OH - Pike Co - 8 in Rhoden Family Murdered Over Custody Issue - 4 Members Wagner Family Arrested #83

[Dudly]

BIBM

Canepa; OBJECTION! A sidebar, then disrupts opening of defense, when defense states that at the MT border the BCI says to GW4, "you're not like the rest, you can help us" loosely quoting. I want to hear the MT interview of the man being prosecuted. Obviously Canepa thought it was evidentiary b/c she didn't want it stated, voiced, nor played for some reason that we don't know. I know, a win in her pocket.

She didn want the GWIV interview played unless she could question him on the witness stand about the content. If not it is one sided. Apparently the Defense was OK with not playing it if it meant he had to testify…

 

[RAISINISBACK]

Yes. exactly. Someone was a look out at each one of the scenes. Someone was the look out at Chris Srs making sure Frankie did not come out. Someone was the look out at Keneth Rhodens (two vehicles, one pulled over), and the look out at Dana's house was making sure Chris Jr did not wake up, etc, etc. From day one, the logistics of carrying out these murders has alway pointed to the fact that there was at least 3 or 4 murderers involved. They have the right people arrested two of them have decided to plead guilty.

How do you know that lookout was not Angie?

JMO

 

[RAISINISBACK]

It will be no surprise. He wasn't under oath. He will lie, like he always does.

If you want to hear him, get his attorneys to put him on the stand. He needs to be under oath.

His mother testified under oath.
His brother testified under oath.

He hasn't testified under oath. He should.

How do we know he will lie? He only gave one statement to BCI and that is the MT one. So basically we have not heard any statement from him to determine whether he lied or not.

There is no obligation for a defendant to testify in his own trial. Most attorneys do not allow them to.

JMO

 

[RAISINISBACK]

She didn want the GWIV interview played unless she could question him on the witness stand about the content. If not it is one sided. Apparently the Defense was OK with not playing it if it meant he had to testify…

She didn want the GWIV interview played unless she could question him on the witness stand about the content

She didn't want Jake's interview from the MT border played either, she fought to keep it out, arguing with Parker and Jake did testify on the stand. So how do you reconcile that?

JMO

 

[sunshineray]

How do you know that lookout was not Angie?

JMO

I know you didn't ask me but it's obvious, to me, the evidence/testimony shows it was GWIV that was with JW and BW that night, not AW.

AW was watching the kids and performing the phones/internet activity to give alibis of, I was home using my phone/computer at home that night...for her men folk. AJMO

 

[sunshineray]

She didn want the GWIV interview played unless she could question him on the witness stand about the content

She didn't want Jake's interview from the MT border played either, she fought to keep it out, arguing with Parker and Jake did testify on the stand. So how do you reconcile that?

JMO

The judge made a ruling on that, didn't he? There must have been a good legal reason. I believe Judge Deering is a honest man. AJMO

 

[Chelly]

I know you didn't ask me but it's obvious, to me, the evidence/testimony shows it was GWIV that was with JW and BW that night, not AW.

AW was watching the kids and performing the phones/internet activity to give alibis of, I was home using my phone/computer at home that night...for her men folk. AJMO

Yes, this seems to be the logical conclusion to most of us. We might be conditioned to think a real man would not be at home, watching the kids while his mom went out to commit mass murder with the rest of the men folk. But if the testimony of AW and JW is convincing enough, I guess GW4 was out committing murder.

 

[RAISINISBACK]

The defense is allowed to "shade the truth" about evidence in trials, but they may be pushing the boundaries with this one.

Well we have sure seen Canepa "shade the truth" in this trial. Burned DVR, guns she knew was not used in the murders, thousands of shell casings of the wrong caliber, a tattoo that the tat artist testified was his idea, a wolf picture, shoes, hours of phone calls between Angie and Rita, Angie and Jake, Beths library card, a 40,000.00 insurance deposit to Billy's bank account she tried to say was to George's bank account, an oil filter bought from Billy's account she tried to say was a purchase by George, the list goes on and on.

