- Joined
- Feb 8, 2017
- Messages
- 519
- Reaction score
- 3,127
Thank you
GUILTY OH - Pike Co, 8 in Rhoden Family Murdered Over Custody Issue, 4 Members Wagner Family Arrested #68
- Thread starter tlcya
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2009
- Messages
- 5,080
- Reaction score
- 17,060
Well, I can agree with that. He knew why he was going to UHR that night, had every opportunity to back out of it.. yet he went. Cowards make me sick!
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2009
- Messages
- 5,080
- Reaction score
- 17,060
None of us know what a jury will do, that is absurd. I have my opinions just like you do and IMO there will be a plea offered.
How many cases have we seen over the years that we thought we would never see the jury acquit? I can think of several. So George 4 pulled a trigger, can you post a link where this was said please?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2009
- Messages
- 5,080
- Reaction score
- 17,060
Unfortunately I need to hit the sheets now, so be kind to one another and carry on with your thoughts. Good to discuss with y'all. Take care.
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2008
- Messages
- 23,330
- Reaction score
- 124,477
JMO. There were three guns used and three killerscpresent, killing 8 different people at 4 different crime scenes, most located a mile or more apart.
Jake could only be at one crime sceneat a time.
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2003
- Messages
- 94,461
- Reaction score
- 322,253
from the court site.
for GW4:
03/07/2022 DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 76 -- THE COURT FINDS THAT THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 76 IS WELL TAKEN AND IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT A PRE-TRIAL EVIDENTIARY HEARING SHALL BE HELD IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE ADMISSIBILITY OF SHOEPRINT EVIDENCE AND OPINIONS; THE HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THE DATE PREVIOUSLY RESERVED: MONDAY, APRIL 4, 2022 COMMENCING AT 9:00AM
link: https://www.pikecountycpcourt.org/e...bZ6lS99rhi*MWK0K9vyHh3Qm7zfmSA0ht-HfQjybMo-jw
for GW4:
03/07/2022 DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 76 -- THE COURT FINDS THAT THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 76 IS WELL TAKEN AND IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT A PRE-TRIAL EVIDENTIARY HEARING SHALL BE HELD IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE ADMISSIBILITY OF SHOEPRINT EVIDENCE AND OPINIONS; THE HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THE DATE PREVIOUSLY RESERVED: MONDAY, APRIL 4, 2022 COMMENCING AT 9:00AM
link: https://www.pikecountycpcourt.org/e...bZ6lS99rhi*MWK0K9vyHh3Qm7zfmSA0ht-HfQjybMo-jw
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2003
- Messages
- 94,461
- Reaction score
- 322,253
Sorry - can't recall if this was already posted - so if it has - just skip over it!
from court site.
for GW3
03/02/2022 JOURNAL ENTRY -- On this 17th day of November, 2021, this cause came on for a pretrial hearing and for a hearing on pre-trial motions.
The Defendant was present in court and was represented by his attorney, Thomas F. Hayes, who is one of the attorneys who has been appointed by the Court to represent the Defendant. Also, present was Attorney Emily Enstett, who is a part of the defense team, but is not appointed by the Court to represent the Defendant in the present action. Attorney Mark Collins, the other attorney appointed by the Court to represent the Defendant in this matter, was unavailable today for reason that he was in trial in another court.
The State of Ohio was represented at the pre-trial hearing by the Prosecuting Attorney, Rob Junk, and by Special Prosecuting Attorneys Angela R. Canepa and David A. Wilson.
Also present for the pre-trial hearing was Special Agent Ryan Scheiderer, of the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation ("Ohio BCI&I").
From discussions in chambers, it is the Court's understanding that counsel for the Defendant and counsel for the State of Ohio intend to have a meeting with each other away from the Court in mid-December, 2021, to discuss issues involving the case and to discuss scheduling.
Upon agreement of the parties, another pretrial is scheduled in this matter on Tuesday, February 1, 2022, at 1:30 o'clock p.m.
