OH - Pike Co - 8 in Rhoden Family Murdered Over Custody Issue - 4 Members Wagner Family Arrested #75

[LMDlong]

? G4 custody Attorney?

There is a Barbara Moore in Kenia Alaska.

 

[Cool Cats]

It's ridiculous to think she didn't show them the shoes if this was an innocent purchase. They don't think them she goes right back in to return them. Easy peasy. Makes not sense for them to be there, not go in, then she randomly buys shoes and takes them home before showing them and they decide they don't like them so she tosses them in the trash instead of returning. Just another small detail that just isn't adding up unless they were actually used in the murders and destroyed because it was evidence of their crimes.

Exactly. Not reasonable the whole thing. This is how juries decide, they keep adding it all up until reasonable doubt flies right out the window.

In this trial there are just too many things the jury would not have to believe to not convict.

Amongst many others, the jury would have to believe George didn't know what was going on in his family and believe George stayed home that night and didn't go to any of the 4 crime scenes.

 

[RAISINISBACK]

I was interested in the fact that the Peterson property was so very large. If I understand, actually 2 parcels.
Then! I thought maybe this group of W’s was planning on claiming Farm subsidies.
Long ago, I researched Wagner name for subsidies and I found a public document indicating amounts paid out since ? 1990. The Elder Wagner had collected a very large sum of money over approx. 20 years from farm subsidies. Not saying it was illegal, because I don’t understand it.
I will try to find that post from long ago.
Anyway he point is, the Wagners have many different ways of collecting money that do not include a real job.
I would put nothing past them .
Awful thought - I have even begun to wonder if thy took out life insurance policies on the young children.
Also, Why have a life insurance policy on Jake and G4.? They produce no income, etc.
No life insurance on AW or Billy? Odd.

Could it have been a burial policy? While hubby and I both have substantial life insurance policies on ourselves we also have life insurance policies on our son and DIL and grandkids and GDIL's and great GK's. These are all small policies of about 25K to cover funeral expenses should, God forbid, something happen to one of them.

Gerber Life offers grandparents an excellent life insurance policy on Gk's and great Gk's for a few dollars a month. Mutual of Omaha offers great policies on kids and grandkids for a few dollars a month. I know a lot of people who carry these type policies on their kids and GK's, mostly because younger people think they are invincible and nothing bad will ever happen to them while older people know anything can happen and are much more aware of the fragility of life.

Then there is the added fact that is something happened to George or Jake,Angie and Billy would be left raising the kids. A good life insurance policy would help with that and a college education.

JMO

 

[sunshineray]

I do think what we've seen from Tabatha shows George is no saint and that he allowed mommy to control things even after he was married. Her testimony also shows how much they fought for the kids involved. None of that is a crime, but when we then see George trying to say he didn't know about any of this, it is suspicious because it seems he was involved in everything else in this family and not distant from his family at all.

I think if Jake and Angela are believable, the only hope for George is if he takes the stand and is more believable.

And IMO, that's never going to happen.

 

[RAISINISBACK]

When they played the BW interview in court, there was a defense objection that was sustained and instructions given to the jury about the recent altercation between CRsr and BW. Jury was to disregard that statement by BW, if I'm not mistaken BW admits to the altercation on the recording.. B

I revisited the interview last night ... it needs to be a greatest hits recording.

edit coming: Link to the interview..... Iink below starts with the interview, not the start of the court session. The looks on GW4's face are intense.

Edit 2 .. The first objection is resolved without any ruling. ...trying to find that ruling on the fight.

...sounds like BW expected the "Feds and DEA" .to be.. "in on it".

... tells BCI "I got no credit, I use prepaid phones."

At 57:50 of the video, BCI asks BW about the fight.... BCI said they got a tip that BW got into a fight with CR and BW pulled a gun on him.

The interview ends at 2:22:00. ... still looking. AC asks about a break, and there's a sidebar... 15 minute break. Jury dismissed.

Back at 2:52:00 .... 2:53:00 The judge rules the audio recording is not evidence. It's simply to show how the investigation was conducted.

2:58:00 Defense objection to question about CR holding money for BW. Sidebar... AC continues with the question.

3:04:00 AC asks the witness about the fight that they heard about through tips.

BW admits to the altercation on the recording

BBM
I thought Billy denied it, but I could be wrong. His mouth was running a mile a minute and he was hard to understand for me.

JMO

 

[sunshineray]

MOO I don’t think there is a way back on the defense side once a plea deal has been ruled on by the judge.
It would be interesting to know for sure.

We need a WSer that's a lawyer. There was one that was very nice about explaining things but I can't remember their moniker.

 

[Cool Cats]

And IMO, that's never going to happen.

Breakdown Law 101: Should the defendant take the stand?

In his murder and arson trial in 2007, Justin Chapman decided not to testify in his own behalf. This meant the jury didn't hear his voice until after it had found him guilty.

www.ajc.com

In his murder and arson trial in 2007, Justin Chapman decided not to testify in his own behalf. This meant the jury didn't hear his voice until after it had found him guilty.

