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

[TopHat123]

No video, no audio of Jake’s testimony. Are there transcripts? TIA

 

[justtrish]

see this is where the term reasonable doubt comes from. anyone can make up random excuses about why an action which contributed toward a conspiracy "isnt as it seems". the standard isnt beyond a shadow of a doubt its reasonable doubt. youve lised multiple purchases g4 made which were later used to kill 8 people. youve got the person who murdered 5 of them coorborating the purchases and what they were used for specifically in the plot. youve got documentation proving the purchases were made. george would have been better off saying he knew tried to talk them out of it and then did not go with. listening to the conversations on the phone and in the truck g4 was up in the business as much as angela, if antthing jake sounded like the voice of reason. it is simple ubleievable that all of this documented evidence can be nullified with a carefully crafted retelling and excuses of incriminating actions. jake has no motive t o lie and put g4 at the scene zero. they were all offered lwop at the begining which is what jake got. ohio isnt even using the dp right now, so his deal is essentially giving him nothing and what does he ask for to save his family members lives. the first thing he asks for , there is no motive what so ever for jake to put g4 at the scene if he was not there. until we all walk around with a drone videotaping our every move, i cant imagine more evidence in a murder conspiracy case. what else besides a video could you ask for?? now angela canepa did a terrible job trying the case, but bci got more then enough evidence ot bury all 4 under the jail where they belong.

In order to believe George's testimony we have to believe that for the first time ever there was a major plan going on in his house for months, purchases being made with his accounts, items bought, guns bought he didn't know about, conversations happening he never overheard not one, mom didn't vent to him about anything or discuss something as she rubbed his back one night (had to mention this lol), he literally had blinders and earplugs on for 3-4 months. Then he happens to give his dad money for a murder truck, and doesn't ever ask what happened to it or where it was or why, doesn't want repaid, just hands over 2500 from his safe and forgets all about it. Then his dad is over the night of the 21st and it's the first time since at least before Jan of that year he's there and it's not questioned at all just goes to bed at 10pm wakes up and even saying he would have heard someone leave because he'd here them, never heard anything, never overheard it discussed after, never saw weapons being cut up, never questioned a thing, just assumed BCI is framing us. Didn't overhear mom, dad, or Jake say anything after the fact, told Jake he should have burned a laptop and I think it was a phone because he again thought they were being framed. Screaming and raging on all those recordings, even terrifying his son because BCI again is framing them. Then when his brother confesses that is the first time he had ANY idea there was a plot and all that has been shared was going on while he lived in a house and was by all other witness testimony and accounts equally as involved and connected to family meetings and decision making and voting on life choices for everything else and they heard it, saw it, and knew about it from before AND after the murders. Nothing changed from before and after.. still talking, meeting, planning, voting, and anyone not in those 4 were excluded from those meetings.

Then if we believe all that, we also have to believe that BCI is actually trying to frame him, Jake and Angela both were able to match their stories of framing George all because they had no deal if they didn't lie and say George was there. The prosecution bribed them with deals and basically is blackmailing them to lie so they can get all 4 of them and frame George because he really is 100% innocent of any and all planning, participating and covering up of this crime.

Now not only that we have Jake's lawyers and Angela's lawyers also agreeing to allow them to lie or be coerced into getting on the stand and lying just so the state can frame George.

Then we have the recorded proffer that George's lawyers and George have heard. They heard it. Do you think if Jake said my brother didn't do anything, didn't know, had no idea until I confessed at any point during that proffer that the would play it they would say that, they would be screaming that. If anyone said to Jake you must implicate George or no deal, they would have been all over that. Just because it wasn't played for us does not mean there is conspiracy where EVERYONE involved in this case is in on it.

Then we have George's lawyers who would have to know recordings don't really exist of him at the border, but allow AC to reference them and read from them AND they themselves even read from them, but there really was no recording or transcript where George said any of what was read in court for him. And because NEITHER side played the recording there must be something hidden on it that proves he was innocent and is now being framed? AND the judge would also now be involved because he would surely know if BCI agents "messed up" and didn't record an interview and is now claiming they did and both lawyers are reading from a transcript that never exists? He literally heard arguments over playing these recordings vs not playing them. I think if there wasn't actually a recording at all he would know that, the defense wouldn't have argued to play it. They have all discovery so if there was no recording, they would have said that was never turned over to us, but they didn't say that they wanted to play it. They can't play it if they don't have it and so why wouldn't they then say, judge we have no recording of that interview.

