OH - Pike Co - 8 in Rhoden Family Murdered Over Custody Issue - 4 Members Wagner Family Arrested #79

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cool Cats said:
I don't think George's attorneys admitted in any Motion or Court Hearing that George was at any of the murder scenes. They might have mentioned that Jake and Angela's proffers say that, but that is not the same thing. Big difference.

They said George vehemently denies being involved with the murders and that he never shot anyone. And now at opening statements they say he wasn't at the murder scenes and didn't know about them until the next day.

So I would like to see video proof with the time stamp where an attorney for George actually admits his client was at the murder scenes.

The posts on here are correct, a murder defense attorney isn't going to say in pre-trial hearings that his client is at murder scenes (regardless of the reason) then say in opening arguments at the actual trial that now suddenly their client really was never at the murder scenes and knew nothing about that night until after the fact.

So if Nash or Parker told the Court George was at the murder scenes, I want proof on video or proof they said it in a Motion.

A DP attorney doesn't tell an open court at a pre-trial hearing that his client went along on 8 murders, but in his opening statement says his client didn't actually go and didn't know what happened that night.

It's Jake who says his brother was there, George says he wasn't so it's his word against Jake.

It's up to the Jury to believe or disbelieve Jake's testimony. If the jury believes Jake that his brother helped before hand and went along to the crime scenes then George will get convicted most likely.

If the jury thinks Jake is a liar throwing his brother under the bus then George could be acquitted of murder.
Click to expand...
Good point! I’m not sure if I’m remembering this right but I think that’s exactly what Aaron Hernandez’s defense attorneys did in his first trial. Don’t know about pre-trial but I think in the actual opening statements he said AH was no where near the crime scene and in closing after all the evidence was presented and there was so much linking him to the crime scene they changed their minds and said he was there but did not shoot and he was too scared to talk. Completely backfired. But I’m super fuzzy on this memory. MOO.
 
Ripfelony said:
Good point! I’m not sure if I’m remembering this right but I think that’s exactly what Aaron Hernandez’s defense attorneys did in his first trial. Don’t know about pre-trial but I think in the actual opening statements he said AH was no where near the crime scene and in closing after all the evidence was presented and there was so much linking him to the crime scene they changed their minds and said he was there but did not shoot and he was too scared to talk. Completely backfired. But I’m super fuzzy on this memory. MOO.
Click to expand...
There was, as I recall, a crap-ton of cell phone data showing that Hernandez was there. In George's case, the Wags were smarter about the phones but stupid about nearly everything else. It's a good thing that Jake admitted that George was at the murder scenes but in my view, what we know about the family in general convinced me that George of course participated in the massacre--whether he shot anyone or not.
 
pittsburghgirl said:
There was, as I recall, a crap-ton of cell phone data showing that Hernandez was there. In George's case, the Wags were smarter about the phones but stupid about nearly everything else. It's a good thing that Jake admitted that George was at the murder scenes but in my view, what we know about the family in general convinced me that George of course participated in the massacre--whether he shot anyone or not.
Click to expand...
I agree!

We know the end goal was having Sophia and eliminating anyone that could get her or retaliate on the W's.

We know that they all knew if any of the Rhodens got a call out, other Rhodens would have had quick access to show up and help. Many lived right there and one call out or one text would have sent up alarms and they would have showed up.

Do we really think Billy and Jake would go alone?

Could they pull it off alone if there were no problems at all? YES of course.

Did they want to risk NOT pulling it off and losing their lives or even worse (in Angela's mind) losing Sophia because they didn't kill everyone?

Look at the size of those victims and look at how armed they could have been (if they were alerted)... I think they were worried about it because they drove over to Kenneths to see if he was home and they went by Dana's to see if she was home. I am sure they were also relieved that nobody seemed to be alerted to an issue and coming to help. We know Frankie lived right there. I'm surprised they didn't hear the shots that killed Gary and Chris Sr. Wasn't it said Billy's gun didn't have a silencer on it? So those shots into Chris Sr would have been heard. Then over at Kenneth's.

