VERDICT WATCH OH - Pike Co - 8 in Rhoden Family Murdered - 4 Wagner Family Members Arrested #85

[Cool Cats]

Did Canepa ever prove he was up until midnight? If she did I missed it.

JMO

Right. If George said in his border BCI interview that he was up until midnight watching movies, then said on the stand he was in bed at 10 pm, that is a big discrepancy in George's testimony and would make the jury doubt his testimony.

That is normally when a prosecutor will hand the defendant a copy of the interview transcript and have the defendant read it and ask him to explain why he is now changing his story.

I expected this to be done, that there would be transcripts and maybe even recordings of this interview that would prove to the jury that George said things at the border that now he is changing his story on. This is standard 101 lawyering in getting the jury to doubt anything the defendant says on the stand.

You are catching them in lies, you are showing they are making things up, you help the jury distrust what the defendant says.

I don't think this was done which means all the jury has is Canepa saying it. They at least needed the agent who interviewed George to say it, hear it directly from him, that could carry weight with the jury.

The jury might disregard any discrepancies between what George said to LE and what George said on the stand without anything to back it up. With only Canepa saying it.

This is one reason why I will be angry with the prosecution if the jury acquits George. I expected the prosecution to present enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. This was important evidence that needed to be proven to the jury. What George said he did that night and the times he said he did them and then to show he completely changed his story about it, matters.

If I was a juror and the prosecution showed proof that George gave several different stories to LE that don't match up to what he is now saying on the stand, I would doubt all of his testimony. I would have reasonable doubt about his testimony. That now he is making up stories just to look good in front of the jury.

 

[Skully67]

Right. If George said in his border BCI interview that he was up until midnight watching movies, then said on the stand he was in bed at 10 pm, that is a big discrepancy in George's testimony and would make the jury doubt his testimony.

That is normally when a prosecutor will hand the defendant a copy of the interview transcript and have the defendant read it and ask him to explain why he is now changing his story.

I expected this to be done, that there would be transcripts and maybe even recordings of this interview that would prove to the jury that George said things at the border that now he is changing his story on. This is standard 101 lawyering in getting the jury to doubt anything the defendant says on the stand.

You are catching them in lies, you are showing they are making things up, you help the jury distrust what the defendant says.

I don't think this was done which means all the jury has is Canepa saying it. They at least needed the agent who interviewed George to say it, hear it directly from him, that could carry weight with the jury.

The jury might disregard any discrepancies between what George said to LE and what George said on the stand without anything to back it up. With only Canepa saying it.

This is one reason why I will be angry with the prosecution if the jury acquits George. I expected the prosecution to present enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. This was important evidence that needed to be proven to the jury. What George said he did that night and the times he said he did them and to show he changed his story about it, matters.

If I was a juror and the prosecution showed proof that George gave several different stories to LE that don't match up to what he is now saying on the stand, I would doubt all of his testimony. I would have reasonable doubt he was making up stories just to look good in front of the jury.

I'm In agreement with you. We only know what's in the Montana interview via Canepas questions. That's not good enough for me.

 

[RAISINISBACK]

At the same time I think the presence of the third person from that interview on the defense witness list was a red flag to the prosecution: the defense attorneys are basically saying "don't go there, you won't like the outcome".

I think that BCI agent on the defense list would not be someone who Canepa would want on the stand. He would be very credible if he said anything to help George.

JMO

 

[NWLady]

When the case is given to the jury for deliberations, will the jurors have access to JW and AW's proffers? JMO, I would sure hope so as I would want to compare what they said in their proffers compared to what they testified to!

 

[RAISINISBACK]

This is what is baffling to me about the excuse that he just thought BCI was framing them. What interactions did he ever have with LE that leads him to believe they frame people? Seems he and his family got away with nearly every crime they ever committed. Where was the police knocking on their doors about all those crimes. No suspicion on any of the fires, the thefts, etc. He admitted to 100s if not 1000s of crimes on the stand and he's been arrested how many times? Harassed or falsely accused or framed for how many crimes? Seems he knows how to skirt LE pretty darn well so why is he paranoid about BCI framing them? If he was always suspected of every crime and hounded by LE on many occasions prior to these murders, I could see that being his thinking. He would have a history of LE coming to see him when crimes are committed and him having to defend himself against it. Instead he was never caught in any of the crimes he ever committed.

He said he grew up with a drug trafficking father who was very paranoid of cops. And a very disturbed paranoid mother who was afraid of cops. He said he was taught from a child that law enforcement was bad.

He also said Jake and Angie convinced him that BCI was trying to frame them because Jake said some bad things about Lenny and Lenny pointed the finger at them. Which in fact was true. Lenny did point the finger at Jake and child custody. Not because of anything derogatory Jake said about Lenny but because Lenny knew that Jake killed his family and why. From day one Lenny never believed it was any one else but Jake.

JMO

 

[RAISINISBACK]

Can someone tell me what the meaning of selling a pregnant chicken means? Why was it so funny to Jake/family?
Yes, I'm a city dweller.

