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

[Chelly]

Mr. Wilson: How long have you known you were going to come to testify in this case?
Mr. Priest: Ummm about ten days?

 

[SuziQ]

I saw the Wolf pick. Did Clark refer to the tattoos?

Redirect!

 

[Chelly]

Mr Wilson points out the witness wasn't able to recall names of the victims.

I hope Mr. Wilson asks witness how much defense is paying him for his expert testimony.

Defense is up to redirect.

 

[ColMustard]

I saw the Wolf pick. Did Clark refer to the tattoos?

Redirect!

No he didn't bring those up. (yet)

edit: I know he looked at the Beretta but I didn't see tattoos.

 

[Chelly]

I saw the Wolf pick. Did Clark refer to the tattoos?

Redirect!

Yes, suggesting tattoos are mementoes of the murder, grim reaper, etc.

 

[Niner]

Defense witness: Jon Priest continued...


James Pilcher
@jamespilcher
·
8m
Screengrab of muzzle flash - visible. Also Priest agreed light can be reflected



Number of weapons is a major clue as well to number of participants Priest acknowledges. What about trophies or commemorating Wilson asks. Priest - sometimes created to relive the event or just want object.

Now showing Kenneth's shot to the head to the jury - not on screen. Now showing the wolf picture with the gunshot wound to the eye - George posted it on Facebook at one point.

Here’s that image



Brings up tattoos and Berettas with grim reaper on grips - that Gearge bought a week after murders as possible trophy





link: https://twitter.com/jamespilcher

 

[SuziQ]

No he didn't bring those up. (yet)

Interesting, because Imo, the tattoos were definitely creating a memory of the crime. Imo.

 

[Myland]

Trying to sow doubt in JWs testimony. I have also wondered about the lack of shoe prints at scene 1.

Jmo I just can’t understand how a clear print in blood in house but no print on porch. I would think at least a light print on porch. Or why the print there but no other anywhere in the house.

 

[SuziQ]

I love how the Prosecutor tied in the tats and wolf pic to creating memories imo.

 

[Skully67]

Jmo I just can’t understand how a clear print in blood in house but no print on porch. I would think at least a light print on porch. Or why the print there but no other anywhere in the house.

Agreed. I would think there would be prints everywhere.

 

[ColMustard]

Interesting, because Imo, the tattoos were definitely creating a memory of the crime. Imo.

I could have missed the tattoos, those are on the twitter post above.

 

[ColMustard]

Jmo I just can’t understand how a clear print in blood in house but no print on porch. I would think at least a light print on porch. Or why the print there but no other anywhere in the house.

I was asking the same question earlier.

There is some blood out in the grass at scene 1. I forget about any at scene 3.

 

[ColMustard]

Agreed. I would think there would be prints everywhere.

Almost like they carried a shoe around and made a stamp. Two left shoes, in different sizes.

 

[Chelly]

I love how the Prosecutor tied in the tats and wolf pic to creating memories imo.

The tattoos are especially important evidence as they were reminders that remained on the murders' bodies at all times, always there. They could look at their tats and recall the the entire sequence of events in the massacres.
ETA: Many killers and offenders enjoy fantasizing about their crimes long after they occurred. They are proud of those crimes. imo. Pretty sick.

 

[Chelly]

Lunch break.
Recess until 1:30

 

[Skully67]

Almost like they carried a shoe around and made a stamp. Two left shoes, in different sizes.

With all the blood at scene #1, there should have been more prints. Maybe they took off the shoes, then back on once outside? But why no blood on the floorboards of either truck. Again..removed the shoes?

 

[sunshineray]

OMG, how can this be an expert witness if he doesn't even know a baby was in the bed? That is a huge part of this.. kids left alive at the crime scenes in their parents blood for HOURS and this "expert" didn't recall seeing that a baby was in the bed? Did the defense even give this man all the evidence to make an accurate analysis?

The defense never called this witness or had him tour the scenes. They didn't even tell him the particulars of each scene. It definitely sounds like the defense asked for just a small preliminary opinion from a handful of experts and went with the guy who said yeah one guy COULD have done these murders. This witness was ill-informed by the client and therefore his testimony is ill-informed. AJMO

 

[Niner]

Defense witness: Jon Priest continued...


James Pilcher
@jamespilcher
·
6m
Priest only knew he was going to testify 10 days ago. Never went to crime scene (did you? per Wilson) Wilson asks you forgot victims' names? Never met with BCI agents. Started on case in January 2022 and then report in June 2022. Wilson done with cross

On redirect - if body is dragged, can be done by one person. If carried - it would be two people. These were dragged.

Never saw a right print of a shoe any where in the scene. Says there should have been more prints than there were there. "I guess they could have been very clean"

More about the muzzle flash in the dark. Says the flash wouldn't be much bigger than half an inch or so since the caliber was .40 (4/10ths of an inch) - says he wouldn't see something that small from outside.

Nash shows him the Beretta - point being it was a 9 mm and it wasn't used in any of the murders.

That's it for re-direct. Wilson has more cross. You can't tell us how many people were involved? No. I was asked if one person could do it. That's what I found. Could more than one person have done it. yes. Nothing further from defense. Lunch break until 1:30.



link: https://twitter.com/jamespilcher

 

[sunshineray]

With all the blood at scene #1, there should have been more prints. Maybe they took off the shoes, then back on once outside? But why no blood on the floorboards of either truck. Again..removed the shoes?

I've been MIA here for a bit. When did it change that the bloody scene pictures were back to being allowed for broadcast?

 

[pittsburghgirl]

I understand an outside expert isn't maybe going to know every single thing like someone that worked the case for years, but he didn't know the name of one of the victims (Hannah Mae) and that sorta bothers me. How can you stare at these photos and try to analyze a crime scene and not want to know who the victims are or at least put a name to them. You are going over this in court where their families are listening and you know scene 2 is where Dana and Chris Jr are but you don't recall the 3rd victim. Then the defense didn't even say her name.

Maybe this is nit picking, but remembering why there is even a trial should be important for everyone in the court room, even the defense. If their client didn't do it, there is still 8 murdered innocent people.

I'm not an expert witness but I can still name all of the Manson murders victims and that was 53 years ago.