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

[Cool Cats]

There are witnesses.

Maybe he thought he killed all the witnesses? But is wrong and is finding out now by their sworn affidavits.

 

[sunshineray]

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.

Didn't Nicole Brown's family testify to OJ's treatment of her? So something like this?

"(6) Statement Offered Against a Party That Wrongfully Caused the Declarant’s Unavailability. A statement offered against a party that wrongfully caused — or acquiesced in wrongfully causing — the declarant’s unavailability as a witness, and did so intending that result."

Rule 804. Hearsay Exceptions; Declarant Unavailable

 

[Deleted member 237253]

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

The house they sold? Forced to sell because they couldn't make ends meet? Potentially ran Weed for big Chris then it stops abruptly because Jake was an abusive ? Jealously, control. Warped ideology of the boondock saints vigilantes over the undercurrent of drugs, HR's new boyfriend. A lot of possibilities i cant wait to find out either. These are all just scenarios running through my head.

 

[IType]

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.

It is my understanding that something said directly to you is not hearsay, but if someone tells you something they were told by someone else then it is hearsay. Example: DR says to me, "HMR said JW hit her yesterday." That is hearsay.

But, if HMR says to me directly, "JW hit me yesterday," that is not hearsay. It is a direct statement made to me by the person it happened to, and I could then be called to testify as to what HMR said directly to me.

JMO.

 

[Johnny B Bad]

It is my understanding that something said directly to you is not hearsay, but if someone tells you something they were told by someone else then it is hearsay. Example: DR says to me, "HMR said JW hit her yesterday." That is hearsay.

But, if HMR says to me directly, "JW hit me yesterday," that is not hearsay. It is a direct statement made to me by the person it happened to, and I could then be called to testify as to what HMR said directly to me.

JMO.

Does anyone know the percent of crimes that have been solved do to the police fellow tip of a rumor?
How much do police check tips out that was phoned in as a rumor? I would bet it would be a very high percentage and I would say that 45 percent of the crimes solved was from somebody reporting it to the police as a rumor? JMO

 

[Berrybell]

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.

If I am not mistaken, it is hearsay if BJM testifies HR told her JW hit her, but if anyone actually saw him hit, shove, or be violent in any way they can testify to what they saw.

 

[Johnny B Bad]

Only thing the Prosecution Attorney’s has to show Proof of is readable dough to get the jury to convict the Wagners on! JMO

 

[Cool Cats]

It is my understanding that something said directly to you is not hearsay, but if someone tells you something they were told by someone else then it is hearsay. Example: DR says to me, "HMR said JW hit her yesterday." That is hearsay.

But, if HMR says to me directly, "JW hit me yesterday," that is not hearsay. It is a direct statement made to me by the person it happened to, and I could then be called to testify as to what HMR said directly to me.

JMO.

Thankx for answering my question. This matters because HR cannot collaborate it.
Dana's sister said HR told her Jake was abusive and since HR told her directly, from what you say, the sister can get on the stand and testify to that.

 

[Cool Cats]

If I am not mistaken, it is hearsay if BJM testifies HR told her JW hit her, but if anyone actually saw him hit, shove, or be violent in any way they can testify to what they saw.

Thankx for answering my question.
What you are saying is different from what the other poster said.
You said it is hearsay if HR told the person herself, but the witness did not see the abuse first hand.

 

[Cool Cats]

Didn't Nicole Brown's family testify to OJ's treatment of her? So something like this?

"(6) Statement Offered Against a Party That Wrongfully Caused the Declarant’s Unavailability. A statement offered against a party that wrongfully caused — or acquiesced in wrongfully causing — the declarant’s unavailability as a witness, and did so intending that result."

Rule 804. Hearsay Exceptions; Declarant Unavailable

Thankx for responding to my question....

Maybe, from what you posted, there is a hearsay exception because the Wagners caused HR to be unavailable as a witness.

Now I have 3 different answers to my question....Lol..!

#1.) It is not hearsay if HR told the person herself.
#2.) It is not hearsay only if the witness witnessed the abuse themselves.
#3.) Hearsay is exempt because the Wagners caused HR to not be available to testify.

 

[Deleted member 237253]

If you go to HR's facebook page and glance at the photos she posts of SW not one Wagner liked or loved the picture. How is that even possible when AW herself claimed HR was like a daughter to her? Also the last thing HR posted to her facebook was a timeline photo of a bed of flowers with a quote that reads: "It's gonna be okay" followed by "Yeah because its not happening to you". That was posted April 16th 2016.

