OH - Pike Co - 8 in Rhoden Family Murdered Over Custody Issue - 4 Members Wagner Family Arrested #79

[gizmobtj]

I think it is important to note that this is George's trial, not Jake's or Angie's.

Beth did not say George threatened to kill her. Jake and Angie did. No proof George heard it, in fact Beth specifically said her, Jake and Angie were present for that conversation. Guess George was out philandering with the ladies at that time.

Beth said she thought George was a blowhard, that he was bluffing when he threatened law enforcement, that he did not mean it. This is extremely important because it implies she had NO FEAR that George would kill her or anyone else.

It is also extremely important to note that Beth did not say that she thought Jake and Angie were bluffing when they threatened to kill her. She did not say she thought those two were blowhards and did not mean it when they threatened her. Very important because it shows a huge difference in Beth's mind as to what violence she thought Jake and Angie were capable of and what she did not think George was capable of as far as violence.

Another important thing to note here is the all important You are innocent until proved guilty in a court of law.

In all fairness that should be the mindset in this trial. Preconceived facts and beliefs are being blown up every day in this trial.

I think a lot of that thinking was due to AC. She took one simple statement of Beth's where George threatened law enforcement in which Beth said she thought he was bluffing and blew it up to mountain size in order for the judge to deny George bond because he was the most "vocal". Just like she is showing that burned DVR over and over to the jury implying it was how the R's were spied on when she knows full well it was not part of the murders, but bought by jake to install at the Peterson RD house. She said she knew it was bought to install in the Peterson Rd house in her opening statement. But she is hoping among all those umm's the jury will overlook or forget her saying that. She hopes if she shows it enough the jury will believe it was used to spy on the R's. Parker loudly confronted her with that ploy in court after the jury left.

***snip***
I don't think the significance of George's comments is based on what Elizabeth thought of them. That's up to the jury, the triers of facts. The significance of Elizabeth is the trial is that it's just another in a pile that suggests George was a part of a conspiracy. But her real significance was to the investigation.

She and Jake were married on Feb. 20, 2018; the Wagners moved back to Ohio in the spring of 2018 where she heard the threats and their belief that any of them could be arrested (the inference one could take from that is because they all were guilty - although some may not see it that way); she escapes on July 6 at the Jackson Wal-Mart; investigators interview her in Virginia in July 2018; she returns to Ohio on August 15 to file a complaint with the Scioto County Sherriff's Office for the threats and identity theft and that leads to a cascade of more search warrants that scoped up more info, adds video cameras and, probably, extentions of wiretaps.

And she is the first person, in my opinion, who landed a triple-double as the perfect, innocent, respectful and clearly frightened witness. Whether we like it or not, there does not need to be a smoking gun. The jury can use stacks of circumstantial evidence like they did recently in the Elizabeth Smart case. It's similar in the sense that the case was based on "this is this guy's pattern" (the family operating as a unit in this case), that there were means (the guns), motive (custody, suspected sexual abuse, suspected poisioning, family dynamics; you pick) and opportunity (no alibi; plus two alleged co-conspirators who said, in one case, you planned to be there and, in the other that you were there).

Courts have ruled over-and-over again the circumstantial evidence is sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

We might not like that this is the way juries decide things, but this is what they do

 

[Chelly]

Regarding the discussion of GWIV's weight and weight loss that has been talked about and that, in relation to walking down hallways in a trailer house, I went back and looked at autopsy reports of some of the victims. And according to those reports:
Frankie weighed 260 pounds and was 74 inches tall.
Chris Sr. weighed 222 pounds and was 71 inches tall.
Gary weighed 211-1/2 pounds and was 73 inches tall.
Kenneth weighed 228 pounds and was 70 inches tall.

And of note, of course, 3 of these men lived in trailers, and Kenneth lived in a 5th-wheel trailer/camper where it's been testifed to that he even had steps to go up to get into his bed. And IMO, it's obvioius they must have been able to easily move about in their trailers/camper as that's where they lived.