At the hearing held in this action on September 16, 2021, counsel for Defendant had asked the Court to hold in obeyance until the hearing to be held on this day (11-17-2021), the following motions of the Defendant:
Defendant's Motion No. 42, entitled DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE REQUESTING A PRETRIAL DAUBERT HEARING TO DETERMINE THE ADMISSIBILITY OF BALLISTICS EVIDENCE AND OPINIONS,
Defendant's Motion No. 43, entitled DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE REQUESTING A PRETRIAL DAUBERT HEARING TO DETERMINE THE ADMISSIBILITY OF SHOEPRINT EVIDENCE AND OPINIONS, and
Defendant's Motion No. 49, entitled MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE OTHER ACTS EVIDENCE.
At today's hearing, defense counsel again requested that the Court continue to hold in obeyance, Defendant's Motions Nos. 42, 43 and 49 until the next scheduled hearing on February 1, 2022. Defense counsel indicated to the court that at the meeting that counsel for each party has agreed to have in mid-December, counsel anticipates being able to formulate a plan for scheduling these motions and also possibly to narrow the issues involved in arguing Defendant's Motion 49.
Special Prosecuting Attorney Canepa, on behalf of the State of Ohio, agreed to continuing the hearing upon Defendant's Motions Nos. 42, 43 and 49 until the next scheduled hearing on February 1, 2022, for the reasons stated by Defendant's counsel, and further indicated that the Defendant should file objections to any of the State of Ohio's proposed items of "other acts" evidence that the Defendant believes to be objectionable.
Concerning Defendant's Motion No. 45, entitled "DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE REQUESTING A PRETRIAL EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO DETERMINE THE ADMISSIBILITY OF ANY NON-TESTIFYING CO-DEFENDANT STATEMENTS THE STATE INTENDS TO PRESENT IN ITS CASE IN CHIEF," counsel for the Defendant had indicated to the Court at the hearing held on April 5, 2021, that defense counsel felt that it would be premature to argue such motion at that time, before the defense had received copies of all such statements through discovery.
At the hearing held on this 17th day of November, 2021, counsel for the Defendant indicated to the Court that defense counsel has received additional discovery from the State of Ohio concerning statements of co-defendants and that defense counsel is still in the process of reviewing such statements. Counsel for the Defendant requested that hearing upon Defendant's Motion No. 45 be rescheduled for the February 1, 2022, hearing and indicated that counsel for the parties would discuss co-defendants' statements at the meeting of counsel to be held away from the court in mid-December.
At the hearing held this day, the Court inquired of defense counsel concerning the status of the following motions of the Defendant:
Motion No. 44, entitled "MOTION TO REVOKE ANDREW WILSON'S APPOINTMENT AS SPECIAL PROSECUITNG ATTORNEY."
Motion No. 46, entitled "DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER REQUIRING THE PROSECUTION TO PROVIDE A TRANSCRIPT OF AUDIO RECORDINGS IT INTENDS TO INTRODUCE AT TRIAL,"
Motion No. 47, entitled "DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING THE STATE OF OHIO TO PROVIDE THE DEFENDANT WITH ALL FORENSIC REPORTS AND UNDERLYING DATA," and
Motion No. 48, entitled "DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL THE PROSECUTION TO PROVIDE TRANSCRIPTS OF AUDIO RECORDINGS IT INTENDS TO INTRODUCE AT TRIAL."
Counsel for Defendant clarified for the record that Defendant's Motion No. 44 is withdrawn.
Concerning Defendant's Motion No. 46, Motion No. 47 and Motion No. 48, counsel for the Defendant acknowledged that after the filing of such motions defense counsel has received through discovery from the State of Ohio copies of transcripts of audio recordings, as requested in Motion No. 46 and Motion 48, and copies of forensic reports and underlying data, as requested in Motion No. 47. Counsel for the Defendant then orally withdrew Defendant's Motions Nos. 46, 47 and 48, but indicated that the withdrawal of such motions was with the caveat that it is the understanding of counsel for the Defendant, based upon the representations of counsel for the State of Ohio, that transcripts of all auto recordings that the State of Ohio intends to introduce at trial and that are the subject of Defendant's Motions Nos. 46 and 48, and all of the forensic reports and underlying data that are requested by Defendant's Motions No. 47 have been provided by the State of Ohio to the defense through discovery.
