OH - Pike Co, 8 in Rhoden Family Murdered Over Custody Issue, 4 Members Wagner Family Arrested #70

[Cool Cats]

True, but I don't think Jake will be lying on the witness stand during GW4's trial. He has too much to lose and JMO, the state does know what happened. As they said - they have more than enough evidence to convict GW4 and Billy. The testimony of Jake and Angela is just extra confirmation, giving context to the evidence.

I think there are some lies in his proffer that he will stick to on the stand. On the stand he will parrot what his proffer says.

I think he is lying in his proffer when he says he doesn't know who shot who.

But he will stick to this story on the stand. Be great if he slips up and gives a hint that his dad shot so and so or George went after so and so. But he will try hard to keep to his script.

I'm sure he has it all memorized what he will say. He has nothing else to do sitting in jail.

 

[ohioexpat63]

Money has dried up. No money on the book for home security. It is at this point yout use fullness is no longer needed

This is proof one shouldnt post afteŕ taking an ambien.

Translation:
If you dont have money on the books to pay for protection your usefulness inside is no longer needed. I suspect the Ws will have a horrible life on the inside, as they deserve. Jmo

 

[Ann99]

This is proof one shouldnt post afteŕ taking an ambien.

Translation:
If you dont have money on the books to pay for protection your usefulness inside is no longer needed. I suspect the Ws will have a horrible life on the inside, as they deserve. Jmo

Lol, I thought it to be something very profound.

 

[Seattle1]

Both Jake and the prosecution have said they don't know who shot who. Which means to me, George could have done some shooting.

The prosecution refuses to say that George shot nobody. I believe Jake does know who shot who and is trying to get around directly saying it to protect Billy and George.

^^rsbbm

IMO, it's a no-brainer that the prosecution would refuse to say George shot nobody as a matter of insurance (technical or other).

The prosecution, representing the People, has a responsibility not to jeopardize their own case in the event Jake or Angela's plea deals go sideways at trial. Not unlike a mobster trial, they know to expect the unexpected and must take precautions to control what they actually have control over. MOO

 

[Cool Cats]

Does anyone know if this is something that regularly happens? I can't think of a trial I've followed that involved taking the jury to the crime scene, but maybe I just missed this part. Maybe in smaller scenes, the photos are enough and can give a good enough idea, but this one is so massive they want to really show just how much planning was needed to hit each of these homes in the way they did in one night?

• Happened in OJ Simpson's trial.

• Did O.J. Simpson's Defense Really Redecorate …​

  Did Simpson's defense team really redecorate his house during the case?
• According to one member of the defense team, the answer is yes. Defense attorney Carl Douglas said in Dateline NBC's special THE PEOPLE vs. OJ SIMPSON: What the Jury Never Heard that he organized a redecoration of Simpson's estate before the jury visited.

 

[justtrish]

The prosecution has the burden of proof and it's at the discretion of the court to grant or deny the probative value of such a proposed juror field trip, motioned by the state. In other words, it's not a given, it has to be requested by the prosecution.

I'm pretty surprised that GW4 does not intend to go for a ride, knowing it could be his last opportunity to ever see anything outside of his cell for the remainder of his life. I think it was probably a UK case I was following but the defendant went on the trip but did not ever go inside the crime property, and the jurors were none the wiser. MOO

I wonder if it was his counsel that advised him it wasn't the best idea. Having the jury see him and the crime scenes and possibly his reaction or lack of reaction. I can't imagine it would do him any good either way. I think the only benefit for him would be as you said, his last trip outside the jail/cell/prison. Maybe he is afraid he will have to face what he's done if he sees it all again and might have a reaction he can't prevent.

 

[Birdnerd71]

I wonder if it was his counsel that advised him it wasn't the best idea. Having the jury see him and the crime scenes and possibly his reaction or lack of reaction. I can't imagine it would do him any good either way. I think the only benefit for him would be as you said, his last trip outside the jail/cell/prison. Maybe he is afraid he will have to face what he's done if he sees it all again and might have a reaction he can't prevent.

Agreed!

 

[BeckyF]

This is proof one shouldnt post afteŕ taking an ambien.

Translation:
If you dont have money on the books to pay for protection your usefulness inside is no longer needed. I suspect the Ws will have a horrible life on the inside, as they deserve. Jmo

Are you sure it was ambien? LOL

 

[ohioexpat63]

Lol, I thought it to be something very profound.

Profoundly stupid! Lol

 

[ohioexpat63]

Are you sure it was ambien? LOL

This time, yes!

 

[Cool Cats]

I wonder if it was his counsel that advised him it wasn't the best idea. Having the jury see him and the crime scenes and possibly his reaction or lack of reaction. I can't imagine it would do him any good either way. I think the only benefit for him would be as you said, his last trip outside the jail/cell/prison. Maybe he is afraid he will have to face what he's done if he sees it all again and might have a reaction he can't prevent.

I think the defense attorneys call the shots here and the optics would be bad for George. Imagine the jurors seeing all these places with George in tow. Whenever they think back to what they saw, they would see George Wagner's face right there.

