GUILTY OH - Pike Co, 8 in Rhoden Family Murdered Over Custody Issue, 4 Members Wagner Family Arrested #68

[Dudly]

I agree he felt an urgency to get in front of anyone else petitioning for custody.

If his name is on BC, and everything legit, there should not have been a need to be so urgent about getting custody. It should have been as simple as showing the papers in court and he would have custody…

 

[Covert Operative]

If his name is on BC, and everything legit, there should not have been a need to be so urgent about getting custody. It should have been as simple as showing the papers in court and he would have custody…

I think when you are unmarried, the father has no rights even if his name is on the birth certificate, until they go to court, in Ohio and many states. Not positive of that. I do still wonder if his name was on the BC. His wording in the custody document seemed kind of odd. opinion

 

[Cool Cats]

Bruce Daily represented Jake in his custody battle with HR.
There are 198 files in the "Daily Files"

Mentioned in Rita Newcomb's Motion to Continue Trial.

OH - 8 Family Members Murdered, Pike Co., Media, Maps & Timeline *NO DISCUSSION* pg.16

 

[Niner]

I don't believe this has been posted yet - or I might have missed it.

GW4 update on court docket:

04/13/2022 JOURNAL ENTRY -- This cause came on for a hearing on April 5, 2022, upon pre-trial motions filed by the Defendant. Scheduled for hearing this day were Defendant's Motions No. 76, 78, 79, 83 and 84.
The Defendant was present in court and was represented at the hearing by his attorneys, John Patrick Parker and Richard M. Nash, Jr. The State of Ohio was presented at the hearing by the Prosecuting Attorney, Robert Junk, and by Special Prosecuting Attorneys Angela Canepa and David A. Wilson.
The Court further finds that the Defendant appeared for the hearing this day in civilian clothing and without restraints visible outside his clothing.
At the commencement of the hearing, counsel for the State of Ohio and counsel for the Defendant each acknowledged an agreement between the parties that Defendant's Motions No. 78, 79, 83 and 84 would be continued for hearing on May 2, 2022, and that this action would come on for hearing this day only upon the issue of the admissibility of shoeprint evidence and opinions, pursuant to Defendant's Motion No. 76. The Court finds that by Journal Entry filed on March 7, 2022, the Court had granted Defendant's Motion No. 76 to the extent that Motion No. 76 requested that the Court conduct a pretrial evidentiary hearing (a Daubert hearing) concerning the proposed testimony of William J. Bodziak regarding shoeprint evidence and opinions.
William J. Bodziak was the sole witness whose testimony was offered at the hearing, called on behalf of the State of Ohio, with the Defendant, through his attorneys, conducting cross-examination. Counsel for each party also made oral arguments.
Having been fully informed in the premises, the Court found that Defendant's Motion No. 76 is not well taken to the extent that such motion requests that the Court not allow William J. Bodziak to be tendered an expert witness at trial concerning his findings and opinions regarding footwear impression evidence, and the Court denied Defendant's Motion No. 76 to the extent that such motion requests that the Court not allow such testimony. Counsel for the State of Ohio was directed to prepare, circulate and submit a separate Journal Entry consistent with the Court's decision.
The Court then inquired of the Defendant whether he is satisfied with the frequency with which he is seeing his attorneys, and the Defendant indicated that he is satisfied. The Court further inquired of the Defendant whether he is satisfied with the services being provided by his attorneys in representing him in this action, and the Defendant indicated that he is satisfied. Upon further inquiry by the Court, the Defendant indicated that he has no complaints concerning the process or the proceedings.
Upon the court's inquiry, counsel for the Defendant indicated to the Court that defense counsel is satisfied with the access they have been provided to the Defendant, and that they have no complaints concerning the process or proceedings.
There being no further matters before the Court, the hearing was adjourned.
The Clerk of Courts is directed to send a copy of this Journal Entry to the Defendant, to counsel for the Defendant, to the Prosecuting Attorney, and to each of the Special Prosecuting Attorneys, all by ordinary U.S. Mail

link: https://www.pikecountycpcourt.org/e...0d-38iTGGuLOog1Iv538duoJpix4FyNrNzuTv2FaT48Nw