The Court further finds that the Defendant appeared in Court on this day in civilian clothing and without restraints visible outside of his clothing.
Upon the Court's inquiry, counsel for the Defendant indicated that defense counsel is satisfied with the access that counsel is being provided to the Defendant, and that counsel has no complaints.
Upon the Court's further inquiry, the Defendant indicated that he is satisfied with the access he is having to the attorneys who are representing him in this action; that he is satisfied with the services and representation that defense counsel is providing in defending him in this action; and that he has no complaints at this time.
There being no further matters before the Court, said Court was adjourned.
The Clerk of Courts is directed to send a copy of this Journal Entry to the Defendant, to counsel for the Defendant, to the Prosecuting Attorney, and to the Special Prosecuting Attorneys, all by ordinary U.S. Mail.
03/02/2022 JOURNAL ENTRY -- On the 1st day of February, 2022, this cause was scheduled for a pre-trial hearing and a hearing on motions.
The Defendant was present in Court for the hearing and was represented by his attorneys, Thomas F. Hayes and Mark C. Collins. Also, present was Attorney Emily Enstett and Attorney Kaitlyn Stephens, who are part of the defense team, but are not appointed by the Court to represent the Defendant in the present action.
The Court finds that the Defendant appeared for the hearing in civilian clothing and without restraints visible outside of his clothing.
The State of Ohio was represented at the hearing by the Prosecuting Attorney, Rob Junk, and by Special Prosecuting Attorneys Angela R. Canepa and David A. Wilson.
Also present for the hearing was Special Agent Jenkins, of the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation ("Ohio BCI&I").
The Court finds that at the last hearing held in this action on November 17, 2021, Defendant's Motions Nos. 44, 46, 47 and 48 were withdrawn, and Defendant's attorneys indicated to the Court that hearing upon Defendant's Motions Nos. 42, 43, 45 and 49 would be held at a later date. It was further indicated to the Court at the hearing on November 17, 2021, that counsel for the State of Ohio and counsel for the Defendant were planning to meet in mid-December, 2021 away from the Court in order to discuss scheduling of the Defendant's motions and possibly to narrow the issues to be argued at a motion hearing; however, it is the Court's understanding that such meeting did not take place.
Counsel for the Defendant suggested that Daubert hearings on Defendant's Motions Nos. 42 and 43 could be scheduled in coordination with similar hearings that may be scheduled in the case of co-defendant, George Washington Wagner IV, and further suggested a separate motion hearing on other Defendant's motions, be scheduled no later than August 31, 2022, and that a jury trial be scheduled to commence no later than October 31, 2022. Defendant's counsel further indicated that there was work to be done by the defense concerning mitigation, and that the defense would need until approximately August 31, 2022, in order to prepare for hearing on some of the Defendant's motions and until approximately October 31, 2022, in order to prepare for trial.
Counsel for the State of Ohio agreed with scheduling Daubert hearings in coordination with any other similar hearings that may be held in the case of co-defendant George Washington Wagner IV, and with the scheduling of a hearing on other defense motions and with scheduling the commencement of trial within the approximate times suggested by the Defendant's counsel.
The Court noted for the record that stenographer engaged by the Court to record the proceedings in this action was not present for the hearing on February 1, 2022, and that it has indicated to the Court that the stenographer did not have the hearing this day on her schedule and had been scheduled for another matter on this day. Counsel for each party agreed that the hearing could proceed this day without the stenographer, with a record being made on the Court's digital recording system, in view of the fact that nothing of a substantive nature was being heard and decided this day.
The Defendant indicated that he is satisfied with the access he is having to his attorneys in this action and is satisfied with the services and representation that defense counsel is providing him. The Defendant further indicated that he has no complaints.
Counsel for the Defendant indicated that they are satisfied with the access they are being provided to the Defendant.
There being no further matters before the Court, said Court was adjourned.
