OH - Pike County: 8 People From One Family Dead As Police Hunt For Killer(s) #36 *Arrests*

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
vmmking said:
LE should have done what they did in Closs case and report trailers released to family while actually having cameras going to see who came back eventually. I’m willing to bet one of these numb-skulls would have panicked about something potentially left behind and gone to retrieve it at some point.
Click to expand...

I have thought this as well. I'm not sure they gained a single thing by taking them, other than wasting a bunch of taxpayers money...JMO
 
RAISINISBACK said:
According to a study that I believe either RSD or Betty posted, in that area (Appalachia) it is a patriarchal society where often the woman is told to stay with her husband even if she is being abused. I don't know if that is correct. It didn't seem to be so to me in today's times but it would explain why CR1 and FR did not interfere. And we don't know if the abuse was physical or verbal.

JMO
Click to expand...

Women staying with abusive spouses/bfs is not unique to Appalachia. I do not think that CR1 nor DR, told HMR to stick with JW out of some patriarchal societal dreams. HMR had moved back home, she'd moved on from JW, twice over. There was a sense of loss and sadness in some of her posts, but, there was no fear in them, not that I sensed, at least.

Leaving is not easy. On average, it takes a victim seven times to leave before staying away for good. Exiting the relationship is most unsafe time for a victim. As the abuser senses that they’re losing power, they will often act in dangerous ways to regain control over their victim.
Click to expand...

https://www.thehotline.org/2013/06/10/50-obstacles-to-leaving-1-10/
 
I suspect they took the trailers because you never know what you might miss and whether you'd want to revisit the scene. In a more typical case, a murder occurs in a house, for example, and people may still be living in it, or the house is sold, etc. They can't take it away and if they did want to go back for some reason, the scene would be disturbed. In Piketon, they had the unique opportunity to remove and preserve the crime scenes, so they did it. Of course, we know that the security of the storage is up for debate, but they figured it was worth doing just in case and I tend to agree.
 
taximama24 said:
With the GJ convened at the start of the summer, the W's knew they had moved from being the "focus" of the investigation to being close to being charged. At this point, JW was the only one in a relationship (there was that picture with the wedding ring, do we know if she came back to Ohio with them?) and SW is the only one who would end up in foster care (with half her family murdered and the other half in jail for their murders) because BW's mom is still alive. There is little to no chance her foster family would give her any letters from him or share pictures with him of her growing up or allow her to write him, etc. With him not getting the family paid lawyer, not asking for bond, and his wife nowhere to be found, I'm wondering if JW is the mole and went to LE and gave them the last thing they needed in exchange for a yet-to-be-made-public plea deal to take DP off the table and a guarantee that SW could stay with his wife so she wouldn't have every single person she's ever known ripped away from her before the tender age of 5, and that way he would not lose all contact with her forever. The arrests of the men happening away from the house, in cars at the same time, was also way too coincidental, it makes sense that JW knew it was going down at the time it was and said to GW4 "hey run up to .... with me" when he was given the go. Him being the mole is starting to make more sense to me, although even the late GW2 still makes sense in many ways to me too.
Click to expand...

I can see a lot of your points here, but I doubt any court can "promise" a child to a woman who hasn't known the child for more than a year at best... as part of a plea deal in a multiple murder case. It would be a different court at another time that would decide custody imo. Is JW actually married to this woman? If so, that was quick... and can't possibly provide a "solid, dependable and ideal situation, in the child's best interests" under any circumstances. JW may be the mole and I can certainly understand suspecting him and for the good reasons you mentioned. But, imo, his days of deciding and mandating custody issues, by murder if necessary, are finally over. (at least I hope so) He has proven himself to be completely an unfit parent to her... his decisions "on her behalf" were bizarre, cruel and horribly destructive to her. Hanna still has family members who will probably have a say in the matter, too, and I can't believe the child will end up in Alaska with some, pretty much, unknown family who probably wants to forget they ever heard the name, "Wagner."
 
pepper 34 said:
I can see a lot of your points here, but I doubt any court can "promise" a child to a woman who hasn't known the child for more than a year at best... as part of a plea deal in a multiple murder case. It would be a different court at another time that would decide custody imo. Is JW actually married to this woman? If so, that was quick... and can't possibly provide a "solid, dependable and ideal situation, in the child's best interests" under any circumstances. JW may be the mole and I can certainly understand suspecting him and for the good reasons you mentioned. But, imo, his days of deciding and mandating custody issues, by murder if necessary, are finally over. (at least I hope so) He has proven himself to be completely an unfit parent to her... his decisions "on her behalf" were bizarre, cruel and horribly destructive to her. Hanna still has family members who will probably have a say in the matter, too, and I can't believe the child will end up in Alaska with some, pretty much, unknown family who probably wants to forget they ever heard the name, "Wagner."
Click to expand...

