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

[Dudly]

Finally found it. The Defense for GWIV put him at the scene of the murders during cross examination of JW. So much for him not knowing it happened…

Pike County murder trial: Jake Wagner, brother of defendant, finishes testimony

Jake Wagner concluded his time on the witness stand on Friday, as George’s defense attorney, John Parker, resumed cross-examination in Jake’s fourth day of testimony.

www.daytondailynews.com

“Parker pointed out, not for the first time during cross examination, that George wasn’t even supposed to have been along for the murders, but changed his mind at the last minute to protect Jake.”

 

[Caylee Advocate]

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.

Yes, that was the same John Parker. Have you seen him in any court case except the Wagner one? He is no slouch for sure.

 

[Johnny B Bad]

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.

Aman CC
Justice for the victims and their family’s! (Life Without Parole)

 

[Chris_p_bacon]

Finally found it. The Defense for GWIV put him at the scene of the murders during cross examination of JW. So much for him not knowing it happened…

Pike County murder trial: Jake Wagner, brother of defendant, finishes testimony

Jake Wagner concluded his time on the witness stand on Friday, as George’s defense attorney, John Parker, resumed cross-examination in Jake’s fourth day of testimony.

www.daytondailynews.com

“Parker pointed out, not for the first time during cross examination, that George wasn’t even supposed to have been along for the murders, but changed his mind at the last minute to protect Jake.”

interesting defense. So even the defense attorney is admitting that George was there that night, whether he went at the last minute or it was preplanned to be there. That is a powerful admission from his defense attorney. I wish there was not an opt out for some of these testimonies.

 

[rsd1200]

Yes, that was the same John Parker. Have you seen him in any court case except the Wagner one? He is no slouch for sure.

I'd been looking at the attorneys and their backgrounds. It's not as if I'm inundated with real work at the moment. Some days I wish I'd never heard about this case. But no, he's no slouch, and Nash is highly regarded too.

 

[rsd1200]

interesting defense. So even the defense attorney is admitting that George was there that night, whether he went at the last minute or it was preplanned to be there. That is a powerful admission from his defense attorney. I wish there was not an opt out for some of these testimonies.

That's the proffer that JW signed. The first story he told did not have GW4. He told his attorneys that he killed all eight after he heard his grandmother confessed to lying. Then he had a change of heart, and made the deal. Then mommy dearest decided she couldn't let JW go down alone. And low, another plea is made.

 

[Puzzles8]

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, I never thought I'd live to see the day you quoted Bart Simpson....



JMO

 

[Dudly]

That's the proffer that JW signed. The first story he told did not have GW4. He told his attorneys that he killed all eight after he heard his grandmother confessed to lying. Then he had a change of heart, and made the deal. Then mommy dearest decided she couldn't let JW go down alone. And low, another plea is made.

When or where was it said in court or legitimate document that JW originally told his attorneys that he killed all eight victims and GWIV was not involved. I keep seeing it repeated but have never seen where that came from.
MOO

 

[Chris_p_bacon]

That's the proffer that JW signed. The first story he told did not have GW4. He told his attorneys that he killed all eight after he heard his grandmother confessed to lying. Then he had a change of heart, and made the deal. Then mommy dearest decided she couldn't let JW go down alone. And low, another plea is made.

Yeah. I feel like were over half way there. I remember a time before the Peterson road searches no one believed it was the Wagners. It was the mexican mafia, it was because of a fight at a derby race, it was a road rage lady, etc, etc, etc. Then the Wagners became official suspects and still people insisted they were innocent. Then the Wagners were arrested and yet still people thought they were being framed. Then two of the four Wagners not only confess, but they admit all 4 of them planned, participated in some way and all four helped cover up the murders, and yet still people want to believe George Wagner is innocent. George knows enough about the conspiracy to say on one of the wiretaps that if one of them is not arrested they should break the others out of jail/prison. Why would he be saying that if he knows nothing about the murders.

 

[Dudly]

That's the proffer that JW signed. The first story he told did not have GW4. He told his attorneys that he killed all eight after he heard his grandmother confessed to lying. Then he had a change of heart, and made the deal. Then mommy dearest decided she couldn't let JW go down alone. And low, another plea is made.

So, if Parker knew JW said GWIV was not involved in a first proffer, why would he bring it up in court that GWIV went along?

 

[RAISINISBACK]

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.

That is what I have been saying for weeks now. There is nothing there to convict George. I thought they would come out hard and fast with evidence against him. About the 10th day of nothing but Jake and Angie without even an honorable mention of George it began to dawn on me they have nothing. I finally understood Parkers puzzled face in a pre trial hearing when he asked the judge "Your Honor, what does any of this have to do with my client, George Wagner?"


But also what surprises me is that the "Clark Kent" prosecutor said they had enough evidence to convict George

If you will recall, he did not say they had enough evidence to convict George without Jake and Angie's testimony.
He said they have enough evidence to convict without Jake and Angie's testimony.
And they do. There is plenty of evidence to convict Jake and Angie without them opening their mouth to testify. So Superman didn't lie. He just left out some names.

Think about convicting George - beyond a reasonable doubt - without considering ANY of the testimony from Angie and Jake.
Exactly.

But what we all need to keep in mind is the defense can call any witnesses that have already testified back to the stand. The subpoena is still good until the verdict comes back. The judge has already ruled that the defense can play Jake's MT interview when they present their case and replay Angie's. That means they can call Jake and Angie back and grill them both on the stand after the MT interviews and point out to the jury every lie they told. What that means folks is, if the defense does this, the last words that jury will hear from Jake and Angie are lies. Wonder how much weight that will carry with them as they go into deliberations?

