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

[arielilane]

Betty P.
GW4 is guilty as sin, your right he was out hurting that night, but it wasn’t animals he was hurting, it was human’s.???? JMO

Agreed. Let's hope that the prosecution will bring more testimony in the next few weeks tying GW4 to the crime scene(s) beyond a reasonable doubt. IMO

 

[Johnny B Bad]

Sleuthers,
Have you all forgot about attorney Nash stood up in one of GW4 pre-trials and said the only reason that GW4 was at the murder scene was to protect Jake, he said Billy might have killed Jake also that night so he was there to protect little brother, WHY! JMO

 

[Puzzles8]

Sleuthers,
Have you all forgot about attorney Nash stood up in one of GW4 pre-trials and said the only reason that GW4 was at the murder scene was to protect Jake, he said Billy might have killed Jake also that night so he was there to protect little brother, WHY! JMO

You are so correct, Nash seems to have changed his mind about George being at the murders scenes.

In pretrial Nash did claim George only went along to 'protect' Jake, now he claims that George had no foreknowledge of the murders and did not go along.

IMO, critical error on the part of George's lawyers.

JMO

ETA - George's lawyer now claims that Jake killed all 8 of the victims. How would George know that if he wasn't at the crime scenes?

 

[sunshineray]

YES! Isn't that humiliating? She also testified AW asked her if they had sex with S in the room and other inappropriate questions related to sex; there was the prostitute discussion between BW & GW and them reading her journal. Then Jake, Angie AND George confronted her with the diary. The three of them together watched as she burned it & flushed it down the toilet.

Yeah. EA's testimony made him look like a real normal guy. Ganging up on his his sister-in-law to confront her about her journal, watching on as she is forced to burn it & flush it down the toilet sounds like normal guy stuff, doesn't it?

JMO

Clarification: The photos of the journal pages submitted into evidence were from the electronics BCI confiscated. The journal no longer exists.

Yes, and I was thinking, after that ganging up on EA in FW's kitchen about recognizing JW's hand in that gun photo, that might have been the catalyst for AW wearing rubber gloves when she took those pictures of EA's diary! I think it had to be AW because she was such a stickler about taking screenshots of other people's writings on Facebook. AJMO

 

[justtrish]

You are so correct, Nash seems to have changed his mind about George being at the murders scenes.

In pretrial Nash did claim George only went along to 'protect' Jake, now he claims that George had no foreknowledge of the murders and did not go along.

IMO, critical error on the part of George's lawyers.

JMO

So legal question. If Nash said that and it was not an if he went along.. etc but a statement of fact, can he be in trouble?

Let's say the defense presents something else when they get their turn, can that statement he made in pre trial get him in trouble? If that statement was made because his client told him he went along to protect Jake and then they stand up in court and present evidence trying to show George didn't even know till the next day??? If his client ever told him he was there to protect Jake can he even present a different scenario as his defense?

 

[sunshineray]

So legal question. If Nash said that and it was not an if he went along.. etc but a statement of fact, can he be in trouble?

Let's say the defense presents something else when they get their turn, can that statement he made in pre trial get him in trouble? If that statement was made because his client told him he went along to protect Jake and then they stand up in court and present evidence trying to show George didn't even know till the next day??? If his client ever told him he was there to protect Jake can he even present a different scenario as his defense?

That's a really good question. Plus another would be can it be brought up by the prosecution at trial...maybe in closing statements? I don't know, is that legal? I mean Nash did say it in open court in front if a judge.

 

[Cool Cats]

I don't think George's attorneys admitted in any Motion or Court Hearing that George was at any of the murder scenes. They might have mentioned that Jake and Angela's proffers say that, but that is not the same thing. Big difference.

They said George vehemently denies being involved with the murders and that he never shot anyone. And now at opening statements they say he wasn't at the murder scenes and didn't know about them until the next day.

So I would like to see video proof with the time stamp where an attorney for George actually admits his client was at the murder scenes.

The posts on here are correct, a murder defense attorney isn't going to say in pre-trial hearings that his client is at murder scenes (regardless of the reason) then say in opening arguments at the actual trial that now suddenly their client really was never at the murder scenes and knew nothing about that night until after the fact.

So if Nash or Parker told the Court George was at the murder scenes, I want proof on video or proof they said it in a Motion.

A DP attorney doesn't tell an open court at a pre-trial hearing that his client went along on 8 murders, but in his opening statement says his client didn't actually go and didn't know what happened that night.

