GUILTY OH - Pike Co, 8 in Rhoden Family Murdered Over Custody Issue, 4 Members Wagner Family Arrested #66

[RAISINISBACK]

Thanks for you long post but the issue is the motion and whether or not JW said in his proffer that G4 was there. I believe they are all guilty and deserve the DP. <modsnip> My personal feeling and the legal issues are not one in the same. Some people cannot seperate the two and discuss the actual topic.
<modsnip>

I know that you know this case well (just look how fast you looked up those motions) and I am sorry if you thought I was preaching to you. I wasn't. Or then again maybe that was my grandpa coming out in me and I was. But either way I did not mean any offense. I realize the legal issues and personal feelings are two different things. So forgive me if every once in a while I get them mixed together. Peace.

JMO

 

[RAISINISBACK]

*****Courtview Document, Approved by Moderator.*****
G4 Motion 73.

In no way would that DP argument fly in Oklahoma or Texas. OK and TX has executed more people than any other states in the union.

No where in that does George's attorneys claim he stayed home that night or that he did not participate in the planning of these murders.

So like I said, in my opinion, if he helped plan, or was present during the murders then the DP is viable. Please remember that AC said George was the most vocal in planning to kill Charlie R, Agent S and Governor Mike D. So I think we can safely assume he was an active and vocal participant in the planning of the murders, and just because he may have froze and not fired a shot does not make him any less guilty or less subject to the DP.

JMO

 

[almond]

I'm just here repeating to myself "...he shot nobody". Anybody know who nobody is?
Semantics, yes, but shouldn't that read "He didn't shoot anybody"? Have I become one of those grammar police?

 

[Cool Cats]

Does anyone recall who is paying for the two women attorneys who are assisting GW4's defense team? Just curious.

I think they are just part of the defense legal team and getting paid from the State same as the lady legal assistants working Billy's defense. That State $ has to cover all expenses and there is a whole legal team in DP Cases including legal assistants, the PI's, specific evidence experts, psychologists, psychiatrists, mitigation experts, etc..

A lady was arguing in court for Billy that they will contest every one of the Other Acts Evidence against him.

 

[Niner]

ETA: Thanks, Niner, for posting the latest docket entry for GW4. It sounds like Judge Deering was busy taking care of GW4's motions.

That was for GW3 - NOT GW4... that was all those motions I listed.

 

[altojack]

I'm just here repeating to myself "...he shot nobody". Anybody know who nobody is?
Semantics, yes, but shouldn't that read "He didn't shoot anybody"? Have I become one of those grammar police?

Written with honesty

 

[Ann99]

I'm just here repeating to myself "...he shot nobody". Anybody know who nobody is?
Semantics, yes, but shouldn't that read "He didn't shoot anybody"? Have I become one of those grammar police?

You make an excellent point.

Can someone please post the #73 again?
The link won't open for me so my comments don't include what may have been
said there. I haven't had this trouble in the past.

Catching up - just a thought as to how lawyers plays with words, use words.

"He shot nobody"
or is it
"He shot no body."

Just thinking of wording..obfuscating with choice of words, phrases.

He didn't murder.
He didn't kill.
He didn't shoot.
Those phrases leave lots of leeway in what G4 actually may have done.
And those words must be based upon G4 claims. A known liar.
I don't know what Jake my have claimed. Seems as though Jake may have tried to minimize G4 actions.
Also seems to be clear G4 was present at the murders.
AW should be able to tell the Prosecution what the W 's described to her in the
conversation after they came home, or whenever/wherever that conversation took place. AW may confirm what Jake has said re G4. Or not.

Were all 3 W men all together constantly at each location?
We don't know.
So would each W really be able to factually state the actions or lack of actions for every other W?

"He shot nobody no body" - Seriously, G4 could have shot up the doors, floor, windows.
"G4 didn't murder" - GG4 could have shot an arm or a leg, not a kill shot.
G4 could have used the knife to torture.

So many possibilities of exactly what G4 could have done.

Even if G4 was just the back up boy behind Billy. He is guilty of murder.