Also, I will be curious to see, if/when Billy goes to trial, if the same weight issues with him are discussed, as IMO, he was a much larger man (especially at the time of his arrest) than any of these men were, but have yet to hear how he may have manuevered about allegedly to move body/bodies down a hallway in a trailer.

This is all JMO, MOO, my observations, my thoughts, my opinions, etc.

Great information @NWLady. Thanks for compiling it for us.

 

[Myland]

Jmo but if I try to list the evidence so far on George here is what I see: shoes someone else bought that can only be put on him by his murdering sicko mother, owing a type of gun used in murders not the gun as of it, voice recording of bringing all hex with him to the point of seeing tabby back in court, wild story of building a bullet proof bull dozer and wild shocking device. And being born to a mother that has a weird relationship with her murdering son Jake. Jmo and really if Jake and Angela’s testimony compares to other things Canapa has said was evidence she was going to present then there may be problems. Some of the things so far she stated as evidence has been blown up for shock factor as I see it. Jmo

 

[RAISINISBACK]

LOL! Where do you get this stuff?

EA's testimony never once mentioned she saw or even knew of GW having any girlfriends (or friends that are girls). She testified about the lack of privacy in the home, specifically when it came to inappropriate questions or comments about sex, addressed directly to her or discussed in her presence. As one example, she recalled a conversation GW & BW had (while she was in the same room) about how they had used "*advertiser censored*" for sex.

And why would anyone find it "disturbing" if EA assumed JW & AW were a couple? What am I missing here?

EA was a phenomenal witness. Every single reporter, Tweeter, blogger & vlogger I saw RAVED about her. The big takeaway the rest of us got is how her testimony echoed Tabitha's experience within the household and was reminiscent of Hannah's experience (demonstrated through texts). So we're seeing family dynamics from the inside of the household as a whole -- repeated now 3 times. That's a big deal. Two of the women barely escaped with their lives, one did not. Whether or not George was singled out in her testimony, George was still part of that household and very much part of their experience.

Maybe the difference is, you're waiting for evidence of what George did while I'm looking straight at evidence of what George did not do. George did not intervene, defend or try to protect any of these girls living in the same household. Not even his own wife.

LOL! Where do you get this stuff?
BBM

Go back and listen to when the defense was cross examining her. Parker said "So George had Yucky friends he hung out with?" Beth said yes.

Starts at 5;31: 30
Parker says Beth told BCI in a taped interview that "George hung out with "yucky" people at 5:31:35
Parker said Beth told BCI in a taped interview that George hung out with Who***es 5:31:45

Beth also said George talked about hanging out with Who***es on direct. That has been mentioned by a lot of posters on here up thread.

JMO

JMO

 

[RAISINISBACK]

LOL! Where do you get this stuff?

EA's testimony never once mentioned she saw or even knew of GW having any girlfriends (or friends that are girls). She testified about the lack of privacy in the home, specifically when it came to inappropriate questions or comments about sex, addressed directly to her or discussed in her presence. As one example, she recalled a conversation GW & BW had (while she was in the same room) about how they had used "*advertiser censored*" for sex.

And why would anyone find it "disturbing" if EA assumed JW & AW were a couple? What am I missing here?

EA was a phenomenal witness. Every single reporter, Tweeter, blogger & vlogger I saw RAVED about her. The big takeaway the rest of us got is how her testimony echoed Tabitha's experience within the household and was reminiscent of Hannah's experience (demonstrated through texts). So we're seeing family dynamics from the inside of the household as a whole -- repeated now 3 times. That's a big deal. Two of the women barely escaped with their lives, one did not. Whether or not George was singled out in her testimony, George was still part of that household and very much part of their experience.

Maybe the difference is, you're waiting for evidence of what George did while I'm looking straight at evidence of what George did not do. George did not intervene, defend or try to protect any of these girls living in the same household. Not even his own wife.

And why would anyone find it "disturbing" if EA assumed JW & AW were a couple? What am I missing here?

What in their behavior toward each other led her to believe they were a couple with a child? I dont want to get in to this deeply but something in how they acted toward each other led her to believe that.