All chickens are technically pregnant as they produce eggs. So are all women and any other female of any species. Although the eggs have to be fertilized by a male in some species.

JMO

 

[RAISINISBACK]

Jmo he has family in my area now. If George moves back I won’t be scared. I doubt I would see much of him. If he gets out when trial over or in 10, 15, 20 years I would say he will walk the straight way. It is extremely sad for the victim’s families, but you can’t convict someone while having reasonable doubt to try to make it somehow better for the victims families. Jmo

I think he will move to a different state. But I would not be afraid of him.

JMO

 

[pcrum12]

From my notes I have a West Chester Police Capt. Seth Hagaman who questioned GW4 on 2017 when he was with the BCI. Do not know IF he questioned GW4 at the border though. He was subpoenaed by the defense.

Do not know IF this is the guy who interviewed him at the border - was it in 2017?


So - the Judge said there would be hearings next without the jury. Anyone seen any dates on those? TIA!

The border was May 2017 I think. I do know it was testified to that was the ONLY interview with George.

 

[RAISINISBACK]

And now here they are zero ability to protect their family. It's baffling they could get this far into some narrative that it lead to this. If only Angela would have taken her own advise and got therapy for her trauma or went to police to press charges.

It's baffling they could get this far into some narrative that it lead to this.

Timothy McVeigh.

 

[RAISINISBACK]

It does show George 4 state of mind. If I were on the jury, this would be huge to me. He is stating to what extreme he would be willing to break his family out of jail. He is clearly defending and working with his family. He is proving to me where his loyalty is, I believe when a person rants and rages they are having strong feelings, they are adamant and determined.

Or he was drunk.

 

[RAISINISBACK]

If I was on the JURY?

Well, That was a lot of confusing testimony at GWIV's trial. How am I going to vote?
I have 3 choices. Not-Guilty, Guilty or try to hang the Jury. If I can become hard headed, I can hang the Jury and a mistrial will be declared. If I can justify all the evidence presented, I could vote Guilty. If I can believe that Angie and Jake lied and risked their Plea bargain deal just to screw George, I could vote Not-Guilty.
If I am not convinced either way, what would be the safe way to go? Hung Jury, nope. The state might just give up and George walks. Not-Guilty, nope. George can give the world the finger and walk away. Guilty, only logical choice. If not-guilty George could stand up and admit to the world his guilt and laugh all the way to the bank. If found guilty, he will sit safely in jail awaiting possible appeals.
I would vote guilty. On all counts. No recommendation for mercy.

If you are not convinced that is reasonable doubt.

 

[Cool Cats]

I'm In agreement with you. We only know what's in the Montana interview via Canepas questions. That's not good enough for me.

I'm upset because I believe George is guilty of Murder Conspiracy right along with his family but that the prosecution may not have presented a Case to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. They have had 4 years of George sitting in jail while they were sitting on mountains of evidence.

4 years to parlay that evidence into reasonable doubt against George specifically, and I just am not sure if they came through after seeing how George's testimony was handled, amongst other things.

I am not comfortable that it looks like all 12 jurors will have to believe Angela and Jake to get a conviction. Clark Kent said they had enough evidence against him without Jake's testimony. But it looks like it's more important than ever that they totally believe Jake when he says George was with him that night. That they believe Angie when she says George went with them.

I keep saying, if the jury believes beyond a reasonable doubt that George went to the murder scenes that night, they will convict him of Aggravated Murder, Murder Conspiracy, Aggravated Burglary, and Tampering With Evidence.

If the jury has reasonable doubt George was at the murder scenes, there still is the chance the jury will believe beyond a reasonable doubt that George was in on the Murder Conspiracy and at least convict him of Murder Conspiracy.

And that he will get some type of long sentence for that.

COUNT 9, CONSPIRACY

 

[pcrum12]

Wasn't it SW who told them they had given Bullvine some medicine Kool aid?

yes per George's testimony any way.

 

[NWLady]

Sleuthers
I apologize if offended you in anyway possible, I’m sorry if I posted something that made me look like I would ever do anyone any harm, I’m going to take a break from the Rhoden/Giley Massacre Trial Post, so with that I want you all to still hang on for Justice for the victims!
Thank All You Sleuthers.

@Johnny B Bad - please don't get discouraged and don't quit posting. I enjoy your posts!

JMO, I don't think you said anything wrong.

Happy Thanksgiving

ETA, you owe nobody here an apology!

 

[rsd1200]

I'm upset because I believe George is guilty of Murder Conspiracy right along with his family but that the prosecution may not have presented a Case to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. They have had 4 years of George sitting in jail while they were sitting on mountains of evidence.

4 years to parlay that evidence into reasonable doubt against George specifically, and I just am not sure if they came through after seeing how George's testimony was handled, amongst other things.