Do I believe someone in LE can mess up, yes they are human. Do I believe they would get on the stand and lie no. Do I believe if they did lie on the stand and the defense had any proof of that they would expose it YES.

This isn't a case where one mistaken or one bad apple would have been at play in order to create this "Framing of George". Nearly everyone in this case would have to be in on this and I just don't believe that. Just because we want to hear recordings and we think if there was nothing bad on it, then they would play it, etc doesn't mean there isn't a reason (other than they must be framing George) that it isn't played. When the defense could have also played these recordings, I just don't see how anything helpful to George would be on it or they would have played it also.

 

[Pru2U]

No video, no audio of Jake’s testimony. Are there transcripts? TIA

No transcripts have been released yet but I can send you some links to the reporting from inside the courtroom. Webslueth members teamed up & pulled their notes from Twitter then posted them here for everyone to read. Same for Angela’s testimony.

 

[TopHat123]

No transcripts have been released yet but I can send you some links to the reporting from inside the courtroom. Webslueth members teamed up & pulled their notes from Twitter then posted them here for everyone to read. Same for Angela’s testimony.

That would be great- thank you! I have a Gmail address if you want to send me the links.

 

[Pru2U]

That would be great- thank you! I have a Gmail address if you want to send me the links.

E-mail not necessary (or advised). At the very top middle of each page, you will see a little envelope in the header. That’s for private messages. I sent you some links, click on that envelope, they should be there.

 

[Cool Cats]

E-mail not necessary (or advised). At the very top middle of each page, you will see a little envelope in the header. That’s for private messages. I sent you some links, click on that envelope, they should be there.

Hi Pru. Could you send me the links also?
Be nice to have those links easy to find and I would like to refresh my memory on the testimony.

Thank You!

The co-defendant's testimony will be huge in jury deliberations. Huge.

 

[Dudly]

In order to believe George's testimony we have to believe that for the first time ever there was a major plan going on in his house for months, purchases being made with his accounts, items bought, guns bought he didn't know about, conversations happening he never overheard not one, mom didn't vent to him about anything or discuss something as she rubbed his back one night (had to mention this lol), he literally had blinders and earplugs on for 3-4 months. Then he happens to give his dad money for a murder truck, and doesn't ever ask what happened to it or where it was or why, doesn't want repaid, just hands over 2500 from his safe and forgets all about it. Then his dad is over the night of the 21st and it's the first time since at least before Jan of that year he's there and it's not questioned at all just goes to bed at 10pm wakes up and even saying he would have heard someone leave because he'd here them, never heard anything, never overheard it discussed after, never saw weapons being cut up, never questioned a thing, just assumed BCI is framing us. Didn't overhear mom, dad, or Jake say anything after the fact, told Jake he should have burned a laptop and I think it was a phone because he again thought they were being framed. Screaming and raging on all those recordings, even terrifying his son because BCI again is framing them. Then when his brother confesses that is the first time he had ANY idea there was a plot and all that has been shared was going on while he lived in a house and was by all other witness testimony and accounts equally as involved and connected to family meetings and decision making and voting on life choices for everything else and they heard it, saw it, and knew about it from before AND after the murders. Nothing changed from before and after.. still talking, meeting, planning, voting, and anyone not in those 4 were excluded from those meetings.

Then if we believe all that, we also have to believe that BCI is actually trying to frame him, Jake and Angela both were able to match their stories of framing George all because they had no deal if they didn't lie and say George was there. The prosecution bribed them with deals and basically is blackmailing them to lie so they can get all 4 of them and frame George because he really is 100% innocent of any and all planning, participating and covering up of this crime.

Now not only that we have Jake's lawyers and Angela's lawyers also agreeing to allow them to lie or be coerced into getting on the stand and lying just so the state can frame George.

Then we have the recorded proffer that George's lawyers and George have heard. They heard it. Do you think if Jake said my brother didn't do anything, didn't know, had no idea until I confessed at any point during that proffer that the would play it they would say that, they would be screaming that. If anyone said to Jake you must implicate George or no deal, they would have been all over that. Just because it wasn't played for us does not mean there is conspiracy where EVERYONE involved in this case is in on it.