Devoted watchers of TV crime shows know this is pretty standard. Legally, the defendant has no obligation to testify. Practically, even an innocent defendant may suffer serious damage on cross-examination by a skilled prosecutor.

Atlanta criminal defense attorney Jack Martin, who has tried numerous high-profile cases, advocates strongly against a defendant taking the stand.

“When the client testifies, it turns the case into whether the prosecution proved its case into whether the jury believes your client,” Martin said. “Typically, you want the jury to answer the first question, not the second.”
A defendant who takes the stand has an almost impossible job, Martin said.

“Even the best actors can’t pull it off,” he said. “Jurors are looking for every little thing. So if the client becomes emotional, the jury will think they’re crocodile tears. If they show no emotion, they can be seen as cold and relentless.”

Allowing a defendant to testify on his or her behalf can be just as dangerous for someone who’s innocent as it is for someone who’s guilty, Martin said.

“The innocent person doesn’t know what happened, so sometimes it’ll look like they’re hiding something. The guilty person knows exactly what happened and can contrive an explanation.”

 

[arielilane]

Plea agreements can happen at any time throughout the trial process. MOO

BW arranged a fake drug deal with Chris Sr at his Union Hill property; however, it was an ambush. Chris Sr expected to see BW that night only, he did not know that GW4 and JW would be there too, because both were hidden/out of view. I am sure that JW will testify that GW4 was there.

JMO

 

[ColMustard]

BW admits to the altercation on the recording

BBM
I thought Billy denied it, but I could be wrong. His mouth was running a mile a minute and he was hard to understand for me.

JMO

I corrected that over two hours ago.

 

[sunshineray]

Plea agreements can happen at any time throughout the trial process. MOO

BW arranged a fake drug deal with Chris Sr at his Union Hill property; however, it was an ambush. Chris Sr expected to see BW that night only, he did not know that GW4 and JW would be there too, because both were hidden/out of view. I am sure that JW will testify that GW4 was there. The number of gunshots to Chris Sr, Dana, Chris Jr and Hannah Mae show the level of hate toward the Rhoden family.

JMO

Yes but can JW now recant and then appeal his sentence? I would think not?

 

[Betty P]

We need a WSer that's a lawyer. There was one that was very nice about explaining things but I can't remember their moniker.

Check with @PrairieWind . I do recall when Jake made his confession in court, the judge did say that he would be giving up his right to appeal his conviction.

 

[Piffcat]

another thing about all the "does this evidence have to do with george" remember that if not for the death penalty ALL OF THESE DEFENDANTS WOULD BE TRIED TOGETHER. one trial for one murder conspiracy. therefore the seperate trials are for the defendants benefit, this does not change evidence or discovery. essentially each trial can contain the exact same evidence it applies to everybody in conspiracy. very plain english in law- any member of conspiracy is responsible for all members actions- even if they had no idea the actions took place. once your in, your all in. <modsnip: quoted post removed>

 

[arielilane]

Yes but can JW now recant and then appeal his sentence? I would think not?

You're quick...I removed some of my post. Correction: Hanna May was shot twice in the head and Hannah Gilley five times in the head. Time will tell if JW will retract.

 

[sunshineray]

Check with @PrairieWind . I do recall when Jake made his confession in court, the judge did say that he would be giving up his right to appeal his conviction.

That's what I thought also, he had no track back.

 

[Myland]

Angie was in Walmart buying the shoes for George and Jake while they waited in the truck for her.

Angela was seen getting into the passenger side according to Scheiderer at the Bond Hearing.

It was revealed during the trial that the people in the truck were:

Angie, George, Jake and the 2 children.

More reason to believe Angie showed the shoes to Jake and George. Jake and George denied that Angie showed them the shoes. Mom is a liar basically.

When was that revealed? Not saying it wasn’t, but I must have missed that part. Can you direct me to the testimony where this was revealed so I can listen to it?

 

[Piffcat]

Check with @PrairieWind . I do recall when Jake made his confession in court, the judge did say that he would be giving up his right to appeal his conviction.

no appeal when you plead guilty especially if you cooperate with the state. unless you can prove prosecutor hid discovery etc your stuck with it. thing is jake got almost nothing out of his deal in the real world. LWOP is essentially the worst thing ohio can give you right now. the death penalty does not have many real world differences for now. its not a usual deal where the snitch gets off and the ones he testified to get the worst. if anything jake down played others involvment. <modsnip - other opinions are allowed> youve got jake telling the truth and no one wants to listen

 

[Myland]

Then I would have to bow to your greater experience since I have never been to Ohio. I went though TN a couple of times on my way to VA, but that is it.

I was going off what I have seen people from the area say on here. Also on the fact that before Dana moved there were three generations living in the home that Frankie later lived in. Indeed there were three generations of family living in the new home. Dana, Hannah and SW and KR.

