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

[Cool Cats]

So GW4 was offered Life Without Parole if he was to pleaded guilty, but that is not good enough for that man, he is not guilty in GW4s mind, he didn’t do anything wrong, so if George thinks like that GW4 will kill again if he is not convicted, GW4 is just as guilty as JW, prison justices is waiting on all 4 Wagners, I think that George and Billy fear prison the most,JMO

All the State has to prove is that George was going along with his family. They have 8,000 recordings of interest. Remember these few from George?

Imagine how many more they have, these are only a few compared to literally 100's ..!!!!

Incriminating statements:

1.) If they have the gun they have the silencer.
2.) I told you to get rid of your phone.
3.) We have a family emergency.
4.) Don't come down here we have company.
5.) Jake's always getting us in trouble over some woman.
6.) I want to bash Scheiderer's face in.
7.) Make Reader pay make DeWine pay = violent tendencies Scheiderer said.
8.) We're being bugged don't say anything till we get home.
9.) I bought a night scope.
10.) Bought a Captain America mask.
11.) Making fun of Jake's religion many times = they don't celebrate Halloween so what was the mask for?
12.) Will break those not arrested out of jail.
13.) Will get revenge against those who go against us.

Canepa & Scheiderer at George's Bond Hearing

 

[Ann99]

Cool Cats,
In your research, if you are interested and have the time...here is a twist we need to have a better understanding of
The Lawyer ethics and responsibilities when the Lawyer knows his client is guilty. Knows the client is lying about facts.
What and when can a Lawyer bend and obfuscate the truth via Motions, in hearings, written statements, etc.
I believe, unless under oath and on the stand, a Lawyer can not allow perjury.
So would G4 actually testify in court?
I can not see how he would or could take the stand in his own defense.
In a court trial, a Lawyer can not willfully misrepresent.
However, prior to any under oath proceedings, a Lawyer may be able to bend and play with words....
I hope I have made sense here.
Most DP Lawyers never ask and do not want to know, do not want a confession, from their clients. Once they absolutely know the facts, the truth from their clients mouth, the client and the actions become very difficult to defend.

 

[Piffcat]

Cool Cats,
In your research, if you are interested and have the time...here is a twist we need to have a better understanding of
The Lawyer ethics and responsibilities when the Lawyer knows his client is guilty. Knows the client is lying about facts.
What and when can a Lawyer bend and obfuscate the truth via Motions, in hearings, written statements, etc.
I believe, unless under oath and on the stand, a Lawyer can not allow perjury.
So would G4 actually testify in court?
I can not see how he would or could take the stand in his own defense.
In a court trial, a Lawyer can not willfully misrepresent.
However, prior to any under oath proceedings, a Lawyer may be able to bend and play with words....
I hope I have made sense here.
Most DP Lawyers never ask and do not want to know, do not want a confession, from their clients. Once they absolutely know the facts, the truth from their clients mouth, the client and the actions become very difficult to defend.

This topic is so relevant to this case and others but never gets brought up because its shutdown by ppl who misunderstand the bill of rights. It's actually very akin to pill mill Dr's as well. Its like a wink and a nod to hide intent. As long as everyone says the right words goes through the motions of legal interactions it's almost impossible to prove the actions were illegal. I'm positive gw4s lawyer knows g4 killed and was at crime scene. G4 has most likel_ told him everything in order to cover all contingencies. As long as these conversations are not recorded witnessed or put on paper/computer, g4s lawyer can hide behind client privilege. And g4 can trust tgey won't be becau@e it's mutually insured destruction. His attorney can't reveal his knowledge of guilt without implicating himself as party to criminal conspiracy. I believe this is widespread but in this case it's particularly heinous. G4s lawyers intentions are purely self serving. He want the business notoriety and reputation that come along with freeing a family annhilator demon such as g4 and his clan. Lawyers such as this are tge true threat to public safety. Tge knowledge of their existence allows killers to commit acts of violence and be reasonably sure they won't face consequences. Just as the Dr who coaches his patients to stick to the script in feigning pain to establish a patient dr privilege for tge sole purpose of procuring narcotics they have no medical need for. The Dr and lawyers have these privileges because they are supposed to be held to a higher standard of selfless service to patients and clients. Those who use altruistic relationships for illegal immoral personal gain should be held to highest levels of punishment as well. However usually claiming ignorance stupidity or naivety keeps them from facing any reprocussions. And their victims families are left to pick up the pieces