The Clerk of Courts is directed to send a copy of this Journal Entry to the Defendant, to counsel for the Defendant, to the Prosecuting Attorney, and to the Special Prosecuting Attorneys, all by ordinary U.S. Mail.
link: https://www.pikecountycpcourt.org/e...bZ6lS99rhi*MVyXAUJn-hHrEpRY1CGVAWxmk83VZqNbTQ
from court site.
for GW3
03/02/2022 JOURNAL ENTRY -- On this 17th day of November, 2021, this cause came on for a pretrial hearing and for a hearing on pre-trial motions.
The Defendant was present in court and was represented by his attorney, Thomas F. Hayes, who is one of the attorneys who has been appointed by the Court to represent the Defendant. Also, present was Attorney Emily Enstett, who is a part of the defense team, but is not appointed by the Court to represent the Defendant in the present action. Attorney Mark Collins, the other attorney appointed by the Court to represent the Defendant in this matter, was unavailable today for reason that he was in trial in another court.
The State of Ohio was represented at the pre-trial hearing by the Prosecuting Attorney, Rob Junk, and by Special Prosecuting Attorneys Angela R. Canepa and David A. Wilson.
Also present for the pre-trial hearing was Special Agent Ryan Scheiderer, of the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation ("Ohio BCI&I").
From discussions in chambers, it is the Court's understanding that counsel for the Defendant and counsel for the State of Ohio intend to have a meeting with each other away from the Court in mid-December, 2021, to discuss issues involving the case and to discuss scheduling.
Upon agreement of the parties, another pretrial is scheduled in this matter on Tuesday, February 1, 2022, at 1:30 o'clock p.m.
At the hearing held in this action on September 16, 2021, counsel for Defendant had asked the Court to hold in obeyance until the hearing to be held on this day (11-17-2021), the following motions of the Defendant:
Defendant's Motion No. 42, entitled DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE REQUESTING A PRETRIAL DAUBERT HEARING TO DETERMINE THE ADMISSIBILITY OF BALLISTICS EVIDENCE AND OPINIONS,
Defendant's Motion No. 43, entitled DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE REQUESTING A PRETRIAL DAUBERT HEARING TO DETERMINE THE ADMISSIBILITY OF SHOEPRINT EVIDENCE AND OPINIONS, and
Defendant's Motion No. 49, entitled MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE OTHER ACTS EVIDENCE.
At today's hearing, defense counsel again requested that the Court continue to hold in obeyance, Defendant's Motions Nos. 42, 43 and 49 until the next scheduled hearing on February 1, 2022. Defense counsel indicated to the court that at the meeting that counsel for each party has agreed to have in mid-December, counsel anticipates being able to formulate a plan for scheduling these motions and also possibly to narrow the issues involved in arguing Defendant's Motion 49.
Special Prosecuting Attorney Canepa, on behalf of the State of Ohio, agreed to continuing the hearing upon Defendant's Motions Nos. 42, 43 and 49 until the next scheduled hearing on February 1, 2022, for the reasons stated by Defendant's counsel, and further indicated that the Defendant should file objections to any of the State of Ohio's proposed items of "other acts" evidence that the Defendant believes to be objectionable.
Concerning Defendant's Motion No. 45, entitled "DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE REQUESTING A PRETRIAL EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO DETERMINE THE ADMISSIBILITY OF ANY NON-TESTIFYING CO-DEFENDANT STATEMENTS THE STATE INTENDS TO PRESENT IN ITS CASE IN CHIEF," counsel for the Defendant had indicated to the Court at the hearing held on April 5, 2021, that defense counsel felt that it would be premature to argue such motion at that time, before the defense had received copies of all such statements through discovery.
At the hearing held on this 17th day of November, 2021, counsel for the Defendant indicated to the Court that defense counsel has received additional discovery from the State of Ohio concerning statements of co-defendants and that defense counsel is still in the process of reviewing such statements. Counsel for the Defendant requested that hearing upon Defendant's Motion No. 45 be rescheduled for the February 1, 2022, hearing and indicated that counsel for the parties would discuss co-defendants' statements at the meeting of counsel to be held away from the court in mid-December.
