GUILTY OH - Pike Co - 8 in Rhoden Family Murdered - 4 Wagner Family Members Arrested #86

[Betty P]

I know the burden of proof is on the prosecution, but if I were a juror I wouldn’t wonder “Why would George IV be there?” I’d think “Why ^wouldn’t* he?”
Iirc all the testimony about the intertwining lives of the four Wagners supports the idea that they were pretty much always in each other’s business- their finances, their crimes, the family meetings, the “All for one, one for all” mindset. So are we supposed to believe that sure, George IV was involved in 5000 other things that the family did, but for *just this one thing• (murdering the Rhodens & Hannah Hazel) the three of them discussed various scenarios, planned & prepped, did these awful murders, destroyed evidence & cleaned up… & totally kept it all secret from George VI? For what purpose would they have kept him in the dark?

Not to mention convincing him to give his father $9,000 to buy a truck that George never saw or drove and which was given away to a cousin a day later? Come on...

 

[Chris_p_bacon]

I know the burden of proof is on the prosecution, but if I were a juror I wouldn’t wonder “Why would George IV be there?” I’d think “Why ^wouldn’t* he?”
Iirc all the testimony about the intertwining lives of the four Wagners supports the idea that they were pretty much always in each other’s business- their finances, their crimes, the family meetings, the “All for one, one for all” mindset. So are we supposed to believe that sure, George IV was involved in 5000 other things that the family did, but for *just this one thing• (murdering the Rhodens & Hannah Hazel) the three of them discussed various scenarios, planned & prepped, did these awful murders, destroyed evidence & cleaned up… & totally kept it all secret from George VI? For what purpose would they have kept him in the dark?

exactly!

 

[Caylee Advocate]

Does anyone have an opinion on what G4 is thinking now? Is he confident he'll be found not guilty or is he resigning himself to a guilty verdict? Or somewhere in between?

MOO, he is hopefully somewhere in between.

 

[arielilane]

Watch Live: Pike County Massacre Trial - OH v. George Wagner IV - Day 49 Part 2​

Charts posted around 1:18:22

Complicity

The state of Ohio has presented a theory that the defendant
acted in complicity with the principal offender(s) in the
commission of each of the Counts and Specifications in the
Indictment. A person who is complicit with another in the
commission of a criminal offense is regarded as guilty as if he
personally performed every act constituting the offense. This is
true even if he did not personally perform every act constituting
the offense or was not physically present at the time the offense
was committed.

Complicity (continued)

Before you can find the defendant guilty of complicity in the commission
of any of the offenses or specification sin the indictment you must find
beyond a reasonable doubt, that on or about the date(s) specified in that
respective Count of Specification in the indictment and in Pike County,
Ohio, or as a part of a course of criminal conduct involving an offense or
element of an offense that occurred in Pike County, Ohio, the defendant,
acting with the applicable culpable mental state required for the commission
of the respective offense or specification, solicited or procured another to
commit the offense, aided or abetted another in committing the offense, or
conspired with another to commit the offense.

Complicity (continued)

AIDED OR ABETTED. Before you can find the defendant guilty of
complicity by aiding and abetting, you must find beyond a reasonable doubt
that the defendant supported, assisted, encouraged, cooperated with,
advised, or incited the principal offender in the commission of the offense
and that the defendant shared the criminal intent of the principal offender.
Such intent may be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the offense
Including but not limited to presence, companionship, and conduct before
and after the offense was committed. The mere presence of the defendant at
the scene of the offense is not sufficient to prove, in and of itself, that the
defendant was an aider and abettor.

Complicity (continued)

CONSPIRED. “Conspired” means to plan or aid in the
planning of the commission of an offense with one or more
other persons or agreeing with one or more other persons that
one or more of them will engage in conduct, with a purpose to
commit, promote, or facilitate the commission of the specific
offense.

Complicity (continued)

If you find that the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt
all the essential elements of complicity to commit any offense or
specification in the indictment, your verdict must be guilty as to
that count or specification, according to your findings.

If you find the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that the defendant is guilty either as a principal offender
or as complicit in any given count or specification, then your
verdict must be not guilty as to that count or specification,
according to your findings.

 

[NLM1234]

I missed George's interview at the border. Does anyone remember when that was? Was that played before Jake testified?

It was not played, if I am recalling this correctly.

 

[Skully67]

Does anyone have an opinion on what G4 is thinking now? Is he confident he'll be found not guilty or is he resigning himself to a guilty verdict? Or somewhere in between?

I think he's seeing the writing on the wall.

 

[justtrish]

Everyone should ask the defense why they didn't play it when they had the opportunity.

