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

[Pru2U]

You don't think if they talked to Jake when they visited he wouldn't have told them?

JMO

You think Jake would screw up his deal? "Oh, by the way, I'm thinking about confessing". HA! Not on your life! The N's & W's found out after the deal was done.

The Rhoden & Gilley's knew, though but I would imagine it was all wrapped up & signed the same day the families were consulted. Within hours, if not minutes.

 

[rebelchild]

I think it was easy for them to plan when George was gone. But I do think he knew afterwards.

About those tattoos. Did you know that tattoo that George got is a favorite among truck drivers? Motorcycle riders also. Even one of the guys on deadliest catch TV show had a tattoo similar to Georges.

The 8 ball is the last ball put in the pocket in a pool game so is considered good luck. 4 aces is a winning hand which is also considered good luck. So truck drivers hope for good luck out on the road but the skull is an acknowledgement that one mistake can cost them their life while driving.

40 8 Ball Tattoo Designs for Men

Discover shred gamesmanship and the cornerstone of any billiards match with the top 40 best 8 ball tattoo designs for men. Explore cool pool ball ink ideas.

nextluxury.com

Scroll down about halfway on this site and you will see the exact same tattoo George has. A lot of them add the skull, either around the 8 ball or in it or to the side of it.

Google was my friend on this along with a client who is an OTR truck driver. He said those tattoos are very popular in the south.

JMO

Such a coincidence that he got it after the murders of 8 people. It might have looked better for him if he would have just tattooed a semi on his arm. lol

 

[Pru2U]

Doesn't mean they didn't visit and relay messages to her from Jake.

JMO

No way FW ever visited Angie. No flipping way. Maybe Robin, MAYBE, but I don't see it.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

It's done everyday.

I can see what you are saying. If you buy a car from a car dealership, and you finance that car, you have to fill out an application, show ID, and provide proof of insurance then you are (here) given a paper dealers tag. You have 30 days to go to a tag agent, pay excise tax, get a tag and then a new title to the vehicle will be mailed to you with your name on it.

But if you buy a vehicle from an individual, pay cash for it, that individual signs the back of the title and gives you the keys and pockets the money. You do not have to show an ID or proof of insurance to do this. That is perfectly legal.

You then have 30 days from the date the previous owner signed the back of the title to go to a tag agent, pay excise tax, show an ID, show proof of insurance and change the title over to your name.

Both ways are perfectly legal. Both are done millions of times in this country every time a vehicle is sold.

JMO

In my state, the buyer and seller need to meet and complete the paperwork at time of sale. You can't get insurance without registration and you can't register the car without transferring the title.
From PA Dept of Transportation, re: individual buyers and sellers, not dealerships:

The buyer and seller should meet at the office of a notary public, tag service, or motor vehicle dealer to ensure the title application is completed correctly. If the car is financed, the certificate of title in your name will be mailed to the lienholder. If the vehicle is not financed, the certificate of title in your name will be sent directly to you.

I've lived in PA all my life. My dad sold used cars as a side hustle and as a teenager and college student I helped with the paperwork. Ohio may have a 30-day grace period, but people MOVING to PA have only 20 days to change title and registration to PA. I'm sure there are all sorts of shady arrangements that go on, just as people drive without licenses and let their registrations and insurance lapse. And the sort of people who buy murder trucks wouldn't care about paperwork.

 

[Puzzles8]

And, IF George wanted to break away from the family and him and his son move elsewhere (as his attorneys are trying to lead the jury to believe), then why didn't he??!!

What held you back, George? Was it because you'd lose your built-in babysitter (your mommy)? Was it because you would now have to pay your own bills? Was it because even you were too scared of YOUR own family that you didn't leave? Was it because it would be less likely, that being out on your own and being responsible for your child, that you would have to change some of your own alleged staying out late at night, etc? Was it because you wouldn't have mommy there to instruct/direct you in sooooo many aspects of your personal life, including your sexual relations? And I could go on and on....
But point being, George, IF you wanted to leave/break away from the rest of your family so bad, as your defense says/presents, then WHY didn't you???

You are spot on in your assessment of George. They were all so codependent on each for even basic functioning in life. George on his mother (bills, cooking, babysitting) and brother (shared a job). Angie on the boys for income. Billy for his connections with FW her ATV toys and land. Billy dependent on FW for a job.

