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

[RAISINISBACK]

I never thought I'd say this, but in these texts it seems Billy is fighting to get his wife back and Angela is just worried about the boys and the grandkids. I can see how their relationship was having trouble. He wanted a wife and she was all wrapped up in the grandkids.

Not that it makes the motive any better, but I can see if Billy has a plan it's to look good in the eyes of Angela so he can get back in good with her and her only concern seems to be Bulvine and Sophia.

If AC is basing her case on one for all and all for one, looks like Billy didn't get that all for one, one for all memo.

Neither did George or Jake since Angela wants to take their kids and kick their azzes to the curb and go live with Billy.

This trial is turning into a literal joke. First time I have seen a prosecutor curse in court. AC said 'Everybody knows Jake's a damn liar. lol

If the defense gets to play that tape they impeach Jake's testimony in front of the jury by proving he is a straight up liar. Probably Angies too.

JMO

 

[pittsburghgirl]

Hopefully someone more knowledgeable can answer that. I just heard that in what AC was arguing to the judge.

I suspect it is a 5th amendment issue about self-incrimination; that might also apply to the co-conspirator issue. But I'm not a lawyer either. See below. It's a rule of evidence that limits the defense.

 

[sunshineray]

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.

Isn't GWIV also, at this point, being charged with aggravated murder, not just the conspiracy?

 

[pittsburghgirl]

We'll double check. It could be they were the weapons on the Family Gun List mentioned previously that weren't used in the murders. The ones from that collection that were used in the murders were stashed somewhere else. Depending on the date of that search, they may or may not have ended up in the bottom of the pond.

One would have to ask, though, why any of her brother's family guns needed to be hidden, especially when everyone knew they were under investigation for the murder of the Rhoden family and Hannah Gilley.

I hope BCI asked Robin how long the guns had been hidden in her room and whether, at any point in time, some guns had been removed from the collection. JMO, I can't imagine sleeping with that many guns stored in my bedroom, just sayin'. Why didn't they just put them in a shed or something? There are alot of buildings on FWF. Not much livestock left, so plenty of room.

I do not believe that FW and RW did not know that Billy, et al. did those killings.

 

[sunshineray]

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.

Thank you for finding that, it does help to make a bit more sense to it all...sort of

 

[pittsburghgirl]

Isn't GWIV also, at this point, being charged with aggravated murder, not just the conspiracy?

If testimony is out, it's out. Aggravated Murder and Aggravated Burglary also involves supporting others involved in committing the crime. But geeeez, this is getting complicated.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

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

We have masses of evidence that AW had NO boundaries between her life and her sons' lives: the hacked FB accounts, the fake custody documents, documenting the parenting deficiencies of Tabatha and Hanna, refusing to let Bulvine sleep in his parents' room, controlling who could be in the maternity ward when TC gave birth, the sitting on the bed scratching George's back, etc. And of course, we will have her testimony about this and other aspects of her relationship with her ids.

 

[RAISINISBACK]

Code words to make silencers.

Or Jake was actually talking about car parts for his vehicle and pink bunnies and sprinkles for a party for his daughter.

I think BCI jumped the gun on that one, calling it code words. They are trying to make their preconceived story fit the facts at this point. Coming back after Jake confesses and saying oh wow look at this, pink bunnies=code words.

Also I hope that statement where George said he was going to be whoever robbed his grandpa at gunpoint's "worst nightmare." is not all they got on him.

If so I am in trouble since I tell clients if I catch them lying to me I am going to be their worst nightmare. Crap, maybe I should not say that anymore. lol

That bit about Billy apologizing to Jake for him and Angie arguing in front of GW and JW when they were kids had absolutely nothing to do with the murders. Jeez.

JMO

 

[RAISINISBACK]

I am going to guess he was talking about silencers they were building.

Why would they be using code words before the murders? No crime yet.

 

[Kyshoegal]

ames Pilcher
@jamespilcher
·
19m

Starting new thread for testimony in Wagner murder trial in Pike County. Also just learned appeals court ruled in media's favor allowing us to photograph and video any exhibit or evidence shown in court. It's up to us whether to publish or broadcast. Thanks
@jackcgreiner

@local12

Fantastic news!!

 

[sunshineray]

It's direct evidence--a recording of what Jake said about issues that he has first-hand knowledge of. It can either be a truth or a lie but we know who said it and what he said.

Here's an example of hearsay: Person A tells her boss that Person B took an extra hour at lunch. Then Boss tells Big Boss Person B took at extra hour. That's hearsay because the Boss doesn't have first-hand knowledge.

