OH Pike Co., 8 in Rhoden Family Murdered Over Custody Issue, 4 Members Wagner Family Arrested #52

[Cool Cats]

CC
IMO George Wagner 4th slipped, said to much that’s why he refused anymore interview, JMO

Part of the evidence against them is "all the lies they told us" so yes, he probably slipped up. Perhaps some of their stories matched TOO CLOSELY to each other where it's obvious they rehearsed it. LE is allowed to lie so no doubt they lied to the Wagners which helped trip them up. Web of lies.

 

[OhioBlues]

Post #4 has a great timeline of the order that events/interviews etc occured.

Maybe we should all review this OR the actual discovery instead of loading up threads with information that can easily be reviewed.

OH Pike Co., 8 in Rhoden Family Murdered Over Custody Issue, 4 Members Wagner Family Arrested #52

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Loomis124]

IMO the hearing will begin full force Dec 2. I just hope Deering will rule sensibly. Gerlach has been allowed to get by with entirely too much nonsense with this judge, and I can't see it being allowed to continue in the name of justice. JMO

Can anyone include a link where, ever, the judge has applied good, strong judgment in these cases, on his own? Without an objection first from the Prosecution? This has me worried on behalf of the victims. JMO

 

[Ann99]

Rhoden murder case supervisor resigns before demotion for "unprofessionalism"

“Trout oversaw the Southeast Special Investigation Unit of BCI which includes Pike County. Several people were interviewed for the investigation including Trout’s subordinates in the unit and Assistant Attorneys General. Trout was interviewed along with Gary Wilgus, Richard Ward, James Mulford, Jennifer Comisford, Kevin Cooper, Ryan Scheiderer, Jon Jenkins, Kevin Barbeau, Angie Canepa and James Gore. Canepa is the special prosecutor on the Rhoden murder case and Scheiderer is the lead BCI agent on the case.

Trout was also accused of creating dysfunction in his unit with his management style. According to a summary of the investigation obtained through an open records request, Trout told SA Scheiderer in May 2017 after important evidence was obtained in the Rhoden case, "I solved the case but you are getting all the credit.” However, Scheiderer’s unit members credited him for the success of warrant.
Three properties owned by the Wagner family were searched in May 2017.
Those warrants and returns remain sealed.
Four members of the Wagner family were later charged with the murders.

SA Jenkins in particular complained that Trout was causing him stress by requiring daily reports that detailed his work activities.
Trout’s superiors had instructed him to stop demanding the daily reports from agents.
According to Jenkins, Trout became particularly incensed when he pursued a sexual assault case that resulted in an indictment. It was a case that Trout had previously investigated and charges were not filed...”

More detail in article

 

[Betty P]

Rhoden murder case supervisor resigns before demotion for "unprofessionalism"

“Trout oversaw the Southeast Special Investigation Unit of BCI which includes Pike County. Several people were interviewed for the investigation including Trout’s subordinates in the unit and Assistant Attorneys General. Trout was interviewed along with Gary Wilgus, Richard Ward, James Mulford, Jennifer Comisford, Kevin Cooper, Ryan Scheiderer, Jon Jenkins, Kevin Barbeau, Angie Canepa and James Gore. Canepa is the special prosecutor on the Rhoden murder case and Scheiderer is the lead BCI agent on the case.

Trout was also accused of creating dysfunction in his unit with his management style. According to a summary of the investigation obtained through an open records request, Trout told SA Scheiderer in May 2017 after important evidence was obtained in the Rhoden case, "I solved the case but you are getting all the credit.” However, Scheiderer’s unit members credited him for the success of warrant.
Three properties owned by the Wagner family were searched in May 2017.
Those warrants and returns remain sealed.
Four members of the Wagner family were later charged with the murders.

SA Jenkins in particular complained that Trout was causing him stress by requiring daily reports that detailed his work activities.
Trout’s superiors had instructed him to stop demanding the daily reports from agents.
According to Jenkins, Trout became particularly incensed when he pursued a sexual assault case that resulted in an indictment. It was a case that Trout had previously investigated and charges were not filed...”