Interesting it's not just places they are showing the jurors, but it's apparently the route the Wagner's may have taken to go from Peterson Rd to UHR to Left Fork Rd and to FWF to hide the evidence.

Roads connecting the 4 crime scenes with the defendants' residences and pertinent points along those roads.

 

[Betty P]

^^rsbbm

IMO, it's a no-brainer that the prosecution would refuse to say George shot nobody as a matter of insurance (technical or other).

The prosecution, representing the People, has a responsibility not to jeopardize their own case in the event Jake or Angela's plea deals go sideways at trial. Not unlike a mobster trial, they know to expect the unexpected and must take precautions to control what they actually have control over. MOO

So true. The judge has mentioned several times he doesn't want this case tried in the news media when the defense begins violating the gag order. State has been very careful to say as little as possible about their evidence or details of the proffers. Theyll show their evidence soon enough. Within a week or so.

 

[Seattle1]

• Happened in OJ Simpson's trial.

• Did O.J. Simpson's Defense Really Redecorate …​

  Did Simpson's defense team really redecorate his house during the case?
• According to one member of the defense team, the answer is yes. Defense attorney Carl Douglas said in Dateline NBC's special THE PEOPLE vs. OJ SIMPSON: What the Jury Never Heard that he organized a redecoration of Simpson's estate before the jury visited.

To be clear, any change between the actual scene to the present that's probative would be made clear to the jurors. In OJ's case, it was mostly art and making the home appear "lived in." I long remember reading how for the first time ever, there was a sudden influx of black friends in framed photos and OJ's mother's photo enshrined.

From the link:

Pictures of half-nude models are replaced by friendly pictures of family members as large pieces of African art are hung on the walls.

[..]

In the interview, part of which is shown below, Douglas said his intention was to make the estate look "lived-in and stand with all of its regalness so that the jurors would say 'O.J. Simpson would not have risked all of this for this woman.'" The special described the changes made to the home, saying, “photos of Simpson with white women were swapped out for pictures of him with black people. A Norman Rockwell painting from Johnnie Cochran’s office and a bedside photo of Simpson’s mother were placed in prominent view."

 

[ohioexpat63]

Im really hoping we get some of the questions answered.

Im wondering at what point the prosecution would considered the plea with AW and JW broken and the death penalty reinstated?

 

[Seattle1]

I wonder if it was his counsel that advised him it wasn't the best idea. Having the jury see him and the crime scenes and possibly his reaction or lack of reaction. I can't imagine it would do him any good either way. I think the only benefit for him would be as you said, his last trip outside the jail/cell/prison. Maybe he is afraid he will have to face what he's done if he sees it all again and might have a reaction he can't prevent.

Absolutely it was GW's defense that is responsible for the optics! Defense talking heads are first to remind the viewing public that the defense will tell their client how many times to blink in court, let alone whether or not they want to take him out for the field trip!

The more I think about it, I am pretty surprised that an in-person "jury view of the scene" was deemed necessary given the advancements, especially in virtual technology post-COVID. Seriously, million-dollar homes were being sold via virtual tours during lockdown for two years. It was the strangest thing to watch was my late neighbor's home tour complete with fake people and pets inside (i.e., computer-generated images).

More at the link:

Whether or not to allow a jury to view the scene will always be up to the judge who is presiding over the jury trial. When a jury view of the scene is allowed by the judge in a case, the judge himself or herself need not be present during the view. In a case in which a jury view of a scene is allowed, the parties in a case as well as their respective attorneys are allowed to be present. However, those parties and attorneys are not permitted to engage in any commentary whatsoever during the course of the view of a scene. In short, even if a party wanted to narrate the jury's walk through of a house, for example, that party would not be allowed to do so.

As an aside that you might find interesting, although a judge need not be present during a jury view of a scene, his or her being present would probably be wise. The reason is that one party could move for a new trial because the other party commented during the course of the jury's view of the scene. As a result, the judge’s actually being present would put him or her in the best possible position to determine whether or not a comment was even made, as well as what impact - if any - the comment had on the jury.

When jurors are allowed to visit crime scenes

Question: I recently read about a case in which a jury was allowed to visit the scene of...

www.theintelligencer.com

 

[justtrish]

Absolutely it was GW's defense that is responsible for the optics! Defense talking heads are first to remind the viewing public that the defense will tell their client how many times to blink in court, let alone whether or not they want to take him out for the field trip!

The more I think about it, I am pretty surprised that an in-person "jury view of the scene" was deemed necessary given the advancements, especially in virtual technology post-COVID. Seriously, million-dollar homes were being sold via virtual tours during lockdown for two years. It was the strangest thing to watch was my late neighbor's home tour complete with fake people and pets inside (i.e., computer-generated images).