 

[Ann99]

Rest in Peace

Christopher Rhoden Senior

Clarence “Frankie” Rhoden

Hannah Hazel Gilley

Chris Rhoden Junior

Dana Lynn Manley Rhoden

Hanna Mae Rhoden

Kenneth Rhoden

Gary Rhoden

And

Leonard Manley


The wheels of JUSTICE turn so very slowly.

We stand watch until JUSTICE is served.

 

[Cool Cats]

I don't believe this has been posted yet - or I might have missed it.

GW4 update on court docket:

04/13/2022 JOURNAL ENTRY -- This cause came on for a hearing on April 5, 2022, upon pre-trial motions filed by the Defendant. Scheduled for hearing this day were Defendant's Motions No. 76, 78, 79, 83 and 84.
The Defendant was present in court and was represented at the hearing by his attorneys, John Patrick Parker and Richard M. Nash, Jr. The State of Ohio was presented at the hearing by the Prosecuting Attorney, Robert Junk, and by Special Prosecuting Attorneys Angela Canepa and David A. Wilson.
The Court further finds that the Defendant appeared for the hearing this day in civilian clothing and without restraints visible outside his clothing.
At the commencement of the hearing, counsel for the State of Ohio and counsel for the Defendant each acknowledged an agreement between the parties that Defendant's Motions No. 78, 79, 83 and 84 would be continued for hearing on May 2, 2022, and that this action would come on for hearing this day only upon the issue of the admissibility of shoeprint evidence and opinions, pursuant to Defendant's Motion No. 76. The Court finds that by Journal Entry filed on March 7, 2022, the Court had granted Defendant's Motion No. 76 to the extent that Motion No. 76 requested that the Court conduct a pretrial evidentiary hearing (a Daubert hearing) concerning the proposed testimony of William J. Bodziak regarding shoeprint evidence and opinions.
William J. Bodziak was the sole witness whose testimony was offered at the hearing, called on behalf of the State of Ohio, with the Defendant, through his attorneys, conducting cross-examination. Counsel for each party also made oral arguments.
Having been fully informed in the premises, the Court found that Defendant's Motion No. 76 is not well taken to the extent that such motion requests that the Court not allow William J. Bodziak to be tendered an expert witness at trial concerning his findings and opinions regarding footwear impression evidence, and the Court denied Defendant's Motion No. 76 to the extent that such motion requests that the Court not allow such testimony. Counsel for the State of Ohio was directed to prepare, circulate and submit a separate Journal Entry consistent with the Court's decision.
The Court then inquired of the Defendant whether he is satisfied with the frequency with which he is seeing his attorneys, and the Defendant indicated that he is satisfied. The Court further inquired of the Defendant whether he is satisfied with the services being provided by his attorneys in representing him in this action, and the Defendant indicated that he is satisfied. Upon further inquiry by the Court, the Defendant indicated that he has no complaints concerning the process or the proceedings.
Upon the court's inquiry, counsel for the Defendant indicated to the Court that defense counsel is satisfied with the access they have been provided to the Defendant, and that they have no complaints concerning the process or proceedings.
There being no further matters before the Court, the hearing was adjourned.
The Clerk of Courts is directed to send a copy of this Journal Entry to the Defendant, to counsel for the Defendant, to the Prosecuting Attorney, and to each of the Special Prosecuting Attorneys, all by ordinary U.S. Mail

link: https://www.pikecountycpcourt.org/e...0d-38iTGGuLOog1Iv538duoJpix4FyNrNzuTv2FaT48Nw

So this just makes me angry, that the defense tried to negate Bodziak's testimony, well not negate it but simply not allow it. For some reason this enrages me.