More detail in article

The article really confirms that Trout was a bad manager, but that none of this had anything to do with investigating the Rhoden murders. There were many people working on the investigation. They were all having to report and be accountable to each other - to make their work transparent with lots of oversight. Sure it made for a hostile work environment, but it definitely doesn't sound like an environment where any member of the team could tamper with evidence or engage in anything fraudulent. Too many overseers for that to happen.

Trout was a perfectionist, definitely not a "hands off" manager. It created a pressure-cooker environment that stressed out a lot of people, but at the same time made it impossible for someone to rig any evidence against the defendants. All the investigators, including Trout, were working under a microscope on a routine basis.

ETA: Anyone ever worked for a boss like this? *raises hand*

MOO

 

[Johnny B Bad]

The article really confirms that Trout was a bad manager, but that none of this had anything to do with investigating the Rhoden murders. There were many people working on the investigation. They were all having to report and be accountable to each other - to make their work transparent with lots of oversight. Sure it made for a hostile work environment, but it definitely doesn't sound like an environment where any member of the team could tamper with evidence or engage in anything fraudulent. Too many overseers for that to happen.

Trout was a perfectionist, definitely not a "hands off" manager. It created a pressure-cooker environment that stressed out a lot of people, but at the same time made it impossible for someone to rig any evidence against the defendants. All the investigators, including Trout, were working under a microscope on a routine basis.

ETA: Anyone ever worked for a boss like this? *raises hand*

MOO

BP
Everyone knows that usually when a crime like the Rhodens Massacre happens a movie comes along next, some people might be wanting to be famous over this sever crime, just saying an ego will come in to play when someone is narcissistic, JMO

 

[Ann99]

The article really confirms that Trout was a bad manager, but that none of this had anything to do with investigating the Rhoden murders. There were many people working on the investigation. They were all having to report and be accountable to each other - to make their work transparent with lots of oversight. Sure it made for a hostile work environment, but it definitely doesn't sound like an environment where any member of the team could tamper with evidence or engage in anything fraudulent. Too many overseers for that to happen.

Trout was a perfectionist, definitely not a "hands off" manager. It created a pressure-cooker environment that stressed out a lot of people, but at the same time made it impossible for someone to rig any evidence against the defendants. All the investigators, including Trout, were working under a microscope on a routine basis.

ETA: Anyone ever worked for a boss like this? *raises hand*

MOO

I agree with everything you say.
Also seems to me the complaints regarding his personality or management style have nothing to do with results of Rhoden investigation.
My opinion, Trout worked very hard, did good work on Rhoden investigation.
Once we know the search warrant results for that May time frame/locations (although that’s far in the future), and we see the evidence gathered and implications of that evidence, we will understand more about Trout’s work and his contributions.
I wish him well.

 

[Ann99]

BP
Everyone knows that usually when a crime like the Rhodens Massacre happens a movie comes along next, some people might be wanting to be famous over this sever crime, just saying an ego will come in to play when someone is narcissistic, JMO

Yes, ego and high tension.
As far as a movie, you’re probably right about that.
Can’t imagine accurately condensing facts and events, victims, perpetrators, investigators, prosecutors, attorneys relating to this horrific crime into a few hours.

 

[Betty P]

I agree with everything you say.
Also seems to me the complaints regarding his personality or management style have nothing to do with results of Rhoden investigation.
My opinion, Trout worked very hard, did good work on Rhoden investigation.
Once we know the search warrant results for that May time frame/locations (although that’s far in the future), and we see the evidence gathered and implications of that evidence, we will understand more about Trout’s work and his contributions.
I wish him well.

