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

[RAISINISBACK]

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

Once again, the defense has subpoenaed one of the BCI agents who interviewed George at the MT border to testify for the defense, so why can't they introduce George's MT interview through the BCI agent who interviewed him?

I think a very good question to consider is why wasn't George called in for a second interview with BCI? All the others were. But after the MT interview they never called George and told him to come in for more questioning.

BCI texted George and ASKED him to MEET them alone somewhere so they could talk. Why? Why did they want to get him alone, away from his family to talk to them?

Maybe because whatever he told them in MT led them to believe he was not involved and did not know about Jake and Angie's involvement in the murders until they told him in MT?

That's why no second interview and the attempt to get him alone to talk to him. George should have went and told what he knew in exchange for immunity. I do think they would have given him immunity because I do not think BCI thought he was involved in the murders in any way. But George stayed loyal to his mother and brother who both had knives sharpened to stick in his back.

JMO

 

[RAISINISBACK]

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.

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

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 they knew for sure Angie was involved in that MT interview, yet they called her back in for interviews several times. Jake also. So why not George?

You are insinuating that BCI lied
Are you insinuating the defense lied?

JMO

 

[sunshineray]

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

I think the difference would be JW and AW testified and while GWIV could take the stand he most likely won't. If that BCI agent who interviewed GWIV does get called, I doubt they will be able to testify to what GWIV said, unless GWIV decides to take the stand.

What the defense will ask the BCI interviewer is probably just how GWIV acted, his demeanor? I don't see them calling him or questioning him about GWIV's words, the transcripts of his words or audio with it not being objected to by the prosecution because GWIV can't be called to cross examine about it. The judge will decide I guess?

 

[Fat Old Man]

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

What are they going to do, get a few more years add to their sentence? To be served concurrent with the 30 she already has? The whole bunch doesn't know the truth from a lie.

 

[Fat Old Man]

Once again, the defense has subpoenaed one of the BCI agents who interviewed George at the MT border to testify for the defense, so why can't they introduce George's MT interview through the BCI agent who interviewed him?

I think a very good question to consider is why wasn't George called in for a second interview with BCI? All the others were. But after the MT interview they never called George and told him to come in for more questioning.

BCI texted George and ASKED him to MEET them alone somewhere so they could talk. Why? Why did they want to get him alone, away from his family to talk to them?

Maybe because whatever he told them in MT led them to believe he was not involved and did not know about Jake and Angie's involvement in the murders until they told him in MT?

That's why no second interview and the attempt to get him alone to talk to him. George should have went and told what he knew in exchange for immunity. I do think they would have given him immunity because I do not think BCI thought he was involved in the murders in any way. But George stayed loyal to his mother and brother who both had knives sharpened to stick in his back.

JMO

Maybe the reason he was not interviewed, a second time was BCI was scared, of GW4. With all his ranting?

JMO

<modsnip>

 

[Johnny B Bad]

The show Yellowstone used the same phrase in season 3, one of the bad guys said you got to cut off the head if you want to kill the snake, JMO

 

[Betty P]

I just went back to listen and posted what Parker said above.

Defense claims George didn't know until the Montana border.

Then when saying what Jake will say, he doesn't say Jake will say George didn't participate, he says Jake will say George shot no one.

Defense can make that claim because they probably didn't ask him that question. If he doesn't actually know, he can still make claims about what he believes GW4 did.

It's that whole "arguing in the alternative" tactic that defense attorneys are allowed to use.

Argument in the alternative - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Originating in the legal profession, argument in the alternative is a strategy in which a lawyer advances several competing (and possibly mutually exclusive) arguments in order to pre-empt objections by his adversary, with the goal of showing that regardless of interpretation there is no reasonable conclusion other than the advocate's.

Bart Simpson's classic "I didn't do it, no one saw me do it, you can't prove anything!" could be considered a somewhat humorous example. In a more serious example, a lawyer might argue, not only that his client was elsewhere when a murder or other crime took place, but also that even if he had been on the scene, he would have had no way of accessing the alleged murder weapon. In this way, the lawyer attacks several premises of the prosecution's argument at once. The secondary line of reasoning might be presented to persuade a sub-audience who would not otherwise agree with the primary argument.

 

[Betty P]

How do you know that lookout was not Angie?

JMO

Because she swore on the witness stand that she wasn't there.

Will GW4 take an oath and testify on the stand?

The evidence shows GW4 was there. Two people have testified under oath that he was there.

 

[rsd1200]

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.

I guarantee they were mirandized. I guarantee she could have used it. Seems they used G3's "interview" w/o him being under oath or testifying on stand. I call b.s. I explained it a few threads back. I'm not going to do so again. It would not be accepted as fact if Canepa said it on this thread herself.

 

[rsd1200]

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

I've a condo by the gulf or in reality it's; I've a rental on a dirt road by a pond. Shading the truth is lying. No. they. can't. lie. However, law enforcement can.

 

[rsd1200]

I just went back to listen and posted what Parker said above.

Defense claims George didn't know until the Montana border.

Then when saying what Jake will say, he doesn't say Jake will say George didn't participate, he says Jake will say George shot no one.