I don't think it gets any clearer, that the defense wants to show only one shoe print was at the scene in the blood, not 2. By having 2 it places George there. If you read the shoe print Motion I posted it shows that the defense wants to show there wasn't 2 different shoe sizes present.

Having been fully informed in the premises, the Court found that Defendant's Motion No. 76 is not well taken to the extent that such motion requests that the Court not allow William J. Bodziak to be tendered an expert witness at trial concerning his findings and opinions regarding footwear impression evidence, and the Court denied Defendant's Motion No. 76 to the extent that such motion requests that the Court not allow such testimony.

Defense trying to say only one shoe print was found because the expert didn't just rely on size.

Defendant states, Bodziak looked at more than just the "size" of the outsoles. Rather, Bodziak compared the design, dimension and texture pattern of each shoe to determine whether they originated from the same mold. The differential between a half size in the Athletics Work shoe depended on the texture pattern of small portions of the size 11W and 10.5 W shoes, which was ascertained by Bodziak by looking at the hand-struck still led texture on each shoe. (Bodziack report p. 3).

Motion #76

States Response To #GeorgeWagnerIV Motion For Hearing To Determine The Admissibility of Bloody Shoe Prints Left at The Crime Scenes. | PDF

02/02/2022 STATE'S MEMORANDUM CONTRA DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE REQUESTING A PRETRIAL EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO DETERMINE THE ASMISSIBILITY OF SHOEPRINT EVIDENCE AND OPINIONS (DEFENDANT'S MOTION 76) FILED

https://www.pikecountycpcourt.org/e...y4yuoSASYMGVE2fOeLs9K9jD4femPIoicPBFz3rIHqdsw

 

[Cool Cats]

Rest in Peace

Christopher Rhoden Senior

Clarence “Frankie” Rhoden

Hannah Hazel Gilley

Chris Rhoden Junior

Dana Lynn Manley Rhoden

Hanna Mae Rhoden

Kenneth Rhoden

Gary Rhoden

And

Leonard Manley


The wheels of JUSTICE turn so very slowly.

We stand watch until JUSTICE is served.

Pike County shooting victims: Closer look at …

Pike County shooting victims: A closer look at the 8 who died

About Hannah: Hannah Hazel Gilley was the mother of the six-month-old boy who survived the Pike County shootings. In high school she participated in 4-H and was on the homecoming court. During an interview for the homecoming court, she said her favorite hobbies were riding four-wheelers, going “mudding,” and hanging out with friends. At that time, Gilley said she planned to go to college, obtain a business degree and open a daycare.

Vigil aims to drive away darkness in Pike …

About Hanna: Hanna May Rhoden was the mother of two children, including a four-day-old girl. Rhoden said about herself on Facebook, “I had a pretty rough start but have came out on the better side. I’m beyond happy of where I am today.” Her favorite quote, according to Facebook, was “Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future.”

 

[Cool Cats]

Top off to you TONY RHODEN.

We care about you and that you have been waiting so long for justice.

You are the "strong man" for your family. We get that. It can be a hard and lonely place to be.

 

[Caylee Advocate]

Rest in Peace

Christopher Rhoden Senior

Clarence “Frankie” Rhoden

Hannah Hazel Gilley

Chris Rhoden Junior

Dana Lynn Manley Rhoden

Hanna Mae Rhoden

Kenneth Rhoden

Gary Rhoden

And

Leonard Manley


The wheels of JUSTICE turn so very slowly.

We stand watch until JUSTICE is served.

Yes, 6 long years that this family has had to endure this unbearable pain. I only hope that these 4 evil creatures never have a moments peace.

