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

[CIA Team Member]

It was funny! The judge even had a reaction!

I think we all pooped at that moment.

 

[justtrish]

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.

Thank you! I appreciate you saying this. I am not the most eloquent with words and often am very rough around the edges. I feel like I try to get all the thoughts in my head out and it ends up really long winded, but it's genuine. I am no expert in English either so using proper punctuation and grammar is not a strong point I have I am great with math though.. if we ever need that talent I am on it. lol

 

[justtrish]

I think we all pooped at that moment.

I thought another day of nothing productive happening for me. lol

 

[CIA Team Member]

Thank you! I appreciate you saying this. I am not the most eloquent with words and often am very rough around the edges. I feel like I try to get all the thoughts in my head out and it ends up really long winded, but it's genuine. I am no expert in English either so using proper punctuation and grammar is not a strong point I have I am great with math though.. if we ever need that talent I am on it. lol

<clears throat>
I was told there'd be no math on this here site.

Also, no sports.

Carry on....

 

[rsd1200]

The murders and OJ’s trial are burned into my memory forever. I watched and read anything I could get my hands on. Still do. I get on little kicks where I get RE-obsessed with this case and will annoy everyone in my life talking about it. I was 9 when they murders happened. 9. I had my grandma record the trial and would run out of school as fast as I could to go to her house and watch it. I was an odd kid.

I was a bit older than nine. lol We had three channels and KET. I recorded the trial or watched whatever I could. There was a t.v. in our breakroom at work and it was on there a lot. I'd go by my friends' houses, the OJ trial is on. It was everywhere. It's well, I just watched some of his clips on youtube, and one was titled; Dave Chappelle Thinks OJ Simpson Might Be Chasing Him. I only mention it b/c of your fascination. I was fascinated by the clip. If you watch, watch at your own risk. It is Dave Chappelle. R rating for profanity and everything else. After reading some of the jurors' quotes, after the OJ trial, I could see, more clearly, why he was acquitted but I still can't see him as innocent.

 

[Pru2U]

This is only my opinion but it is my strongly held opinion:

If George was NOT involved in planning…
If George was NOT involved in covering up…If George was NOT on UHR that night…

Jake would have been adamant George was not involved.

Angela would have been adamant George was not involved.

George would have been adamant he was not involved. From the beginning.

All 3 defense attorneys would have been aware if Jake & Angela were adamant George was not involved, therefore, the prosecutor’s office would have been aware George was not involved.

It was the defense attorneys who negotiated the deals with the prosecutors office.

Would it not be unethical for their attorneys to make that deal knowing their clients were adamant George was not involved? I don’t know but if he wasn’t involved, I think Jake & Angela could have cleared George. Especially Jake. The prosecution can talk about not needing it to convict but we know Canepa wanted Jake’s testimony BAD! I have talked about AC being emotionally attached to this case. She, like the rest of us, wanted to know what happened that night, but she especially wanted to be able to tell the families most of their loved ones did not suffer. That was very important to her. Make no mistake, Jake held the cards. He could have denied George was there.

Neither Jake nor Angela were forced or cajoled into to involving George where he wasn’t. George was there.

JMO

 

[Pru2U]

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.

Ditto

Reading @justtrish is like what’s in my head but doesn’t quite make it to my fingers.

 

[Dudly]

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?

How does anyone pick and choose which lies to believe and which to not believe is what this boils down to in the end…
MOO

 

[pcrum12]

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.

With all due respect - criminals lie to their attorneys all the time. I believe he is guilty but I like to play devil's advocate and think "what is the jury thinking". I see so many holes in the states case I mean like just not complete. Does the jury? I'm an over thinker too.

 

[Dudly]

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?

How does anyone pick and choose which lies to believe and which to not believe is what this boils down to in the end…
MOO

 

[pcrum12]

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.

With all due respect - criminals lie to their attorneys all the time. Personally, I believe he is guilty but I like to play devil's advocate and think "what is the jury thinking". I see so many holes in the states case I mean like just not complete. Does the jury? I'm an over thinker too.

 

[justtrish]

This is only my opinion but it is my strongly held opinion:

If George was NOT involved in planning…
If George was NOT involved in covering up…If George was NOT on UHR that night…

Jake would have been adamant George was not involved.

Angela would have been adamant George was not involved.

George would have been adamant he was not involved. From the beginning.

All 3 defense attorneys would have been aware if Hake & Angela were adamant George was not involved, therefore, the prosecutor’s office would have been aware George was not involved.

It was the defense attorneys who negotiated the deals with the prosecutors office.

Would it not be unethical for their attorneys to make that deal knowing their clients were adamant George was not involved? I don’t know but if he wasn’t involved, I think Jake & Angela could have cleared George. Especially Jake. The prosecution can talk about not needing it to convict but we know Canepa wanted Jake’s testimony BAD! I have talked about AC being emotionally attached to this case. She, like the rest of us, wanted to know what happened that night, but she especially wanted to be able to tell the families most of their loved ones did not suffer. That was very important to her. Make no mistake, Jake held the cards. He could have denied George was there.

Neither Jake nor Angela were forced or cajoled into to involving George where he wasn’t. George was there.