AC had the right and responsibility to not allow playing of it in order to protect the state's ability to truthfully question GW4 if he took the stand.

Once he testified, the defense could have asked that it be played, but they didn't. That indicates his interview would have been incriminating for him after he was proven to have lied on the witness stand.

JMO The defense only wanted to create the illusion that state was hiding some exonerating evidence.

LOL, I fell for it again. I'm not going to respond to this questionable question anymore.

Why didn't the defense play George's tape when he was on the stand?
Why didn't the defense play Jake's tape when he was on the stand?
Why didn't the defense highlight what size George's foot was?

I think some want to say the state is withholding evidence or information because they know George isn't guilty, but the defense has the same evidence and it's just as easy for them to share that info. Why didn't they?

They didn't object to ANY of the questions AC asked about the border interview.

My thinking is it was more beneficial for the defense to suggest he was asked to be a spy than to show he was asked because then they'd have to play the entire interview. The entire interview where he says he was watching a movie and all the things AC asked him about he said. If he didn't say them why didn't the defense object?

The defense could have played Jake's interview once he was on the stand, they didn't. Maybe because it matched George's.

If the state is hiding something, then the defense is also. It makes no sense for the defense to not highlight whatever people think the state is hiding from us. The defense has access to everything people are saying the state isn't presenting and they can just as easily present it.

Once Jake was on the stand they can play his interview.
Once George is on the stand, they can play his interview.
They can share George's shoe size just the same as the state can. If George has a super large foot that won't fit in an 11 or 10.5, why isn't the defense presenting that to clear him from wearing the shoes?

Edited to add: the state only objected to the play of Jake's recording BEFORE he was on the stand. The defense wanted to play it to discredit him ahead of his testimony. They could have played it when he took the stand. They could have played George's then also once George was on the stand.

If there is anything the state didn't present that proves George innocent, then the defense not playing it or showing it is 100% worse than the state not presenting it. I'd ask why didn't the defense share this amazing evidence that helps George? THAT IS THEIR JOB.

So I'll just side with it didn't help him in any way and since the state didn't need to share it to ask him about what he said, he didn't deny saying anything the state asked about, then what does that leave? He lied at the border to create an alibi and the defense knows the recording is damning for their client so they aren't going to play it.

 

[Betty P]

Watch Live: Pike County Massacre Trial - OH v. George Wagner IV - Day 49 Part 2​

Charts posted around 1:19:58

Complicity

The state of Ohio has presented a theory that the defendant
acted in complicity with the principal offender(s) in the
commission of each of the Counts and Specifications in the
Indictment. A person who is complicit with another in the
commission of a criminal offense is regarded as guilty as if he
personally performed every act constituting the offense. This is
true even if he did not personally perform every act constituting
the offense or was not physically present at the time the offense
was committed.

Complicity (continued)

AIDED OR ABETTED. Before you can find the defendant guilty of
complicity by aiding and abetting, you must find beyond a reasonable doubt
that the defendant supported, assisted, encouraged, cooperated with,
advised, or incited the principal offender in the commission of the offense
and that the defendant shared the criminal intent of the principal offender.
Such intent may be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the offense
Including but not limited to presence, companionship, and conduct before
and after the offense was committed. The mere presence of the defendant at
the scene of the offense is not sufficient to prove, in and of itself, that the
defendant was an aider and abettor.

Thanks! That was what I was trying to explain, haha. Finding GW4 guilty of aiding and abetting makes him complicit with Billy and Jake in the murders.

While it's not necessary for GW4 to have been at the scene of the murders to be complicit, state already has enough evidence to show he was at those scenes (exception for Kenneth Rhoden's, where he was down the road, standing look out.)

 

[Birdnerd71]

I have followed this case since day one. I will be on pins and needles until the verdict is read. I can only hope justice will prevail.

 

[justtrish]

I just had a random thought. That DVR is just so odd. Bought it in march of 2016. What an odd purchase even to put on their own house at that point they lived on Peterson Road for over a year. What would spark the boys to get one? Then Jake's story that his dad told them to take it down because they didn't need proof they were coming and going. Why not just return it for the $$ then at that point? Makes no sense to burn it. George's story they had it up for a while and then took it down to put it on their grandfathers house, yet it somehow ended up burned up at their house. Why? That doesn't make sense either. Why put a system on the grandfathers house, but then remove it and burn it? Nothing suspicious about having a security camera or putting one on a family members house to protect them, but burning it that is not normal.

Any thoughts on what the real story is with this thing? I don't know that I believe either one of those. I mean I think it was put somewhere and then taken down, but where? Is it possible it was used to spy on one of the houses they were going to that night?

