OH - Pike Co - 8 in Rhoden Family Murdered Over Custody Issue - 4 Members Wagner Family Arrested #76

[RAISINISBACK]

I think it may be AW just saying things she thinks BW wants to hear. Weird for her not to want her boys after wanting to do everything for them and controlling everything they do. Sudden change?

But none of us lived there so we don't know what kind of relationship existed between them all. The only testimony we have heard is from Tabitha who it was obvious hated Angie. Tabitha recanted most of her testimony on cross examination.

JMO

 

[CIA Team Member]

Jmo didn’t Billy say even get a camper

FW has property with mobile homes on them she sells (leases??). Wonder why mother didn't do business with son. I'm sure she had a few reasons.
I remember she sold, foreclosed, rinse, repeat.

 

[justtrish]

I think it may be AW just saying things she thinks BW wants to hear. Weird for her not to want her boys after wanting to do everything for them and controlling everything they do. Sudden change?

I think she wanted the boys to move out and leave her the grandbabies. Didn't seem like that was going to happen so she had to keep the boys around then. As she got more and more animals and things on their little farm, who was going to do all the work if the boys moved out? Billy didn't want to live with her. Sorta makes sense now why that hosue was in Jake and George's name and not Billy's. I assumed it was a credit issue or something ill.. but I don't think he wanted to live there. And what is up with the whole Jake will only let me take Sophia for 2 weeks a year to vacations. It's all odd. Their entire family dynamic. I could see both boys wanting to look good in the eyes of their dad because clearly there is something going on there. Both want to make mom happy and go along with her. Billy wants to please Angela, Angela is stringing Billy along and planting these thoughts about Sophia being abused.

 

[dgfred]

Others have said how AW was about 'the babies'. Don't think she was think that of hers but I don't know...that is for sure.

 

[justtrish]

With all this dysfunction and chaos going on in this family in 2016 like Billy not wanting to live with the boys, it's sure interesting that all of them up and moved together in May 2017. Suddenly Billy is good to go on living with the boys, good to go on moving 4,000 miles away from everything they knew. Can't be the pressure was on them then because it doesn't seem like George was even interviewed yet and they had no search warrants on their houses yet, nothing from the outside seemed to be pointing to them so why the sudden change of heart and one big happy family moved to Alaska, where they lived together.

 

[arielilane]

Back to testimony. Scheidere agrees Billy was uncooperative, argumentative, loud, maybe obnoxious and certainly profane. Defense wants to play the interview with Jake Wagner from that time but we're having a 15 minute break first.

https://twitter.com/jamespilcher
This interview is 4-6 hours long and before the break, there was a legal debate between the lawyers over whether they will do this today, or wait and do Angela's first - which is coming up tomorrow.

 

[arielilane]

Judge says not deciding yet on playing that tape. Lawyers need to be ready either way and need to argue tomorrow morning.
https://twitter.com/jamespilcher


They are going to finish defense cross examination of Scheiderer without playing the Jake Wagner interview. Then end for the day and then come back in the morning and decide on playing that and finish cross or redirect.


This was first time this was first time interviewed George Wagner. Scheiderer and other BCI agents had previously interviewed the other three. New interviews were helpful - Jake's was 5 hours long.

 

[sunshineray]

I think somehow they can't use George's interview to show he was lying then because it would taint the jury about him now also. So since it's a conspiracy they also then can't use any of their statements to show any of them were lying in order to make George less guilty. They would not be allowed to then play George's to refute the defense playing Jake's so they also then should not be allowed to play Jake's.

I do understand that somehow. If George lied in that interview, then they play it, that might make the jury think he's just a big liar and since they were suspects at the time of these interviews (previous interviews they were not) it changes things. So the defense wanted to show Jake as a liar and the prosecution would be left not being able to show George lied too because it looks bad to the jury.

I am thinking this is just because of the conspiracy being charged? I wish I understood things better!

This make no sense to me...not you justirish, the situation. The prosecution can't use GWIV's own interview against him. It's him, his answers, his words. How in the world is that, all from the horse who's on trial's mouth, not admissible against him? If he lied, he lied...if he told truths, he told truths. They're prosecuting HIM so how can HIS statements not be admissible? I get why JW's wouldn't be and AW's...until they testify.

So is it because of GWIV's right to not testify? This all sounds convoluted to me. A what if...say the prosecution had GWIV on police installed surveillance video walking down Union Hill Rd in the wee hours of the morning of the murders...would that be inadmissible too because it was conducted and captured by police?

 

[justtrish]

This make no sense to me...not you justirish, the situation. The prosecution can't use GWIV's own interview against him. It's him, his answers, his words. How in the world is that, all from the horse who's on trial's mouth, not admissible against him? If he lied, he lied...if he told truths, he told truths. They're prosecuting HIM so how can HIS statements not be admissible? I get why JW's wouldn't be and AW's...until they testify.

So is it because of GWIV's right to not testify? This all sounds convoluted to me. A what if...say the prosecution had GWIV on police installed surveillance video walking down Union Hill Rd in the wee hours of the morning of the murders...would that be inadmissible too because it was conducted and captured by police?