 

[Cool Cats]

Cool Cats,
In your research, if you are interested and have the time...here is a twist we need to have a better understanding of
The Lawyer ethics and responsibilities when the Lawyer knows his client is guilty. Knows the client is lying about facts.
What and when can a Lawyer bend and obfuscate the truth via Motions, in hearings, written statements, etc.
I believe, unless under oath and on the stand, a Lawyer can not allow perjury.
So would G4 actually testify in court?
I can not see how he would or could take the stand in his own defense.
In a court trial, a Lawyer can not willfully misrepresent.
However, prior to any under oath proceedings, a Lawyer may be able to bend and play with words....
I hope I have made sense here.
Most DP Lawyers never ask and do not want to know, do not want a confession, from their clients. Once they absolutely know the facts, the truth from their clients mouth, the client and the actions become very difficult to defend.

• What does a lawyer do if they know for absolute certain that their client is guilty?
• What if I know that my client is guilty? - Sterling Law QLD
• How Can A Criminal Defense Lawyer Defend Someone Who Is Guilty?
• How Can a Lawyer Defend Someone Who is Guilty? - Pumphrey Law
• 7 Reasons Lawyers Defend Guilty Clients

So far George's defense is just doing their job and the lawyer said in court that George vehemently denies he murdered anyone.

The prosecution says the DP is off the table if Jake testifies truthfully at trials. Of course this opens the door for the defense to want the DP dismissed now rather than later.

There would be something wrong with Billy and George's defense if they didn't try now to get the DP off the table for good. They are dealing with their clients lives, too serious to just sit on your hands and smile for the camera.

If Jake is flat out saying George didn't shoot or kill anybody then Motion #73 makes alot of sense. Depends on what Jake really said.

Look at how aggressive Josh Dugger's defense attorneys are, and how others are in other Cases. Par for the course.

George is getting a defense, this is what a defense looks like.

As Canepa said:

"Death isn't pretty."

 

[Betty P]

His attorneys say he didn't shoot or kill anybody but they do not say

"George was not at the crime scenes that night."

Just being at the crime scenes will get him convicted of murder plus there are 14 other charges his attorneys will need to address during trial.

George can't get Angie's deal, George was there on UHR that night.

We don't know what Jake said about George shooting but it seems quite apparent that Jake is saying George was there.

Jake's testimony is that all of them were involved with the murders. Angela's testimony is that all of them were involved with the murders. Angie's testimony matches Jake's. Jake's testimony matches Angies.

Both Angela and Jake have testimony that places George leaving Peterson Rd. that night with Jake and Billy and 3 guns and at least 2 silencers.

Jake led BCI to the 3 guns used that night. The 2 silencers also because as George said:

"If they have the gun they have the silencer."

As I say, nothing is coming up showing George sat home with Angie. Not from Angie's testimony and not from Jake's.

The only thing George4's defense team can hang their hat on is that none of George's DNA was found on anything connected to the murders. In the big picture, that's not enough. As the old saying goes, "absence of (DNA) evidence isn't evidence of absence".

I'm convinced that's the only fact George's attorney has. It's not enough to get him off. Not enough to get him a better deal.

Personally, I still believe George4 killed Gary Rhoden. I don't believe Billy Wagner took George's prized possession away from him and used it to kill Gary. Billy had a gun of his own, he didn't need his son's.

The rest are just rumors and deceptive sound bites being spread by George's defense.

JMO

 

[Dudly]

The only thing George4's defense team can hang their hat on is that none of George's DNA was found on anything connected to the murders. In the big picture, that's not enough. As the old saying goes, "absence of (DNA) evidence isn't evidence of absence".

I'm convinced that's the only fact George's attorney has. It's not enough to get him off. Not enough to get him a better deal.

Personally, I still believe George4 killed Gary Rhoden. I don't believe Billy Wagner took George's prized possession away from him and used it to kill Gary. Billy had a gun of his own, he didn't need his son's.