 

[Piffcat]

i understand the principle of equitable pre trial motions for appeal blah blah blah. but judge deering needs to take control of his court room. legally but forcefully deride these ridiculous defense whiney sore loser motions. let g4 and g3 lawyers file all the appeals they like after theyre convicted and hopefully on death row. it will come a time in g4s life where all he will have to look forward to is appeal court dates. because besides that he will be staring at the wall quite a bit. give the rhoden family some peace do your part deering. it only takes one well publicized admonishment to get these wheels turning.

 

[Puzzles8]

Rest in Peace

Christopher Rhoden Senior

Clarence “Frankie” Rhoden

Hannah Hazel Gilley

Chris Rhoden Junior

Dana Lynn Manley Rhoden

Hanna Mae Rhoden

Kenneth Rhoden

Gary Rhoden

And

Leonard Manley


The wheels of JUSTICE turn so very slowly.

We stand watch until JUSTICE is served.

Can we please also add to this list the late father of Gary Rhoden, Kenneth Rhoden.
Remembering the life of Kenneth Rhoden 1948 - 2018

Sadly he never saw justice come through for the murder of his son.
JMO

 

[Cool Cats]

WAGNER, IV, GEORGE WASHINGTON

04/22/2022
ENTRY REGARDING ABILITY OF SHOE PRINT EXPERT TO TESTIFY FILED

May 2, 2022, 9:00am will be Motions No. 78, 79, 83, 84, 65, 77, 82.

Defendant's Motion No. 78, entitled "DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION" (re: testimony of accomplice)

Defendant's Motion No. 79, entitled "DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION" (re: punishment based upon "immutable characteristics")

Defendant's Motion No. 83, entitled: "DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE"

Defendant's Motion No. 84, entitled "DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL ALL BRADY OR INFORMANT DISCOVERY"

Defendant's Motion No. 65, entitled "MOTION TO COMPEL THE PRODUCTION OF "OTHER ACTS" EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO EVID. R. 404(B)"

Defendant's Motion No. 77, entitled "DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION TO COMPEL THE PRODUCTION OF "OTHER ACTS" EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO EVID.R. 404(B)"

Defendant's Motion No. 82, entitled "DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE TO PROHHBIT THE INTRODUCTION OF OTHER ACTS EVIDENCE AT TRIAL"

The Brady doctrine is a pretrial discovery rule that requires that the prosecution must turn over all exculpatory evidence to the defendant in a criminal case.

Exculpatory evidence is evidence favorable to the defendant in a criminal trial that exonerates or tends to exonerate the defendant of guilt. It is the opposite of inculpatory evidence, which tends to present guilt.

 

[Berrybell]

Can we please also add to this list the late father of Gary Rhoden, Kenneth Rhoden.
Remembering the life of Kenneth Rhoden 1948 - 2018

Sadly he never saw justice come through for the murder of his son.
JMO

I agree it has taken so long.

 

[ohioexpat63]

Exculpatory evidence should take the prosecutors about 5 minutes to type up and deliver. The defense have Jake's and ma's guilty pleas and statements. JMO

Are perjured statements considered exculpatory evidence?

 

[Puzzles8]

I can't believe we have just passed the sixth anniversary of this awful day. The day eight beautiful loving family members were brutally murdered by a very sick family of four.

It begins with the long line of entitlements' felt by the Wagner family. I believe each generation felt an increasing boldness in their perceived power until they felt invincible.

IMO, the line of entitlement has ended with the W4. Local judges and prosecutors could no longer control both the law and the politics once BCI got a hold of the investigation. Many years and many methods of area corruption were exposed in the investigation.

FW has become eerily quiet on all issues, including the Civil Suit. I think she has finally been put in her place......

I pray and hope some justice will be served in the coming year, I agree @Berrybell, it has taken way too long.

JMO

 

[altojack]

I really feel for the families left behind having to sit and wait so long to even get to court.
Whilst I View Judge Deering as a nice man, I honestly think he needs to exert firmness here and get the trials started. All these motions to and fro, imo playing games taking the p out of the Court and the Rhodens. Please, let's push harder to gain momentum and not permit any more games.