It's Jake who says his brother was there, George says he wasn't so it's his word against Jake.

It's up to the Jury to believe or disbelieve Jake's testimony. If the jury believes Jake that his brother helped before hand and went along to the crime scenes then George will get convicted most likely.

If the jury thinks Jake is a liar throwing his brother under the bus then George could be acquitted of murder.

 

[Puzzles8]

I don't think George's attorneys admitted in any Motion or Court Hearing that George was at any of the murder scenes. They might have mentioned that Jake and Angela's proffers say that, but that is not the same thing. Big difference.

They said George vehemently denies being involved with the murders and that he never shot anyone. And now at opening statements they say he wasn't at the murder scenes and didn't know about them until the next day.

So I would like to see video proof with the time stamp where an attorney for George actually admits his client was at the murder scenes.

The posts on here are correct, a murder defense attorney isn't going to say in pre-trial hearings that his client is at murder scenes (regardless of the reason) then say in opening arguments at the actual trial that now suddenly their client really was never at the murder scenes and knew nothing about that night until after the fact.

So if Nash or Parker told the Court George was at the murder scenes, I want proof on video or proof they said it in a Motion.

A DP attorney doesn't tell an open court at a pre-trial hearing that his client went along on 8 murders, but in his opening statement says his client didn't go and didn't know what his family did that night.

It's Jake who says his brother was there, George says he wasn't so it's his word against Jake.

It's up to the Jury to believe or disbelieve Jake's testimony. If the jury believes Jake that his brother helped before hand and went along to the crime scenes then George will get convicted most likely.

If the jury thinks Jake is a liar throwing his brother under the bus then George could be acquitted of murder.

Then why did Nash, in his opening statement claim Jake murdered all 8 of the victims?

I think both Jake's and Angela's proffers will speak loud and clear and align with the massive amount of evidence BCI has amassed over the 6.5 years after the murders.

Do you think both Jake and and Angie lied in their proffers? I don't think so. IMO, they were both pleading for their life as well for the life of Billy and George.

Just my humble opinion, it will be interesting to see this play out at court.

JMO

 

[Cool Cats]

Then why did Nash, in his opening statement claim Jake murdered all 8 of the victims?

JMO

It shows George did not go to the murder scenes, Jake didn't need help. Looks better for his client. Adds more weight that George wasn't there and did not shoot anyone. I don't know why George's defense doesn't mention Billy.

Jake says he doesn't know who shot who but they do know for sure Jake shot people. Perhaps Billy's attorneys are planning the same thing, that Jake did it all.

 

[Puzzles8]

It shows George did not go to the murder scenes, Jake didn't need help. Looks better for his client. Adds more weight that George wasn't there and did not shoot anyone. I don't know why George's defense doesn't mention Billy.

Jake says he doesn't know who shot who but they do know for sure Jake shot people. Perhaps Billy's attorneys are planning the same thing, that Jake did it all.

Please cite where it shows George did not go to any of the murder scenes.

JMO

 

[Cool Cats]

Please cite where it shows George did not go to any of the murder scenes.

JMO

It's what his attorney says. it's George's defense that he was a family outsider and didn't go along with his family"s murder plans and had absolutely no reason to get involved. Everyone had their reasons to get involved but not George, and that Jake is basically a liar to get a good deal from the State.

I have no way to show George wasn't at the murder scenes, it's up to George's jury to decide if he went and if he was involved. Depends on will Nash convince the jury George had nothing to do with it? Or will the prosecution prove George was there every step of the way?

 

[Niner]

Hey!

snipped by me...

ETA - At beginning of trial, Judge set aside 8-9 weeks on the court's calendar for this trial.

That is about 56 to 63 days - wonder why my notes say 30 days for trial... must have picked that up in an article. I shall correct my notes - if this true - 8 to 9 weeks.

I interpreted that to mean that George4 is in a death penalty trial but if Jake lives up to the proffer and testifies, G4 won't get the DP. But now I wonder if I'm wrong. Ack...

from my notes:

DA will seek the DP. Per Jake’s plea agreement, DP is off the table if his testimony is truthful.

BIG IF!

snipped by me...

It's why this is a Death Penalty trial, with DP certified attorneys and DP certified jury.

I did not realize that the jury was DP certified ! Thanks!

snipped again...

Jake didn't intend for GW4 to face the DP, he intended his family members take the plea deal and live. It was GW4's fault he's now eligible for DP. His choice alone.