Given that, I have often wondered how difficult their adjustment to jail must have been. For the first time in their lives they were completely separated, not even allowed to contact each other. Those first few weeks and months must have seemed like an eternity to them.

I've often thought that the effects of the W4's separation might have been the reason Jake and Angie eventually confessed.
No more kitchen table voting. Now, they had to deal with the 'outside' world, other inmates, attorneys. It took a while but maybe they started thinking for themselves a little more, they were forced to.

JMO

 

[pittsburghgirl]

It's not unusual. Many families do it. How many of you remember that TV show Dallas? Old Miss Ellie kept her sons, DILs and GK's living right in the house on Southfork with her and Jock.

A lot of poor people and wealthy people all live together in the same house or on the same land. Very common.

JMO

We've been over this before. Living together does not equal "enmeshment." There are many differences between a healthy, intergenerational family and an enmeshed one:

Family cohesion refers to the degree of family closeness and caring among family members. A close-knit family has strong family bonds that include emotional closeness and support. A close family is associated with higher life satisfaction and lower depressive symptoms.

On the other hand, an enmeshed parenting style creates a dysfunctional relationship pattern that inhibits psychological differences in individual members. Despite the nonexistent boundaries, enmeshed families have a low level of cohesion and only moderate levels of warmth in the familial relationship. The level of closeness is often constraining and hinders individual autonomy.

In addition, enmeshed parents show high levels of hostility and negative emotions. Enmeshed parents are intrusive and competitive5. Their psychological control over the child often leads to codependent unhealthy relationships6.


Enmeshment in the family can also mean rigid boundaries to the outside world. Enmeshed children are constrained to sustain their own needs and find gratification only within the family. When they deviate from the expectation, they develop strong feelings of guilt and a fear of abandonment.

Thus, the enmeshed family systems comprise both weakly defined boundaries in the entire family and a highly rigid boundary between families and the outside world. Enmeshed Family - Signs of Enmeshment And How To Rebuild Boundaries

 

[pittsburghgirl]

You are spot on in your assessment of George. They were all so codependent on each for even basic functioning in life. George on his mother (bills, cooking, babysitting) and brother (shared a job). Angie on the boys for income. Billy for his connections with FW her ATV toys and land. Billy dependent on FW for a job.

Given that, I have often wondered how difficult their adjustment to jail must have been. For the first time in their lives they were completely separated, not even allowed to contact each other. Those first few weeks and months must have seemed like forever to them.

I've often thought that the effects of the W4's separation might have been the reason Jake and Angie eventually confessed.
No more kitchen table voting. Now, they had to deal with the 'outside' world, other inmates, attorneys. It took a while but maybe they started thinking for themselves a little more, they were forced to.

JMO

I think this is very insightful.

 

[Dudly]

I hope we get to hear the entire proffer in court. That will take up many many days because AC stated Jake talked to them for 12 hours, but I think it will be important to show exactly what was said and then exactly how/why Jake changed his story.

I have a feeling he was trying to protect George. The defense would try to throw it out there that Jake threw George under the bus and lied in the proffer by pulling out a few statements made (in the pre-trial hearing I posted early today they had 10 statements they wanted to present to defend their position. 10 statements from a 12 hour proffer)

Jake knows the DP will be off the table, but he's never getting out of prison ever.. he agrees.

I think when they present the 2 different shoe prints in 2 different sizes to Jake he says, he was there, but he didn't shoot anyone. Again trying to minimize George's role thinking he wouldn't be charged with murder.

Maybe then they inform Jake it doesn't matter that George didn't shoot he's still guilty of murder same as Jake is.

So then let's say Jake says George was just there to protect Jake thinking that makes George look innocent of murder charges somehow because he was defending Jake against potential danger from Billy.. then they say to Jake, nope he's still guilty of murder.

Changing a story doesn't mean he was trying to pin it on George, but quite the opposite, I think he was trying to reduce George's role so someone could be out and take care of the kids, maybe break them out of jail like they discussed so many times.

I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't come up with a story to tell if they were all arrested (just like they did in those conversations about if various people are arrested and another isn't, who gets the kids, maybe they had a plan for if everyone is arrested).