 

[Dudly]

Dudly, thank you for bringing this up. Even though the W3 were associated with their favorite weapons, there is no telling who actually used those weapons to murder that night.

IMO, an important point.

They could have used other guns than their favorite just to throw LE off their trail. So many possibilities...

 

[Ann99]

They could have used other guns than their favorite just to throw LE off their trail. So many possibilities...

Yes, I agree. Now that you mention it-
W's were very weapon knowledgable, meaning they all knew any gun can jam or become inoperable for some reason.
So would each of the w's have brought only one weapon to this massacre?
Maybe each had a backup gun.
Still never figured out the use of silencers and then the other gun that could
not have had a silencer.

 

[Dudly]

You make an excellent point.

Can someone please post the #73 again?
The link won't open for me so my comments don't include what may have been
said there. I haven't had this trouble in the past.

Catching up - just a thought as to how lawyers plays with words, use words.

"He shot nobody"
or is it
"He shot no body."

Just thinking of wording..obfuscating with choice of words, phrases.

He didn't murder.
He didn't kill.
He didn't shoot.
Those phrases leave lots of leeway in what G4 actually may have done.
And those words must be based upon G4 claims. A known liar.
I don't know what Jake my have claimed. Seems as though Jake may have tried to minimize G4 actions.
Also seems to be clear G4 was present at the murders.
AW should be able to tell the Prosecution what the W 's described to her in the
conversation after they came home, or whenever/wherever that conversation took place. AW may confirm what Jake has said re G4. Or not.

Were all 3 W men all together constantly at each location?
We don't know.
So would each W really be able to factually state the actions or lack of actions for every other W?

"He shot nobody no body" - Seriously, G4 could have shot up the doors, floor, windows.
"G4 didn't murder" - GG4 could have shot an arm or a leg, not a kill shot.
G4 could have used the knife to torture.

So many possibilities of exactly what G4 could have done.

Even if G4 was just the back up boy behind Billy. He is guilty of murder.

All your scenarios are very possible. “Shot nobody” could mean he he emptied his gun but missed.

 

[Cool Cats]

I'm just here repeating to myself "...he shot nobody". Anybody know who nobody is?
Semantics, yes, but shouldn't that read "He didn't shoot anybody"? Have I become one of those grammar police?

The attorneys mean he didn't shoot or kill anyone = anybody = nobody same thing.

See these quotes from:

Motion #73

(The capital letters and underlining for the word NOT is how it is written in the Motion.)

Recently provided Discovery makes it clear that George did NOT shoot and kill any of the victims.

Yet the State insists on proceeding with this case a capital case unless and until Jake Wagner testifies for the State to it's satisfaction.

Thus, the State seeks to hold the death penalty over the head of George Wagner who did not kill anybody while it has struck a remarkable plea bargain with the actual killer of at least 5 victims who also shot a sixth victim.

This is 100% clear the attorneys are saying George did not shoot anyone and in fact Jake shot 6 people not 5.

It doesn't say George was not on scene that night so as long as he was there he can't get out of the murder charges I am sure.

 

[Piffcat]

Any statement in jake and angela proffer that could conceivably help any family member in anyway should be completely ignored without independent 3rd party confirmation . Only statements tgat have no upside should be believed. Example jake says he killed 5 people should be believed. No angle on that, if he said 6 it should not be believed because it would mean 1 of the 4 couldn't have killed anyone since that would only leave 2 victims left for 3 people. Jake says g4bwas there believe jake says g4 didnt kill anyone don't believe. Need to operate under the assumption that every single action each one of the 4 has taken was planned and coordinated by all 4. To believe that a Wagner would do anything that isn't self serving for the group is dangerous. The states entire case is built upon this cult militant psycopathic conspiracy group. They should take their own advice. Boggles my mind tgat anyone would believe something angela and jjake said sociopaths feed off this misplaced empathy. Tgey put a person suit on everyday and can imitate being human. In reality their demons

 

[Ann99]

The attorneys mean he didn't shoot or kill anyone = anybody = nobody same thing.

See these quotes from:

Motion #73

(The capital letters and underlining for the word NOT is how it is written in the Motion.)

