GUILTY OH - Pike Co, 8 in Rhoden Family Murdered Over Custody Issue, 4 Members Wagner Family Arrested #67

[Cool Cats]

G4

12/16/2021 SUBPOENA ISSUED TO RYAN SCHEIDERER (SERVICE BY COUNSEL) Attorney: NASH, JR, RICHARD M

12/16/2021 MOTION NO, 77 - DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION TO COMPEL THE PRODUCTION OF "OTHER ACTS" EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO EVID.R. 404(B) FILED Attorney: PARKER, JOHN PATRICK Attorney: NASH, JR, RICHARD M

12/16/2021 MOTION NUMBER 76 - DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE REQUESTING A PRETRIAL EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO DETERMINE THE ADMISSIBILITY OF SHOEPRINT EVIDENCE AND OPINIONS FILED Attorney: PARKER, JOHN PATRICK Attorney: NASH, JR, RICHARD M

12/16/2021 DEFENDANT'S MEMO CONTRA TO THE PROSECUTION'S MOTION TO PREVENT EDWARD "JAKE" WAGNER'S TESTIMONY FILED Attorney: PARKER, JOHN PATRICK Attorney: NASH, JR, RICHARD M

Regarding:

DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION TO COMPEL THE PRODUCTION OF "OTHER ACTS" EVIDENCE

Here are the bad acts George did towards his wife TC. Hard to read. I believe he wants to get these "Acts" tossed out so the jury won't hear about them. I think this is one reason for the Scheiderer subpoena.

From Scheiderer's Bond Testimony:

George and his wife TC had an argument and Angela threatened to shoot TC. TC went and hid on the property until night then grabbed a bike and rode to the nearest gas station for help to get away. She never went back again. Not sure if she did any of her minimal visits with her child there. She was allowed only minimal visitation with a Wagner always present.

https://www.pikecountycpcourt.org
Filed in Common Pleas Court on 2-22-21

Moderator Approved

 

[Covert Operative]

Regarding:

DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION TO COMPEL THE PRODUCTION OF "OTHER ACTS" EVIDENCE

Here are the bad acts George did towards his wife TC. Hard to read. I believe he wants to get these tossed out so the jury won't hear about them. I think this is one reason for the Scheiderer subpoena.

https://www.pikecountycpcourt.org
Filed in Common Pleas Court on 2-22-21

Moderator Approved

The defense is asking to compel the prosecution to provide it I believe. I take that to mean they want them to give them the information that supports those bad acts. The evidence.
If these motions are allowed the state can bring in TC to testify and may do so.

I feel like the BCI agent is for another reason.

 

[Cool Cats]

The defense is asking to compel the prosecution to provide it I believe. I take that to mean they want them to give them the information that supports those bad acts. The evidence.

They want the "proof" evidence so they can argue against it and get the Other Acts Motion denied. The Other Acts evidence is something they don't want the jury to see.

Same with Billy. At a Hearing of Billy's this year the defense told the Court they would argue against every one of the Other Acts Evidence.

... 2 Cents ...

 

[Covert Operative]

They want the "proof" evidence so they can argue against it and get the Other Acts Motion denied. The Other Acts evidence is something they don't want the jury to see.

Same with Billy. At a Hearing of Billy's this year the defense told the Court they would argue against every one of the Other Acts evidence.

... 2 Cents ...

The motion to compel means to provide it. Then the ones the state can provide evidence on they will try to argue against those is my thought. The defense did say in BW hearing in April they would challenge all of BW other acts, but in his last hearing they said there may be some that they would not challenge/object to. The defense and state were going to discuss it.

 

[Cool Cats]

The motion to compel means to provide it. Then the ones the state can provide evidence on they will try to argue against those is my thought. The defense did say in BW hearing in April they would challenge all of BW other acts, but in his last hearing they said there may be some that they would not challenge/object to. The defense and state were going to discuss it.

They won't challenge some now because circumstances changed. They have Jake backing up, admitting to the bad acts, other acts.

Before Jake turned State's evidence Billy's defense spoke real adamantly about contesting all the Other Acts.

Whole strategy has to change.

How it seems to me.

