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

[justtrish]

So, the sz 11 shoe prints outside Little Chris's room, that Canepa mentioned in her opening - was that in carpeting? Could they get them because there was blood from the previous scenes that left a visible print? I don't remember discussion about that and I have never understood it. Can anyone point me in the direction of a discussion re number and sizes of shoe prints, and which scene?

No it was linoleum. I found the testimony on this a few days ago. The witness on the stand said he used fingerprint dust to dust the area by the door and found the print. It would be from something like walking in wet grass either from rain or dew on the ground. Then the first few steps in the door on a non carpeted floor would leave the prints and then when they dry you can use fingerprint dust to lift them.

 

[Cool Cats]

So, the sz 11 shoe prints outside Little Chris's room, that Canepa mentioned in her opening - was that in carpeting? Could they get them because there was blood from the previous scenes that left a visible print? I don't remember discussion about that and I have never understood it. Can anyone point me in the direction of a discussion re number and sizes of shoe prints, and which scene?

Was it specifically stated this was a bloody print? Other substances like dirt/mud could leave a print.

We know for sure the shoe prints at Chris Sr's were in blood.
Scheiderer at George's Bond Hearing holding photo of bloody shoe prints taken from Chris Sr's:

 

[molly1255]

Rita did not notarize them, Angie faked her signature but got her mom to lie and say she signed them. Rita finally admitted Angie faked her signature, after being on house arrest for a year and right before her trial.

I assume Angie used her mom's notary stamp because the point of faking Rita's signature was to show the fake documents were notorized. Rita was a Notary.

That is my understanding of what happened, too. AW may be a lot of things, but, IMO, she is really dumb if she ever thought those custody docs would fly if she tried to use them. IIRC, she used a Texas form she found on the Internet and it had a wonky date stamp on it. And then she saved the docs when she knew LE was breathing down their necks!

 

[justtrish]

@pamelado2 @Cool Cats Here's what I found on this print at Dana's house.

About 4 hours 20 minutes in on this video he talks about it. He said the best place to find footwear impressions (so this was not in blood) is by a front door on a non carpeted floor. He said once a shoe walks across carpet any moisture on the bottom of the shoe will be removed and so the best spot to find any is by the front or entry way door if it is non carpeted. They routinely dust those areas for footwear impressions and so that is why they did this area and found some usable prints. It was not in blood like the other scene, this was lifted with fingerprint dust.

 

[Pru2U]

No it was linoleum. I found the testimony on this a few days ago. The witness on the stand said he used fingerprint dust to dust the area by the door and found the print. It would be from something like walking in wet grass either from rain or dew on the ground. Then the first few steps in the door on a non carpeted floor would leave the prints and then when they dry you can use fingerprint dust to lift them.

So it would have been in maybe 3rd or 4th day of testimony? Following the timeline, didn’t the family witnesses go first, then the County SO, EMS then BCI followed.

 

[justtrish]

So it would have been in maybe 3rd or 4th day of testimony? Following the timeline, didn’t the family witnesses go first, then the County SO, EMS then BCI followed.

I just posted it above! It was on day 9.

 

[rsd1200]

No it was linoleum. I found the testimony on this a few days ago. The witness on the stand said he used fingerprint dust to dust the area by the door and found the print. It would be from something like walking in wet grass either from rain or dew on the ground. Then the first few steps in the door on a non carpeted floor would leave the prints and then when they dry you can use fingerprint dust to lift them.

Thanks, I'd forgotten it was linoleum. Wonder why G3's didn't show. He was placed beside G4, by JW's testimony, iirc. Odd how that works.

 

[Cool Cats]

@pamelado2 @Cool Cats Here's what I found on this print at Dana's house.

About 4 hours 20 minutes in on this video he talks about it. He said the best place to find footwear impressions (so this was not in blood) is by a front door on a non carpeted floor. He said once a shoe walks across carpet any moisture on the bottom of the shoe will be removed and so the best spot to find any is by the front or entry way door if it is non carpeted. They routinely dust those areas for footwear impressions and so that is why they did this area and found some usable prints. It was not in blood like the other scene, this was lifted with fingerprint dust.