At the hearing held this day, the Court inquired of defense counsel concerning the status of the following motions of the Defendant:
Motion No. 44, entitled "MOTION TO REVOKE ANDREW WILSON'S APPOINTMENT AS SPECIAL PROSECUITNG ATTORNEY."
Motion No. 46, entitled "DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER REQUIRING THE PROSECUTION TO PROVIDE A TRANSCRIPT OF AUDIO RECORDINGS IT INTENDS TO INTRODUCE AT TRIAL,"
Motion No. 47, entitled "DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING THE STATE OF OHIO TO PROVIDE THE DEFENDANT WITH ALL FORENSIC REPORTS AND UNDERLYING DATA," and
Motion No. 48, entitled "DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL THE PROSECUTION TO PROVIDE TRANSCRIPTS OF AUDIO RECORDINGS IT INTENDS TO INTRODUCE AT TRIAL."
Counsel for Defendant clarified for the record that Defendant's Motion No. 44 is withdrawn.
Concerning Defendant's Motion No. 46, Motion No. 47 and Motion No. 48, counsel for the Defendant acknowledged that after the filing of such motions defense counsel has received through discovery from the State of Ohio copies of transcripts of audio recordings, as requested in Motion No. 46 and Motion 48, and copies of forensic reports and underlying data, as requested in Motion No. 47. Counsel for the Defendant then orally withdrew Defendant's Motions Nos. 46, 47 and 48, but indicated that the withdrawal of such motions was with the caveat that it is the understanding of counsel for the Defendant, based upon the representations of counsel for the State of Ohio, that transcripts of all auto recordings that the State of Ohio intends to introduce at trial and that are the subject of Defendant's Motions Nos. 46 and 48, and all of the forensic reports and underlying data that are requested by Defendant's Motions No. 47 have been provided by the State of Ohio to the defense through discovery.
The Court further finds that the Defendant appeared in Court on this day in civilian clothing and without restraints visible outside of his clothing.
Upon the Court's inquiry, counsel for the Defendant indicated that defense counsel is satisfied with the access that counsel is being provided to the Defendant, and that counsel has no complaints.
Upon the Court's further inquiry, the Defendant indicated that he is satisfied with the access he is having to the attorneys who are representing him in this action; that he is satisfied with the services and representation that defense counsel is providing in defending him in this action; and that he has no complaints at this time.
There being no further matters before the Court, said Court was adjourned.
The Clerk of Courts is directed to send a copy of this Journal Entry to the Defendant, to counsel for the Defendant, to the Prosecuting Attorney, and to the Special Prosecuting Attorneys, all by ordinary U.S. Mail.
03/02/2022 JOURNAL ENTRY -- On the 1st day of February, 2022, this cause was scheduled for a pre-trial hearing and a hearing on motions.
The Defendant was present in Court for the hearing and was represented by his attorneys, Thomas F. Hayes and Mark C. Collins. Also, present was Attorney Emily Enstett and Attorney Kaitlyn Stephens, who are part of the defense team, but are not appointed by the Court to represent the Defendant in the present action.
The Court finds that the Defendant appeared for the hearing in civilian clothing and without restraints visible outside of his clothing.
The State of Ohio was represented at the hearing by the Prosecuting Attorney, Rob Junk, and by Special Prosecuting Attorneys Angela R. Canepa and David A. Wilson.
Also present for the hearing was Special Agent Jenkins, of the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation ("Ohio BCI&I").
The Court finds that at the last hearing held in this action on November 17, 2021, Defendant's Motions Nos. 44, 46, 47 and 48 were withdrawn, and Defendant's attorneys indicated to the Court that hearing upon Defendant's Motions Nos. 42, 43, 45 and 49 would be held at a later date. It was further indicated to the Court at the hearing on November 17, 2021, that counsel for the State of Ohio and counsel for the Defendant were planning to meet in mid-December, 2021 away from the Court in order to discuss scheduling of the Defendant's motions and possibly to narrow the issues to be argued at a motion hearing; however, it is the Court's understanding that such meeting did not take place.