JMO

 

[RAISINISBACK]

Parker also said George wasn't like his family. We heard he did participate in all the insurance fraud and other crimes just like they did. Then we heard all those recordings where George sounds exactly like the rest of his family. He allowed his mother to dictate his relationship with Tabatha just like she did Jake and Hannah. He didn't stand up to her. He helped his mother push Beth out also. He didn't defend Beth at all. He was just as paranoid about Beth and some type of abuse that might happen to his kid just like his mother was. He was talking about harming BCI agents. I don't buy it was just venting. I don't think it's okay at all for "venting" to include physically harming LE nor is it okay to google specific agent's addresses. If George was so scared and paranoid because BCI was accusing him of something he was not involved in, then he should have went to them and talked. They tried and he ignored them and did exactly as his family did. If you know you aren't involved and your family has done something so horrific and BCI is reaching out to you to talk, then you go in and talk.. you don't threaten BCI with specific things you will do to specific agents and look up info on where that agent lives. That is so beyond venting or being paranoid that they are wrongly accusing you and you might be arrested at any time. Below is part of Parkers opening statement.


Jake will tell you that George had

nothing to do with the planning of these

murders

Jake will tell you that George shot no

one

Jake will tell you that George did

nothing to destroy any evidence



So he didn't say Jake would say George didn't know until later. The defense claims George didn't know until later. Then when the defense is saying what Jake will testify to he says the above. Jake saying George shot no one is not the same as Jake saying George didn't participate.

They can say whatever they want in opening and twist whatever they want.. saying Jake will say he didn't shoot anyone is not the same as Jake saying he didn't shoot anyone. Just going that night was participation.

They can say whatever they want in opening and twist whatever they want..

Apparently, they can not, because Canepa jump up and yelled objection during the defenses opening and they went to a sidebar.

JMO

 

[RAISINISBACK]

The judge made a ruling on that, didn't he? There must have been a good legal reason. I believe Judge Deering is a honest man. AJMO

He ruled the defense could play Jakes interview when it was their turn. The reason Canepa didn't want it played right before Jake's testimony is she said it would prejudice the jury. I guess because it showed what a liar Jake is. The judge agreed to not letting it be played before Jake's testimony but told the defense they are free to play it when they put on their case.

The defense is free to call Jake and Angie back to the stand and to play both of their interview tapes where they both lied to BCI in MT. So basically, the last thing the jury will hear from Jake and Angie is a bunch of lies.

JMO

 

[Chelly]

They can say whatever they want in opening and twist whatever they want..

Apparently, they can not, because Canepa jump up and yelled objection during the defenses opening and they went to a sidebar.

JMO

I think the judge has been very lenient towards the prosecution in expectation of appeals following the verdict.

 

[sunshineray]

He ruled the defense could play Jakes interview when it was their turn. The reason Canepa didn't want it played right before Jake's testimony is she said it would prejudice the jury. I guess because it showed what a liar Jake is. The judge agreed to not letting it be played before Jake's testimony but told the defense they are free to play it when they put on their case.

The defense is free to call Jake and Angie back to the stand and to play both of their interview tapes where they both lied to BCI in MT. So basically, the last thing the jury will hear from Jake and Angie is a bunch of lies.

JMO

Okay then there ya go...fairness from the judge, I expected no less.

 

[Myland]

Jmo honest people put a lot of weight in to being under oath and are scared of breaking the law. Jake and Angela not being honest people don’t probably don’t put much weight into being under oath. So the fact they testified under oath means nothing to me. They weren’t scared to kill eight people so I don’t think they are respectful or scared of the law. Jmo

 

[RAISINISBACK]

I know you didn't ask me but it's obvious, to me, the evidence/testimony shows it was GWIV that was with JW and BW that night, not AW.

AW was watching the kids and performing the phones/internet activity to give alibis of, I was home using my phone/computer at home that night...for her men folk. AJMO

I wasn't there so it is not obvious to me.