The rest are just rumors and deceptive sound bites being spread by George's defense.

JMO

I look at it differently. If things went bad I think Billy would have definitely taken George’s gun to keep himself from getting shot or killed...
There could also be a scenario where George said I will go, but I am not shooting anyone. So Billy said you don’t need your gun then, give it to me...
There are so many ways things could have went down. We just have no ideas as of now...

 

[Ann99]

• What does a lawyer do if they know for absolute certain that their client is guilty?
• What if I know that my client is guilty? - Sterling Law QLD
• How Can A Criminal Defense Lawyer Defend Someone Who Is Guilty?
• How Can a Lawyer Defend Someone Who is Guilty? - Pumphrey Law
• 7 Reasons Lawyers Defend Guilty Clients

So far George's defense is just doing their job and the lawyer said in court that George vehemently denies he murdered anyone.

The prosecution says the DP is off the table if Jake testifies truthfully at trials. Of course this opens the door for the defense to want the DP dismissed now rather than later.

There would be something wrong with Billy and George's defense if they didn't try now to get the DP off the table for good. They are dealing with their clients lives, too serious to just sit on your hands and smile for the camera.

If Jake is flat out saying George didn't shoot or kill anybody then Motion #73 makes alot of sense. Depends on what Jake really said.

Look at how aggressive Josh Dugger's defense attorneys are, and how others are in other Cases. Par for the course.

George is getting a defense, this is what a defense looks like.

As Canepa said:

"Death isn't pretty."

The links you have provided are very good, really helpful.
Usually when there is kore than one defendant, it becomes more complicated with
one or more telling a different story. AC must have headaches every day. She is doing a great job.

 

[Ann99]

I look at it differently. If things went bad I think Billy would have definitely taken George’s gun to keep himself from getting shot or killed...
There could also be a scenario where George said I will go, but I am not shooting anyone. So Billy said you don’t need your gun then, give it to me...
There are so many ways things could have went down. We just have no ideas as of now...

Dudley, would Billy's weapon have been unwieldily in the situation?
Meaning in such close quarters. Also wouldn't Billy have been concentrating on CRsr as he was the one expected to be there in his own trailer. That's who Billy was after.
Would the fact Gary is present ( probably unexpectedly) have been a surprise element, and required unplanned action?
But what would that unplanned action be?
GW4 Killing Gary or Billy grabbing GW4 weapon?
Did JW shoot, but not kill CRsr in this unexpected situation.
Was this the 6th person?
Anyone have thoughts?

 

[Ann99]

The only thing George4's defense team can hang their hat on is that none of George's DNA was found on anything connected to the murders. In the big picture, that's not enough. As the old saying goes, "absence of (DNA) evidence isn't evidence of absence".

I'm convinced that's the only fact George's attorney has. It's not enough to get him off. Not enough to get him a better deal.

Personally, I still believe George4 killed Gary Rhoden. I don't believe Billy Wagner took George's prized possession away from him and used it to kill Gary. Billy had a gun of his own, he didn't need his son's.

The rest are just rumors and deceptive sound bites being spread by George's defense.

JMO

I agree with what you say here.
The only exception is as I put it in my response to Dudley.
We don't know if Billy grabbed GW4 weapon.
Maybe finger prints will tell the tale. We can hope. And the knife too. Please let there be fingerprints. Also, something that has not been discussed, and has been held close to the vest by Prosecutors is the angle of the shots. Maybe angle that shots entered the bodies. Or height, angle of interior wayward shots.
(Height, trajectory, whatever) can possibly shed more light on who may have made the shots.
Are Billy and GW4 the same height?
ETA clarification

 

[Dudly]

Dudley, would Billy's weapon have been unwieldily in the situation?
Meaning in such close quarters. Also wouldn't Billy have been concentrating on CRsr as he was the one expected to be there in his own trailer. That's who Billy was after.
Would the fact Gary is present ( probably unexpectedly) have been a surprise element, and required unplanned action?
But what would that unplanned action be?
GW4 Killing Gary or Billy grabbing GW4 weapon?
Did JW shoot, but not kill CRsr in this unexpected situation.
Was this the 6th person?
Anyone have thoughts?