The fact it was bought with a 3 year warranty and then burned up is what makes it suspicious no matter where it was placed or what it was used for.

Does anyone have a link for the actual item? Like was it a hard wired system?

OR was it identical to the one Chris Sr had and they were using it to see how it worked/how to get rid of Chris Srs/what info it stored and where and to find out if Kenneth could access it? Maybe they bought the exact one Chris had so they could figure out what counter measures they needed to take?

Or maybe they wanted it on their own house to watch for BCI or anyone snooping around after.

Maybe the state just wasn't sure exactly either and they shared it because it isn't normal behavior. If it was used to hide any criminal activity that sure is odd and not what I think most would do by returning a $300 item for the money. If it broke they had the warranty.. it is just another odd thing this family did.

 

[ohioexpat63]

I personally don't see 4 being exonerated. At best I believe he can hope for a hung jury.

Hypothetical,
If hung jury, and the prosecutors say they'll retry the case, what are the chances of 4 being released on bond?

 

[Johnny B Bad]

Th

I just had a random thought. That DVR is just so odd. Bought it in march of 2016. What an odd purchase even to put on their own house at that point they lived on Peterson Road for over a year. What would spark the boys to get one? Then Jake's story that his dad told them to take it down because they didn't need proof they were coming and going. Why not just return it for the $$ then at that point? Makes no sense to burn it. George's story they had it up for a while and then took it down to put it on their grandfathers house, yet it somehow ended up burned up at their house. Why? That doesn't make sense either. Why put a system on the grandfathers house, but then remove it and burn it? Nothing suspicious about having a security camera or putting one on a family members house to protect them, but burning it that is not normal.

Any thoughts on what the real story is with this thing? I don't know that I believe either one of those. I mean I think it was put somewhere and then taken down, but where? Is it possible it was used to spy on one of the houses they were going to that night?

The fact it was bought with a 3 year warranty and then burned up is what makes it suspicious no matter where it was placed or what it was used for.

Does anyone have a link for the actual item? Like was it a hard wired system?

OR was it identical to the one Chris Sr had and they were using it to see how it worked/how to get rid of Chris Srs/what info it stored and where and to find out if Kenneth could access it? Maybe they bought the exact one Chris had so they could figure out what counter measures they needed to take?

Or maybe they wanted it on their own house to watch for BCI or anyone snooping around after.

Maybe the state just wasn't sure exactly either and they shared it because it isn't normal behavior. If it was used to hide any criminal activity that sure is odd and not what I think most would do by returning a $300 item for the money. If it broke they had the warranty.. it is just another odd thing this family did.

Think about it why would you burn a DVR to start with, That DVR was bought for Chris Sr Drug Grow Build and Weed sale, A Gift From The Wagner s, Think About This Way, if Big Chris had the DVR and Camera system the Wagner’s could hacked it and see all the coming and going’s at the Rhoden House, that is why it was burned, JMO

 

[Chris_p_bacon]

I just had a random thought. That DVR is just so odd. Bought it in march of 2016. What an odd purchase even to put on their own house at that point they lived on Peterson Road for over a year. What would spark the boys to get one? Then Jake's story that his dad told them to take it down because they didn't need proof they were coming and going. Why not just return it for the $$ then at that point? Makes no sense to burn it. George's story they had it up for a while and then took it down to put it on their grandfathers house, yet it somehow ended up burned up at their house. Why? That doesn't make sense either. Why put a system on the grandfathers house, but then remove it and burn it? Nothing suspicious about having a security camera or putting one on a family members house to protect them, but burning it that is not normal.

Any thoughts on what the real story is with this thing? I don't know that I believe either one of those. I mean I think it was put somewhere and then taken down, but where? Is it possible it was used to spy on one of the houses they were going to that night?

The fact it was bought with a 3 year warranty and then burned up is what makes it suspicious no matter where it was placed or what it was used for.

Does anyone have a link for the actual item? Like was it a hard wired system?

OR was it identical to the one Chris Sr had and they were using it to see how it worked/how to get rid of Chris Srs/what info it stored and where and to find out if Kenneth could access it? Maybe they bought the exact one Chris had so they could figure out what counter measures they needed to take?

Or maybe they wanted it on their own house to watch for BCI or anyone snooping around after.

Maybe the state just wasn't sure exactly either and they shared it because it isn't normal behavior. If it was used to hide any criminal activity that sure is odd and not what I think most would do by returning a $300 item for the money. If it broke they had the warranty.. it is just another odd thing this family did.

