OH Pike County: 8 in Rhoden Family Murdered Over Custody Issue 4 Members Wagner Family Arrested#44

[sunshineray]

IDK, but I'm guessing it doesn't happen often. The argument against victim impact statements is that they're prejudicial against the defendant. In some cases where a judge felt a victim's statement was overly prejudicial against the defendant, they've ruled to have the jury disregard it. IDK. There's some discussion of it here:

https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1420&context=wlucdj

Because not all of the Wags have filed motions regarding victim impact evidence, it could indicate a difference in how those defendants and their attorneys are approaching the case. It's possible (JMO only) that the defendants who filed those motions fully expect to fight their case to the finish, without a plea bargain, and want to have maximum advantage when it comes time for the jury to rule on their guilt.

If the Wags can convince the judge to eliminate victim impact evidence before the jury rules on guilt, they think they can get a "not guilty" verdict. JMO, they have this big strategy to use PR in the media, etc. to paint themselves as pious, law abiding, religious people and the Rhodens as dangerous, drug dealing criminals who everyone feared and hated and who deserved to die. Who knows, the Wags may even try to play this as some twisted version of "self defense" that they had to kill the Rhodens to protect themselves and S. If they can succeed in stopping victim impact statements, they think it will help their case.

JMO, the Wags also plan to paint all the surviving Rhoden, Gilley and Manley family members in an evil light, too. They will try to disparage their characters and treat them as dangerous, drug addicted criminals who would have been dangerous for S to be around. I'm guessing that's the argument they used early on after the murders, when they were successful in getting PCSO and DeWine to place the surviving children with foster families instead of with immediate family members. Reader said it was to protect the children from the potential killers, but at that point Reader and DeWine probably thought the family were the killers and that the family members were a danger to the children. JMO

Wags were successful in lying about the Rhodens and their families, painting them as dangerous demons, for a very long time. It took LE over a year before they finally started questioning everything they were told by the W's. Wags probably think they can pull this same game on a jury, too. That's why they don't want victim impact statements - they don't want the victims to be humanized. They don't want the jury to feel sympathy towards the Rhoden victims and family members by hearing them speak in person, express their grief and talk about the victims in a loving way.

It's much easier for the Wags to demonize the Rhodens if they're never allowed to speak for themselves, in person.

ETA: Thinking about the "all the lies they told us" statement about the Wagners from Reader at the time of the arrests, it would be interesting to know how soon FW began piling on the propaganda to protect her family of killers. Would it be possible to go back and see how soon she began telling lies to LE and the nature of those lies? Could examination of her "tips", etc. to LE reveal that she may have known about her family committing the murders right after it happened?

I understand what you're saying but victim's impact statements only come after a defendant is no longer a defendant in the eyes of the law. At that point they are convicted criminals. To make that motion now before the trial has even concluded with a guilty verdict seems quite insane and almost detrimental to the defense. They're trying to arrange for something that they're adamantly denying, very contradictory imo but then, I'm not a lawyer so what do I know.

 

[Betty P]

I understand what you're saying but victim's impact statements only come after a defendant is no longer a defendant in the eyes of the law. At that point they are convicted criminals. To make that motion now before the trial has even concluded with a guilty verdict seems quite insane and almost detrimental to the defense. They're trying to arrange for something that they're adamantly denying, very contradictory imo but then, I'm not a lawyer so what do I know.

I may have read it incorrectly, but I thought AW's motions were dealing with victim testimony both before and after the verdicts have been reached. LOL, my memory is sketchy lately and I've had a lot of distractions.

ETA: Here's the wording of the motion:

12/14/2018(36) DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO PROHIBIT VICTIM-IMPACT EVIDENCE DURING THE TRIAL AND, IF NECESSARY, THE MITIGATION PHASE FILED Attorney: KRAPENC, ROBERT F

https://pikecountycpcourt.org/eserv...o0OMDRdeIP47yp2qz*lopEm9ug04QJA31-SVyRAvikM0g

So, it mentions both "during the trial" and "the mitigation phase". I'm def not a lawyer, but I assumed this to mean victim impact evidence prior to the verdict and "mitigation phase" referring to arguments made prior to sentencing, when the defense argues all the reasons why, for example, the defendant should not receive the DP.

Aggravating and Mitigating Factors Overview :: Justia

I could be wrong on this. I wish we could get one of the WS attorneys to help us out with this.

 

[Deleted member 239597]

I may have read it incorrectly, but I thought AW's motions were dealing with victim testimony both before and after the verdicts have been reached. LOL, my memory is sketchy lately and I've had a lot of distractions.


