpose of DNA comparison, and when he delivered the sample to BCI, he was told by BCI the formaldehyde destroys DNA. I never heard O'Connell say it destroyed all evidentiary value of the sample as has been incorrectly reported. As for stippling, yes he says that word, but listen to the statement in context. While stippling cannot be washed away, other gunshot residue like soot certainly can. I would not call this misstatement a lie. Also, trying to apply the correct "meaning" to things posted on here or the JFJ website is difficult at best.


Yes I would call it a lie. Obviously any soot would have been washed away when jakes body was prepared for burial and since they didnt do an autopsy before he was buried any soot that may have been outside of the wound is irrelevant to the case. The fact still remains that just as Wecht said IF this gun was fired at contact, close, or intermediate range there would have been searing or stippling, which CAN'T be wiped away. It's simple forensics. DNA wouldn't have needed to be ruined by the formaldehyde because as with the other evidence that Sandusky County allowed to be ruined, any DNA on jake would have been washed away when he was being prepared for burial and embalmed!
It seems odd to me that O'connell believed that it was not a suicide based on no stippling, the place of entry on the head (near the cowlick) which he refers to as "way back here" and the downward angle. He says 9/10 times suicide is DIRECT contact, which means he would have held the gun against his head.
This would have left searing and more than likely a stellate shaped wound instead of the round wound noted in Wecht's autopsy.
So, O'connells initial thought based on the evidence just by looking at reports of the interviews was that the evidence of the wound was inconsistent with a suicide. Literally no groundbreaking developments happened between November and February when he said he knew what happened. In his interviews the witnesses continued to be inconsistent. When he said he "knew" what happened they still hadn't done an autopsy and hadn't tested the tissue sample. So, what could have happened between November and February to warrant a complete change to his initial beliefs?
Dean Henry.


And this email about the "educated guess" came on November 8. He had reviewed the statements made on the night of the death, the statements made to Kaiser, and he already had met with the family. It was the same day, November 8 that he met with will and asked about taking a new lie detector test because of inconclusive results on pertinent questions, the Facebook post, etc. So he already had way more information at the time of this email than you allege. He did not yet talk to the two personally, but from listening to the interviews with him all they offered were more inconsistencies!


I doubt the authenticity of this video based on the fact that this video has previously been used by anon, and there is a reference to having "faith in god" (paraphrasing) and I believe that anon is largely an atheist organization.


2927.01 Abuse of a corpse.

(A) No person, except as authorized by law, shall treat a human corpse in a way that the person knows would outrage reasonable family sensibilities.

(B) No person, except as authorized by law, shall treat a human corpse in a way that would outrage reasonable community sensibilities.

"except as authorized by law"
"would outrage reasonable family sensibilities"
"would outrage reasonable community sensibilities."

Think hard about this law. The powers that be in Ohio ignore the Ohio laws except if they can benefit from them or create their own laws. What good will come from this? Those Sandusky County, Ohio officials ignored the parents request for an autopsy shortly after Jake's death. They had a second chance to do an autopsy after the first exhumation before Jake was buried again. Why didn't they?