You can't get an acquittal when a co-conspirator turns I believe.
I can't think of any examples of acquittals when a co-conspirator turns.

 

[Covert Operative]

G4
12/16/2021 SUBPOENA ISSUED TO RYAN SCHEIDERER (SERVICE BY COUNSEL) Attorney: NASH, JR, RICHARD M

Any ideas on why the defense would want the BCI agent to testify? Even if it is to say that there is no physical evidence to prove G4 was there, wouldn't JW have said in his proffer G4 was there and would also say that on the stand, or will at least say to what extent G4 was involved. Seems to me the defense is helping the state prove their case, unless there is something unexpected.

They may as well call AW while they are at it and the three of them can vote one last time, for old times' sake.
(sarcasm)

 

[Cool Cats]

G4
12/16/2021 SUBPOENA ISSUED TO RYAN SCHEIDERER (SERVICE BY COUNSEL) Attorney: NASH, JR, RICHARD M

Any ideas on why the defense would want the BCI agent to testify? Even if it is to say that there is no physical evidence to prove G4 was there, wouldn't JW have said in his proffer G4 was there and would also say that on the stand, or will at least say to what extent G4 was involved. Seems to me the defense is helping the state prove their case, unless there is something unexpected.

They may as well call AW while they are at it and the three of them can vote one last time, for old times' sake.
(sarcasm)

He wants to question Scheiderer under oath again
to make this point from his closing argument at George's Bond Hearing:

"First off I want to apologize ah, an hour and a half ago I felt like stopping this to remind the court that this isn't about Jake Wagner this isn't about Angela Wagner, this is about George Wagner the 4th."

"Really your honor, this whole case, if there is a case, and I'm not saying it is, but it's about Edward Jake Wagner and Angela Wagner."

"The only testimony we heard, and we can boil it down to one minute, and that's that they did everything together. And therefore based on that, they want the court to believe that the presumption is great that George Wagner was involved in a homicide."

... 2 Cents ...

 

[Piffcat]

Besides all tge million reasons we know g4 was there how will his co conspirator charading as an attorney explain the 3 weapons fired which have now been recovered? It seems to me g4 is so delusional because he had the rifle with night scope outside and may not have physically entered the trailers. Is he so deluded to think the jury won't see this?

 

[IType]

G4
12/16/2021 SUBPOENA ISSUED TO RYAN SCHEIDERER (SERVICE BY COUNSEL) Attorney: NASH, JR, RICHARD M

Any ideas on why the defense would want the BCI agent to testify? Even if it is to say that there is no physical evidence to prove G4 was there, wouldn't JW have said in his proffer G4 was there and would also say that on the stand, or will at least say to what extent G4 was involved. Seems to me the defense is helping the state prove their case, unless there is something unexpected.

They may as well call AW while they are at it and the three of them can vote one last time, for old times' sake.
(sarcasm)

BBM, made me giggle. Thanks for the smile

 

[IType]

He wants to question Scheiderer under oath again
to make this point from his closing argument at George's Bond Hearing:

"First off I want to apologize ah, an hour and a half ago I felt like stopping this to remind the court that this isn't about Jake Wagner this isn't about Angela Wagner, this is about George Wagner the 4th."

"Really your honor, this whole case, if there is a case, and I'm not saying it is, but it's about Edward Jake Wagner and Angela Wagner."

"The only testimony we heard, and we can boil it down to one minute, and that's that they did everything together. And therefore based on that, they want the court to believe that the presumption is great that George Wagner was involved in a homicide."

... 2 Cents ...

Underscored by me: Interesting wording here IMO, using the phrase "involved in a homicide". Well, duh, if your client was at a murder scene while a murder was taking place, then of course he was involved in a homicide. Even if he didn't kill anyone, his being there makes him involved, JMO. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't that clearly defined by Ohio State Law--being present when a murder takes place means you were involved??

 

[Cool Cats]

Underscored by me: Interesting wording here IMO, using the phrase "involved in a homicide". Well, duh, if your client was at a murder scene while a murder was taking place, then of course he was involved in a homicide. Even if he didn't kill anyone, his being there makes him involved, JMO. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't that clearly defined by Ohio State Law--being present when a murder takes place means you were involved??