Counsel for the Defendant suggested that Daubert hearings on Defendant's Motions Nos. 42 and 43 could be scheduled in coordination with similar hearings that may be scheduled in the case of co-defendant, George Washington Wagner IV, and further suggested a separate motion hearing on other Defendant's motions, be scheduled no later than August 31, 2022, and that a jury trial be scheduled to commence no later than October 31, 2022. Defendant's counsel further indicated that there was work to be done by the defense concerning mitigation, and that the defense would need until approximately August 31, 2022, in order to prepare for hearing on some of the Defendant's motions and until approximately October 31, 2022, in order to prepare for trial.
Counsel for the State of Ohio agreed with scheduling Daubert hearings in coordination with any other similar hearings that may be held in the case of co-defendant George Washington Wagner IV, and with the scheduling of a hearing on other defense motions and with scheduling the commencement of trial within the approximate times suggested by the Defendant's counsel.
The Court noted for the record that stenographer engaged by the Court to record the proceedings in this action was not present for the hearing on February 1, 2022, and that it has indicated to the Court that the stenographer did not have the hearing this day on her schedule and had been scheduled for another matter on this day. Counsel for each party agreed that the hearing could proceed this day without the stenographer, with a record being made on the Court's digital recording system, in view of the fact that nothing of a substantive nature was being heard and decided this day.
The Defendant indicated that he is satisfied with the access he is having to his attorneys in this action and is satisfied with the services and representation that defense counsel is providing him. The Defendant further indicated that he has no complaints.
Counsel for the Defendant indicated that they are satisfied with the access they are being provided to the Defendant.
There being no further matters before the Court, said Court was adjourned.
The Clerk of Courts is directed to send a copy of this Journal Entry to the Defendant, to counsel for the Defendant, to the Prosecuting Attorney, and to the Special Prosecuting Attorneys, all by ordinary U.S. Mail.
link: https://www.pikecountycpcourt.org/e...bZ6lS99rhi*MVyXAUJn-hHrEpRY1CGVAWxmk83VZqNbTQ
Maybe his new accommodations in Montgomery County aren't to his liking. Poor baby
.Just a thought
doesnt this just show g4 criminal attorney attempt at jury nullification?? if the facts being argued dont change his complicity or guilt under the statute what purpose could arguing them serve besides jury nullification??this
lawyers entire schick only serves to decimate the strength the families have left. while the victims orphans and relatives live a life full of pain this guy seeks to diminish the accountability of a savage who carried out a brutal murder for no reason at all. i see g4 as worse then jake and billy personally. a coward who enjoyed being along for the ride to settle an imaginary vendetta which did not effect him at all. <modsnip -no links> how dare crsr protect his daughter and grand daughter. the hatred the jury will feel toward this waste of human life will be palpable from day 1.
Last edited by a moderator:
Johnny B Bad
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 27, 2018
- Messages
- 2,165
- Reaction score
- 11,846
What bothers me is the most about George Wagner iv going to court is every time they have a hearing he looks like that he is wasting his time by being there, JMO
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2021
- Messages
- 1,803
- Reaction score
- 10,358
One reason they may be asking for the GJ testimony is because JW testified at GJ. I am not sure on the other 3. I would doubt seriously (as in no chance) that JW ever said in GJ that G4 or any of them shot anyone. It came out long ago that they took the palm print off of JW grand jury chair to match to the hand/palm picture on his phone of the hand holding the gun. That picture was shown in bond hearing also.
I do not think AC will ever concede officially that G4 did not shoot anyone. Would not be good for the case against G4. In my opinion she does basically admit that she cannot prove he did shoot anyone by statements she has made in two hearings. Now, she also has her witness that is going to say G4 did not shoot anyone and other things which does not help.
The defense is not asking for a ballistics Daubert hearing and they have withdrawn their motion 61. I think they are confident there are no ballistics on G4 that proves he shot anyone.