JMO

 

[RAISINISBACK]

LOL! Where do you get this stuff?

EA's testimony never once mentioned she saw or even knew of GW having any girlfriends (or friends that are girls). She testified about the lack of privacy in the home, specifically when it came to inappropriate questions or comments about sex, addressed directly to her or discussed in her presence. As one example, she recalled a conversation GW & BW had (while she was in the same room) about how they had used "*advertiser censored*" for sex.

And why would anyone find it "disturbing" if EA assumed JW & AW were a couple? What am I missing here?

EA was a phenomenal witness. Every single reporter, Tweeter, blogger & vlogger I saw RAVED about her. The big takeaway the rest of us got is how her testimony echoed Tabitha's experience within the household and was reminiscent of Hannah's experience (demonstrated through texts). So we're seeing family dynamics from the inside of the household as a whole -- repeated now 3 times. That's a big deal. Two of the women barely escaped with their lives, one did not. Whether or not George was singled out in her testimony, George was still part of that household and very much part of their experience.

Maybe the difference is, you're waiting for evidence of what George did while I'm looking straight at evidence of what George did not do. George did not intervene, defend or try to protect any of these girls living in the same household. Not even his own wife.

I said she was a great witness. A brave and intelligent young woman I admire enormously.

JMO

 

[Chelly]

I think George is guilty, but so far prosecution's presentation has not convinced me. The jury needs to be convinced.

That jury of 12 people need to be convinced unanimously, beyond reasonable doubt, that George is guilty of conspiracy to murder.

 

[RAISINISBACK]

LOL! Where do you get this stuff?

EA's testimony never once mentioned she saw or even knew of GW having any girlfriends (or friends that are girls). She testified about the lack of privacy in the home, specifically when it came to inappropriate questions or comments about sex, addressed directly to her or discussed in her presence. As one example, she recalled a conversation GW & BW had (while she was in the same room) about how they had used "*advertiser censored*" for sex.

And why would anyone find it "disturbing" if EA assumed JW & AW were a couple? What am I missing here?

EA was a phenomenal witness. Every single reporter, Tweeter, blogger & vlogger I saw RAVED about her. The big takeaway the rest of us got is how her testimony echoed Tabitha's experience within the household and was reminiscent of Hannah's experience (demonstrated through texts). So we're seeing family dynamics from the inside of the household as a whole -- repeated now 3 times. That's a big deal. Two of the women barely escaped with their lives, one did not. Whether or not George was singled out in her testimony, George was still part of that household and very much part of their experience.

Maybe the difference is, you're waiting for evidence of what George did while I'm looking straight at evidence of what George did not do. George did not intervene, defend or try to protect any of these girls living in the same household. Not even his own wife.

George did not do.

That is the whole point of this trial and him pleading not guilty isn't it? What George didn't do?

JMO

 

[Chelly]

And why would anyone find it "disturbing" if EA assumed JW & AW were a couple? What am I missing here?

What in their behavior toward each other led her to believe they were a couple with a child? I dont want to get in to this deeply but something in how they acted toward each other led her to believe that.

JMO

Perhaps they appeared too "familiar" with each other as couples tend to do.

 

[RAISINISBACK]

***snip***
I don't think the significance of George's comments is based on what Elizabeth thought of them. That's up to the jury, the triers of facts. The significance of Elizabeth is the trial is that it's just another in a pile that suggests George was a part of a conspiracy. But her real significance was to the investigation.

She and Jake were married on Feb. 20, 2018; the Wagners moved back to Ohio in the spring of 2018 where she heard the threats and their belief that any of them could be arrested (the inference one could take from that is because they all were guilty - although some may not see it that way); she escapes on July 6 at the Jackson Wal-Mart; investigators interview her in Virginia in July 2018; she returns to Ohio on August 15 to file a complaint with the Scioto County Sherriff's Office for the threats and identity theft and that leads to a cascade of more search warrants that scoped up more info, adds video cameras and, probably, extentions of wiretaps.