JMO

You bring up something that that hadn't occurred to me! You mention Jake being able to tell the families exactly what happened. If I put myself in any one of the families shoes, I would always ask WHY and HOW. Jake provided the how for sure and Angela provided the why. It is twisted and unthinkable and even hard to believe, but hearing her say what she did (even the victim blaming) I think was a piece of the puzzle for the surviving family members. Angela either believed her delusions or knew they were false and used them to control things. Either way her nagging and her paranoia/control was the why. I don't believe any of the 3 men would have just up and decided this was a solution if it were not for her nagging and constantly putting ideas in their heads.

I do think each of the 3 guys had their own reasons or other motives/justifications for what happened that night besides Angela's nagging. I also think lots of mental health issues, brain washing over the years, and the cult like loyalty and dynamic they had contributed. I guess a perfect storm.

Imagine if none of them confessed. They all go to trial and even if all 4 ended up convicted, there would be no answers to exactly why and how. They would always wondered.

 

[Skully67]

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.

Was GW4 offered a plea deal? I thought I heard Parker ask that and GW4 said no. Of course, I may be mistaken.

 

[Skully67]

I was driving today and the words "Ma Barker" came into my brain and reminded me of AW.

 

[RAISINISBACK]

Well, since testimony is evidence, what Jake and Angela said is evidence against George. So is the shoe. There is a ton of consciousness of guilt comments in his recorded statements and what EW said. Might not be enough for you, but it is all evidence. There is the fact he knew of all of their crimes or was involved in them, except, of course, supposedly, the most high risk and complex one.

Even DNA requires inference -- that it did not come earlier, that it wasn't incidental, etc.

But, a question for you. If you were a juror, what motive could you imagine for Jake and Angela to lie? If it was for consideration in their own cases, they could have just put it on Billy. Putting away two instead of one might might might have helped Angela, but what are the odds her story would be perfectly synchronized with Jakes? Jake obviously did not do it to get out of death (he had two others beyond George to throw over the fence) and it certainly did not reduce his sentence.

Edited to make one more point: All the things you are saying, @RAISINISBACK , that make Jake (smirking, etc.) or Angela (a guy on trial saying it didn't happen) appear incredible is much weaker, from my perspective, than the evidence against George

To get their plea deals. I think he approached Canepa, his first story was that George was not involved in any way, Canepa said I don't believe you, I know George was there, now give me the real story and I will take the DP off for all 4 of you and give your mommy 30 years. Think it over. Why did Canepa, having all that evidence, knowing that Angie was the driving force behind the murders gave her the 30 year deal. Jake made a choice. Mommy or George. He chose mommy.

Maybe you missed the conference call between Jake and Angie right after he pled guilty. They both called Chris N and he merged the calls so they could talk to each other. It was brought out in pre trial motions. That is when Angie lost all her privileges and soon after confessed.

JMO

 

[RAISINISBACK]

IMO, the strongest charge against George is #22, the Conspiracy Charge. That is the integral charge that connects the other 21 charges together. And I do believe that is the charge that will bring him down, he was clearly a part of a long exisiting family conspiracy. IMO that has been proven in court.

Prosecution has never needed to do anything more than link him to his participation in that life-long conspiracy. In fact, they did much more with evidence and JW's & AW's testimony. Not only did the evidence and Jake and Angie confirm George's integral part in the long time family conspiracy but Jake's testimony also placed him at the scene of the crimes.

To charge him as part of a conspiracy, the Prosecution has had to build a strong case that he was in fact an integral part of a well defined conspiracy. That is why the evidence and testimony of JW and AW is so relevant and has dominated the trial so far.

IMO, whether he shot anyone or not, he was 100% part of his family's conspiracy and had been for all of his life.

All for one, one for all. Let them all go down forever.

JMO





JMO

Only the charges he is on trial for will be considered, not everything he ever did his whole life.

JMO

 

[RAISINISBACK]

Hopefully the jury realized that the wiretaps shown GW and AW's true colors, and didn't buy the meek acts in the courtroom. I still feel that this whole situation was created by AW so her family would be living high on the Flying W, without having to share inheritance. It confirmed my belief when GW said his name is already on the deed.
Didn't AC ask GW on the stand about AW wanting to burn another place down, possibly Pug's?
I respect you all, and enjoy how your opinions are intriguing, it inspires me to think. I admire those who dig up facts about case's that I hadn't read before.
Your Amazing!

George's name was on the deed to Peterson Rd.

 

[Cool Cats]

Thank you! I appreciate you saying this. I am not the most eloquent with words and often am very rough around the edges. I feel like I try to get all the thoughts in my head out and it ends up really long winded, but it's genuine. I am no expert in English either so using proper punctuation and grammar is not a strong point I have I am great with math though.. if we ever need that talent I am on it. lol

I am awful with math I would defer any math related questions to you. LOL

Your willing to reason it out, look at both sides instead of just writing the prosecution off saying they didn't prove anything, the evidence isn't there, Jake and Angie are liars case closed.

The jurors will need to have open minds and lay out and add up the evidence. See both sides, etc...

You would be good on a jury. I have faith the jurors will weigh all the evidence before deciding.

 

[RAISINISBACK]

Why? Would snickering, laughing, gasping or crying violate their oath?

Because you cannot sit on a jury and snicker and roll your eyes during testimony. Or do you think the jury can sit there and make fun of a man on trial for his life while he is testifying? That would be highly prejudicial. besides the judge warned everyone before trial started. He even ordered that the family could not wear anything that was support for the victims, like the color orange.

JMO

 

[RAISINISBACK]

Caffeine intoxication, according to him

He admitted to drinking alcohol with his uncle and friends every night he was home.

JMO