The SKS would not have been quick and easy to maneuver indoors I wouldn’t think. Personally, I thought it was used by someone outside in case someone escaped. If it did have a night scope and with its firepower, it would have been good for stoping someone running away from the scene. I have no idea what to think about GR’s presence. It is possible they did not know he was there. There are so many, many possibilities as to what went on at CRsr’s place. GR could have woke up as they came in, he may have been awake, he could have been armed with one of CRsr’s guns. Whatever that commotion came to be may have gotten CRsr’s attention and he came to see what was going on. He may have retreated to his room to get a gun. That may be how he was shot through a door.
No one that wasn’t there knows exactly what happened. All possible scenarios that are my opinion only...

 

[Caylee Advocate]

The SKS would not have been quick and easy to maneuver indoors I wouldn’t think. Personally, I thought it was used by someone outside in case someone escaped. If it did have a night scope and with its firepower, it would have been good for stoping someone running away from the scene. I have no idea what to think about GR’s presence. It is possible they did not know he was there. There are so many, many possibilities as to what went on at CRsr’s place. GR could have woke up as they came in, he may have been awake, he could have been armed with one of CRsr’s guns. Whatever that commotion came to be may have gotten CRsr’s attention and he came to see what was going on. He may have retreated to his room to get a gun. That may be how he was shot through a door.
No one that wasn’t there knows exactly what happened. All possible scenarios that are my opinion only...

Indeed! Good post Dudley.

 

[Cool Cats]

The only thing George4's defense team can hang their hat on is that none of George's DNA was found on anything connected to the murders. In the big picture, that's not enough. As the old saying goes, "absence of (DNA) evidence isn't evidence of absence".

I'm convinced that's the only fact George's attorney has. It's not enough to get him off. Not enough to get him a better deal.

Personally, I still believe George4 killed Gary Rhoden. I don't believe Billy Wagner took George's prized possession away from him and used it to kill Gary. Billy had a gun of his own, he didn't need his son's.

The rest are just rumors and deceptive sound bites being spread by George's defense.

JMO

Canepa:

"Some were specifically targets of the Wagners, some sadly were killed simply because they happened to be there."

I believe Gary wasn't targeted but "happened to be there."

I see Billy as having his beef with Chris and going all hyper "cowboy" and taking a shot at Chris as he is crossing the front porch, then chasing him through the house shooting him randomly and through a bedroom door and Jake taking a shot at him.

While Billy and Jake are zeroed in on Chris, George is the one left to deal with Gary which he quickly does, likely with his Glock. I picture Billy with the 30 caliber rifle shooting out of control. Very, what they call, a "disorganized" murder scene.

So the question is why does George's Motion say George did not shoot or kill anybody?

I will concur with you:

Deceptive sound bites makes the most sense at this point.

 

[Covert Operative]

I agree with what you say here.
The only exception is as I put it in my response to Dudley.
We don't know if Billy grabbed GW4 weapon.
Maybe finger prints will tell the tale. We can hope. And the knife too. Please let there be fingerprints. Also, something that has not been discussed, and has been held close to the vest by Prosecutors is the angle of the shots. Maybe angle that shots entered the bodies. Or height, angle of interior wayward shots.
(Height, trajectory, whatever) can possibly shed more light on who may have made the shots.
Are Billy and GW4 the same height?
ETA clarification

I am not so sure that G4 had the Glock. The sks was on the list as being George's gun it was said in bond hearing. CN said he was a Glock man is what was said in bond hearing. BW apparently was also a Glock man since that was the type he used in his road rage incident.

I tend to think more that JW ended up with the gun G4 had somehow
(according to his proffer possibly). Maybe G4 had the SKS and missed his shot, the gun got knocked from his hands and JW picked up the gun and chased CRsr and shot him.

 

[Betty P]

Canepa:

"Some were specifically targets of the Wagners, some sadly were killed simply because they happened to be there."

I believe Gary wasn't targeted but "happened to be there."

I see Billy as having his beef with Chris and going all hyper "cowboy" and taking a shot at Chris as he is crossing the front porch, then chasing him through the house shooting him randomly and through a bedroom door and Jake taking a shot at him.