Then we have George's lawyers who would have to know recordings don't really exist of him at the border, but allow AC to reference them and read from them AND they themselves even read from them, but there really was no recording or transcript where George said any of what was read in court for him. And because NEITHER side played the recording there must be something hidden on it that proves he was innocent and is now being framed? AND the judge would also now be involved because he would surely know if BCI agents "messed up" and didn't record an interview and is now claiming they did and both lawyers are reading from a transcript that never exists? He literally heard arguments over playing these recordings vs not playing them. I think if there wasn't actually a recording at all he would know that, the defense wouldn't have argued to play it. They have all discovery so if there was no recording, they would have said that was never turned over to us, but they didn't say that they wanted to play it. They can't play it if they don't have it and so why wouldn't they then say, judge we have no recording of that interview.

Do I believe someone in LE can mess up, yes they are human. Do I believe they would get on the stand and lie no. Do I believe if they did lie on the stand and the defense had any proof of that they would expose it YES.

This isn't a case where one mistaken or one bad apple would have been at play in order to create this "Framing of George". Nearly everyone in this case would have to be in on this and I just don't believe that. Just because we want to hear recordings and we think if there was nothing bad on it, then they would play it, etc doesn't mean there isn't a reason (other than they must be framing George) that it isn't played. When the defense could have also played these recordings, I just don't see how anything helpful to George would be on it or they would have played it also.

Yes…
MOO

 

[silenced]

Curious why you changed your mind. I've lurked here and followed the case from day one and didn't conclude GW4 guilty until the totality of prosecution's evidence. Besides, he has no alibi night of the murders. He also changed his story about his whereabouts the night of the murders. First, he says he went to bed (after he and his entire family watched a movie) at 12:30 am. He testified that he went to bed at 10:00 night of the murders. He needed to change his story as to where he was night of the murders to remove himself and an attempt to place beyond a reasonable doubt in jurors' minds.

If you aren't lying you don't need to change your story because the truth is the truth. The state exposed a lot of his lies.

IMO

The lack of alibi doesn't really bother me. He was asleep. I imagine there were people coming and going, kids screaming and running amok, lots of adults screaming. The usual chaos. AW doesn't even know when they left, then she took a pill. Right.

The lie I'm having a hard time with is that George said he didn't know until JW's proffer, yet he knew the planned alibi (home watching movies) at the MT border. I don't think this alone makes him guilty of murder or conspiracy. If he knew after the fact, then he may be guilty of obstruction of justice, same as Rita.

What other lies? I'm having a hard time with the lack of transcript or tape from MT. Who says GW lied? Tabby, Beth and Chris were believable, but not completely solid as they testified from their individual perspective and memory. Both the defense and prosecution were afraid to call or recall witnesses to prove or disprove his testimony. Many of the witnesses could have testified for either the defense or the prosecution depending on the question. All the prosecution has is the paid testimony of Jake and Angela.

ETA: It does bother me that GW said he didn't dye his hair. Whyyyy?

 

[silenced]

well i just meant in the eyes of the law/court. You can notarize all you want but that have to go before the courts to be legal.
Even if notarized legally.

And GW signed his name on a form on the way out the door.

The custody documents don/t bother me.

 

[rsd1200]

For the record, GW4 made threats both physically and verbally to TC (she testified to this), made threats to BCI agent and an AG, verbal abuse to two minor children and got in physical altercations with his father. But he's a nice guy. IMO, MOO.

I don't think even HE is saying he's a nice guy. I'm certainly not. I have known/met quite a few G4's in my lifetime but they never killed anyone. Being a thieving azzh0le does not a murderer make.

 

[justtrish]

Hi Pru. Could you send me the links also?
Be nice to have those links easy to find and I would like to refresh my memory on the testimony.

Thank You!

The co-defendant's testimony will be huge in jury deliberations. Huge.

Yes for sure and I think when other witness testimony supports the co-defendants testimony, then the jury has to decide what is most credible or believable. The defense witnesses said George was a good worker and in the past he was a friend. Then one expert that analyzed some of the evidence and concluded it could have been done by one person, but couldn't say it wasn't done by more than 1. Then George with his testimony that he knew nothing until Jake's proffer.

