OH Pike Co., 8 in Rhoden Family Murdered Over Custody Issue, 4 Members Wagner Family Arrested #53

[Merrygirl]

And I just got a code red text here in southern indiana.

Hot Flashes? Lol

 

[sunshineray]

Hey Sleuthers who do you all think is talking to the BCI, just a thought but they aren’t going to go and look on that farm unless they know something or somewhere and also it was very cold the day the dive team was searching those ponds, Fredericka farm has a lot of small ponds on it and the BCI knew just where to search, JMO but I really think it is George the 4th talking!

You could be right. He was very vocal though about revenge being served up. Wasn't that mentioned by AC in the filings? If it is GW4's talking that spurred the recent search, he would have done a 360 on his supposed attitude on those recordings. I wonder if someone else who was "welcomed" into the W fold but then was frightened away could have something to do with the info that developed into that search. A person like that could have heard and seen a lot. JMO

 

[sunshineray]

13.
BIRTH 7 Apr 1997

Wow just 13, by only 4 months.

 

[Loomis124]

LOL, now they are “safe” in the hands of Scioto Co CPS. Lololololol

We don't know where they are currently. The spokesperson for them stated the first choice is to place them with a family member. Something was posted on here about GW4's child is with his mother and he looked very happy. I have faith in Dewine and many others to see that SW is being well taken care of.

Just look back at the W4's photos the day they were arrested. The 3 men looked totally strung out on drugs. I'm thankful they were all caught and the children were taken without incident. Great work on behalf of all LE everywhere! JMO

 

[Cool Cats]

<modsnip: quoted post was removed>

And I have always said, same as you, this is likely a circumstantial case and if they throw enough "stuff" at the defendant some things will stick, add up and become too overwhelming for the defense attorneys to overcome. Junk said there were no witnesses to the actual crimes, but of course, things can be uncovered over time.

If the
silencer BCI found in the Peterson Road Well matches the bullets fired in the murders it is still circumstantial evidence -- but strong circumstantial evidence.

A Wagner fingerprint on the silencer would be direct evidence.

No DNA link in George Wagner IV's Rhoden murder case

 

[Loomis124]

Somewhere on this thread, someone posted this Court Document
that this article is quoting from ---
It says:

On June 16, 2016, a court entry was filed by Pike County Juvenile Court Judge Robert Rosenberger granting that reads, "After presentation of the evidence, the Court finds that there has been a change in the circumstances of the child and/or custodial parent, specifically: the Mother, Hanna May Rhoden is deceased; and that changing the residential parent and legal custodian is in the best interests of the child."

Jake ended up with full legal custody.

IMO, that was the date of the official hearing based on the affidavit.

 

[Loomis124]

<modsnip: quoted post was removed>

And I have always said, same as you, this is likely a circumstantial case and if they throw enough "stuff" at the defendant some things will stick, add up and become too overwhelming for the defense attorneys to overcome. Junk said there were no witnesses to the actual crimes, but of course, things can be uncovered over time.

If the
silencer BCI found in the Peterson Road Well matches the bullets fired in the murders it is still circumstantial evidence -- but strong circumstantial evidence.

A Wagner fingerprint on the silencer would be direct evidence.

No DNA link in George Wagner IV's Rhoden murder case

Only my opinion...the Prosecution has more than enough evidence that is not circumstantial.

 

[Loomis124]

Wow Loomis, I'd never seen those before, just horrible.

Yes, fact here.

 

[Cool Cats]

Only my opinion...the Prosecution has more than enough evidence that is not circumstantial.

I am very curious as to your opinions on what might be direct evidence in the Case.

A common example used to illustrate the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence is the determination of whether it rained. On the one hand, if a person testified that he or she looked outside a window and saw rain falling, that is direct evidence that it rained.

If, on the other hand, a witness testified that he or she heard distant pitter patter, and later walked outside and saw that the ground was wet, smelled freshness in the air and felt that the air was moist, those sensations would be circumstantial evidence that it had rained.

Circumstantial evidence is often discussed as if it carries less weight than direct evidence. Under the law - and in life - that is not necessarily true. The example above demonstrates that both direct and circumstantial evidence may be equally reliable. In both scenarios, there would be strong proof of rain. Any piece of evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, must be evaluated in terms of whether the source of the evidence is reliable, including if the witnesses seem reliable.