So as direct evidence, but because there are conspiracy charges, what ever JW, AW or BW said in those interviews is considered to be as if GWIV said it too? How can that be legal? It would be like 3 people putting words in your mouth? Conspirators being tied together in EVERY little thing they say seems a bit extreme. Is there no common sense applied that the four individuals, one who's remaining silent in his own defense, may know differing accounts of the conspiracy crime? How is the full perspective to be gained by the jurors if 4 can only be thought of as one...in ALL aspects?

These are really just rhetorical questions...out there in the universe haha, not directed at only you.

 

[Myland]

Jmo I believe it has been presented to jury as tight knit family even cult like. I don’t take the text conversation as tight knit family or cult like. Keep in mind the jurors are not suppose to speak to others about this case. Do you think they are analyzing the difference between enmeshed and tight knit? It’s pike county remember on every back road almost you have a set one family or another living in groups. Some roads are named after those groups.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

Jmo I have to disagree Billy had a boundary of not living with them. He couldn’t take it. It sounded like their has been some pretty big disagreements. I would have like to seen the other conversation between Billy and Angela. Actually I would like to see the conversations in April 2016. Billy went to Alaska to be with Angela not those boys in my opinion. Remember Happy Wife jmo

That's not what "boundary" means in family systems. A boundary allows each person to be separate, to have their own interests, make their own decisions, grow up and leave home, say "no" when they don't want to do something, to have private thoughts and feelings that are not shared with others.

Good boundaries make it easy to live with others because everyone respects the other peoples' rights, property, opinions, and body integrity. It doesn't matter where they live. Watch an episode of "I Love a Mama's Boy" on cable for examples.

I think the sexual control of the adult male sons is very cult-like. That's a common thing that cult leaders do, from Charles Manson to David Koresh to Jim Jones.

 

[Chris_p_bacon]

I do not believe that FW and RW did not know that Billy, et al. did those killings.

I am wondering if they did. If an entire family of 8 got murdered in one night in the county I live in......and I knew that one of my siblings was a close personnel friend of any one of them......I would be asking them questions. I think I would know if they were lying to me.

 

[Kyshoegal]

I think those were reflections of people sitting in the gallery re: R family, since that is the direction the TV is facing. The Jury TV is above the witness chair and turned away from the judge toward the jury box. The reflection was on the one aimed more toward the side and back of the courtroom. I have seen one of the women in the reflection sitting in the front row of the gallery with Miss Geneva before she stopped coming to court.

JMO

I wouldn’t expect to see reflections of the jury. Trials have been televised for years without revealing jurors so this one should be no different

 

[RAISINISBACK]

It seems so. I really think the root of this is with Angela. I want to know more about how she grew up and what the heck happened for her to latch on to her boys and not let them go. Her husband wanted her.. and being in their 40s and having 2 sons in their 20s, that seems like a reasonable request. I mean most of us look forward to the years when our babies are grown and learning who they are, what they want to be, finding their forever partners, having children or exploring careers in things that make them happy, etc. It's the time we can be parents, but also friends with our grown kids and watch them blossom and live their lives. It's time for us to live our lives apart from the kids. Then to see Billy seems to be there and ready and she is stuck back in mom and now grandma mode and it grows into a sickness over it.

I mean that text about Jake said I can only take Sophia on one 2 week vacation a year?? huh I'd say that is a pretty normal thing (and it pains me to say normal and Jake in the same thought). It's reasonable for a grandparent to only have a grandchild for a 2 week vacation. I mean it sounds like she just wanted to run off with the grandkids and leave the kids.

I mean it sounds like she just wanted to run off with the grandkids and leave the kids.

BBM
Yeppers, that is exactly what she said in the text. Right after she said she wanted to kick Jake and George's azzes to the curb and keep the GKs. lol

 

[sunshineray]

We'll double check. It could be they were the weapons on the Family Gun List mentioned previously that weren't used in the murders. The ones from that collection that were used in the murders were stashed somewhere else. Depending on the date of that search, they may or may not have ended up in the bottom of the pond.

One would have to ask, though, why any of her brother's family guns needed to be hidden, especially when everyone knew they were under investigation for the murder of the Rhoden family and Hannah Gilley.

I hope BCI asked Robin how long the guns had been hidden in her room and whether, at any point in time, some guns had been removed from the collection. JMO, I can't imagine sleeping with that many guns stored in my bedroom, just sayin'. Why didn't they just put them in a shed or something? There are alot of buildings on FWF. Not much livestock left, so plenty of room.