If the jury believes George lied about that (not knowing till Jake's proffer) then they will find him guilty on all. With all that was testified to by all the witnesses, is it believable that George could know nothing until Jake's proffer? Some of the small things too like did he dye his hair and if he's seen the boon dock saints movie. Why would not only Jake, but others say this was George's favorite movie if George hadn't even seen the movie? He said he didn't see it, others say he told them it was his favorite movie. Then others said he had his hair dyed and he says no. It's things like this that might make jurors question things. Not that either of those things make him guilty, but then why would he lie about those things then and if those are lies what else did he lie about? He lied because he doesn't want to be associated with that movie or dying his hair, but then I'd say why not? If those were "believable lies" then what other statements did he make that were also lies?

 

[Pru2U]

All the prosecution has is the paid testimony of Jake and Angela.

Jake was not paid for his testimony.

It was his testimony in exchange for George’s life. Jake’s agreement was to take the death penalty off the table, not for himself but for the whole family.

Big difference.

I personally believe the only reason Jake made that particular stipulation is because he knew all 4 were involved and he believed the evidence was there to prove it - beyond reasonable doubt. He made the exchange to save their lives.

But that just my opinion.

 

[Myland]

Jmo has anyone seen the video when Parker called George to testify? I figured the prosecutors had a heads up at least heads-ups that morning, but after seeing that video they were completely caught off guard. Jmo

 

[Myland]

Jake was not paid for his testimony.

It was his testimony in exchange for George’s life. Jake’s agreement was to take the death penalty off the table, not for himself but for the whole family.

Big difference.

I personally believe the only reason Jake made that particular stipulation is because he knew all 4 were involved and he believed the evidence was there to prove it - beyond reasonable doubt. He made the exchange to save their lives.

But that just my opinion.

Jmo I respect your opinion but I believe Jake would have lost his deal for dp off table for himself had he not testified against George. So in my opinion when you give something to get something your are being paid. Jmo

 

[silenced]

Jmo has anyone seen the video when Parker called George to testify? I figured the prosecutors had a heads up at least heads-ups that morning, but after seeing that video they were completely caught off guard. Jmo

Pretty Lies played it and replayed it on the thing Friday night. Prosecution was completely taken by surprise.

 

[rsd1200]

Jmo has anyone seen the video when Parker called George to testify? I figured the prosecutors had a heads up at least heads-ups that morning, but after seeing that video they were completely caught off guard. Jmo

Remember back when the defense asked to call witnesses out of order? GW4 may not have decided to testify til the last minute.

 

[Myland]

Remember back when the defense asked to call witnesses out of order? GW4 may not have decided to testify til the last minute.

Jmo I agree. I don’t know what Wilson thought he was going to do when Parker said that but he definitely was surprised.

 

[justtrish]

Jmo has anyone seen the video when Parker called George to testify? I figured the prosecutors had a heads up at least heads-ups that morning, but after seeing that video they were completely caught off guard. Jmo

It was funny! The judge even had a reaction!

 

[Cool Cats]

Yes for sure and I think when other witness testimony supports the co-defendants testimony, then the jury has to decide what is most credible or believable. The defense witnesses said George was a good worker and in the past he was a friend. Then one expert that analyzed some of the evidence and concluded it could have been done by one person, but couldn't say it wasn't done by more than 1. Then George with his testimony that he knew nothing until Jake's proffer.

If the jury believes George lied about that (not knowing till Jake's proffer) then they will find him guilty on all. With all that was testified to by all the witnesses, is it believable that George could know nothing until Jake's proffer? Some of the small things too like did he dye his hair and if he's seen the boon dock saints movie. Why would not only Jake, but others say this was George's favorite movie if George hadn't even seen the movie? He said he didn't see it, others say he told them it was his favorite movie. Then others said he had his hair dyed and he says no. It's things like this that might make jurors question things. Not that either of those things make him guilty, but then why would he lie about those things then and if those are lies what else did he lie about? He lied because he doesn't want to be associated with that movie or dying his hair, but then I'd say why not? If those were "believable lies" then what other statements did he make that were also lies?