While Billy and Jake are zeroed in on Chris, George is the one left to deal with Gary which he quickly does, likely with his Glock. I picture Billy with the 30 caliber rifle shooting out of control. Very, what they call, a "disorganized" murder scene.

So the question is why does George's Motion say George did not shoot or kill anybody?

I will concur with you:

Deceptive sound bites makes the most sense at this point.

George 4's motion says that because his attorney is free to say those things without having to prove it. It's part of the PR campaign to put out as many sound bites as possible stating that. I'm surprised at some in the news media who are allowing him to do that.

 

[Cool Cats]

George 4's motion says that because his attorney is free to say those things without having to prove it. It's part of the PR campaign to put out as many sound bites as possible stating that. I'm surprised at some in the news media who are allowing him to do that.

Interesting. I didn't realize they could lie like that. All that stuff about Jake's mental illness, the critical witness who disappeared, humm......Plot thickens.

 

[Cool Cats]

I am not so sure that G4 had the Glock. The sks was on the list as being George's gun it was said in bond hearing. CN said he was a Glock man is what was said in bond hearing. BW apparently was also a Glock man since that was the type he used in his road rage incident.

I tend to think more that JW ended up with the gun G4 had somehow
(according to his proffer possibly). Maybe G4 had the SKS and missed his shot, the gun got knocked from his hands and JW picked up the gun and chased CRsr and shot him.

It wasn't said whose gun the SKS belonged to. There was a gun list on Jake's phone but Scheiderer didn't specify about the SKS.

George did say:

On a recording George said he was buying the night scope for an AR 15.

Interesting you bringing up the Billy road rage incident and the gun in question being a Glock. As you said, this does show that Billy was a Glock man, at least back in the day.

It seems the 40 Glock and the 30 SKS were used at Chris Sr's.

Whichever one of these guns had the larger caliber bullets is the gun used on Gary.

The 30 SKS caliber bullets were a heavier weight than some other 30 calibers are, but the larger caliber bullets came from the Glock 40 I thought.

So Billy had the beef with Chris and went after him with the SKS, and Glock man George went after Gary with the Glock 40, with the larger caliber bullets.

 

[Covert Operative]

It wasn't said whose gun the SKS belonged to. There was a gun list on Jake's phone but Scheiderer didn't specify about the SKS.

George did say:

On a recording George said he was buying the night scope for an AR 15.

Interesting you bringing up the Billy road rage incident and the gun in question being a Glock. As you said, this does show that Billy was a Glock man, at least back in the day.

It seems the 40 Glock and the 30 SKS were used at Chris Sr's.

Whichever one of these guns had the larger caliber bullets is the gun used on Gary.

The 30 SKS were a heavier weight than some other 30 calibers are, but the larger caliber bullets came from the Glock 40 I thought.

So Billy had the beef with Chris and went after him with the SKS, and Glock man George went after Gary with the Glock 40.

You are incorrect. It was said in Bond that the SKS was listed at George's gun. BCI agent did specify about the SKS, yes he did. You may want to listen to it again.

 

[Betty P]

The attorney can do it. George can't lie on the stand, though. That's why defense attorneys rarely allow the defendant to testify. They don't want the prosecution to cross examine them.

Here's a link to the Wikipedia page describing "alternative pleading", the practice of allowing defense attorneys to propose alternate arguments and scenarios in favor of their client based on legal fiction

Alternative pleading - Wikipedia

The defense presents alternative reasons why their client isn't guilty. Some jurors believe one set of "facts" (which the defense doesn't have to prove) and other jurors believe another set of alternate facts. It ends in acquittal.

So, George 4's attorneys can say "George didn't shoot anyone because he chickened out". They can also argue "Jake claimed George 4 also shot some of the Rhodens because Jake didn't want to admit he killed them all himself."

That kind of crap. The defense attorneys don't have to prove any of it was true, they can say whatever they want.

ETA: Yes, these tactics have been applied effectively by very skilled attorneys, allowing murderers to go free and kill again. Judge's know it and don't like it, but they can't always stop an attorney from doing it.

Here's a good example:

There was a time when Richard “Racehorse” Haynes had his clients thank judges and juries at the end of their trials. But back-to-back cases in the 1970s changed his mind about that.
First, a Texas jury had just found his client not guilty on all counts, when Haynes told the court his client had something to say.