I'm going to listen again and try to make sense of it. It made somewhat sense as she was arguing it, but I feel it had something to do with the conspiracy part not in general you can't use these, but because this is a case involving conspiracy and multiple defendants, it can't be used to try to show one is more guilty than another or less guilty than another. Basically the defense wants to play Jake's and it will make Jake look bad right now. The prosecution can't play George's in order to show George lied too. In a conspiracy I think if one person has any part big or small they are just as liable as the one with the most parts.

 

[Myland]

Why is Prosecutor changing her statement about Jake testifying? In opening statement it was when you hear Jake testify and now When and if. Why is the if in there at all?

 

[Cool Cats]

Could be he just forgot it at Peterson and didn't realize it until later and decided to retrieve it the next morning. Doesn't mean much as I have left my cell phone at various places and if it was late decided to get it the next morning or have whoever I left it at their house bring it the next morning.

What I found interesting in connection to AC's argument this was an enmeshed family is Angie telling Billy she wanted the boys to move out into their own houses. Also Billy refusing to come back until Jake and George were moved out. Angie asking Billy if he had found them a house yet so she could move in with him so it would be only Billy and Angie living together alone.

Also the reference to George and Jake calling them MFer's Bast***ds and monsters. He also referenced fighting with them often. Angie expressed the desire for Billy to move back in with her and for Jake and George to move out. But then she tells him she cannot move because she has to take care of BW and SW. Also when Billy said let jake take care of SW.

This occurred from Dec 2015 until 03- 2016.

These conversations between her and Billy kind of blows Ac's enmeshed all for one and one for all theory out of the water.

Sounds like Billy couldn't stand George or Jake and wanted Angie to kick them out so he could come back to her. Angie countering with Billy getting a house so she and him could live in it together.

JMO

I don't get it? Canepa would have heard this so why did she throw on the "all for one and one for all" and say they were so enmeshed and cultish? Like Angie and Jake and George would live together forever and no girlfriends welcomed.

Why would Angie want to be called mom and get custody if she wanted the boys to move out?

So Jake had Hanna killed out of jealousy? On his own he could have used Hanna for babysitting.

I am so lost right now. This is so weird.

Revive me.

 

[ColMustard]

Well it's not really an "insinuation" if it's part of the evidence, is it?

You know what?..

...nevermind.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

Who buys ammunition for guns on a “Wish List”

Excellent point.

 

[Betty P]

But none of us lived there so we don't know what kind of relationship existed between them all. The only testimony we have heard is from Tabitha who it was obvious hated Angie. Tabitha recanted most of her testimony on cross examination.

JMO

I didn't hear it that way. I don't recall her recanting all of her testimony. Do you have a link?

 

[Cool Cats]

But none of us lived there so we don't know what kind of relationship existed between them all. The only testimony we have heard is from Tabitha who it was obvious hated Angie. Tabitha recanted most of her testimony on cross examination.

JMO

Where did you hear the testimony from what you just told me? That isn't just Tabby. I'm talking about Angie and Billy talking.

 

[Skully67]

The family dynamics are strange, but I understand it. I see the all for 1, 1 for all. Yeah, I hate your guts but I'll defend you no matter what because you're my family.

I want to hear George's words. Maybe he half *ssed went along in the beginning, or was drug into it, didn't shoot anyone, and now that the event happened, felt the need/requirement to conceal the event. Ratting out a family member, your own father/mother/brother is a hard thing to do, even if you know it's the right thing to do. He probably wishes he wasn't part of this family. I'm not supporting him in any way..just trying to understand this family dynamic.

Jmho.

 

[Myland]

I didn't hear it that way. I don't recall her recanting all of her testimony. Do you have a link?

Jmo I believe Tabitha explained why her family not allowed around and why B not allowed around her family. She explained several things that she had said that sounded different when the back story was shared. And the thing about taking 3 hours or more for Xanax to work on a baby not as believable on cross. She really didn’t have much against George other than she couldn’t stand his mother. Now put the round table discussion with Billy’s text and I come to conclusion that Billy could care less what those boys thoughts were so I personally find the round table discussion may have be exaggerated some. Also Tabby stated Billy was rarely around at Peterson.

 

[Cool Cats]

Why is Prosecutor changing her statement about Jake testifying? In opening statement it was when you hear Jake testify and now When and if. Why is the if in there at all?

Really? Jake has to testify. Did Canepa change the direction of her case?

Jake testifying is a mandatory part of his plea. Obviously I missed too much important testimony today.

 

[justtrish]

Evidence rule 801 (possibly 801 D2) - the conspiracy defendant can't play his own statement or a statement of his co conspirators statement. The prosecution can play the statement (which I assume opens it up then for the defense to cross examine anyone regarding these statements), but the defendant can't introduce these statements.

Then the prosecution also argued that they can't use this evidence to attack the statements of a co conspirator before the co conspirator as even testified. Basically they are trying to attack credibility of a witness before they are even on the stand to testify.

He also made a statement that said they want to use this to defend against something that up until this point they haven't even acknowledged so I guess now they acknowledge the conspiracy.

Then there was some more arguing that the content of statements made can't be played and a co conspirator is the same as the defendant in a conspiracy case. They can talk about them being interviewed and basics of how long, where, etc. They can show how that shaped the investigation, but content is not allowed.

 

[Myland]

Really? Jake has to testify. Did Canepa change the direction of her case?

Jake testifying is a mandatory part of his plea. Obviously I missed too much important testimony today.

She didn’t say he wasn’t she just used the word if jmo