In order to believe George's testimony we have to believe that for the first time ever there was a major plan going on in his house for months, purchases being made with his accounts, items bought, guns bought he didn't know about, conversations happening he never overheard not one, mom didn't vent to him about anything or discuss something as she rubbed his back one night (had to mention this lol), he literally had blinders and earplugs on for 3-4 months. Then he happens to give his dad money for a murder truck, and doesn't ever ask what happened to it or where it was or why, doesn't want repaid, just hands over 2500 from his safe and forgets all about it. Then his dad is over the night of the 21st and it's the first time since at least before Jan of that year he's there and it's not questioned at all just goes to bed at 10pm wakes up and even saying he would have heard someone leave because he'd here them, never heard anything, never overheard it discussed after, never saw weapons being cut up, never questioned a thing, just assumed BCI is framing us. Didn't overhear mom, dad, or Jake say anything after the fact, told Jake he should have burned a laptop and I think it was a phone because he again thought they were being framed. Screaming and raging on all those recordings, even terrifying his son because BCI again is framing them. Then when his brother confesses that is the first time he had ANY idea there was a plot and all that has been shared was going on while he lived in a house and was by all other witness testimony and accounts equally as involved and connected to family meetings and decision making and voting on life choices for everything else and they heard it, saw it, and knew about it from before AND after the murders. Nothing changed from before and after.. still talking, meeting, planning, voting, and anyone not in those 4 were excluded from those meetings.

Then if we believe all that, we also have to believe that BCI is actually trying to frame him, Jake and Angela both were able to match their stories of framing George all because they had no deal if they didn't lie and say George was there. The prosecution bribed them with deals and basically is blackmailing them to lie so they can get all 4 of them and frame George because he really is 100% innocent of any and all planning, participating and covering up of this crime.

Now not only that we have Jake's lawyers and Angela's lawyers also agreeing to allow them to lie or be coerced into getting on the stand and lying just so the state can frame George.

Then we have the recorded proffer that George's lawyers and George have heard. They heard it. Do you think if Jake said my brother didn't do anything, didn't know, had no idea until I confessed at any point during that proffer that the would play it they would say that, they would be screaming that. If anyone said to Jake you must implicate George or no deal, they would have been all over that. Just because it wasn't played for us does not mean there is conspiracy where EVERYONE involved in this case is in on it.

Then we have George's lawyers who would have to know recordings don't really exist of him at the border, but allow AC to reference them and read from them AND they themselves even read from them, but there really was no recording or transcript where George said any of what was read in court for him. And because NEITHER side played the recording there must be something hidden on it that proves he was innocent and is now being framed? AND the judge would also now be involved because he would surely know if BCI agents "messed up" and didn't record an interview and is now claiming they did and both lawyers are reading from a transcript that never exists? He literally heard arguments over playing these recordings vs not playing them. I think if there wasn't actually a recording at all he would know that, the defense wouldn't have argued to play it. They have all discovery so if there was no recording, they would have said that was never turned over to us, but they didn't say that they wanted to play it. They can't play it if they don't have it and so why wouldn't they then say, judge we have no recording of that interview.

Do I believe someone in LE can mess up, yes they are human. Do I believe they would get on the stand and lie no. Do I believe if they did lie on the stand and the defense had any proof of that they would expose it YES.

This isn't a case where one mistaken or one bad apple would have been at play in order to create this "Framing of George". Nearly everyone in this case would have to be in on this and I just don't believe that. Just because we want to hear recordings and we think if there was nothing bad on it, then they would play it, etc doesn't mean there isn't a reason (other than they must be framing George) that it isn't played. When the defense could have also played these recordings, I just don't see how anything helpful to George would be on it or they would have played it also.

I really like your posts. You have great insight into George's involvement. So many posters seem to think George wasn't in on the murder conspiracy with his family.

You give solid reasons why he is at least guilty of the murder conspiracy. Many posters think Jake and Angela are framing George and had to frame him to get a plea deal when that is not how it works.

If George was innocent Jake would have told his attorneys who would not allow Jake to deliberately lie under oath implicating an innocent man. Instead Jake would have just had a deal to testify in Billy's trial and to plead guilty.

Jake's attorneys have a code of ethics to follow. These are top notch attorneys who negotiated Jake's plea deal.

 

[justtrish]

Remember back when the defense asked to call witnesses out of order? GW4 may not have decided to testify til the last minute.

I would be curious to have an expert weigh in on this. I assumed at the time this was because witnesses already had flights and due to them coming from Alaska it was hard to reschedule and it was hard to predict when exactly they would be needed ahead of time. I thought it would be only those witnesses that couldn't be moved around due to flights, then they ended up calling I think 6 witnesses that day and some of them were local. Then back to prosecution, then back to defense for the expert. I would love to know how common this is and if it's totally okay if both sides agree.