Circumstantial vs Direct Evidence

 

[Loomis124]

<modsnip: quoted post was removed>

And I have always said, same as you, this is likely a circumstantial case and if they throw enough "stuff" at the defendant some things will stick, add up and become too overwhelming for the defense attorneys to overcome. Junk said there were no witnesses to the actual crimes, but of course, things can be uncovered over time.

If the
silencer BCI found in the Peterson Road Well matches the bullets fired in the murders it is still circumstantial evidence -- but strong circumstantial evidence.

A Wagner fingerprint on the silencer would be direct evidence.

No DNA link in George Wagner IV's Rhoden murder case

I still disagree with this assumption and quote of the Media. I contend that AC said over and over that the Prosecution would not be bringing DNA evidence against GW4. And she could change her mind. JMO

 

[Loomis124]

I am very curious as to your opinions on what might be direct evidence in the Case.

A common example used to illustrate the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence is the determination of whether it rained. On the one hand, if a person testified that he or she looked outside a window and saw rain falling, that is direct evidence that it rained.

If, on the other hand, a witness testified that he or she heard distant pitter patter, and later walked outside and saw that the ground was wet, smelled freshness in the air and felt that the air was moist, those sensations would be circumstantial evidence that it had rained.

Circumstantial evidence is often discussed as if it carries less weight than direct evidence. Under the law - and in life - that is not necessarily true. The example above demonstrates that both direct and circumstantial evidence may be equally reliable. In both scenarios, there would be strong proof of rain. Any piece of evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, must be evaluated in terms of whether the source of the evidence is reliable, including if the witnesses seem reliable.

Circumstantial vs Direct Evidence

No comment at this time. JMO, exactly why it isn't in Discovery yet. But just the motions filed by the Defendants tell alot. JW's Bill of Particulars, AWs 49 motions filed immediately. Anyone remember the "unavailable witness" or the "...juvenile..." references in AW's motions? Just saying and JMO. The Prosecution has shown the LEAST of everything to the Defense. They brought the indictments AFTER they ate, slept and breathed the investigation for years. They are only going to give the Defense what they have to, and rightly so. JMO

 

[Merrygirl]

Funny that he never said right out "I am her father" under oath. He said he "considered himself as her father since he raised her from birth". Then she brought a photo album instead of a DNA test to court as proof and that infamous "hammertoe". Makes me wonder why.

JMO

‘I Anna know if he

Merrygirl, if JW didn't have permanent guardianship provided by the court, how could he legally plan to take SW out of country?

Merrygirl, if JW didn't have permanent guardianship provided by the court, how could he legally plan to take SW out of country?

shoes off to show proof to the judge. Lol

We don't know where they are currently. The spokesperson for them stated the first choice is to place them with a family member. Something was posted on here about GW4's child is with his mother and he looked very happy. I have faith in Dewine and many others to see that SW is being well taken care of.

Just look back at the W4's photos the day they were arrested. The 3 men looked totally strung out on drugs. I'm thankful they were all caught and the children were taken without incident. Great work on behalf of all LE everywhere! JMO

Well, I know G4’s ex lives in Scioto Co and CPS was there when AW & RN we’re arrested in So Webster so I assumed S was still in Scioto County also. R’s have family in Scioto cuz Miss Geneva lives there. I honestly don’t know. I suppose she could be with KR @ CG’s.

 

[Merrygirl]

I am very curious as to your opinions on what might be direct evidence in the Case.

A common example used to illustrate the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence is the determination of whether it rained. On the one hand, if a person testified that he or she looked outside a window and saw rain falling, that is direct evidence that it rained.

If, on the other hand, a witness testified that he or she heard distant pitter patter, and later walked outside and saw that the ground was wet, smelled freshness in the air and felt that the air was moist, those sensations would be circumstantial evidence that it had rained.

Circumstantial evidence is often discussed as if it carries less weight than direct evidence. Under the law - and in life - that is not necessarily true. The example above demonstrates that both direct and circumstantial evidence may be equally reliable. In both scenarios, there would be strong proof of rain. Any piece of evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, must be evaluated in terms of whether the source of the evidence is reliable, including if the witnesses seem reliable.