Wonder if they asked Jake if he removed that security camera from down on Union Hill Road that they out of town owner said he replaced batteries on just that Sunday before and then the camera was gone.
 
pittsburghgirl said:
If you are facilitating rape of young girls, you might think everyone is doing it when most of us are repelled by that. Thank God.
Click to expand...
I was commenting on the OP that detailed all of the women around JW who had been raped. You'd think that that would have made Angela more aware (the rape that she endured), but it seems like it didn't. She facilitated the rape of young girls, but her boys weren't old enough to consent either. Or at least George wasn't. I don't know, I think they'd be considered victims, too. Would AW be responsible??
 
Math problems. Unless it was a typo, Jake said he met HR at the county fair in 2013, and that S was born in November. I don't know if any fair in Ohio that's held before July. I guess maybe there might be one held in late June?? But even then, that's only 5 months from June to November. Could he have meant 2012? TIA
 
GoBuckeyes said:
Math problems. Unless it was a typo, Jake said he met HR at the county fair in 2013, and that S was born in November. I don't know if any fair in Ohio that's held before July. I guess maybe there might be one held in late June?? But even then, that's only 5 months from June to November. Could he have meant 2012? TIA
Click to expand...
I saw 2010 so if you saw 2013 it might have been a typo. She was 13 when they met and he was 17. Then she was pregnant at 15 and I believe 16 when she gave birth in 2013. She was 19 when she died in 2016. I think that math adds up so maybe the 2013 was a typo.
 
justtrish said:
I agree!

We know the end goal was having Sophia and eliminating anyone that could get her or retaliate on the W's.

We know that they all knew if any of the Rhodens got a call out, other Rhodens would have had quick access to show up and help. Many lived right there and one call out or one text would have sent up alarms and they would have showed up.

Do we really think Billy and Jake would go alone?

Could they pull it off alone if there were no problems at all? YES of course.

Did they want to risk NOT pulling it off and losing their lives or even worse (in Angela's mind) losing Sophia because they didn't kill everyone?

Look at the size of those victims and look at how armed they could have been (if they were alerted)... I think they were worried about it because they drove over to Kenneths to see if he was home and they went by Dana's to see if she was home. I am sure they were also relieved that nobody seemed to be alerted to an issue and coming to help. We know Frankie lived right there. I'm surprised they didn't hear the shots that killed Gary and Chris Sr. Wasn't it said Billy's gun didn't have a silencer on it? So those shots into Chris Sr would have been heard. Then over at Kenneth's.

Wonder if they asked Jake if he removed that security camera from down on Union Hill Road that they out of town owner said he replaced batteries on just that Sunday before and then the camera was gone.
Click to expand...
I always wondered about FR hearing the gunshots too but I guess they had that covered.

<modsnip: not an approved source>

For a test run on the 40 cal without a silencer, Jake fired it inside a cabin by the house that's roughly 50' from house. Billy didn't hear it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
justtrish said:
I saw 2010 so if you saw 2013 it might have been a typo. She was 13 when they met and he was 17. Then she was pregnant at 15 and I believe 16 when she gave birth in 2013. She was 19 when she died in 2016. I think that math adds up so maybe the 2013 was a typo.
Click to expand...
Thank you so much for that info. That was really bugging me.
 
Ripfelony said:
Good point! I’m not sure if I’m remembering this right but I think that’s exactly what Aaron Hernandez’s defense attorneys did in his first trial. Don’t know about pre-trial but I think in the actual opening statements he said AH was no where near the crime scene and in closing after all the evidence was presented and there was so much linking him to the crime scene they changed their minds and said he was there but did not shoot and he was too scared to talk. Completely backfired. But I’m super fuzzy on this memory. MOO.
Click to expand...

George's attorneys knew what was in Jake's proffer, and how strongly Jake's testimony would tie George into the murders.

So what on earth could their defense be against that? What do they do? Tell the jury Jake is lying about everything he said regarding George?

They told the jury George had nothing to do with it, that he was different from his family, etc....But evidence shows George never tried to go out on his own. Jake said he wanted to see George go home so why would he lie saying things that show George is guilty? If he wanted to "save" George he would need to say George was kept out of the whole entire Conspiracy and never went along that night.

It won't work to say Jake is implicating George so he can get a good plea deal for himself. Jake didn't get a good plea deal, he got LWOP. In fact, by telling the truth, Jake keeps the DP off the table.