Recently provided Discovery makes it clear that George did NOT shoot and kill any of the victims.

Yet the State insists on proceeding with this case a capital case unless and until Jake Wagner testifies for the State to it's satisfaction.

Thus, the State seeks to hold the death penalty over the head of George Wagner who did not kill anybody while it has struck a remarkable plea bargain with the actual killer of at least 5 victims who also shot a sixth victim.

This is 100% clear the attorneys are saying George did not shoot anyone and in fact Jake shot 6 people not 5.

It doesn't say George was not on scene that night so as long as he was there he can't get out of the murder charges I am sure.

I disagree with the interpretation.

"Recently provided Discovery makes it clear that George did NOT shoot and kill any of the victims."

 

[Ann99]

Continued.. not arguing, just saying...
I couldn't stop the bolding...

So did G4 Shoot?

You really have to take apart the words.
You can not say
"This is 100% clear the attorneys are saying George did not shoot anyone ..."

 

[Cool Cats]

George's attorneys are saying he did not shoot and kill anyone, yes I can say this, it is my interpretation of the stated Motion of which I quoted.

Thus, they think the 8 murder charges should be dropped for George at this time and possibly later the other 14 charges.

George is not guilty of murder and should have the death penalty specifications dropped against him according to his counsel. Not guilty because he did not shoot and kill anyone.

Whether he shot or not he was there and participated so he should go down for murder and still be charged under the death penalty, thankfully Judge Deering seems to agree.

 

[Antimony]

Maybe:
JW and GW were the main shooters. JW with his Walther pistol and GW with his Glock.
Big Billy stood by with the SKS. Billy was there to supervise and stand overwatch.
Overwatch= backup, supervision and Training of your cubs. Think animals training their cubs to kill.
If you are familiar with guns and the people that own them,
you might have notice a tendency of a person to favor his choice of gun above all others.
Kind of like being a "Glock Man". Even tho the people ambushed and shot people in their beds.
Even tho they shot women and children. Even tho only two of the victims (Chris Sr and Kenny) had
only a remote chance of arming themselves, The shooters would not take any chances with their
precious lives. They would go with their own gun and and stay with their own gun. Only with Chris Sr
did anything go even slightly wrong. I feel that the three murderers wished to punish Chris Sr beyond
his execution style murder. Shots to wound, but not kill and maybe the use of the knife to show him who
was boss. That is why the mask confuses me. If it was for camouflage, where were the other two masks?
Wearing a mask on that road at night would certainly bring more attention than even a shadowy person
along the road.
Glock Man stays with the Glock.
Maybe.

 

[LMDlong]

I’m wondering if GW4 and his attorneys want motion 73 to be granted so after it is done they can try to make a deal with the state on the other charges before BW .

 

[Ann99]

George's attorneys are saying he did not shoot and kill anyone, yes I can say this, it is my interpretation of the stated Motion of which I quoted.

Thus, they think the 8 murder charges should be dropped for George at this time and possibly later the other 14 charges.

George is not guilty of murder and should have the death penalty specifications dropped against him according to his counsel. Not guilty because he did not shoot and kill anyone.

Whether he shot or not he was there and participated so he should go down for murder and still be charged under the death penalty, thankfully Judge Deering seems to agree.

Was trying to point out the tricky wording G4 lawyer uses and may not have stated it well.

I agree with you completely on this final part I have bolded.

 

[Ann99]

I’m wondering if GW4 and his attorneys want motion 73 to be granted so after it is done they can try to make a deal with the state on the other charges before BW .

So you think they, G4 and lawyer, would hope to get the same deal as AW, or a better deal?
Thirty years is not enough for G4. He would be old, but still able to carry on criminal actions.
I can't see any justification for a better deal than AW

 

[Cool Cats]

From the Motion:

Thus, the State seeks to hold the death penalty over the head of George Wagner who did not kill anybody while it has struck a remarkable plea bargain with the actual killer of at least 5 victims who also shot a sixth victim.

I have an opinion on what they might mean by Jake shooting a 6th victim (Cr Sr)
anyone else?