Wow! That was quick!

Many posters assumed it was a bloody print but didn't see how a bloody print could be at Dana's because all 3 were found in bed, not on a floor. Plus, the blood could get wiped off their shoes after leaving Chris Sr's.

So it makes sense the footprint at Dana's couldn't be seen, instead it was found by a dusting powder they used. This clears up the bloody shoe print at Dana's "mystery."

Thanks

 

[justtrish]

Wow! That was quick!

Many posters assumed it was a bloody print but didn't see how a bloody print could be at Dana's because all 3 were found in bed, not on a floor. Plus, the blood could get wiped off their shoes after leaving Chris Sr's.

So it makes sense the footprint at Dana's couldn't be seen, instead it was found by a dusting powder they used.

Thanks

I didn't just find it, I looked this up last week and posted about it! LOL I just searched back to find the post I mad earlier last week. The agent testified that they routinely use fingerprint dust in the entry ways or non carpeted surfaces to see what they can find.

 

[Skully67]

Thanks, I'd forgotten it was linoleum. Wonder why G3's didn't show. He was placed beside G4, by JW's testimony, iirc. Odd how that works.

I wonder whether boots leave a distinguishable print. Aren't most Boot soles smooth without any "tread". If the Rs wore boots, maybe their prints couldn't be sorted out from the Ws.

 

[justtrish]

I wonder whether boots leave a distinguishable print. Aren't most Boot soles smooth without any "tread". If the Rs wore boots, maybe their prints couldn't be sorted out from the Ws.

What made the Walmart shoes so distinguishable is they were brand new and the tread was not worn down at all. The had no wear patterns. I will try to find if a photo was shown of this print. It's possible that it wasn't just a full print, but a partial mixed in with other prints that might not have been distinguishable. At that early point in the investigation I trust that they collected anything that was usable because they didn't know what would be important. It's possible Billy's boots left partial prints there and without anything to compare them to then how do they know what was Billy's boots and what might have been Chris Jr, Dana, Hannah Mae or even Hannah Mae's boyfriend or anyone else coming and going since the last time someone mopped that floor. What made the size 11 Walmart shoe print lifted important was it matched a bloody shoe print at another scene. Then they didn't know how that was key until they found the receipt on Angela's box of papers. If they had any other prints and then had shoes to compare them too they might have been able to determine Billy's prints or match them up. They were checking everyone that had been in those house and getting photos of their shoes or taking the shoes. I haven't heard if they lifted any other prints or partial prints, but I'd imagine Billy got rid of his boots also and so without something to compare it too, it wouldn't hold much value.

 

[rsd1200]

I wonder whether boots leave a distinguishable print. Aren't most Boot soles smooth without any "tread". If the Rs wore boots, maybe their prints couldn't be sorted out from the Ws.

I don't think it would matter about DR, HMR, and CR2 (I'd say the R women, at DR's house, wore much smaller sizes and CR2 probably wasn't in a 10-11 men's size just yet). JW had said G4 was standing beside CR2's door, and so was G3. Isn't that where they found the size 11 print? They could still never pinpoint who wore the shoes that made the prints. JW's entire story of that crime scene was just bizarre.

 

[Skully67]

What made the Walmart shoes so distinguishable is they were brand new and the tread was not worn down at all. The had no wear patterns. I will try to find if a photo was shown of this print. It's possible that it wasn't just a full print, but a partial mixed in with other prints that might not have been distinguishable. At that early point in the investigation I trust that they collected anything that was usable because they didn't know what would be important. It's possible Billy's boots left partial prints there and without anything to compare them to then how do they know what was Billy's boots and what might have been Chris Jr, Dana, Hannah Mae or even Hannah Mae's boyfriend or anyone else coming and going since the last time someone mopped that floor. What made the size 11 Walmart shoe print lifted important was it matched a bloody shoe print at another scene. Then they didn't know how that was key until they found the receipt on Angela's box of papers. If they had any other prints and then had shoes to compare them too they might have been able to determine Billy's prints or match them up. They were checking everyone that had been in those house and getting photos of their shoes or taking the shoes. I haven't heard if they lifted any other prints or partial prints, but I'd imagine Billy got rid of his boots also and so without something to compare it too, it wouldn't hold much value.