More at the link:

Whether or not to allow a jury to view the scene will always be up to the judge who is presiding over the jury trial. When a jury view of the scene is allowed by the judge in a case, the judge himself or herself need not be present during the view. In a case in which a jury view of a scene is allowed, the parties in a case as well as their respective attorneys are allowed to be present. However, those parties and attorneys are not permitted to engage in any commentary whatsoever during the course of the view of a scene. In short, even if a party wanted to narrate the jury's walk through of a house, for example, that party would not be allowed to do so.

As an aside that you might find interesting, although a judge need not be present during a jury view of a scene, his or her being present would probably be wise. The reason is that one party could move for a new trial because the other party commented during the course of the jury's view of the scene. As a result, the judge’s actually being present would put him or her in the best possible position to determine whether or not a comment was even made, as well as what impact - if any - the comment had on the jury.

When jurors are allowed to visit crime scenes

Question: I recently read about a case in which a jury was allowed to visit the scene of...

www.theintelligencer.com

I think while advancements make it possible, I see why in this case the prosecution wants them there in person. If the defense tries to say, no way they could do all this to 8 people in one night (or even just a few hours) and not be seen/heard.. maybe being there in person to see it, then the prosecution explains it in court and they understand exactly where all the properties were and that it is in fact possible. The more I think over this, the more reasons I see for doing it in person.

I am curious if the trailer homes have been cleaned up? Surly they don't leave all that just as it was for 6 years? I do think leaving it would really show the scene, but not sure it's even possible with blood and other matter to be left due to sanitary reasons.

 

[Seattle1]

Im really hoping we get some of the questions answered.

Im wondering at what point the prosecution would considered the plea with AW and JW broken and the death penalty reinstated?

In Ohio, there are two types of homicides other than manslaughter: aggravated murder and murder.

When by their own words, prosecutors make a deal with the devil, there is nothing certain or off of the table.

This case is a good example of where even with Jake agreeing to 8 consecutive life terms, the Judge previously ruled that George (and Billy) can still face the death penalty. The issue here for the death penalty is a conviction for aggravated murder. MOO

Rhoden killings: Attorney for George Wagner IV says prosecutors 'made a deal with the devil'

A Pike County judge ruled that aggravated murder charges and the death penalty remain on the table for George Wagner IV, Jake Wagner's older brother.

www.dispatch.com

12/22/21

In a brief but fiery hearing in Pike County Common Pleas Court Wednesday, a defense attorney argued that pursuing aggravated murder charges and the death penalty against the oldest brother charged in the Rhoden family homicides of 2016 is "an absolute abuse of power" by prosecutors.

But Judge Randy D. Deering disagreed.

After the roughly 35-minute hearing, Deering ruled that the aggravated murder charges would stand against 30-year-old George Wagner IV, and that the death penalty remains an option.

[..]

The defense lawyers say that Jake Wagner told prosecutors during his confession (which prosecutors call a proffer) that George Wagner IV didn't shoot anyone that night.

But during Wednesday's hearing, special prosecutor Angela Canepa told Deering she thought there was something important to note: "We are not stipulating that George Wagner did not shoot anybody. We are stipulating that according to Jake Wagner's proffer, George did not shoot anybody. That's an important distinction."

[..]

If they testify against their family and fulfill their part of the bargain, none of the Wagners will face a possible death sentence, per the agreement. But the defense attorneys for George Wagner IV had argued the aggravated murder charges, and the death penalty, should be dismissed even now.

[..]

Prior to Wednesday's hearing, defense attorneys Richard Nash and John Parker had asked the judge to allow Jake Wagner to testify in court about what his brother did and did not do the night of the homicides. The judge denied that request.

So at the start of the hearing, Parker started to read aloud in court 10 excerpts of Jake Wagner's 12-hour confession. Canepa objected and fired back, saying it was clear the attorneys wanted to try the case before it ever got to trial.

The judge did not allow the excerpts to be read.

During his argument, Parker said that prosecutors "made a deal with the devil" in taking the death penalty off the table for Jake Wagner, who had admitted to personally killing five of the eight victims.

Canepa responded: "Unfortunately, there is more than one devil in this case, and that is all four defendants charged in this matter.”

Billy Wagner, 50, was last in court for a brief hearing in November. His attorneys had also argued to have that the death penalty option dismissed against him but the judge denied it. He is due back in court in February, as is George Wagner IV for his next hearing.

 

[Fat Old Man]

I wonder if FW, is allowed to be present when they go to the flying W.
What did the court have to do to get back on the properties?

 

[Puzzles8]

The actual trailers the R/G families lived in are still in storage off-site. They might take the jury to those trailers, but I can't imagine what poor condition they will be in after 6.5 years in storage (and the bed bugs).

I do think they will take the jurors on a tour of the four properties, as well as the Bethel property (site that previous trailers on FWF property the W4 lived at previous to Peterson Farm)and the FWF to show proximity.

I also think they will use the FARO scans they took of the trailers. FARO is a technology that helps visually recreate crime scenes.

An overview of FARO technology:

https://www.faro.com/en/Products/Software/SCENE-Software

JMO

 

[Fat Old Man]

I wonder if FW, is allowed to be present when they go to the flying W.
What did the court have to do to get back on the properties?