So, I think a couple of things about this DVR. I think Billy just had an overall aversion to video cameras anywhere. Probably did not want his coming and going recorded while they might be committing any of their crimes. More specifically once he knew they were going to murder the rhodens he did not want any investigators having video evidence that they left the peterson road address that night and what vehicle they were driving. It is possible by the time Billy noticed it on the house they had already purchased the murder truck(I am not sure about this). and so he wanted it destroyed to eliminate any possibility of that truck being on video at any point in time. Destroying video recording equipment would be more preferable to a criminal than returning the video equipment for money. Should investigators be able to catch this purchase, track down the equipment (at the store it is returned to) and review what is digitally recorded it might become evidence against them.

 

[justtrish]

I found tweets from Rita's testimony for whoever was looking. I'll go back and tag you after I post these.

@iulia was the original poster of these tweets from Chris Graves Twitter on October 14, 2022.

Angela Wagner's mother, Rita Newcomb, testified this afternoon about her abusive marriage to Wagner's father, her daughter's rules about how she could babysit her grandsons and how her daughter asked her to lie about forged custody documents, which are a key piece of evidence.1/8

At times, Newcomb, 69 — who seemed to be swallowed in the witness chair — wept as she answered questions by prosecutor Angela Canepa and defense lawyer, John Parker. Her oldest grandson, George Wagner IV, is on trial accused of killing eight Rhoden family members in 2016. 2/8

Newcomb often called her daughter, Jo, which is her middle name during her hour-long testimony. She cried as she recalled how her changed after she married Billy Wagner. "We weren't as close as before." 3/8

Canepa asked her if Wagner came to her after the #Rhoden family homicides and asked her to lie and say she signed forged child-custody documents related to the child shared by Hanna Rhoden and Jake Wagner. 4/8

Newcomb said her daughter told her: "Mom, if you won't sign they will hurt me bad or kill me." But, she testified that she knew it was wrong at the time. 5/8

Authorities charged Newcomb with forgery and later reduced the charges in exchange for her testimony after she came forward and admitted she lied. 6/8

"I told Frank (her lawyer) I'm in trouble and I don't know what to do,'' she testified. "He said: 'Tell the truth and everything will be fine.' And, that's were we are." 7/8

She testified that she owned 50 acres of property and was preparing to build a home, but had to sell it to pay her lawyer in this case. She cares for her 90-year-old mother, she said, and they are living with her son and his family. 8/8

OH - Pike Co - 8 in Rhoden Family Murdered Over Custody Issue - 4 Members Wagner Family Arrested #77

Yeah... but Casey A. didn't have a dead baby head with a notch by it. For instance. This one seems a little more revelant.

www.websleuths.com

The above thread is the thread the discussion of Rita's testimony and any tweets or articles are posted if you want to see more of them.

 

[rsd1200]

I personally don't see 4 being exonerated. At best I believe he can hope for a hung jury.

Hypothetical,
If hung jury, and the prosecutors say they'll retry the case, what are the chances of 4 being released on bond?

He won't be exonerated. I doubt there will be a hung jury, but if there is, I see AC wanting to try him again, and him obtaining zero bond.

 

[rsd1200]

Why didn't the defense play George's tape when he was on the stand?
Why didn't the defense play Jake's tape when he was on the stand?
Why didn't the defense highlight what size George's foot was?

I think some want to say the state is withholding evidence or information because they know George isn't guilty, but the defense has the same evidence and it's just as easy for them to share that info. Why didn't they?

They didn't object to ANY of the questions AC asked about the border interview.

My thinking is it was more beneficial for the defense to suggest he was asked to be a spy than to show he was asked because then they'd have to play the entire interview. The entire interview where he says he was watching a movie and all the things AC asked him about he said. If he didn't say them why didn't the defense object?

The defense could have played Jake's interview once he was on the stand, they didn't. Maybe because it matched George's.

If the state is hiding something, then the defense is also. It makes no sense for the defense to not highlight whatever people think the state is hiding from us. The defense has access to everything people are saying the state isn't presenting and they can just as easily present it.

Once Jake was on the stand they can play his interview.
Once George is on the stand, they can play his interview.
They can share George's shoe size just the same as the state can. If George has a super large foot that won't fit in an 11 or 10.5, why isn't the defense presenting that to clear him from wearing the shoes?

Edited to add: the state only objected to the play of Jake's recording BEFORE he was on the stand. The defense wanted to play it to discredit him ahead of his testimony. They could have played it when he took the stand. They could have played George's then also once George was on the stand.

If there is anything the state didn't present that proves George innocent, then the defense not playing it or showing it is 100% worse than the state not presenting it. I'd ask why didn't the defense share this amazing evidence that helps George? THAT IS THEIR JOB.