I googled boots and the response was that most cowboy boots have a smooth sole.

 

[Skully67]

I don't think it would matter about DR, HMR, and CR2 (I'd say the R women, at DR's house, wore much smaller sizes and CR2 probably wasn't in a 10-11 men's size just yet). JW had said G4 was standing beside CR2's door, and so was G3. Isn't that where they found the size 11 print? They could still never pinpoint who wore the shoes that made the prints. JW's entire story of that crime scene was just bizarre.

My point about the boots is that if everyone wore boots, then not having a print for GW3 means nothing.

 

[Niner]

From the tweets, she said 1 was filed in January, so 1 + 7 = 8.

One of these?

01/10/2022 MOTION NO. 78 DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PROPOSED JURY INSSTRUCTION FILED
Attorney: PARKER, JOHN PATRICK
Attorney: NASH, JR, RICHARD M

01/10/2022 MOTION NO. 79 DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION FILED
Attorney: PARKER, JOHN PATRICK
Attorney: NASH, JR, RICHARD M

 

[Niner]

So are they (judge & attorneys) meeting today also? Thought I saw a post that mentioned that.

 

[pamelado2]

Thanks, I'd forgotten it was linoleum. Wonder why G3's didn't show. He was placed beside G4, by JW's testimony, iirc. Odd how that works.

That was a small space, maybe he was on the carpeting.

 

[justtrish]

One of these?

01/10/2022 MOTION NO. 78 DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PROPOSED JURY INSSTRUCTION FILED
Attorney: PARKER, JOHN PATRICK
Attorney: NASH, JR, RICHARD M

01/10/2022 MOTION NO. 79 DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION FILED
Attorney: PARKER, JOHN PATRICK
Attorney: NASH, JR, RICHARD M

I believe both of those were denied. I'll look again. I pulled these up this morning and I want to say a hearing in May addressed these two.

05/16/2022

JOURNAL ENTRY -- This cause came on for oral argument on May 2, 2022, upon the following motions of the Defendant: DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 65: "DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF 'OTHER ACTS' EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO EVID.R. 404(B)." DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 77: "DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION TO COMPEL THE PRODUCTION OF 'OTHER ACTS' EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO EVID.R. 404(B)." DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 78: "DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION." (Concerning testimony of an accomplice) DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 79: "DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION." (Concerning "immutable characteristics.")

Having considered all arguments in support of and in opposition to Defendant's Motion No. 78, entitled "DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION," the Court finds that the jury instruction proposed by the Defendant adds the following paragraph to the instruction set forth in Section 2923.01(H) R.C.: "An accomplice may have special motives in testifying, and you should carefully examine an accomplice's testimony and use it with great caution and view it with grave suspicion." To the extent that the jury instruction requested and proposed in Defendant's Motion No. 78 tracts exactly the language of Section 2923.01(H), the Court finds that Defendant's Motion No. 78 is well taken and the same is hereby granted, provided that testimony of a person with whom the Defendant has allegedly conspired is introduced at trial and is supported by other evidence, thus justifying the proposed jury instruction set forth in Section 2923.01(H). To the extent that the jury instruction requested and proposed in Defendant's Motion No. 78 adds the above-quoted language to the instruction set forth in Section 2923.01(H) R.C., Defendant's Motion No. 78 is not well taken, and such motion is overruled and denied and the language added by the defense to the instruction shall not be given as part of the instruction. Having considered all arguments in support of, and in opposition to, Defendant's Motion No. 79, entitled "DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION," the Court finds that the basis of the decision in Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759 (2017), is not shown to be applicable in the present action. The Court concludes that Defendant's Motion No. 79 is not well taken. It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant's Motion No. 79 is hereby overruled and denied. To the extent that other acts evidence is admitted at trial pursuant to Evid.R. 404(B), it is the intention of the Court to provide jury instructions consistent with applicable provisions of OJI and State v. Hartman, 161 Ohio St.3d 214, 2020-Ohio-4440. The Court may reconsider this ruling upon Defendant's Motion No. 79 at trial, if it appears that evidence as to "immutable characteristics" is introduced, rendering an instruction based upon Buck v. Davis appropriate and necessary.