I have a feeling it might have been Angela they wanted to keep out of trouble initially, but when BCI was presenting her with the Walmart receipts and then the custody documents on the laptop, she knew she was in too far with the paper trail she left.

So I really hope we hear the entire proffer so we can put to rest the idea that Jake just lied to somehow pin things on poor old innocent George. <modsnip> I would never say George and innocent go beside each other.

So if we hear the whole proffer then how do you decide which is truth and which is a lie, if you believe he lied?

 

[Puzzles8]

Do you know if the attorneys for co-defendants were allowed to sit in on the pre-trial hearings for the others? So when George had a pre-trial in early April 2021 would Jake's attorneys be allowed to sit in? Just trying to piece together the timing of Jake's plea with maybe the hearings for other co defendants.

This is IIRC, but I think we saw Nash at one of either Jake's or Billy's pretrials. His bald head makes him stand out in a crowd.

JMO

 

[justtrish]

You think Jake would screw up his deal? "Oh, by the way, I'm thinking about confessing". HA! Not on your life! The N's & W's found out after the deal was done.

The Rhoden & Gilley's knew, though but I would imagine it was all wrapped up & signed the same day the families were consulted. Within hours, if not minutes.

Maybe they talked to the families after the arrests and discussed their thoughts on LWOP vs DP or possible plea deals in the future and if they would be okay with LWOP should any of them cooperate.

I can't imagine they talked about 30 years for AW until that one came up. All I can think is what she offered or what she corroborated was good enough that they gave her such a good deal. AC at one point said she was very forthcoming with her part and didn't try to diminish it at all.. so maybe after all this she really was extremely honest and was able to completely pin it all together. She will be 80 after 30 years so likely to not be so agile and without her sons, her husband, her mother will be gone by then and it sounds like her brother will have nothing to do with her so she will really be alone and old then. Perhaps that would be a more harsh sentence for her anyway. The things she fought so hard to keep under her control will all be gone and she will be literally alone.

 

[Pru2U]

So if we hear the whole proffer then how do you decide which is truth and which is a lie, if you believe he lied?

In my case, I don't necessarily believe he lied so much as I believe he left some details out. Some would call that lying. I'm not going into it believing he's lying. I'll listen (or read) to try to weigh his testimony the same as I weigh all the other evidence that's been presented, then put it all together & see if it adds up. It's not just his word, there's physical & circumstantial evidence to consider & compare.

But I do hope to see him testify. I think seeing & hearing with my own eyes & ears will help my own decision.

JMO

 

[justtrish]

So if we hear the whole proffer then how do you decide which is truth and which is a lie, if you believe he lied?

I don't really NEED to hear it all to believe him. I trust the prosecutors and BCI. They spent hours, days, months, years listening, watching, investigating, and piecing this together. They waited to arrest them when they felt they had enough to convict them. I don't believe for a minute the let Jake pull one over on them. They didn't need him to cooperate so if he did and they offered every other one of them the same opportunity for the deal, then it was fair to all. They aren't trying to railroad anyone, pin it all on George, etc.

But, if it will help the jury to hear that proffer so the defense can't claim he lied and lied and lied, then I hope we get to hear it. They wanted to cherry pick from the proffer in a pre-trial hearing and AC said no sir. So that is all I mean. If it will become a problem, then play it all. I think the nature of his "lies" were likely leaving info out or trying to minimize George's involvement and then they presented something they knew or a statement George made and then Jake would realize that he couldn't get away with minimizing George's role or Angela's role, etc. I don't think hey outright lied and changed the story or AC would not have accepted his proffer and gave him a deal.

 

[justtrish]

In my case, I don't necessarily believe he lied so much as I believe he left some details out. Some would call that lying. I'm not going into it believing he's lying. I'll listen (or read) to try to weigh his testimony the same as I weigh all the other evidence that's been presented, then put it all together & see if it adds up. It's not just his word, there's physical & circumstantial evidence to consider & compare.

But I do hope to see him testify. I think seeing & hearing with my own eyes & ears will help my own decision.

JMO

YES! I think his statement fit the evidence they already had. AC even said it helped explain some things they already had. They didn't try to make the evidence fit his statement. They had most of the evidence for 1-2 years slowly fitting it together before the arrests.