I am not comfortable that it looks like all 12 jurors will have to believe Angela and Jake to get a conviction. Clark Kent said they had enough evidence against him without Jake's testimony. But it looks like it's more important than ever that they totally believe Jake when he says George was with him that night. That they believe Angie when she says George went with them.

I keep saying, if the jury believes beyond a reasonable doubt that George went to the murder scenes that night, they will convict him of Aggravated Murder, Murder Conspiracy, Aggravated Burglary, and Tampering With Evidence.

If the jury has reasonable doubt George was at the murder scenes, there still is the chance the jury will believe beyond a reasonable doubt that George was in on the Murder Conspiracy and at least convict him of Murder Conspiracy.

AC said they didn't need him either but w/o him how would they have found the buckets in the pond? Maybe eons later. Without his testimony, how'd they have found the truck? Without his testimony, they had zip. He gave it all up to keep from dying b/c he said he knows he's going to hell when he dies. He's self-centered, and the fav of the family. Do you think it was happenstance he confessed on the anniversary of the murders? No. No way.

 

[pcrum12]

Jmo wasn’t referred to as sleepy kool aid? To me to call it Sleepy kool aid tells me they have said before to the kids.

Exactly. Everything they accused other people of doing, they were doing their selves. Think about it, the drugs - yet Rhoden's no drugs, Wagner's drugs definitely. Sexual Assaults, They had 11 year old's sleeping with them boys! Drug the kids - sleepy Kool-Aid. SA victims unfit to care for kids but yet Angela was best to care for kids? Unreal really.

 

[RAISINISBACK]

I appreciate your opinion. If I may politely ask, why do you say there is zero evidence? JW testified that George 4 was at the murder scene, armed, and protected JW with a gun in the event one of the victims woke. (or to protect JW from his father) JW testified that he and George 4 destroyed evidence.

AW testified she saw George 4 leave and return with Jake and their father. AW testified that George 4 admitted to her the bloody prints were his. That is direct evidence.

The jury decides the credibility of witnesses. Their decision should be based on the evidence. If a person wants to not believe JW's testimony that is one thing, however evidence was provided. JW described what happened that horrible night, he had to be there, IMO, to know the details. It would not be reasonable, to me, to believe Jake simply added his brother for the fun of it. It could/would take the DP off the table for JW and his mother if JW were to lie. I can think of no reason JW would risk the DP back on the table.

All my opinion with respect to other's opinions.

Jake and Angie's testimony is not solid evidence. It is eyewitness evidence. Ask any cop about eyewitness evidence.

Interview 10 people about a car used in a crime and you will get 10 different makes, models and colors. That is why juries do not rely on eyewitness evidence that much. They want solid proof.

What jake testified that he himself did is not testimony against George, it is testimony against jake.

JMO

 

[Myland]

It does show George 4 state of mind. If I were on the jury, this would be huge to me. He is stating to what extreme he would be willing to break his family out of jail. He is clearly defending and working with his family. He is proving to me where his loyalty is, I believe when a person rants and rages they are having strong feelings, they are adamant and determined.

Jmo in pike county it’s called goofy talk.

 

[RAISINISBACK]

Right. If George said in his border BCI interview that he was up until midnight watching movies, then said on the stand he was in bed at 10 pm, that is a big discrepancy in George's testimony and would make the jury doubt his testimony.

That is normally when a prosecutor will hand the defendant a copy of the interview transcript and have the defendant read it and ask him to explain why he is now changing his story.

I expected this to be done, that there would be transcripts and maybe even recordings of this interview that would prove to the jury that George said things at the border that now he is changing his story on. This is standard 101 lawyering in getting the jury to doubt anything the defendant says on the stand.

You are catching them in lies, you are showing they are making things up, you help the jury distrust what the defendant says.

I don't think this was done which means all the jury has is Canepa saying it. They at least needed the agent who interviewed George to say it, hear it directly from him, that could carry weight with the jury.

The jury might disregard any discrepancies between what George said to LE and what George said on the stand without anything to back it up. With only Canepa saying it.

This is one reason why I will be angry with the prosecution if the jury acquits George. I expected the prosecution to present enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. This was important evidence that needed to be proven to the jury. What George said he did that night and the times he said he did them and then to show he completely changed his story about it, matters.

If I was a juror and the prosecution showed proof that George gave several different stories to LE that don't match up to what he is now saying on the stand, I would doubt all of his testimony. I would have reasonable doubt about his testimony. That now he is making up stories just to look good in front of the jury.

That is normally when a prosecutor will hand the defendant a copy of the interview transcript
George even asked for a transcript to refresh his memory and Canepa refused to give him one and changed the subject.

I don't think this was done which means all the jury has is Canepa saying it. They at least needed the agent who interviewed George to say it, hear it directly from him, that could carry weight with the jury.

No it was not done and maybe they did not call the agent who did the interview to the stand because he would have contradicted what Canepa said, not what George said.

JMO

 

[pcrum12]

Yes, their uncle Chris N talked about this. He said they used a big turkey fryer or something similar.

and Chris Sr helped