I think the defense should have tried to convince George to get the deal Angie got. In 26 years he could have spent his "golden" middle aged years and old age being free.

Far better than ending up being found guilty and getting LWOP.

Jake seems believable to me but I can only go by what is reported. The jury hears him and sees all his mannerisms and how he is coming across in person.

The defense could have said George went along that night for all kinds of "innocent" reasons, to minimize his involvement in that way, but I think I know why they didn't do this.

My opinion is that the defense knows if the jury thinks George went to the murder scenes, for any reasons at all, just the fact of him going is enough proof that he was involved directly with the murders.

So we have to find as many tweets as we can to see how the defense handles Jake's testimony, how they try to discredit him.

George's chance of acquittal was when he had his trial scheduled in 2019, and instead of waiving his speedy trial rights, had gone to trial. By not doing this it gave the prosecution the power to try Jake first. The prosecution knew that with Jake seeing all the evidence against him he might plead guilty to avoid the DP which is exactly what happened.
 
Last edited:
Cool Cats said:
George's attorneys knew what was in Jake's proffer, and how strongly Jake's testimony would tie George into the crime scenes - and preparing for and getting rid of evidence. And that Angie can back some of this up.

So what on earth could their defense be against that? What do they do? Tell the jury Jake is lying about everything he said regarding George?

They told the jury George had nothing to do with it, that he was different from his family, etc....But evidence shows George never tried to go out on his own. Jake said he wanted to see George go home so why would he lie saying things that show George is guilty? If he wanted to "save" George he would need to say George was kept out of the whole entire Conspiracy and never went along that night.

It won't work to say Jake is implicating George so he can get a good plea deal for himself. Jake didn't get a good plea deal, he got LWOP. In fact, by telling the truth, Jake keeps the DP off the table.

I think the defense should have tried to convince George to get the deal Angie got. In 26 years he could have spent his "golden" middle aged years and old age being free.

Far better than ending up being found guilty and getting LWOP.

Jake seems believable to me but I can only go by what is reported. The jury hears him and sees all his mannerisms and how he is coming across in person.

The defense could have said George went along that night for all kinds of "innocent" reasons, to minimize his involvement in that way, but I think I know why they didn't do this.

My opinion is that the defense knows if the jury thinks George went to the murder scenes, for any reasons at all, just the fact of him going is enough proof that he was involved directly with the murders.

So we have to find as many tweets as we can to see how the defense handles Jake's testimony, how they try to discredit him.

George's chance of acquittal was when he had his trial scheduled in 2019, and instead of waiving his speedy trial rights, had gone to trial. By not doing this it gave the prosecution the power to try Jake first. The prosecution knew that with Jake seeing all the evidence against him he might plead guilty to avoid the DP which is exactly what happened.
Click to expand...
I agree the cross-examination of Jake by GW4's defense should prove very interesting-- especially if they hope to convince jurors that Jake caved in and took up the prosecutor's theory that GW4 was active and present in the murders if they insist on going with the defense that GW4 was at home when the murders occurred.

Bad idea. IMO, they should have just gone with their client was only a bystander.

Or they may just be playing on the psyche of the jurors by saying GW4 was not at the crime scene hoping there will be at least one holdout and GW4's case declared a mistrial. Perhaps they believe after enough time passes, sentiment will be diminished over the case and they can negotiate a better deal for GW4 with the state rather than try the case again.

I shared an example earlier today of a recent Florida case I followed with 3 defendants where one of the defendants had a mistrial because jurors were not unanimous about sending a woman that never stepped foot on the crime scene to prison for life which is the automatic sentence in Florida for Murder-1. Juror sympathy for GW4 can be very powerful. MOO

www.websleuths.com

OH - Pike Co - 8 in Rhoden Family Murdered Over Custody Issue - 4 Members Wagner Family Arrested #79

Todd Dykes has a few. I don't want to step on toes with the posting or possibly repeat tweets so I won't post, but I can. Please post away... you're never stepping on anybody's toes. We're a team here.
www.websleuths.com www.websleuths.com
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 90 more.
Total: 276 (members: 91, guests: 185)

Online statistics

Members online
91
Guests online
185
Total visitors
276
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,642
Messages
18,242,873
Members
234,401
Latest member
CRIM1959
Back
Top