12 jurors need to believe Jake and Angie.
It only takes 1 juror to not believe them.

If it ends in a hung jury I do not believe, with as little evidence and as many embarrassing blunders BCI and Canepa has made in this trial, they will retry George. Then there is the cost. I think they will proceed right on to Billy.

JMO

 

[Cool Cats]

Aman CC
Justice for the victims and their family’s! (Life Without Parole)

Thanks, I always enjoy your posts.

 

[RAISINISBACK]

That's the proffer that JW signed. The first story he told did not have GW4. He told his attorneys that he killed all eight after he heard his grandmother confessed to lying. Then he had a change of heart, and made the deal. Then mommy dearest decided she couldn't let JW go down alone. And low, another plea is made.

The first story he told did not have GW4.

Canepa said, in a pre trial hearing, that they had jake go over his story several times before they could match it to some of the evidence. <modsnip: opinion stated as fact>

JMO

 

[RAISINISBACK]

When or where was it said in court or legitimate document that JW originally told his attorneys that he killed all eight victims and GWIV was not involved. I keep seeing it repeated but have never seen where that came from.
MOO

Pre trial hearing. Parker and Canepa were arguing the proffer in front of the judge.

JMO

 

[RAISINISBACK]

Yeah. I feel like were over half way there. I remember a time before the Peterson road searches no one believed it was the Wagners. It was the mexican mafia, it was because of a fight at a derby race, it was a road rage lady, etc, etc, etc. Then the Wagners became official suspects and still people insisted they were innocent. Then the Wagners were arrested and yet still people thought they were being framed. Then two of the four Wagners not only confess, but they admit all 4 of them planned, participated in some way and all four helped cover up the murders, and yet still people want to believe George Wagner is innocent. George knows enough about the conspiracy to say on one of the wiretaps that if one of them is not arrested they should break the others out of jail/prison. Why would he be saying that if he knows nothing about the murders.

Hmm. I seem to recall pointing the finger at Jake and his family from almost day one. Right after Lenny gave a press interview saying it was over child custody, Before the crime scenes were even finished being processed.

I think I must have made a thousand posts on here arguing it was not the cartel, it was not the chicken fighting, it was not the derby races, it was not road rage, it was Jake because Hannah left him and was having another man's child and Jake being a common variety domestic abuser, killed her when she left and told him she wasn't coming back.

Maybe you said it was over all that other stuff, but I can say for certain I never did.

JMO

 

[RAISINISBACK]

So, if Parker knew JW said GWIV was not involved in a first proffer, why would he bring it up in court that GWIV went along?

, why would he bring it up in court that GWIV went along

Do we know for sure that he did? Jake opted out, remember? So all we have to go on is the memory and the accurate hearing of some reporters.

JMO

 

[Puzzles8]

, why would he bring it up in court that GWIV went along

Do we know for sure that he did? Jake opted out, remember? So all we have to go on is the memory and the accurate hearing of some reporters.

JMO

I don't know why he brought it up in court, but neither do you.

The reporters account of the testimony is all we have.

JMO

 

[Betty P]

When or where was it said in court or legitimate document that JW originally told his attorneys that he killed all eight victims and GWIV was not involved. I keep seeing it repeated but have never seen where that came from.
MOO

I don't think its accurate. Someone needs to provide a link.

 

[rsd1200]

When or where was it said in court or legitimate document that JW originally told his attorneys that he killed all eight victims and GWIV was not involved. I keep seeing it repeated but have never seen where that came from.
MOO

I admit, I may have read it wrong. The way I read it, I understood that he first admitted to killing the eight, to his attorneys. Then he went on to implicate his family. He then struck a plea with the prosecuting attorneys office, but not until some time later because he didn't plan to testify. He told his attorneys that he didn't want to lie on the stand. I guess he justified the murders but not lying. That's the way I understood it. If I were a juror I'd have to ask for clarification.

 

[rsd1200]

Yeah. I feel like were over half way there. I remember a time before the Peterson road searches no one believed it was the Wagners. It was the mexican mafia, it was because of a fight at a derby race, it was a road rage lady, etc, etc, etc. Then the Wagners became official suspects and still people insisted they were innocent. Then the Wagners were arrested and yet still people thought they were being framed. Then two of the four Wagners not only confess, but they admit all 4 of them planned, participated in some way and all four helped cover up the murders, and yet still people want to believe George Wagner is innocent. George knows enough about the conspiracy to say on one of the wiretaps that if one of them is not arrested they should break the others out of jail/prison. Why would he be saying that if he knows nothing about the murders.

I'm not saying I believe he is innocent. I'm saying, I don't believe they Prosecution proved their case against him. Two entirely different things. I said in the beginning this was was over drugs and was likely mountain justice. Sure, toss in the custody thing but there were two custody matters going on at that moment, very vocally, on FB. Fights galore. I've never defended the W4, but what you see as proof, may not be what i see as proof. The judge makes the final decision, but usually goes with the jury's recommendation. All of the self admitted testimony from JW and Aw, evidence all over the place, but they have shown me nothing as far as hard proof. It's all circumstantial and he said she said. I've a case very close to my kin on this site. I didn't even know it til I signed up for the R / HHG case. One is serving LWOP, the other is not. Both were there. Twas over a child. Mountain justice. Nothing is for certain.