I have no concerns at all about search warrants, evidence gathered, etc. Trout was the supervisor of the investigation. The agents who worked for him managed the SW's and evidence gathering. They worked as a team and many, many agents were part of making decisions, gathering evidence and examining it. It was virtually impossible for anyone to mess things up, falsify, etc. without many other agents noticing. Check through discovery documents. For every bit of evidence collected, it's accompanied by huge files that catalogue chain of custody in minute detail.

MOO

Here's a link to one of GW4's discovery docs with list of all the evidence logs

Media & Timeline NO DISCUSSION - Pike Co, OH 8 Family Members Murdered

Billy Wagner discovery docs showing lists of evidence logs from searches as well as video taken of the search at each location

Media & Timeline NO DISCUSSION - Pike Co, OH 8 Family Members Murdered

 

[Dudly]

The article really confirms that Trout was a bad manager, but that none of this had anything to do with investigating the Rhoden murders. There were many people working on the investigation. They were all having to report and be accountable to each other - to make their work transparent with lots of oversight. Sure it made for a hostile work environment, but it definitely doesn't sound like an environment where any member of the team could tamper with evidence or engage in anything fraudulent. Too many overseers for that to happen.

Trout was a perfectionist, definitely not a "hands off" manager. It created a pressure-cooker environment that stressed out a lot of people, but at the same time made it impossible for someone to rig any evidence against the defendants. All the investigators, including Trout, were working under a microscope on a routine basis.

ETA: Anyone ever worked for a boss like this? *raises hand*

MOO

I had a boss that liked to take my ideas and present them to the manager as his. He would tell me my idea wouldn't work then tell the manager about "his" new idea. I wonder if something like that was a factor with Trout.

 

[Betty P]

I had a boss that liked to take my ideas and present them to the manager as his. He would tell me my idea wouldn't work then tell the manager about "his" new idea. I wonder if something like that was a factor with Trout.

Probably. I've had managers like that, too. One used to hang around my office several times a day to see if I had any new ideas. One time I was dropping off some reports in his office and the Sr. VP came in to congratulate him on a new marketing strategy that netted several million dollars in new contracts. I turned around and said "thank you" to the Senior VP.

 

[Johnny B Bad]

Betty P
George Wagner 4th, his discovery is a lot different than the other 3 Wagners, JMO

 

[Betty P]

There are items missing from his Discovery that are in the other defendants' Discoveries. Are they listed somewhere else? Or a difference in his case?

The ones I posted are just a couple of examples. There are other pages of discovery items for all the defendants. I'm not aware of anything missing. We've collected these documents here at WS in a sort of haphazard fashion, as best we could. I wouldn't be surprised if a page or two are misplaced or that we don't have all the info about discovery, etc.

Check the Media & Timelines thread for links to all the other W's discovery docs.

 

[Loomis124]

Loomis 5 up is Betty P, post on the discovery, please read all of them and see if you think the state has not got GW4 charged like the other 3, IMO

I know of nothing missing. You're going to have to say it, share it, because hints are not allowed on WS and I sure dont feel like comparing all the Discovery tonight. I have to work tomorrow. So if you want to share, ok. If not, ok too. Goodnight.

 

[Cool Cats]

The ones I posted are just a couple of examples. There are other pages of discovery items for all the defendants. I'm not aware of anything missing. We've collected these documents here at WS in a sort of haphazard fashion, as best we could. I wouldn't be surprised if a page or two are misplaced or that we don't have all the info about discovery, etc.

Check the Media & Timelines thread for links to all the other W's discovery docs.

Right. I was trying to see what was different as mentioned by the poster but I could simply be missing something--which is probably the case-- I will go over it piece by piece more carefully. I assume the 4 of them would have the same evidence up to a point.
So without clear proof I apologize for jumping to conclusions. I will check more carefully in future, plus make sure to state if it's opinion. Too late to delete my
previous post, again my apologies. I'll see if I can get it deleted.