“Ladies and gentlemen, I want to thank each and every one of you,” the client stated. “And I promise you that I will never, ever do it again.”
A few weeks later, another Haynes client was acquitted. Again, the defendant thanked the judge and jury, only to be interrupted by the judge.

“Don’t thank me, you little turd,” the judge said. “You and I both know you’re guilty.”

 

[Chris_p_bacon]

This is what I think. Frankie's trailer and Chris Sr's trailer were in fairly close proximity to each other. I believe all three Ws were in the area. BW and GW stood watch on CRs trailer as JW approached, entered and murdered FR and HG in the other trailer. At some point CR Sr was alerted by something, either the dogs barking perhaps, or he heard the pops of gunfire(perhaps the homemade silencers did not work as good as they wanted). once they realize CR is awake BW shoots once through the door of the trailer then enters the trailer to fire more shots at CR. They are shocked that CR is not alone in the trailer but GR is there also. At some point both GW and JW enter CR trailer so assist the father of year with the killing both CR and GR. Something has always made me think that prior to the murders, CR had thought BW was so dangerous that he had asked the one person he could always trust to come help him protect his family. That person was GR.
I do want to tip my hat to the prosecuter on this one. I think she has the final two defendants squeezed right now. GWs brother and mother have to testify truthfully or they all can get the death penalty. If they are caught in a lie on the witness stand the state still gets to use the evidence Jake led them to and still ask for the death penalty. Even though GWs lawyers asked and were denied having the death penalty specifications dropped, they are going to trial with a mountain of evidence and two eyewitness's going to testify that GW was there at the scene. He did nothing to stop the planning, knew what was going to happen that night, was at the scene during the murders, and failed to come forward after the murders. If he is even offered a plea, and I am not saying the prosecuter is even offering him one, he is an idiot for not taking it. If he is thinking his Mommy is going to lie and protect him, he might end up on death row(ironically where he deserves).
Lastly, I think AW got off way too easy for 8 murders. 30 years for her role in 8 murders is not enough. That comes out to 3 years 9 months for each of the victims. That is not enough for the despicable crime these evil people committed.

 

[Betty P]

This is what I think. Frankie's trailer and Chris Sr's trailer were in fairly close proximity to each other. I believe all three Ws were in the area. BW and GW stood watch on CRs trailer as JW approached, entered and murdered FR and HG in the other trailer. At some point CR Sr was alerted by something, either the dogs barking perhaps, or he heard the pops of gunfire(perhaps the homemade silencers did not work as good as they wanted). once they realize CR is awake BW shoots once through the door of the trailer then enters the trailer to fire more shots at CR. They are shocked that CR is not alone in the trailer but GR is there also. At some point both GW and JW enter CR trailer so assist the father of year with the killing both CR and GR. Something has always made me think that prior to the murders, CR had thought BW was so dangerous that he had asked the one person he could always trust to come help him protect his family. That person was GR.
I do want to tip my hat to the prosecuter on this one. I think she has the final two defendants squeezed right now. GWs brother and mother have to testify truthfully or they all can get the death penalty. If they are caught in a lie on the witness stand the state still gets to use the evidence Jake led them to and still ask for the death penalty. Even though GWs lawyers asked and were denied having the death penalty specifications dropped, they are going to trial with a mountain of evidence and two eyewitness's going to testify that GW was there at the scene. He did nothing to stop the planning, knew what was going to happen that night, was at the scene during the murders, and failed to come forward after the murders. If he is even offered a plea, and I am not saying the prosecuter is even offering him one, he is an idiot for not taking it. If he is thinking his Mommy is going to lie and protect him, he might end up on death row(ironically where he deserves).
Lastly, I think AW got off way too easy for 8 murders. 30 years for her role in 8 murders is not enough. That comes out to 3 years 9 months for each of the victims. That is not enough for the despicable crime these evil people committed.

Agree on all you say, especially that George 4 should get nothing less than LWOP.

Charles Manson got the death penalty in California despite the fact he didn't kill any of the victims and wasn't even present at the crime scene when Sharon Tate and her friends were murdered.

Surely a "law and order" state like Ohio can make sure George and his dad get LWOP for helping kill 8 people.