And she is the first person, in my opinion, who landed a triple-double as the perfect, innocent, respectful and clearly frightened witness. Whether we like it or not, there does not need to be a smoking gun. The jury can use stacks of circumstantial evidence like they did recently in the Elizabeth Smart case. It's similar in the sense that the case was based on "this is this guy's pattern" (the family operating as a unit in this case), that there were means (the guns), motive (custody, suspected sexual abuse, suspected poisioning, family dynamics; you pick) and opportunity (no alibi; plus two alleged co-conspirators who said, in one case, you planned to be there and, in the other that you were there).

Courts have ruled over-and-over again the circumstantial evidence is sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

We might not like that this is the way juries decide things, but this is what they do

based on "this is this guy's pattern"

If that is what it is based on why isn't Tabitha and her family dead?

JMO

 

[RAISINISBACK]

Perhaps they appeared too "familiar" with each other as couples tend to do.

Bingo!!!!

 

[Caylee Advocate]

The Appalachian culture and its values are typically rooted in family, elders, community, land, hard work ethic, and in some pockets deep religious beliefs. The behavior of protecting family and standing side by side even when family members disagree is also a norm in the region. Inside of every culture exists subcultures that are created based on each family or individuals personal life experience. They are the unwritten rules of how a family or unit operate and are created outside of written rules or laws we are governed by.

This is where ideology for safety, health, wealth and survival are created especially in economically challenged regions. The subculture for the 4 Wagner's became what AW and BW established for the boys based on their own historical experiences of family (Wagners, Carters, and Newcombs) and solutions (illicit activity). This is where as a unit they established their own norms, patterns of operation and beliefs.

As pointed out, neither boy chose to leave. Was this because AW instilled the notion the outside world is so much more dangerous and only she could protect them and their children?

The Appalachian culture is quite beautiful at its core as the care for family, friends and neighbors runs deep. It's a unique trait not easily replicated. If the residents of the hills and hollers know you, they will literally give the shirt off their back to lend a helping hand. If they don't know you, it takes time to trust you. Social Estrangement outside family and local community is a real facet in pockets of the region. If you are an outsider and break trust, you are typically no longer welcome. A unique angle to this in Appalachian culture is this rule does not typically apply to blood/family. Family is most generally always welcomed back home, and forgiveness is traditionally reserved for loved ones. The female victims here were not viewed as loved ones. They were not extended grace or forgiveness.

A unique aspect to Appalachia due to the family bonds is there is greater influence from elder family members and their life experiences as well. While this is can be valuable, it can cause units to be stuck in the past with only a fear of history repeating itself.

The encouragement to go into the outside world to learn, explore and grow as your own has evolved over the decades, but there are still subcultures in Appalachia where it is discouraged and no outsiders are trusted. I feel the R/G/M families and the local community showed us the lack of trust via the reaction to news outlets and LE that we observed in the early days. Can we blame them if we put ourselves in their shoes? Their family was gone, the world they felt safe in was disrupted and suddenly they are expected to trust the strangers coming in? Past strangers in these communities brought threats to land, and ripped apart local economies as legislation eradicated lifestyles due mostly to agriculture and environmental legislation. People are seen as coming in to take and disrupt, not help or give back.

To get to the specifics of this family, according to testimony AW experienced at the hands of her father abuse which triggered her to go into the military. I feel she at one time wanted out of the culture and behavior patterns of her family. Her mom stated she wanted to get away from it. I believe the young AW likely did. She did leave. She went into the military.

From what we have learned she was then assaulted in the military. Was this assault different from the type she experienced at the hands of her father which she was escaping or did it lead her to believe it was norm and happened everywhere? It seems it was alarming enough to cause her to return and she came back to her family, back to the trauma she attempted to escape.

In no way do I want to sugar coat Angie or her actions, but outside this forum, outside the crimes, looking solely at Angie, it would not be out of the norm for AW to exhibit protective behaviors that escalated over the years. Angie was a victim as well, but the path she chose for survival was found in illicit activities. Getting away with this for years set the foundation to perpetuate behaviors related to survival coming from illegal means. It ended with murder as HER morally (not legally) acceptable solution to her latest problem.