Someone posted about that and if you know it's going to happen you can be charged. Being at a murder scene as an innocent bystander is different of course.

But George actually participated. I believe the prosecution's evidence and Jake's testimony will show George was involved before during and after.

The Wagners voted on everything and I believe they voted on committing the murders. You don't vote on every-day things then not vote on committing 8 murders.

You don't do everything with your brother but not know he plans to commit multiple murder.

He bought a mask and a night scope and a glock. He used Jake's rewards card so he could have bought other things.

I can think of a whole list of ways he participated that night including most likely leaving for the scene armed (3 guns) and helping dispose of the evidence after.

Bloody shoe prints plus Angie's testimony about the shoes will place George squarely in the middle of the murders.

His own obsession with custody and behavior towards his EX can't be ignored, along with his other criminal acts.

There are 8,000 recordings of interest and most likely plenty where George incriminated himself.

(From Scheiderer's testimony at the Bond Hearing)

George Wagner request for bail denied after hearing reveals new details

How would George know:

1.) "If they have the gun they have the silencer"?
2.) Why would he warn family members to stay away from BCI?
3.) What did he mean that Jake "always gets them into trouble over some woman" ?
4.) Why would he call for a family emergency meeting just because Scheiderer sends him a photo of a gun?
5.) Why threaten revenge and threaten to smash in Scheiderer's face?
6.) Why think your being recorded and might get arrested?

The totality of the evidence plus Jake's/Angela's testimony, other witness testimony and shoeprint and ballistics expert's testimony - in front of the Jury in 2022 - will send him to prison for LWOP.

~ Just how it seems to me ~

 

[Covert Operative]

Underscored by me: Interesting wording here IMO, using the phrase "involved in a homicide". Well, duh, if your client was at a murder scene while a murder was taking place, then of course he was involved in a homicide. Even if he didn't kill anyone, his being there makes him involved, JMO. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't that clearly defined by Ohio State Law--being present when a murder takes place means you were involved??

It seems they want him on the stand pretty bad. Might be something they know JW will testify to that the general public is not aware of <modsnip>

 

[RAISINISBACK]

All the old videos I find from Sheriff's car videos, including one where he is looking at a map, and one from his house, all come up with video not available.

Reader said some of the family was involved in two fights not reported to police before the murders.
https://www.wcpo.com/longform/pike-...lers-in-rhoden-family-homicides-may-be-locals

In one video Leonard says there are 2 possibilities to the murders but he "ain't gonna say."

In an interview I posted from the Daily Mail he says it could be road rage or child custody so I think he means these 2 things.

From delving back, other posters from past posts have made references to what you mention so I believe you are correct that in an early interview Leonard alluded to deputies coming around, altercations, and custody.

Be nice if all early videos were available.

The whole point is that there were altercations over custody that counter the Wagner's lies that everything was fine with custody.

And I think it is an important fact in the case that Leonard is the only one who brought up the conflict with custody, getting it right from the beginning when everyone else had a whole list of other issues it was about.

Scheiderer said George lied when he said everything was fine with custody and the prosecution can prove it. With witness testimony they can prove George was lying to cover for the Wagners, trying to show the Wagners have no motive.

The motive is important.

Now Jake himself can testify about that motive showing George lied, which shows George knew what was going on and was involved with the plot to cover it.

...2 Cents....

BBM
From delving back, other posters from past posts have made references to what you mention so I believe you are correct that in an early interview Leonard alluded to deputies coming around, altercations, and custody.

Thank you CC. It's good to know my memory is still working even if my heart isn't that good. lol.

CC You are an angel and you always go the extra mile to make sure your information is accurate. IMO you are the greatest help on here in keeping the facts straight for us all. I, for one, appreciate you being here. hugs for you.

 

[Covert Operative]

G4
Motion 75 to bring JW to testify is denied for now until a hearing has been done for motion 73 and then motion 75 may be reconsidered.