JMO

 

[sunshineray]

Jmo honest people put a lot of weight in to being under oath and are scared of breaking the law. Jake and Angela not being honest people don’t probably don’t put much weight into being under oath. So the fact they testified under oath means nothing to me. They weren’t scared to kill eight people so I don’t think they are respectful or scared of the law. Jmo

I think they were respectful of telling the truth, it was a main part of their pleas to remove the DP. Being put to death is quite a motivator in my mind. AJMO

 

[justtrish]

They can say whatever they want in opening and twist whatever they want..

Apparently, they can not, because Canepa jump up and yelled objection during the defenses opening and they went to a sidebar.

JMO

I believe the objection was because he was reading from the interview at the Montana border and that interview would not be introduced as evidence. I recall when it happened I researched a bit and it seems opening statements have a lot of leeway, but they can't make statements from something that won't be introduced. They read from that interview knowing it wouldn't be introduced unless their client wanted to take the stand. It was their attempt to get those statements in somehow and so AC objected. The judge reminded the jury that the opening isn't evidence and the defense continues. Just because they can say whatever they want, doesn't mean they can try to introduce evidence that wouldn't be allowed.

 

[Chris_p_bacon]

I'd add that if the whole maternal family of my niece is murdered because my brother and my mother wanted full custody, and if I knew that both that my ex-wife had been discussing her desire to get custody of my son, I'd be worried that the ex-wife and her family was in danger. And I'd be worried that BCI might connect another half-dozen murders of my ex's family to what happened to the Rhodens, because going to prison would mean losing my son.

yes. A normal person would start to worry about their loved ones. A murdering sociopath who was involved in the murders...not so much.

 

[RAISINISBACK]

I believe the objection was because he was reading from the interview at the Montana border and that interview would not be introduced as evidence. I recall when it happened I researched a bit and it seems opening statements have a lot of leeway, but they can't make statements from something that won't be introduced. They read from that interview knowing it wouldn't be introduced unless their client wanted to take the stand. It was their attempt to get those statements in somehow and so AC objected. The judge reminded the jury that the opening isn't evidence and the defense continues. Just because they can say whatever they want, doesn't mean they can try to introduce evidence that wouldn't be allowed.

doesn't mean they can try to introduce evidence that wouldn't be allowed

Why wouldn't it be allowed? The judge ruled the defense could play Jake's MT interview. The defense can also replay Angie's MT interview. And the defense is calling one of the BCI agents who interviewed George at the MT border so why can't they introduce George's MT interview through the BCI agent who interviewed him?

JMO

 

[justtrish]

doesn't mean they can try to introduce evidence that wouldn't be allowed

Why wouldn't it be allowed? The judge ruled the defense could play Jake's MT interview. The defense can also replay Angie's MT interview. And the defense is calling one of the BCI agents who interviewed George at the MT border so why can't they introduce George's MT interview through the BCI agent who interviewed him?

JMO

They were reading from George's interview, not Jakes when the objection happened.

 

[Dudly]

How do we know he will lie? He only gave one statement to BCI and that is the MT one. So basically we have not heard any statement from him to determine whether he lied or not.

There is no obligation for a defendant to testify in his own trial. Most attorneys do not allow them to.

JMO

We don’t know if he lied In Montana. We also don’t know if he told the truth in Montana. It could be BCI never questioned him again because they knew he was involved after that interview. They may have talked with the others again to corroborate that GWIV was involved with everything.

Well we have sure seen Canepa "shade the truth" in this trial. Burned DVR, guns she knew was not used in the murders, thousands of shell casings of the wrong caliber, a tattoo that the tat artist testified was his idea, a wolf picture, shoes, hours of phone calls between Angie and Rita, Angie and Jake, Beths library card, a 40,000.00 insurance deposit to Billy's bank account she tried to say was to George's bank account, an oil filter bought from Billy's account she tried to say was a purchase by George, the list goes on and on.

JMO

I don’t know how anything you mentioned was shading the truth by AC. It was presented as evidence that BCI discovered.
You are insinuating that BCI lied and AC knew they did, if she was shading the truth...
JMO