 

[rsd1200]

My point about the boots is that if everyone wore boots, then not having a print for GW3 means nothing.

At least two people had on Wally World, old man, sneakers. G3's boots may have tread, and it be different from the boots/shoe styles the R's at DR's wore, or he could have been the one in the size 11 shoes. JW added him in, or did he just add G4 in, to add to his testimony? It speaks quite a lot when they can't prove who wore the shoes, they had the prints for. and we've never been told G3's shoe size that I recall. All of my boots have solid tread, unless they are slick-soled dress boots.

 

[Niner]

I believe both of those were denied. I'll look again. I pulled these up this morning and I want to say a hearing in May addressed these two.

05/16/2022

JOURNAL ENTRY -- This cause came on for oral argument on May 2, 2022, upon the following motions of the Defendant: DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 65: "DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF 'OTHER ACTS' EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO EVID.R. 404(B)." DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 77: "DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION TO COMPEL THE PRODUCTION OF 'OTHER ACTS' EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO EVID.R. 404(B)." DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 78: "DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION." (Concerning testimony of an accomplice) DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 79: "DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION." (Concerning "immutable characteristics.")

Having considered all arguments in support of and in opposition to Defendant's Motion No. 78, entitled "DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION," the Court finds that the jury instruction proposed by the Defendant adds the following paragraph to the instruction set forth in Section 2923.01(H) R.C.: "An accomplice may have special motives in testifying, and you should carefully examine an accomplice's testimony and use it with great caution and view it with grave suspicion." To the extent that the jury instruction requested and proposed in Defendant's Motion No. 78 tracts exactly the language of Section 2923.01(H), the Court finds that Defendant's Motion No. 78 is well taken and the same is hereby granted, provided that testimony of a person with whom the Defendant has allegedly conspired is introduced at trial and is supported by other evidence, thus justifying the proposed jury instruction set forth in Section 2923.01(H). To the extent that the jury instruction requested and proposed in Defendant's Motion No. 78 adds the above-quoted language to the instruction set forth in Section 2923.01(H) R.C., Defendant's Motion No. 78 is not well taken, and such motion is overruled and denied and the language added by the defense to the instruction shall not be given as part of the instruction. Having considered all arguments in support of, and in opposition to, Defendant's Motion No. 79, entitled "DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION," the Court finds that the basis of the decision in Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759 (2017), is not shown to be applicable in the present action. The Court concludes that Defendant's Motion No. 79 is not well taken. It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant's Motion No. 79 is hereby overruled and denied. To the extent that other acts evidence is admitted at trial pursuant to Evid.R. 404(B), it is the intention of the Court to provide jury instructions consistent with applicable provisions of OJI and State v. Hartman, 161 Ohio St.3d 214, 2020-Ohio-4440. The Court may reconsider this ruling upon Defendant's Motion No. 79 at trial, if it appears that evidence as to "immutable characteristics" is introduced, rendering an instruction based upon Buck v. Davis appropriate and necessary.

Yes, looks like both those were ruled on - so must a different one. Not going to worry about it until the court site is updated on the other 7 that were recently filed. And thanks for finding that! I kind of glanced thru the docket & did not see this.