Yes, I definitely agree with you here, I think I was "typing out loud" from the perspective I was pondering for JW...as in his motivations for how he wanted this to play out, not necessarily what the law would agree to. But you're right, I wasn't really thinking it through that far, just mulling over why he might have decided to cooperate...
 
Julia966 said:
Seriously. I'm surprised her attorney did not burst into flames on the spot for all the dung he was shoveling.
Click to expand...

Now, wait. Let's be nice. Maybe he meant to say she lived as close to the double cross as anyone can and we're just being overly critical of the man. But, as a defense attorney, he's going to have to be more careful with his word choice, I think.
 
Julia966 said:
I suspect they took the trailers because you never know what you might miss and whether you'd want to revisit the scene. In a more typical case, a murder occurs in a house, for example, and people may still be living in it, or the house is sold, etc. They can't take it away and if they did want to go back for some reason, the scene would be disturbed. In Piketon, they had the unique opportunity to remove and preserve the crime scenes, so they did it. Of course, we know that the security of the storage is up for debate, but they figured it was worth doing just in case and I tend to agree.
Click to expand...

I can see if any new information came to light during further investigation, you might want to be able to go back and see if it the scene or scenes support, disprove or cast doubt on that new information. It would be an added bonus not usually available in most cases. But, unfortunately, with the trailers being unguarded for so long, it's doubtful they would still be able to use a lot of what they found at this point. Certainly you could still measure hallways or rooms... look behind a certain wall, etc. I'm just thinking LE already did all that but you never know.
 
pepper 34 said:
I can see if any new information came to light during further investigation, you might want to be able to go back and see if it the scene or scenes support, disprove or cast doubt on that new information. It would be an added bonus not usually available in most cases. But, unfortunately, with the trailers being unguarded for so long, it's doubtful they would still be able to use a lot of what they found at this point. Certainly you could still measure hallways or rooms... look behind a certain wall, etc. I'm just thinking LE already did all that but you never know.
Click to expand...

True. Also, since it's been 2.5 years, and will be well over 3 by the time the trials begin, it's nice to have them around for a reminder of the crime scenes. The prosecution can walk through and get a feel for them and how it all happened, and they could conceivably test any defense arguments. I agree that anything "new" that is found will be pretty much useless. I hope the silencer/pieces of a silencer were not recently found in the trailers.
 
ITA agree with you Gunslinging Granny-I for one would not want FW anywhere near my developmentally disabled (or even able bodied) loved one, given the allegations against her. Hopefully the judge will refuse the request for h.a. in this case.
 
rsd1200 said:
Women staying with abusive spouses/bfs is not unique to Appalachia. I do not think that CR1 nor DR, told HMR to stick with JW out of some patriarchal societal dreams. HMR had moved back home, she'd moved on from JW, twice over. There was a sense of loss and sadness in some of her posts, but, there was no fear in them, not that I sensed, at least.



https://www.thehotline.org/2013/06/10/50-obstacles-to-leaving-1-10/
Click to expand...

BBM

Of course not.

Didn't you post an article about how to counsel people in Appalachia that stated that the region is a patriarchal society where women are often encouraged by family to stay with an abusive husband?

Or maybe I am recalling the article wrong.

JMO
 
ab01 said:
I have thought this as well. I'm not sure they gained a single thing by taking them, other than wasting a bunch of taxpayers money...JMO
Click to expand...

It's possible LE did keep cameras on the trailers while in storage. That might be why the news was made available, far and wide, that the trailers were not secured... gate open... door to warehouse open, etc. It might be LE had put a little bait out to see who might come and try to get into the trailers. Left on their foundations, with all the trees and overgrowth around them, it might have been too easy for someone to sneak in through the back ways and get into them unseen. Also, cameras for 4 different sites would have to be used. All it would take is one camera at the entrance of the warehouse and a bright light that comes on with motion detection to accomplish the same thing at the storage place.
 
taximama24 said:
Yes, I definitely agree with you here, I think I was "typing out loud" from the perspective I was pondering for JW...as in his motivations for how he wanted this to play out, not necessarily what the law would agree to. But you're right, I wasn't really thinking it through that far, just mulling over why he might have decided to cooperate...
Click to expand...

Oh, I see. I didn't understand, sorry. Yes, I agree and have no doubt you're correct that Jake would certainly feel he had a right to demand such a thing. After all, he's the one that was going to insist on visitation rights with Baby K even if she turned out not to be his child. The number of people who would think this way must be very small. Who has ever heard of such a demand before? It just tells me that, in his own reality... Hanna was his property, like a dog who's litter of puppies he would own, and not a person at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 61 more.
Total: 211 (members: 62, guests: 149)

Online statistics

Members online
62
Guests online
149
Total visitors
211
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
609,263
Messages
18,251,474
Members
234,585
Latest member
Mocha55
Back
Top