 

[Puzzles8]

Does anyone know how the proffer process works in court?
Will Jake be in the courtroom while his proffer is being played?
If he is able to 'opt out' does that include not having his proffer broadcast?
Is cross exam allowed?

Oh, so many questions..

JMO

 

[Chingaling]

It's not unusual. Many families do it. How many of you remember that TV show Dallas? Old Miss Ellie kept her sons, DILs and GK's living right in the house on Southfork with her and Jock.

A lot of poor people and wealthy people all live together in the same house or on the same land. Very common.

JMO

My kids and all my grandkids grew up here, it's their home. When my son moves on one of the grandkids will probably want the place. And hopefully we will still be here in the big house enjoying every minute of it. We went RZR riding with one of the grands and a bunch of his friends today. It's all good and all fun.

 

[Caylee Advocate]

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.

BAM!!!! Trials are tricky sometimes and if one juror is scratching their head thinking then a mistrial comes into play. That's why from the beginning I have said "I want to hear and SEE all of the evidence"

If he did wrong and was complicit in these murders, then burn his arse, but do it by crossing every T, and dotting every I with facts and proof. All MOO.

 

[Pru2U]

Maybe they talked to the families after the arrests and discussed their thoughts on LWOP vs DP or possible plea deals in the future and if they would be okay with LWOP should any of them cooperate.

I can't imagine they talked about 30 years for AW until that one came up. All I can think is what she offered or what she corroborated was good enough that they gave her such a good deal. AC at one point said she was very forthcoming with her part and didn't try to diminish it at all.. so maybe after all this she really was extremely honest and was able to completely pin it all together. She will be 80 after 30 years so likely to not be so agile and without her sons, her husband, her mother will be gone by then and it sounds like her brother will have nothing to do with her so she will really be alone and old then. Perhaps that would be a more harsh sentence for her anyway. The things she fought so hard to keep under her control will all be gone and she will be literally alone.

I'm not sure. I know when Jake plead, at the opening of proceedings, Junk stated they had "consulted with the families according to Marsy's Law and the families agreed".

Marsy's Law for Ohio

Ensuring equal rights for victims of crime.

www.marsyslawforoh.com

 

[pittsburghgirl]

Maybe they talked to the families after the arrests and discussed their thoughts on LWOP vs DP or possible plea deals in the future and if they would be okay with LWOP should any of them cooperate.

I can't imagine they talked about 30 years for AW until that one came up. All I can think is what she offered or what she corroborated was good enough that they gave her such a good deal. AC at one point said she was very forthcoming with her part and didn't try to diminish it at all.. so maybe after all this she really was extremely honest and was able to completely pin it all together. She will be 80 after 30 years so likely to not be so agile and without her sons, her husband, her mother will be gone by then and it sounds like her brother will have nothing to do with her so she will really be alone and old then. Perhaps that would be a more harsh sentence for her anyway. The things she fought so hard to keep under her control will all be gone and she will be literally alone.

This is how I see Angela's sentence. After 30 years in prison, what would she even do? She's never really worked and she can hardly start over at 80. Her grandchildren will be adults moving into their 40s, knowing what she and her sons did. They won't be calling her "mom." And every day she's in prison, she will have to do work and follow other peoples' rules.

 

[Chingaling]

But do you plan and commit crimes together? Terrorize and hurt your daughter's significant others? You just can't compare a normal family to a dysfunctional one. Imo.

No but I'm not going to deny some dysfunction. I think every family has some disfunction. My boy and 1 of my grandsons are risk takers. So was my baby brother, he's no longer with us, been gone longer than he was here on earth. Just doesn't seem real, and I am a worrying grandma. So I go RZR riding with them,LOL.

 

[justtrish]

This is how I see Angela's sentence. After 30 years in prison, what would she even do? She's never really worked and she can hardly start over at 80. Her grandchildren will be adults moving into their 40s, knowing what she and her sons did. They won't be calling her "mom." And every day she's in prison, she will have to do work and follow other peoples' rules.

Maybe prison is what she needed (besides being punished for these crimes). Maybe she needed saved from herself. In jail at least it's structure and not that I want her to have peace, but she can't hurt anyone in prison. If she is confined and isn't a pain to the guards and can just live out her years and die in prison, I'd be okay with that. She's suffering not having contract with her kids/grandkids.