I feel AW sought others she felt she could control so they couldn't "harm" her or her boys or her grandchildren. All along she was doing the greatest harm.

Her desire to protect herself and her boys in her mind meant limited exposure to a world outside of her. It is likely she grew very paranoid and her behaviors and thoughts snowballed over the years until they became her norm. Keep in mind her behavior was being triggered by past trauma and current state survival was being met via a life of crime. Until late age it sounds the boys only had family to learn from. My guess is they heard many times the world outside is evil and we need to stick together.

One point I would like to be sure to note, is while all females in Appalachia certainly do not experience what we have heard in court regarding abuse, unfortunately many do. It is an unspoken truth. Appalachia falls behind on female equality, independence and empowerment when compared to other parts of the US. Threats to long established gender norms and views are not well accepted.

Females that attempt to break the cycles are often viewed as rebellious. As HR, Tabby, and Beth made decisions that did not fall in line with AW or the family elders, they likely became perceived as such. An educated female, a female of her own views and beliefs was a threat to AW.

This is very important in this family as AW comes across IMO as having a very specific view of gender roles which can be common in the region and specifically rural Appalachia as compared to the more urban Appalachian communities.

The Appalachian culture tends to be very patriarchal and a female that would be perceived as stronger than AW would be a threat to her very existence and role as the Matriarch she desired to become.

Good post that I soooo agree with. Thanks for posting it.

 

[Pru2U]

George did not do.

That is the whole point of this trial and him pleading not guilty isn't it? What George didn't do?

JMO

Oops! You forgot the rest of the sentence.

George did not intervene, defend or try to protect any of these girls living in the same household. Not even his own wife.

Yes. That’s the whole point of this trial.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

Re Beth's interview with BCI.. that interview was right after she fled when they first interviewed her. I think it's reasonable to conclude when you hear people talking about something like that, that it is blowing off steam unless they pull out a notebook and start laying out actual plans. I think Chris N thought the same thing.. just blowing off steam.. haha yeah I'd get a bullet proof bulldozer and bust you out of there. (fish stories comes to mind.. the longer you talk the larger the fish gets lol)

I do think it's eerie now though in hindsight. The fact that this family was even blowing off steam and telling big stories after they committed these horrific murders is disturbing. Just like telling Beth they would kill her and her family. They just didn't think they'd get caught and I think even blowing off steam in light of what was done should be taken seriously. We see that they did pull off the murder of 8 people and I'm sure that would have been seen as a big fish tail too if anyone overheard them talking about that before it happened. How does anyone really know what they would actually do in light of what they have done?

So sure she thought at the time it was blowing off steam and I am sure Chris N did too because neither of them believed the W's killed 8 people. I think Chris N genuinely didn't believe it until Jake confessed, and from what I heard from Beth seems her disbelief was likely self protecting of some sort... denial so she could function and then escape.

You're right: the murders of 8 people in 4 dwellings on one night probably would sound like a "big story" until the bodies are found. The talk about a bullet-proof bulldozer and breaking down a jail or prison wall was a ridiculous notion. But would Wagners be capable of murdering state officials or BCI agents? Yes. They killed friends; they killed people related by blood through Sophia. Why would they stop at some government official they see as an enemy? Do I think the threat against Beth was credible? Yes I do. And once Jake and Angela testify, it's like the jury will see their talk as

The jury doesn't have to think George was going to bullet-proof a bulldozer. What they have to see is his (and the Wagner) response to perceived opposition or danger is violence or the threat of it. We've seen three clear instances of threats--against Tabitha, against Beth and against Hanna. And the Wagners not only acted on the threat against Hanna; they carried it out against her whole family.

 

[Betty P]

I think George is guilty, but so far prosecution's presentation has not convinced me. The jury needs to be convinced.

That jury of 12 people need to be convinced unanimously, beyond reasonable doubt, that George is guilty of conspiracy to murder.