This is a common occurrence all over the country. Kids live with parents then have children of their own. Sometimes the kids get married and continue to live with parents after they have their own children because they cannot afford to move out on their own for various reasons, usually financial. Or they have older parents who need care so they move the parents in with them while also having their own children living with them, even teenaged children or older. In todays age this is really not seen as an enmeshed family. At times it is just a convenient arrangement. And in many of these cases finances get intermingled. Married kids who cannot afford their own place give parents money to help pay the bills.

Honestly I have seen this in families who are upper middle class who just do not want to put mom or dad in a nursing home and share responsibility for their care among themselves and their older children.

But if there is one thing I have learned about people living in Appalachia they are loyal to family and very proud of who they are.

The reasons above is why I think the jury might not see the W's as an enmeshed family.

I saw the notebook where Angie listed the bills from month to month. I didn't think that was evidence of being enmeshed. George, Jake and Billy were self employed as truck drivers. Many of the bills being paid on the lists could be used as deductions on taxes. Such as cell phones, utilities, ect. Also parents pay bills and their kids living with them pay them back.

Sometimes mom just gets stuck with the bookkeeping. Especially in the case of adult sons who do not have a wife/GF they can shove it off on. And yes I know that is a sexist remark and that many men pay their own bills but you have to admit it happens often that mom gets stuck with it.

Maybe others from the area around Pike County could weigh in on this since my knowledge is so limited. It would be great to hear from some of them if they think the jury will view three generations living in one house and mom paying bills for her adult children would be viewed as being an enmeshed family.

Also it's pretty well known on here that I am not that maternal. It's not that I don't love my son and grandsons, it's just that I love them from afar, when they are in their own house. lol

JMO

I have two adult children living with me who have very good paying jobs. One is even licensed in their field. My name is on one of their accounts, however it is their account and I have never put anything into it. They do not pay anything towards household expenses, but they pay for all their own personal purchases. We as their parents do this for them to save money for their future. It works for us. Many of their young adults friends their same age are also living with their parents and working. Jmo

 

[RAISINISBACK]

If as we suspect AW and JW do not allow recording of their testimony, then he like us will only get a glimpse of what was said or how they fared on cross examination, he already knows what's in their proffer,

he has nothing to offer the state so all he has left is pleading guilty and getting LWOP, if I was him, I would roll the dice, he has nothing to lose, and by not pleading G all hope is not lost, as you can spend your long years behind bars researching into and looking for appellate issues, which is why I also think GW3 went to trial, it just leaves that sliver of hope, they may never find issues that they can appeal on but it gives them something to do

I think GW3 will look to appeal on probative v prejudicial evidence, especially the states use of crime scene and autopsy photos, I also think HR messages to TC may be an issue, the confrontation clause isn't met as HR is dead, Mark Jensen is awaiting a retrial due to the fact the state used a letter from his dead wife in his trial, supreme court overturned his conviction as his wife was dead and couldn't testify about her letter, the state try to argue often that a person cannot testify due to the defendant having killed them, but that is not the law, and Mark Jensen was on trial for murdering his wife who wrote the letter before her death saying if anything happens to me he did it (not verbatim)

Jake and Angie both have to testify in court and George will know what they say even if they opt out since he will be in the courtroom.

IMO Jake and Angie have both had time to think and it was said that Billy, Jake and Angie all have access to TV. Not sure if the trial is allowed to be on that TV but there are relatives and friends who are visiting all three and can certainly give all three a good summary of what the testimony and evidence against George is to date. Even attorneys for all 4 can do that as the judge ordered in the beginning that attorneys for co defendants have access to the other defendants.

Also IMO it is going to be very difficult for Angie especially to face her son and give testimony she knows will send him to prison for life. I think this will also be a problem for Jake. They both may be thinking if George is declared not guilty he could possibly get custody of BW back and SW because he would be her closest relative. That may factor in. I can see very easily that both Jake and Angie could throw this trial when they testify, not by telling a different story but by telling it in a tone of voice that is unconvincing and casts doubt on their testimony and leads the jury not to believe what they are saying. Technically they stick to their proffers, but make it seem like they are lying or hiding something so the jury picks up on that.

Just a thought and again just MY opinion.

JMO

 

[Myland]

I have two adult children living with me who have very good paying jobs. One is even licensed in their field. My name is on one of their accounts, however it is their account and I have never put anything into it. They do not pay anything towards household expenses, but they pay for all their own personal purchases. We as their parents do this for them to save money for their future. It works for us. Many of their young adults friends their same age are also living with their parents and working. Jmo

My point for is that when prosecutors introduce evidence that jurors can relate to takes away from their case. Also when they introduce items that have nothing to do with murders some jurors may think oh my don’t come look at my house I have the same thing. Jmo

 

[RAISINISBACK]

Was evidence shown George was in truck at Walmart? Friday testimony on the box and most items in the trailers/trucks should have been reduced to the papers on custody and Walmart receipt. Nothing else meant anything.Jmo

My opinion too.