DR's last post was also on her timeline of a flat redline, very ominous. It was posted April 20, 2016.

I chose not to go to their facebooks but did out of curiosity. I dont mean to offend anyone especially the Rhodens, Manleys, or gilleys

 

[Cool Cats]

If you go to HR's facebook page and glance at the photos she posts of SW not one Wagner liked or loved the picture. How is that even possible when AW herself claimed HR was like a daughter to her? Also the last thing HR posted to her facebook was a timeline photo of a bed of flowers with a quote that reads: "It's gonna be okay" followed by "Yeah because its not happening to you". That was posted April 16th 2016.

DR's last post was also on her timeline of a flat redline, very ominous. It was posted April 20, 2016.

I chose not to go to their facebooks but did out of curiosity. I dont mean to offend anyone especially the Rhodens, Manleys, or gilleys

Hanna May Rhoden
Hanna May Rhoden
Hanna May Rhoden
Hanna May Rhoden
Hanna May Rhoden
Hanna May Rhoden

 

[Cool Cats]

If you go to HR's facebook page and glance at the photos she posts of SW not one Wagner liked or loved the picture. How is that even possible when AW herself claimed HR was like a daughter to her? Also the last thing HR posted to her facebook was a timeline photo of a bed of flowers with a quote that reads: "It's gonna be okay" followed by "Yeah because its not happening to you". That was posted April 16th 2016.

DR's last post was also on her timeline of a flat redline, very ominous. It was posted April 20, 2016.

I chose not to go to their facebooks but did out of curiosity. I dont mean to offend anyone especially the Rhodens, Manleys, or gilleys

Dana Lynn Rhoden
Hanna May Rhoden
Hanna May Rhoden
Hanna May Rhoden
Hanna May Rhoden

 

[Loomis124]

Pike County: 'That's all we've got left. Just those kids.'

See the 2 paragraphs under "Kylie's Unanswered Question." No father listed on birth certificate.

 

[Merrygirl]

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

For the DP all 12 must agree. For lesser offenses then less is acceptable. I agree with you that our system is too subjectable. We need to somehow remove the human emotion factor. In my family’s case, I had an occasion to talk personally with 2 of the jurors from the case. I had no ax to grind or dog in the fight so nothing to gain. We casually discussed (~5 yrs later) how the verdict was reached. I was told that initially 2 jurors (not the ones I spoke with) voted not guilty so the jury deliberated. Initially the 2 chose not guilty because of the age of the perp and 1 of the 2 also believed the wife wouldn’t lie to protect her husband. All 12 discussed the case and had to stay overnight of which no one wanted to do it but had no choice. The next day deliberations continued and the one would not change her vote cuz she just couldn’t stand the thoughts of putting that elderly man through the DP. I was told the one juror refused to waiver and the rest did not want to stay over for another night so everyone thought the “not guilty” verdict was the best option. I have no way of proving any of this of course but this is what I was told. Personally, I sat through the trial and I didn’t think the prosecution did an impressive job of proving the case so maybe there was merit in letting him go. Their judgment should have been based on the facts presented and not the age factor. Former jurors of the OJ Simpson trial said they thought he was guilty but they voted to acquit cuz they were tired of all the police brutality on the blacks. My point to this story is there are too many personal emotions that factor into a jury’s decision and the process is not always fair in that regards, but at the moment I have no suggestions on how to change it.

 

[Merrygirl]

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.

‘It depends on how it is presented I think. I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that if one person says that HR said JW was abusive then it probably is not admissible. However, if that same person says HR told her JW was abusive and there were photos to show bruises, etc then that could be admissible I guess. Or if 10 persons all testified that HR said that to them as well then maybe it would be admissible. IANAL by any means. I found this link on Federal courts but IDK about state courts. Again, IANAL. Hearsay - Wikipedia

 

[Cool Cats]

‘It depends on how it is presented I think. I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that if one person says that HR said JW was abusive then it probably is not admissible. However, if that same person says HR told her JW was abusive and there were photos to show bruises, etc then that could be admissible I guess. Or if 10 persons all testified that HR said that to them as well then maybe it would be admissible. IANAL by any means. I found this link on Federal courts but IDK about state courts. Again, IANAL. Hearsay - Wikipedia

Thanks Merrygirl.
You are the 4th person who has responded to my question:

"Can Dana Rhoden's sister testify that Jake abused Hanna if Hanna told her?"

The question is, did Dana's sister have to witness the abuse herself in order for her to be a credible witness? And her testimony not to be hearsay?