JMO - Based on what's probable, not what's possible

• George was at the crime scenes that night, he probably fired the first shots at Chris Sr, missed because of nerves and fear Chris Sr returning fire - ballistics, GW4's gun used, etc.
• He went inside the crime scenes - at Chris Sr.s he helped Jake move the bodies. The shoe prints are the evidence. Jake's confession confirmed that
• All of their phones pinged at Peterson Rd, because that's how they planned it. Left regular phones there and took a burner phone or two - state has already provided evidence of that
• George was outside at crime scenes helping look for cameras, lookout, stood guard at Chris Jr's door,etc. Per Jake's confession and shoeprint evidence
• If jury isn't convinced of Aggravated Murder based on evidence, there is sufficient evidence for Conspiracy and Aggravated Burglary - both of those will make him guilty of Aggravated Murder.
• According to the legal definition of Conspiracy, the jury will find him guilty
• At some point he may confess if he feels the pressure. If so, it might convince Billy to do the same

ETA: I think GW4's motive came from the fear he and his mom whipped up that Hanna's collaboration with Tabby could result in GW4 losing full custody of Vine. AW hacked their accounts and figured out that Hanna was encouraging Tabby to get custody and telling her how to go about it. - per state's evidence of FB messages and texts between them

JMO MOO

 

[pittsburghgirl]

Oops! You forgot the rest of the sentence.

George did not intervene, defend or try to protect any of these girls living in the same household. Not even his own wife.

Yes. That’s the whole point of this trial.

And he didn't warn his friend Frankie that his murderous father and brother were coming to kill him and his family. He didn't call Chris, Sr. to warn him about the ambush. He didn't call police. He didn't enlist his grandmother to help him talk his family out of committing 8 murders.

 

[Betty P]

Oops! You forgot the rest of the sentence.

George did not intervene, defend or try to protect any of these girls living in the same household. Not even his own wife.

Yes. That’s the whole point of this trial.

He also didn't go to police or try to stop his family from carrying out the murders.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

based on "this is this guy's pattern"

If that is what it is based on why isn't Tabitha and her family dead?

JMO

She gave up her child. Had George, et al. not been arrested, she and her family might have met the same fate as the Rhodens and HHG had she managed to win back custody or unsupervised visitation.

 

[Skully67]

JMO - Based on what's probable, not what's possible

• George was at the crime scenes that night, he probably fired the first shots at Chris Sr, missed because of nerves and fear Chris Sr returning fire - ballistics, GW4's gun used, etc.
• He went inside the crime scenes - at Chris Sr.s he helped Jake move the bodies. The shoe prints are the evidence. Jake's confession confirmed that
• All of their phones pinged at Peterson Rd, because that's how they planned it. Left regular phones there and took a burner phone or two - state has already provided evidence of that
• George was outside at crime scenes helping look for cameras, lookout, stood guard at Chris Jr's door,etc. Per Jake's confession and shoeprint evidence
• If jury isn't convinced of Aggravated Murder based on evidence, there is sufficient evidence for Conspiracy and Aggravated Burglary - both of those will make him guilty of Aggravated Murder.
• According to the legal definition of Conspiracy, the jury will find him guilty
• At some point he may confess if he feels the pressure. If so, it might convince Billy to do the same

ETA: I think GW4's motive came from the fear he and his mom whipped up that Hanna's collaboration with Tabby could result in GW4 losing full custody of Vine. AW hacked their accounts and figured out that Hanna was encouraging Tabby to get custody and telling her how to go about it. - per state's evidence of FB messages and texts between them

JMO MOO

GW4 has nothing to lose by not pleading guilty, if JW & AW fulfill there part of the deal.

 

[Betty P]

GW4 has nothing to lose by not pleading guilty, if JW & AW fulfill there part of the deal.

If JW and AW fulfill their part of the deal and the jury finds him guilty of the capital charges, he (and probably Billy)will get the DP.

It's all theoretical and such until GW4 ends up with the injection. Of course, he will be allowed a lot of appeals, which he may win, but serving time on Death Row is much harder than in the general population. No perks, only getting out of his cell for an hour a day, etc.