Shooting no one doesn't mean he wasn't there and it doesn't mean Jake ever said he wasn't there. Nice way for them to as you said "shade the truth".

He also said George knew his family committed lots of crimes, but he never knew them to commit a crime of violence. (and poor innocent George didn't participate in any of the crimes his family committed?) Mommy and daddy pulling a gun on someone isn't violent? Mommy throwing a 2x4 at Tabatha and threatening to go get a gun isn't violent? They claimed Billy and George got into fist fights, but George has never known his family to commit crimes of violence? I guess he has a different view of violence.

If he didn't know until the MT border? G4 is telling his team he is innocent. They had to hear that all from somewhere. Let's hear the MT interview. This isn't petty theft. He's going away, but I'm very glad I'm not on there to have to make that decision b/c we'd probably be issued a dynamite charge.

 

[Johnny B Bad]

If the law enforcement hadn’t did their job, than the Rhoden/Giley family would have never none who killed the victim,
Hey is today the anniversary that the Wagner’s where Arrested????

 

[rsd1200]

I didn't even know there could be an objection in an opening statement. But Canepa sure jumped up fast to interrupt the defenses opening statement.

JMO

There can be but it is considered to be hardly done, and not looked highly upon. My jaw hit the floor.

 

[rsd1200]

How do you know that lookout was not Angie?

JMO

She sure was fresh pressed in her fashion prison stripes, quite demur, and calmly reeling off her proffer that day. Ugh. She'll do fine in there.

 

[rsd1200]

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

I do believe that too, and I believe he is doing his level best to prevent a mistrial. None of these attorneys nor Judge Deering have had anything play out like this in their courtrooms. It's a legal, logistical, nightmare.

 

[Myland]

Jmo I don’t know if Parker believes everything George has told him. But with passion he shows, I do believe he feels George shouldn’t be guilty on all charges. Nash seems to go through the motions but Parker’s expressions seems to show he isn’t buying the story the state is putting on. Jmo

 

[Antimony]

How do you know that lookout was not Angie?

JMO

It could have been Angie. Although on an operation like this, only one boss is best to avoid confusion. If George was as big a pu$$y as defense paints him to be, Then Angie would have been more valuable. I think George had to prove himself as a man to Billy, Angie and Jake that night and he did just that. If he had not gone along he would have lost the confidence of the rest of the family. I doubt George could bear that.

 

[Cool Cats]

THIS! Whether their testimony gets GW convicted of any or all or none of the charges, their testimonies ARE valid & will carry some weight.

I am surprised at how much weight their testimony holds. It seems to me that the prosecution's Case comes down to the co-defendants' testimony placing George at the crime scenes.

I strongly think that if all the jurors believe George was at the crime scenes, it will be enough to convict him of the Aggravated Murders, Aggravated Burglary, Conspiracy and Tampering with Evidence charges.

George could have went along and stood on his head, whatever, but so long as George was there he was involved.

But also what surprises me is that the "Clark Kent" prosecutor said they had enough evidence to convict George without the proffers - proffers are testimony - to show George was involved in all 4 aspects of the crimes. The
planning, preparing, execution and cover up.

But I didn't see this in the trial. It seems to me that the prosecutors had to have the co-defedants' testimony to prove their Case.

Think about convicting George - beyond a reasonable doubt - without considering ANY of the testimony from Angie and Jake. Think about how to place him at the crime scenes without their testimony. How to place him helping with the murder truck. How to place him burying evidence under the barn. How to convict him without Jake giving up the murder truck and guns etc.....

12 jurors need to believe Jake and Angie.

 

[Skully67]

I am surprised at how much weight their testimony holds. It seems to me that the prosecution's Case comes down to the co-defendants' testimony placing George at the crime scenes.

I strongly think that if all the jurors believe George was at the crime scenes, it will be enough to convict him of the Aggravated Murders, Aggravated Burglary, Conspiracy and Tampering with Evidence charges.

George could have went along and stood on his head, whatever, but so long as George was there he was involved.

But also what surprises me is that the "Clark Kent" prosecutor said they had enough evidence without the proffers - proffers are testimony - to show George was involved in all 4 aspects of the crimes. The
planning, preparing, execution and cover up.

But I didn't see this in the trial. It seems to me that the prosecutors had to have the co-defedants' testimony to prove their Case.

Agree. What physical evidence do they have? I've only heard the testimony of AW and JW that puts GW4 there. As far as planning, what direct evidence have we heard or seen, other then testimony, that shows he was part of that. We certainly have alot of circumstantial and inferences.

 

[rsd1200]

Nash, say what you will, comes from an impressive background. I doubt he'd risk that over G4. He graduated from one of the top law schools in Ohio. He was likely assigned this case since he's being a Public Defender.


I have looked at other cases the legal teams have worked, and have wondered if this was a younger Parker here in this pic. The Cleveland Strangler case. They even tore the CS's house down after he was convicted. Botched but he was convicted. Sentenced to death in 2011, he appealed in 2015 and he died in prison of terminal illness in 2021.

Serial killer convicted, but botched case holds lessons for police

LWOP. No DP. No automatic pleas. It's common sense. DP gave too much latitude for a plea. Look what AW got. She's already served four years of her time.