So I'll just side with it didn't help him in any way and since the state didn't need to share it to ask him about what he said, he didn't deny saying anything the state asked about, then what does that leave? He lied at the border to create an alibi and the defense knows the recording is damning for their client so they aren't going to play it.

Did G4 ever get the transcript from AC that she offered to show him, when she questioned him? Idr, but I'm not so sure she even had it. My point with the recording is that JW and AW were not on trial. One man was. If your only interview with him was that useless, that you had depended on two admitted liars, and a man who admitted to murdering five people, two women with infants beside them, one of whom he was supposedly in love with, and a barely 16-year-old boy, (although I think he murdered more than five), and also admits to having a very poor memory, then yeah, I think the transcript/or recording should have been given to G4 when she asked if he'd like to review it. That's her job as special prosecutor.

 

[ColMustard]

I saw a comment elsewhere that I agree with. She is likely doing the closing because she is connecting with the jury. She is speaking right to them. 9 women and 3 men, she is speaking to them, not us. I think Clark Kent does a great job asking questions when there is an expert that needs to get through a lot of details quick. He is great at that. I think when questioning the women in this case it was good for AC to be there almost having a dialog vs question and answer. I think they have been strategic with who does what. We might have thought the opening was long and boring with umms, but I've seen reports from those in the courtroom that said the jury was engaged the entre time and listened intently to her. So I'm going to trust that not just AC, but all 3 attorneys for the state have been reading the courtroom and especially the jurors and had AC do the closing for a reason.

I got the same impression, like she was talking to the jury instead of talking at them. It was different from when she read the charges and specifications from the screen.

 

[ColMustard]

Was thinking of this the other day. George saying "I don't recall" when asked about his statements in the border interview really indicates he was lying in that interview and couldn't remember what fake answer he gave.

I've always heard, it's easier to remember the truth and a lot harder to remember lies.

 

[ColMustard]

AW admitted guilt. I'd expect her to know about the truck, JW admitted guilt before her, and is the one who gave up the location. G3 sure hasn't and he drove it to his niece's home (what a guy!). No JW, no truck. No JW cooperation, and no pond buckets full of cement, firearm pieces, and a cheap, TWD knife, w/tip unbroken.

I don't recall hearing a tape of G4 stating he'd never seen the 1911, but, I never could see why he couldn't admit he was w/JW at a 2015 gun show. The Prosecution says there was no planning til early 2016. "These murders happened after a period of three months of planning, plotting, and purchasing, and preparing, and executing eight individuals of a family,” Canepa said" (during opening statements).


She is the Special Prosecutor. They've seen her face the most, she opened, and she's questioned 90% of the witnesses, if I were a juror, I'd think something was off if she didn't close, even if I dreaded listening.

What about ... Was it a text? George telling Jake, "if they have the gun they have the silencer". In response to Schiederer sending Jake a pic of Walther Colt 1911 .22.

 

[ColMustard]

AW admitted guilt. I'd expect her to know about the truck, JW admitted guilt before her, and is the one who gave up the location. G3 sure hasn't and he drove it to his niece's home (what a guy!). No JW, no truck. No JW cooperation, and no pond buckets full of cement, firearm pieces, and a cheap, TWD knife, w/tip unbroken.

I don't recall hearing a tape of G4 stating he'd never seen the 1911, but, I never could see why he couldn't admit he was w/JW at a 2015 gun show. The Prosecution says there was no planning til early 2016. "These murders happened after a period of three months of planning, plotting, and purchasing, and preparing, and executing eight individuals of a family,” Canepa said" (during opening statements).


She is the Special Prosecutor. They've seen her face the most, she opened, and she's questioned 90% of the witnesses, if I were a juror, I'd think something was off if she didn't close, even if I dreaded listening.

What about ... Was it a text? George telling Jake, "if they have the gun they have the silencer". In response to Schiederer sending Jake a pic of Walther Colt 1911 .22.

George has told a lot of lies. No doubt he lied about his knowledge of Jake buying the 1911 at the gun show. However, IMO the biggest lie he told is the one at the border to the BCI agents about the night of the murders. That shows me he is in on the cover up. When trying to protect his whole family he tells one lie. Now two of his co-conspirators admit that was a lie. Now he is telling another Lie to save himself. Saying he went to bed at 10pm vs 12:30. It is just hard for me to ignore that George's "best friend" (his words not mine) was killed along with 7 members of his family including the mother of his niece and he has to conveniently change his story.

Also told them 13 times at the border, nobody could leave the house without me knowing.