 

[Caylee Advocate]

A MOTHER'S TRUE LOVE!!!!!!!

 

[altojack]

A MOTHER'S TRUE LOVE!!!!!!!

And so gentle.

 

[Cool Cats]

Pike County Massacre: Judge rules to allow shoe expert
Home Fox 19 Now

Days before the slayings, Angela Wagner was seen on security camera footage buying shoes at the Waverly Walmart, according to prosecutors.

In her plea agreement, Angela admitted that she bought a brand of shoe that she said her sons would never wear and sizes that were larger than her sons’ feet.

The shoes have never been found and it was said Tuesday by the prosecution that that evidence has been destroyed.

The prosecution still says Bodziak can aid their case.

Prosecutor: “How can you [Bodziak] make a comparison to a shoe print, an impression, a footprint impression that was left at a crime scene in Ohio?”

Bodziak: “Because manufacturers sell their shoes all over the country. So, if they’re sold at one Walmart, they’re probably sold at a majority of them.”

The prosecution argues that Bodziak is completely qualified to testify in front of a jury, but Wagner’s defense team focused on the fact that the shoes were never recovered and human error in the analysis can be a shadow of a doubt.

Defense: “In your experience and training, you [Bodziak] were unable to arrive at a conclusion as to who may have left a particular impression.

Bodziak: “At the scene in this case?

Defense: “Sure, yes.

Bodziak: “No, I wasn’t asked to do that nor could I do that.”

In the end, after hours of back and forth, the judge ruled in favor of the prosecution team on Tuesday.

 

[Niner]

GW4:

Docket update:
04/22/2022 ENTRY REGARDING ABILITY OF SHOE PRINT EXPERT TO TESTIFY FILED

04/26/2022 MOTION TO CHANGE COMPENSATION RATE FOR SPECIAL PROSECUTOR FILED
Attorney: JUNK, PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, ROBERT

04/27/2022 MOTION NO 87--DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO ADHERE TO THE OHIO STATUTORY SCHEME FOR JURY SERVICE FILED (E-MAIL)
Attorney: PARKER, JOHN PATRICK

04/27/2022 MOTION NO 88--DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO PROHIBIT THE EXCLUSION OF POTENTIAL JURORS FROM JURY SERVICE BASED ON A FELONY CONVICTION FILED (E-MAIL)
Attorney: PARKER, JOHN PATRICK

04/28/2022 """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Judge: DEERING, RANDY D
Event: MOTION HEARING AND ARGUMENTS ON MOTIONS
Date: 05/02/2022 Time: 01:00 PM

04/28/2022 """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Judge: DEERING, RANDY D
Event: MOTION TO SUPPRESS
Date: 05/16/2022 Time: 01:00 PM

04/28/2022 WARRANT FOR REMOVAL OF GEORGE WASHINGTON WAGNER IV FROM THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY JAIL AND TO HAVE HIM BROUGHT TO THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR A HEARING ON MAY 2, 2022 AT 1:00 PM.

04/29/2022 MOTION NO 87--DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO ADHERE TO THE OHIO STATUTORY SCHEME FOR JURY SERVICE FILED (ORIGINAL)
Attorney: PARKER, JOHN PATRICK

04/29/2022 MOTION NO 88--DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO PROHIBIT THE EXCLUSION OF POTENTIAL JURORS FROM JURY SERVICE BASED ON A FELONY CONVICTION FILED (ORIGINAL)
Attorney: PARKER, JOHN PATRICK


Events
Date Type Event Judge
05/02/2022 01:00 PM MOTION HEARING DEERING, RANDY D

05/16/2022 01:00 PM MOTION TO SUPPRESS DEERING, RANDY D

link: https://www.pikecountycpcourt.org/e...g6a6qDR50f2s1aeiN*9R4HwZZtcXpsvw*DbBb1Ofs6TkA