01/22/2021 (MOTION NO 61) MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE PHOTOS OF WEAPONS, SHELL CASINGS, AND RELATED ITEMS FILED Attorney: PARKER, JOHN PATRICK; Attorney: NASH, JR, RICHARD M
I believe she can prove complicity. I do not believe the defense thinks they can get him off in this case. I believe they think they may have a shot at getting him lesser charges and a lesser sentence than he would have gotten. The defense has basically agreed that G4 was complicit. Now they have to try to muddy the waters that he had no intent, this will not be easy to do. This is where they hope JW and his statements will come in for them. There has to be intent to be found guilty of complicity. His lawyer already mentioned in court once that there was no intent so I assume that is where they will try to go with this. That may change.
-In the case of a person charged with complicity, the law requires that in order to be found guilty one must have the intent to commit the crime itself, not simply to assist another person.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2021
- Messages
- 1,803
- Reaction score
- 10,358
<modsnip - quoted post removed>
I have the actual document but here it is in an article...
"There’s a picture of a hand holding a - which is actually a Walther .22 pistol and from that photograph that was found on a backup from Jake Wagner’s iPhone," Scheiderer said. “Our lab was able to identify ridges within the palm print and say that matches Jake Wagner’s known palm prints that we took during a grand jury proceeding.”
Rhoden family frustrated after hearing for Jake Wagner delayed | WRGT (dayton247now.com)
I have the actual document but here it is in an article...
"There’s a picture of a hand holding a - which is actually a Walther .22 pistol and from that photograph that was found on a backup from Jake Wagner’s iPhone," Scheiderer said. “Our lab was able to identify ridges within the palm print and say that matches Jake Wagner’s known palm prints that we took during a grand jury proceeding.”
Rhoden family frustrated after hearing for Jake Wagner delayed | WRGT (dayton247now.com)
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
- Messages
- 13,070
- Reaction score
- 103,538
Thanks. I corrected my notes.
This is really interesting because now we know Jake was at the Grand Jury Hearing. I didn't know that.
Posting the links to things stated as fact saves alot of confusion.
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2021
- Messages
- 1,803
- Reaction score
- 10,358
There are many things that are not known. So much information. It's unfortunate because I used to try to share my information with links and facts. It is also my opinion that you would not find G4's jail incident reports available at this time, interesting in the way you think they may be. Maybe some future ones could be.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2021
- Messages
- 1,803
- Reaction score
- 10,358
If I state it, it is a fact that came from somewhere. I will make sure to say it is my opinion from now own since that must meet the criteria.
Birdnerd71
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2019
- Messages
- 45
- Reaction score
- 313
What stood out to me at the hearing was that defense indicated they have only taken two recorded statements in the three years they have had this case.
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2009
- Messages
- 5,080
- Reaction score
- 17,060
So much can be learned from people in the know. There isn't always a link to back up what you are told, or what you observe. Too bad eyes and ears aren't linkable. Lol. Posting IMO works though.
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2018
- Messages
- 3,686
- Reaction score
- 34,155
I so agree. As well as AC strongly pointed that out also.
IMO, it is not even remotely likely that the defense only has two recorded statements.
If the defense has more, they have been warned outright in public court not to try to introduce any surprise new evidence/witnesses at trial.
IMO, MOO and etc.
Last edited:
Johnny B Bad
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 27, 2018
- Messages
- 2,165
- Reaction score
- 11,846
CC
That photo used to be on one of Hanna Mays Rhoden and the Giley boyfriend Facebook, Jake Wagner sent the photo as intimation to the new couple trying to scare HMR back, I saw the photo I really thought you might have saw it, the reporter Chris Graves had the photo of Jake hand holding the gun in one of her stories she did on the Wagners in Alaska, and that gun is the gun that he used to kill the Rhoden.IMO
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2009
- Messages
- 5,080
- Reaction score
- 17,060
He seems to have a huge chip on his shoulder IMO. He never changes his facial expression does he?
- Status
Similar threads
Online statistics
- Members online
- 59
- Guests online
- 2,766
- Total visitors
- 2,825