I just had a thought...what if they are like a gun collection, maybe her father started it? Maybe BW snagged one of them to use...maybe that 1911 one? Just some thoughts

 

[Betty P]

I just had a thought...what if they are like a gun collection, maybe her father started it? Maybe BW snagged one of them to use...maybe that 1911 one? Just some thoughts

Haven't had time to go back to Scheiderer's testimony to read. Will have to do that tonight, next couple of days will be really busy.

 

[RAISINISBACK]

I am beginning to wonder if George was actually there to protect Jake after all.

Those conversations with Angela and Billy show that Angela was really most concerned about the grandkids. Even wanting to run off with them and she even seems to be upset that Jake will only let her take Sophia for 2 weeks a year. I see Billy wanting to make Angela happy. He wants his wife back and I almost can feel sorry for him after listening to those texts. Before things went really twisted and wrong, it sounds like Billy was just trying to make Angela happy and wanted her back and was even showing concern for her not sleeping and caring for the grandkids. She did note that Jake wasn't making her watch them, they were all watching them. So it isn't that Jake is ditching his daughter while grandma is home caring for her, it's like Angela has to be there and involved and Billy is showing that at least he has concern for Angela 's health.

Then the evil plan is hatched and from those texts, I get the feeling Billy would not have entertained this plan if it were not for Angela's behavior about the grandkids. In my opinion, he is seeing her obsessing over the grandkids, custody, etc as standing in the way of getting her back. So he wants a way to make her obsessing over that go away so he can get her back.

I know it was only a small bit of texting we heard, but it sounds like Angela is less concerned for the boys and most concerned for the grandkids. Maybe George was worried about Billy harming Jake because it sounds like Jake was in Angela's way of getting Sophia too.

I am beginning to wonder if George was actually there to protect Jake after all.

I am beginning to believe George stayed home and Angie, Jake and Billy went. I am coming down more in his favor because as far as AC presenting evidence against George it has been one big fat raspberry. And he did not have a motive. He had custody of his son. And I really think he was planning on trying to get back with Tabitha. Plus him not being able to handle his own gun? So the little weasel Jake had to take it from him?? Big guy like George? Sounds more like Angie couldn't handle the gun so Jake had to take it from her and use it.

In my opinion, he is seeing her obsessing over the grandkids, custody, etc as standing in the way of getting her back. So he wants a way to make her obsessing over that go away so he can get her back.

Looks like Billy found a way. She won't be seeing them for 30 years now. lol

JMO

 

[pittsburghgirl]

So as direct evidence, but because there are conspiracy charges, what ever JW, AW or BW said in those interviews is considered to be as if GWIV said it too? How can that be legal? It would be like 3 people putting words in your mouth? Conspirators being tied together in EVERY little thing they say seems a bit extreme. Is there no common sense applied that the four individuals, one who's remaining silent in his own defense, may know differing accounts of the conspiracy crime? How is the full perspective to be gained by the jurors if 4 can only be thought of as one...in ALL aspects?

These are really just rhetorical questions...out there in the universe haha, not directed at only you.

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.

So let's look at the Evidence Rule that JustIrish posted. The CONSPIRACY DEFENDENT (George) cannot play his own statement or that of any of his co-conspirators. That means the defense can't introduce these statements to the course.
It's not like "3 persons putting words in your mouth."

This is a pretty clear explanation, with the legal mumbo jumbo removed:

In criminal cases, this exception allows the state to offer the defendant’s own statement (oral, written, or nonverbal communication) against him or her by introducing the statement through a witness who heard or observed it, such as the officer who took the defendant’s confession during a custodial interview, or a witness who overheard the defendant discussing the crime. This rule applies when a statement is “offered against a party.” [e.g., it's offered against George, in this case.}

Regarding Co-conspirators:

Statements made by one member of a criminal conspiracy are admissible at trial against the other members of the conspiracy if certain foundational criteria are met. See G.S. 8C-801(d)(E); State v. Tilley, 292 N.C. 132 (1977) (in the same manner that a party’s own statements are not excluded by the hearsay rules, “by a rule of substantive law, vicarious liability for the same acts and declarations is extended to the declarant or actor's co-conspirators”).

The state must satisfy three requirements for a coconspirator’s statement to be admissible. The state must show that: (1) a conspiracy existed; (2) the acts or declarations were made by a party to the conspiracy and in pursuance of its objectives; and (3) the acts or declarations were made while the conspiracy was active, that is, after it was formed and before it ended.

I think this is why the prosecution could use Jake's statement; thye must have met those requirement. That there is a conspiracy, and that George was a party to it, and it occurred "after it was formed and before it ended."

But Lordy, I could be dead wrong. I'm a trained reader not a lawyer. https://ncpro.sog.unc.edu/manual/707-2