Kansas City Chiefs fans found dead have no answers: Family

(NewsNation) — Questions remain after three men were found dead outside of a Kansas City home last week. Now, family and friends of the deceased are demanding answers.

David Harrington, Ricky Johnson and Clayton McGeeney reportedly visited a friend’s house on Jan. 7 to watch the Chief’s game. However, they never made it back home.

Two days later, after not being able to get ahold of them, the fiancé to one of the men broke into the home and discovered one of their bodies on the back porch.

Once police arrived, the two other bodies were found in the backyard. The resident of the home had reportedly been at the home and spoke with police. He was not arrested, and told police the three men froze to death.

By the next day, police ruled out any foul play, affirming it was a death investigation, not a homicide case. Police have not revealed what led them to that conclusion.

“This is a death investigation with no suspected foul play. We expect the medical examiner to rule on a cause of death within the next week,” the Kansas City Police Department said in a statement.

However, family and friends believe circumstances around how these men died don’t add up.

“I’m furious. Everybody is furious,” Harrington’s mother Jennifer Marquez said. “Nobody believes this story. None of his friends, none of the families, none of us believe it.”

Johnson’s mother, Norma Chester, said the man who lived in the house should be arrested and at least investigated, but she feels the police aren’t doing anything to advance the case.

Many of the victims’ family members feel the police haven’t been taking steps to investigate the case.

However, the Kansas City Police Department told NewsNation that the next phase in the investigation is determining the medical examiner’s cause of death. Until those findings are available and conducted, the investigation can’t move forward.

The police said that the medical examiner’s report will help drive any additional investigative steps. The department also doubled down on the fact that investigators have initially ruled there wasn’t any foul play.

“There are many different things that don’t add up that we just don’t understand and how somebody would not be at least be investigated,” Johnson’s brother Jonathan Price said.

Price said Johnson and his two buddies — Harrington and McGeeney — were inseparable. However, Price did not know of the host before his brother and friends were found dead at the guy’s property.

“We don’t know how they became associated together,” Price said.

Chester told NewsNation she fears her son and his friends might have been poisoned. However, police have not come to that conclusion, nor have the toxicology reports been completed to support that claim.

“I don’t like to speculate very much,” Price said. “But my brother was a smart man, and there’s no way that he would just freeze to death. Freezing to death is not a cause of death that I would accept.”

Johnson’s family hopes that the toxicology report can help answer some of these questions and that law enforcement will use the proper tools to investigate their deaths properly.

Related articles

Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce still didn’t announce pregnancy, despite AI rumors

Baseless claims following their engagement announcement in August 2025 swirled online.

Trump Supreme Court battle could be dismantled by Congress members’ own history



New evidence is emerging that could deal a major blow to President Donald Trump's case for stripping birthright citizenship to the children of immigrants.

The president has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to restore “the original meaning” of the 14th Amendment, which his lawyers argued in a brief meant that “children of temporary visitors and illegal aliens are not U.S. citizens by birth," but new research raises questions about what lawmakers intended the amendment to do, reported the New York Times.

"One important tool has been overlooked in determining the meaning of this amendment: the actions that were taken — and not taken — to challenge the qualifications of members of Congress, who must be citizens, around the time the amendment was ratified," wrote Times correspondent Adam Liptak.

A new study will be published next month in The Georgetown Law Journal Online examining the backgrounds of the 584 members who served in Congress from 1865 to 1871. That research found more than a dozen of them might not have been citizens under Trump’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment, but no one challenged their qualifications.

"That is, said Amanda Frost, a law professor at the University of Virginia and an author of the study, the constitutional equivalent of the dog that did not bark, which provided a crucial clue in a Sherlock Holmes story," Liptak wrote.

The 14th Amendment states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside," while the Constitution requires members of the House of Representatives to have been citizens for at least seven years, and senators for at least nine.

“If there had been an original understanding that tracked the Trump administration’s executive order,” Frost told Liptak, “at least some of these people would have been challenged.”

Only one of the nine challenges filed against a senator's qualifications in the period around the 14th Amendment's ratification involved the citizenship issue related to Trump's interpretation of birthright citizenship, and that case doesn't support his position.

"Several Democratic senators claimed in 1870 that their new colleague from Mississippi, Hiram Rhodes Revels, the first Black man to serve in Congress, had not been a citizen for the required nine years," Liptak wrote. "They reasoned that the 14th Amendment had overturned Dred Scott, the 1857 Supreme Court decision that denied citizenship to the descendants of enslaved African Americans, just two years earlier and that therefore he would not be eligible for another seven."

"That argument failed," the correspondent added. "No one thought to challenge any other members on the ground that they were born to parents who were not citizens and who had not, under the law in place at the time, filed a declaration of intent to be naturalized."

"The consensus on the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause has long been that everyone born in the United States automatically becomes a citizen with exceptions for those not subject to its jurisdiction, like diplomats and enemy troops," Liptak added.

Frost's research found there were many members of Congress around the time of the ratification of the 14th Amendment who wouldn't have met Trump's definition of a citizen, and she said that fact undercuts the president's arguments.

“If the executive order reflected the original public meaning, which is what the originalists say is relevant,” Frost said, “then somebody — a member of Congress, the opposing party, the losing candidate, a member of the public who had just listened to the ratification debates on the 14th Amendment, somebody — would have raised this.”

Trump SHUTS DOWN CBS over STORY HE FEARED

MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas reports on Donald...