Circumstantial vs Direct Evidence

‘Even witnesses have differing opinions. That happened in our case. Two direct witnesses but differing opinions. It all comes down to how the evidence is presented, how the presentation is interpreted by the jury, AND the personal opinions of the 12 jurors. It only takes 1 to acquit.

 

[Cool Cats]

I still disagree with this assumption and quote of the Media. I contend that AC said over and over that the Prosecution would not be bringing DNA evidence against GW4. And she could change her mind. JMO

OK. I see what you mean. The defense might be spinning it differently. That they have no DNA at all except where it would normally be in his everyday life and his DNA samples they took from all 4 Wagners on May 18, 2017 - according to the Discovery.

But Canepa could mean they have DNA to present but are choosing not to use it at trial so they do not have to hand it over. However, yes, Canepa could give it to the defense at the last minute during the trial and this then could be used as a "smoking gun."

Just a made up example:

Like he spit somewhere on the Rhoden properties and they found his DNA but his defense doesn't know it. So the defense puts on a case at trial where GW4 denies having ever been to Dana's house, or hadn't been to Chris Sr' s property in 2 years.

Then during trial they disclose the DNA evidence to the defense saying they now have reason to use it. The DNA would show GW4 is lying, that he had been to the Rhoden properties. This would be "smoking gun" evidence.

If they disclosed the DNA now the defense would testify at trial that GW4 had been over to the properties right before the murders for such and such a reason, therefore he spit at that time and no one could dispute it.

What is a Smoking Gun? (with pictures)

 

[Deleted member 237253]

I think in the end this will be about more than just custody. Remember DeWine mentioned custody played a big role in the motive, after arrests were made.

 

[Loomis124]

‘Even witnesses have differing opinions. That happened in our case. Two direct witnesses but differing opinions. It all comes down to how the evidence is presented, how the presentation is interpreted by the jury, AND the personal opinions of the 12 jurors. It only takes 1 to acquit.

And that isn't justice to me. It should at least take half to acquit. My opinion

 

[Cool Cats]

‘Even witnesses have differing opinions. That happened in our case. Two direct witnesses but differing opinions. It all comes down to how the evidence is presented, how the presentation is interpreted by the jury, AND the personal opinions of the 12 jurors. It only takes 1 to acquit.

I assume the Jury believed one witness over the others, then again, the Jury could discount both. All that matters is that the Jury believes your witness!

I am sure there will be plenty of witnesses to verify JW was abusive to HR. Dana's sister for one. Then the Jury needs to believe she is a credible witness.

QUESTION:

Would Dana's sister be allowed to testify that Hanna told her about abuse, or is that hearsay? In other words the sister would be required to have witnessed the abuse herself being an eye witness first hand.

 

[Loomis124]

I think in the end this will be about more than just custody. Remember DeWine mentioned custody played a big role in the motive, after arrests were made.

Yes, waiting anxiously for the other motive/s. These will certainly affect the outcomes. IMO

 

[Loomis124]

I assume the Jury believed one witness over the others, then again, the Jury could discount both. All that matters is that the Jury believes your witness!

I am sure there will be plenty of witnesses to verify JW was abusive to HR. Dana's sister for one. Then the Jury needs to believe she is a credible witness.

QUESTION:

Would Dana's sister be allowed to testify that Hanna told her about abuse, or is that hearsay? In other words the sister would be required to have witnessed the abuse herself being an eye witness first hand.

There are witnesses. This certainly wasn't the first time it happened. JMO

 

[Loomis124]

I assume the Jury believed one witness over the others, then again, the Jury could discount both. All that matters is that the Jury believes your witness!

I am sure there will be plenty of witnesses to verify JW was abusive to HR. Dana's sister for one. Then the Jury needs to believe she is a credible witness.

QUESTION:

Would Dana's sister be allowed to testify that Hanna told her about abuse, or is that hearsay? In other words the sister would be required to have witnessed the abuse herself being an eye witness first hand.

Also, CRSr autopsy showed recent injuries. Too bad JW and BW went free too long after the murders. JMO