 

[Betty P]

Right. I was trying to see what was different as mentioned by the poster but I could simply be missing something--which is probably the case-- I will go over it piece by piece more carefully. I assume the 4 of them would have the same evidence up to a point.
So without clear proof I apologize for jumping to conclusions. I will check more carefully in future, plus make sure to state if it's opinion. Too late to delete my
previous post, again my apologies. I'll see if I can get it deleted.

It's partly the way we've had to post the discovery docs. With some, all the pages are together in one file, in other's we've had to post them as single pages. We posted them as we found them, from different sources and different formats.

If someone sees a discovery doc here that is only one page, chances are there are other pages. Look for missing signature blocks. It's not a problem, as, AFAIK, all the discovery docs posted as separate pages are still part of a complete series.
Same with Bill of Particulars and Supplemental Discovery docs, etc.

*ETA/Update: Also note the doc of Billy's that everyone is looking at is labeled "Identification of Discovery Provided". Remember a month or so ago during the hearings when the attorneys (probably Billy's) discussed the large digital files given to each clients' attorney? One of the attorneys asked AC if there was any way she could give them a list or spreadsheet to help them "sort" or "filter" the specific evidence files that pertain to their client.

JMO, that's what the "Identification of Discovery Provided" document is - a list or summary that helps the attorneys retrieve from the files all the relevant evidence for each defendant that will be presented by the prosecution.

I'm trying to recall the exact hearing, but it was at one of the 4 Wags hearings when the attorneys and judge were finalizing the evidence and verifying that everyone had received all the discovery, etc. they requested. It was just after the deadline the court had set for prosecution to complete discovery.

Judge Deering went through these questions with the attorneys of all the defendants, making sure everyone had what they needed from prosecution. That's why it was a surprise when RN's attorney recently claimed that he still didn't have all the evidence against her. Probably a delaying tactic.

 

[Johnny B Bad]

I know of nothing missing. You're going to have to say it, share it, because hints are not allowed on WS and I sure dont feel like comparing all the Discovery tonight. I have to work tomorrow. So if you want to share, ok. If not, ok too. Goodnight.

Ok Loomis Here is what it is GW4 has 2444 pieces of evidence against him and the other 3 Wagners has 2665 pieces of evidence against them and there is a difference, the link was posted prior to read the difference and that is all that is required by WS is to provide the link.
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/conversations/george-wagner.522729/#message-1024429

 

[Betty P]

Ok Loomis Here is what it is GW4 has 2444 pieces of evidence against him and the other 3 Wagners has 2665 pieces of evidence against them and there is a difference, the link was posted prior to read the difference and that is all that is required by WS is to provide the link.
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/conversations/george-wagner.522729/#message-1024429

The link isn't working Johnny. I think it's a link to a private message here and can't be seen by members who weren't part of that message group.

If that's accurate, it may or may not be significant. It could be explained by the personal habits of any of the defendants on texting, email, social media, etc. If one of the suspects doesn't text much, they may communicate instead by phone calls, etc.

It seems from what we've seen and heard, that a significant part of the evidence is from digital communications files - emails, texts, phone calls, etc.

 

[Johnny B Bad]

Ok Loomis Here is what it is GW4 has 2444 pieces of evidence against him and the other 3 Wagners has 2665 pieces of evidence against them and there is a difference, the link was posted prior to read the difference and that is all that is required by WS is to provide the link.
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/conversations/george-wagner.522729/#message-1024429

Sorry Loomis GW4 has 2448, but that is strange why isn’t he like the other 3 Wagners evidence? JMO

 

[Johnny B Bad]

The link isn't working Johnny. I think it's a link to a private message here and can't be seen by members who weren't part of that message group.

If that's accurate, it may or may not be significant. It could be explained by the personal habits of any of the defendants on texting, email, social media, etc. If one of the suspects doesn't text much, they may communicate instead by phone calls, etc.

It seems from what we've seen and heard, that a significant part of the evidence is from digital communications files - emails, texts, phone calls, etc.

Betty P
I took the information from the WS timeline you posted on this page, it had to be down loaded first,