I'm sorry some folks have gotten confused about GW4 facing the DP, I thought you all understood. I also don't get the whole thing about Jake lying. If he lies HE gets the DP. He's not going to do that and BCI & FBI are not dumb enough to fall for a fake story from him.

Thank you for this explanation - now I get it! LOL!

 

[Puzzles8]

It's what his attorney says. it's George's defense that he was a family outsider and didn't go along with his family"s murder plans and had absolutely no reason to get involved. Everyone had their reasons to get involved but not George, and that Jake is basically a liar to get a good deal from the State.

I have no way to show George wasn't at the murder scenes, it's up to George's jury to decide if he went and if he was involved. Depends on will Nash convince the jury George had nothing to do with it? Or will the prosecution prove George was there every step of the way?

I don't think for a minute think he wasn't an active part of the W4's regular kitchen conversations and plans. IMO, he was no outsider. The evidence so far shows him as an active participant in those enmeshed kitchen table family decisions for all of his adult life. EW's testimony confirmed the same.

<modsnip - personalizing>

JMO

 

[gizmobtj]

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.

Elizabeth said the threats against law enforcement and plans to break out were ongoing so we don't know whether they came before or after the threat to her, which seems to be the last straw. A possibility is that her views of the threats against law enforcement and breaking out took on a new weight when she heard AWs absurd allegations and JWs graphic, detailed threat against her. Just speculation because we don't really know

 

[gizmobtj]

Quick question. Was JW’s testimony (confession) about GW not being able to see with the silencer thing regarding testing it out or shooting at CR?

Do you know what I’m talking about or did I dream it?

That's what AC said the proffer said in her opening. Since he has not testified, we truly don't know

 

[gizmobtj]

So legal question. If Nash said that and it was not an if he went along.. etc but a statement of fact, can he be in trouble?

Let's say the defense presents something else when they get their turn, can that statement he made in pre trial get him in trouble? If that statement was made because his client told him he went along to protect Jake and then they stand up in court and present evidence trying to show George didn't even know till the next day??? If his client ever told him he was there to protect Jake can he even present a different scenario as his defense?

No. The defense is allowed to change its theory and the screening of the jury should have eliminated anyone who heard comments from the pretrial hearings

 

[Pru2U]

Yes, and I was thinking, after that ganging up on EA in FW's kitchen about recognizing JW's hand in that gun photo, that might have been the catalyst for AW wearing rubber gloves when she took those pictures of EA's diary! I think it had to be AW because she was such a stickler about taking screenshots of other people's writings on Facebook. AJMO

I rewatched AC opening statement again late last night. Apparently, EA would write out her thoughts then throw them away. AC said Angela would go through the trash & that's how she found the journal notes.

I don't remember hearing that in EA's testimony but it's what AC said.

 

[gizmobtj]

Then why did Nash, in his opening statement claim Jake murdered all 8 of the victims?

I think both Jake's and Angela's proffers will speak loud and clear and align with the massive amount of evidence BCI has amassed over the 6.5 years after the murders.

Do you think both Jake and and Angie lied in their proffers? I don't think so. IMO, they were both pleading for their life as well for the life of Billy and George.

Just my humble opinion, it will be interesting to see this play out at court.

JMO

He could be arguing that the forensic evidence says this or that JW came back and told GW that

 

[gizmobtj]

Hey!



That is about 56 to 63 days - wonder why my notes say 30 days for trial... must have picked that up in an article. I shall correct my notes - if this true - 8 to 9 weeks.




from my notes:

DA will seek the DP. Per Jake’s plea agreement, DP is off the table if his testimony is truthful.

BIG IF!




I did not realize that the jury was DP certified ! Thanks!




Thank you for this explanation - now I get it! LOL!

It's an defense attorney that has to be death penalty certified, not the jury. The jurors have to acknowledge that they are not morally opposed to the DP

 

[pittsburghgirl]

Then why did Nash, in his opening statement claim Jake murdered all 8 of the victims?

I think both Jake's and Angela's proffers will speak loud and clear and align with the massive amount of evidence BCI has amassed over the 6.5 years after the murders.

Do you think both Jake and and Angie lied in their proffers? I don't think so. IMO, they were both pleading for their life as well for the life of Billy and George.

Just my humble opinion, it will be interesting to see this play out at court.

JMO

I think there is likely tangible evidence that George bought and disposed of the vehicle, apart from whatever testimony Jake gives. For example, G4 gave the murder truck to a relative, who can testify. If he bought the truck, the seller can testify. And so on.