12/17/2021 DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY REGARDING DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO 75 -- HAVING BEEN ADVISED AND INFORMED IN THE PREMISES, THE COURT FINDS THAT DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 75 IS NOT WELL TAKEN; IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 75 IS HEREBY OVERRULED AND DENIED; THIS DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY SHALL NOT CONSTITUTE A RULING UPON THE MERITS OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 73 ENTITLED MOTION TO DISMISS AGGRAVATED MURDER COUNTS AND/OR DEATH SPECIFICATIONS, AND THE COURT'S DECISION UPON THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 75 MAY BE RECONSIDERED FOLLOWING A HEARING OF THE ORAL ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES UPON DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 73

 

[Cool Cats]

BBM
From delving back, other posters from past posts have made references to what you mention so I believe you are correct that in an early interview Leonard alluded to deputies coming around, altercations, and custody.

Thank you CC. It's good to know my memory is still working even if my heart isn't that good. lol.

CC You are an angel and you always go the extra mile to make sure your information is accurate. IMO you are the greatest help on here in keeping the facts straight for us all. I, for one, appreciate you being here. hugs for you.

Like everyone here I am tenacious about seeing justice for the families.

It takes a village and you are an important person in our village. Everyone cares about how you are doing. Your going through so much but you still care about justice for the Gilleys, Manleys, and Rhodens.

I could write one of my long lists on how much posters on here contribute and how much I appreciate it.

 

[joe jones]

I didn't expect the Judge to allow JW to come before the court pre any trial involving his co conspirators, I think he will allow oral argument over the agg murder charges before he rules,

 

[Covert Operative]

I didn't expect the Judge to allow JW to come before the court pre any trial involving his co conspirators, I think he will allow oral argument over the agg murder charges before he rules,

The judge may reconsider it but probably will not allow it. There were new motions filed yesterday, I wonder if one of them may have new information in it we have not heard before.
12/16/2021 DEFENDANT'S MEMO CONTRA TO THE PROSECUTION'S MOTION TO PREVENT EDWARD "JAKE" WAGNER'S TESTIMONY FILED Attorney: PARKER, JOHN PATRICK Attorney: NASH, JR, RICHARD M

 

[Chelly]

https://www.wcpo.com/news/crime/aut...-of-pike-county-massacre-victims-ex-boyfriend

Jake Wagner was in a custody dispute with Hanna Rhoden, one of the victims, according to Leonard Manley, her grandfather. The girl at the center of the custody dispute was not at any of the locations where the massacre occurred, Manley said, though several young children were found alive.

 

[Cool Cats]

The judge may reconsider it but probably will not allow it. There were new motions filed yesterday, I wonder if one of them may have new information in it we have not heard before.
12/16/2021 DEFENDANT'S MEMO CONTRA TO THE PROSECUTION'S MOTION TO PREVENT EDWARD "JAKE" WAGNER'S TESTIMONY FILED Attorney: PARKER, JOHN PATRICK Attorney: NASH, JR, RICHARD M

Nash is desperate to see what Jake has to say and thus this is one reason he subpoenaed him I think. Smart, plan ahead.

More from his closing argument at George's Bond Hearing:

"..But I figured it would be best to just say nothing to see what this is really all about. And so this is why we heard so much testimony regarding order history, regarding who bought what, who did what, who had motive, whose child was in question.

There's been a lot of testimony regarding whose account was used or whose rewards was used, nothing pointing in the direction of George Wagner.

Ah, there is some testimony regarding a palm print on a gun, there's no testimony that that was George Wagner's hand.

Not only that but there was a list soposedly that was retrieved from a phone but more importantly not George Wagner's phone.

Ah, there was evidence regarding a solvent catcher or suppressor or again a 22 caliber. Testimony we heard here today had nothing to do with George.."

 

[altojack]

There was an earlier interview with LM where he said deputies had been called out the weekend before the murders. He said the deputies sided with the other party the Wags. I remember discussing it through about 5 threads on here in the early days after the murders

Yes you're quite right. I remember that interview. I don't think he, Lennie, was referring to the fight the week before the murders because LE weren't called in over that. I think what Lennie was referring to was infact the previous weekend when a few cars turned up, I think they were young lads after little Chris. Remember they'd had a ruckus in town, Frankie was there too. The young lads got chased off.

Does any of that make sense?