I've missed so much due to a vacation and then returning home to a hurricane and there is no way I can catch up on the past couple of weeks.
I am reminded of when I sat on a jury and one of the instructions we were given is if we found a witness to be lying we were to disregard their entire testimony. I wonder if this jury will be given the same instruction.
Has the John Doe that was indicted in this case been brought up yet?
And along the lines of sexual abuse of young girls, has CRsr's father's (Hannah's grandfather and Geneva's husband) conviction for sexual abuse been brought up yet? And Dana and CRsr's letter to the judge asking for an early release for him? I'm sure that would play into the concern of the Wagners.
A John Doe listed in an indictment is basically about circumventing the statute of limitations. Say BCI finds DNA in a law enforcement computer system or on an ancestry site that were to match someone at the Rhodens that night and it was enough to indict them. Then they would have the person's name and not have to worry about the statute of limitations running out.
A crime is committed, years later law enforcement finds another person involved, often through DNA, and because that person was listed as a John or Jane Doe in the ORIGINAL indictment, they can be prosecuted without any worry of the statute of limitations having run out.
Could a John or Jane Doe turn up years from now attached to the Wagner crimes? Yes. Has a Jane or John Doe turned up yet in the Wagner crimes? No. But this is normal to put into criminal indictments.
As for Clarence, Hanna's grandfather, he has been dead since before Jake and George had children and I see no reason for the prosecution or defense to even bring him up. All this sexual speculation with the kids seems to only come from Angie making what I believe are false accusations. I do not believe Angie can get on the stand and prove that her grandchild was sexually molested, or even in any danger of it happening. I think she made it up to push the murders.
It is super common to try to get custody by accusing the other side of sexual molestation. Will the jury even buy this? Angie would have to testify to it and then the defense would have to call witnesses to prove it.
But then the prosecution would ask her why she didn't call child protective services to investigate. Why push murder instead? Why not file an emergency petition with the court for full custody? Because it was a figment of her imagination and a good way to nag nag nag at Billy.
It will all back fire on Angie.