Or is it enough that Hanna told her directly?

Your opinion is if there are photos or several witnesses, it could be credible to the prosecution.

Thankx! I have an appointment with my attorney regarding my sister's estate and I will actually ask him about this. I reached out to MSM Ohio reporters and Websleuth's friends, and thus was sent Jake's full legal custody affidavit, so why not talk to my own attorney? Right?

Affidavit in Support of Ex Parte Order of Temporary Custody
April 28, 2016 - Edward Jacob Wagner -

https://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachments/79558927-0643-4856-954b-3b508dafcc01-jpeg.225927/

https://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachments/0297fcc4-351b-4852-84f1-07b0624dcbf1-jpeg.225928/

https://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachments/01fd9951-3155-427a-9731-bd94a4ed491d-jpeg.225929/

 

[Loomis124]

For the DP all 12 must agree. For lesser offenses then less is acceptable. I agree with you that our system is too subjectable. We need to somehow remove the human emotion factor. In my family’s case, I had an occasion to talk personally with 2 of the jurors from the case. I had no ax to grind or dog in the fight so nothing to gain. We casually discussed (~5 yrs later) how the verdict was reached. I was told that initially 2 jurors (not the ones I spoke with) voted not guilty so the jury deliberated. Initially the 2 chose not guilty because of the age of the perp and 1 of the 2 also believed the wife wouldn’t lie to protect her husband. All 12 discussed the case and had to stay overnight of which no one wanted to do it but had no choice. The next day deliberations continued and the one would not change her vote cuz she just couldn’t stand the thoughts of putting that elderly man through the DP. I was told the one juror refused to waiver and the rest did not want to stay over for another night so everyone thought the “not guilty” verdict was the best option. I have no way of proving any of this of course but this is what I was told. Personally, I sat through the trial and I didn’t think the prosecution did an impressive job of proving the case so maybe there was merit in letting him go. Their judgment should have been based on the facts presented and not the age factor. Former jurors of the OJ Simpson trial said they thought he was guilty but they voted to acquit cuz they were tired of all the police brutality on the blacks. My point to this story is there are too many personal emotions that factor into a jury’s decision and the process is not always fair in that regards, but at the moment I have no suggestions on how to change it.

So unbelievable...no pun intended. No juror should ever take the quick way out just because they don't want to spend another night...geez...very sad. I cannot imagine what your family went through. I hope for healing.

 

[Puzzles8]

[/QUOTE]
Thankx! I have an appointment with my attorney regarding my sister's estate and I will actually ask him about this. I reached out to MSM Ohio reporters and Websleuth's friends, and thus was sent Jake's full legal custody affidavit, so why not talk to my own attorney? Right?

Affidavit in Support of Ex Parte Order of Temporary Custody
April 28, 2016 - Edward Jacob Wagner -

https://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachments/79558927-0643-4856-954b-3b508dafcc01-jpeg.225927/

https://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachments/0297fcc4-351b-4852-84f1-07b0624dcbf1-jpeg.225928/

https://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachments/01fd9951-3155-427a-9731-bd94a4ed491d-jpeg.225929/[/QUOTE]

Because your own attorney will charge you....by the minute....

Thanks for persuing and attaining the additional official information on JW's Documents for us.

 

[Loomis124]

Thanks Merrygirl.
You are the 4th person who has responded to my question:

"Can Dana Rhoden's sister testify that Jake abused Hanna if Hanna told her?"

The question is, did Dana's sister have to witness the abuse herself in order for her to be a credible witness? And her testimony not to be hearsay?

Or is it enough that Hanna told her directly?

Your opinion is if there are photos or several witnesses, it could be credible to the prosecution.

Thankx! I have an appointment with my attorney regarding my sister's estate and I will actually ask him about this. I reached out to MSM Ohio reporters and Websleuth's friends, and thus was sent Jake's full legal custody affidavit, so why not talk to my own attorney? Right?

Affidavit in Support of Ex Parte Order of Temporary Custody
April 28, 2016 - Edward Jacob Wagner -

https://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachments/79558927-0643-4856-954b-3b508dafcc01-jpeg.225927/

https://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachments/0297fcc4-351b-4852-84f1-07b0624dcbf1-jpeg.225928/

https://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachments/01fd9951-3155-427a-9731-bd94a4ed491d-jpeg.225929/

CC, I will have to go back and look at the FB posts I shared, but let's just be very careful that information is not misconstrued. Thanks.