should be done pretrial, so they all would have known about it so no need to mention it as has nothing to do with murders
OH - Pike Co - 8 in Rhoden Family Murdered Over Custody Issue - 4 Members Wagner Family Arrested #76
- Thread starter tlcya
- Start date
Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
- Status
My exact thought.
I really am curious if they knew they left any prints at all. I feel like it's one of two things:
1. they left them intentionally to point suspicon somewhere else
2. they had no idea (if they knew they left them and didn't mean to, why wouldn't they smear them up to get rid of them?
I feel like the boys only knew what Angela told them. I think they were concerned with hiding the murder weapons, getting rid of their clothing, the victims cell phones, etc. They likely didn't even know what receipts Angela saved or how any of the documents could implicate them.
What does GW4 losing weight have to do with anything?
Very good point. If he wanted to stand up to them to stop the murders, he would have. He didn't.
Yes, and things were not going exactly to plan, starting at CRsr place. So, thoughts of footprints may have been forgotten.
jury didn't need to hear it it has nothing to do with murders, gambling has nothing to do with murders,
I was actually impressed the defense was nice. I think maybe they learned from earlier witnesses now it looked to try to make a victim look bad on the stand in a condescending and rude way.
I think this witnesses is believeable because he did say positive things about George. He was one of his best friends and more like a brother than an uncle/nephew relationship. Chris N is a victim here too. He loves George even now, doesn't mean he wants to be close to him, but he is the only one that Chris even remotely misses.
That does not mean Chris N doesn't think George participated. I think that is where the defense is going with that. Chris must not believe George was part of it because he still loves George, but doesn't love Jake and Angela and he misses George, but not Jake and Angela.
I think this witnesses is believeable because he did say positive things about George. He was one of his best friends and more like a brother than an uncle/nephew relationship. Chris N is a victim here too. He loves George even now, doesn't mean he wants to be close to him, but he is the only one that Chris even remotely misses.
That does not mean Chris N doesn't think George participated. I think that is where the defense is going with that. Chris must not believe George was part of it because he still loves George, but doesn't love Jake and Angela and he misses George, but not Jake and Angela.
I think defenses sustain count isn't even into double figures, I see things differently I think Judge has overly favored the state, especially in allowing an excessive amount of evidence that has nothing to do with the crimes
Not sure what he was going for with that.
how would they find that out they are not supposed to read or watch anything from the trial until they have rendered a verdict, they may also have to decide penalty ie DP or LWOP, so once everything is finished, they shouldn't learn anything that is not introduced from witness stand,
his playing poker with anybody bears no relation to the murders, so why the jurors need to know anything about any of the attorney's families is irrelevant, unless the attorney's family members are going to be a witness to something related to the murders
gotta say this about canepa. she is great knowledgable big part of this case success. she is a horrendous examiner. horrible. the note taking makes her seem like she is overwelmed by details and its disorientating . i know all the facts and i still have trouble following her line of questioning.
leading questions which are so detailed they are testimony. chris neusom is a POWERFUL witness. he was in the same spot as the jury- being told wagners didnt do it and he believed it. finding out jake pled guilty must have been insane to him he really didnt think it was true. but angie took all the breath of out the room asking if jake and angela deal same day- shes the prosecutor!! what was that?
and it weakens the conspiracy presentation significantly. gives appearance every questions must come back to "clan think" and when those subjects are vague but more importantly unnecessary even her witnesses cant follow.
its like in her opening trying to stamp out wha the defense would say before they did. very bad form and gave credence to their theory by acting concered!. when your confident in your case your evidence and charging documents theres no need to battle defense theory because youve got it locked down.
the wagners dont need to be a cult to be rico. they just have to participate in an ongoing criminal enterprise whose organization is common goal among members accomplish murders and get away with it. conspiracies are the industrial revolution of crime- specialized roles and talents and multiple members subcontracting activities to improve likelihood of success. john gotti was convicted of murder in his last trial on sammy the bulls testimony that he killed 19 in service of gotti without any physical assistance from gotti. use the wagners own words against them "seal team 6" is a TEAM right?
i mostly follow pilcher on twitter with live updates he boils down the 10 minutes required for each questions. canepa would be a great second chair with the notes and details even objections. its like why doe she need to notate the answers to questions she asked?? is she a stenographer??
the other attorneys are much better litigators with personality and a flow to the questioning. even junk is personable and reasonable.
leading questions which are so detailed they are testimony. chris neusom is a POWERFUL witness. he was in the same spot as the jury- being told wagners didnt do it and he believed it. finding out jake pled guilty must have been insane to him he really didnt think it was true. but angie took all the breath of out the room asking if jake and angela deal same day- shes the prosecutor!! what was that?
and it weakens the conspiracy presentation significantly. gives appearance every questions must come back to "clan think" and when those subjects are vague but more importantly unnecessary even her witnesses cant follow.
its like in her opening trying to stamp out wha the defense would say before they did. very bad form and gave credence to their theory by acting concered!. when your confident in your case your evidence and charging documents theres no need to battle defense theory because youve got it locked down.
the wagners dont need to be a cult to be rico. they just have to participate in an ongoing criminal enterprise whose organization is common goal among members accomplish murders and get away with it. conspiracies are the industrial revolution of crime- specialized roles and talents and multiple members subcontracting activities to improve likelihood of success. john gotti was convicted of murder in his last trial on sammy the bulls testimony that he killed 19 in service of gotti without any physical assistance from gotti. use the wagners own words against them "seal team 6" is a TEAM right?
i mostly follow pilcher on twitter with live updates he boils down the 10 minutes required for each questions. canepa would be a great second chair with the notes and details even objections. its like why doe she need to notate the answers to questions she asked?? is she a stenographer??
the other attorneys are much better litigators with personality and a flow to the questioning. even junk is personable and reasonable.
he was too fat to have moved around the crime scenes is one of the defenses arguments, but some of the agents were big chaps and they managed it, so we shall see what the defense has to say about his weight in their CIC
dgfred
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2009
- Messages
- 4,560
- Reaction score
- 8,836
No. All relationships related to case attorneys from either side is relevant.
So if they are not informed of it... could not a defense attorney later say his testimony was skewed because he lost $500 playing poker with his son? Out to get back at him just a little.
So if they are not informed of it... could not a defense attorney later say his testimony was skewed because he lost $500 playing poker with his son? Out to get back at him just a little.
- Status