I could be wrong on this. I wish we could get one of the WS attorneys to help us out with this.

Hope I did this right lol.....

I'm always hoping someone in law with a degree can help out with my statements/questions. It helps out tremendously. Googling things doesn't always turn up the best answers. MOO I've watched a well-known murder trial just to see how trials work. I do have a place on the web, don't know if I'm allowed to mention who's or what social media it is so I'll just leave it out. Anyhow, after one is convicted of a crime such as this I feel, and this is only for me, that it would be an injustice to not allow family and friends to make their impact statements because somehow closure is not met. I viewed it as not only a statement to where jury is listening but more of a personal ability to get out what they feel and how they feel to those who did, (in this case), a very horrible, evil crime. Who protected the victims of hearing evil from their murderers? NO ONE... they, the victim's family, should be able to confront their loved one's murderers with how they are feeling in their hearts and in a court of law with witnesses present leaves out the "get even factor" or the "possibility of major violence" factor (although there is always a chance). NOT ONE PERSON was there to silence those who murdered and they could say and do any evil mean manipulative thing they wanted to their victims? That to me would be a great injustice. Like I have always stated, innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, however at the mitigation phase after all is said and done it HAS to be proven without a reasonable doubt the crimes were committed, that takes those rights completely away from the guilty parties (MOO). Maybe I'm going to be looked at as mean. NOTICE I am not even adding in the trial phase because of that presumption of innocence.

As far as pictures go. In the hearing I stated I watched, there was a certain individual who had been called to the stand, under oath, who had been involved in some pictures that incriminated her and the defendant. The attorny's asked for the photos to be taken out, as irrelevant, the judge went through them one by one and did take some out. He left the pictures that would make the point of what the prosecution was trying to prove and one photo that showed the defendant in a mirror thus placing him at the scene of where the photos were taken. PROVING beyond a doubt that he was there.

We do not need to see every single bullet wound with exit wound. We will know by the medical examiner's who performed the autopsy's testimonies how many wounds there were and where they were, if it's done right.

As to the tattoo that is listed on the discovery papers: MOO here I'd like to hear more about how people put their tattoos on their guns which was really strange but enlightening to me and see a website depicting such. To me and only to me, a picture of a tattoo could simply mean they found the trailer's surveillance tapes and saw the tattoo even if they wore masks and other clothes to conceal their identity. It would put them at the scene of the crime right there. Could be the guns and tats though to. We will see when the trial takes place.

All this is MOO... Much respect going out.

 

[Cool Cats]

Hope I did this right lol.....

I'm always hoping someone in law with a degree can help out with my statements/questions. It helps out tremendously. Googling things doesn't always turn up the best answers. MOO I've watched a well-known murder trial just to see how trials work. I do have a place on the web, don't know if I'm allowed to mention who's or what social media it is so I'll just leave it out. Anyhow, after one is convicted of a crime such as this I feel, and this is only for me, that it would be an injustice to not allow family and friends to make their impact statements because somehow closure is not met. I viewed it as not only a statement to where jury is listening but more of a personal ability to get out what they feel and how they feel to those who did, (in this case), a very horrible, evil crime. Who protected the victims of hearing evil from their murderers? NO ONE... they, the victim's family, should be able to confront their loved one's murderers with how they are feeling in their hearts and in a court of law with witnesses present leaves out the "get even factor" or the "possibility of major violence" factor (although there is always a chance). NOT ONE PERSON was there to silence those who murdered and they could say and do any evil mean manipulative thing they wanted to their victims? That to me would be a great injustice. Like I have always stated, innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, however at the mitigation phase after all is said and done it HAS to be proven without a reasonable doubt the crimes were committed, that takes those rights completely away from the guilty parties (MOO). Maybe I'm going to be looked at as mean. NOTICE I am not even adding in the trial phase because of that presumption of innocence.

As far as pictures go. In the hearing I stated I watched, there was a certain individual who had been called to the stand, under oath, who had been involved in some pictures that incriminated her and the defendant. The attorny's asked for the photos to be taken out, as irrelevant, the judge went through them one by one and did take some out. He left the pictures that would make the point of what the prosecution was trying to prove and one photo that showed the defendant in a mirror thus placing him at the scene of where the photos were taken. PROVING beyond a doubt that he was there.

We do not need to see every single bullet wound with exit wound. We will know by the medical examiner's who performed the autopsy's testimonies how many wounds there were and where they were, if it's done right.

As to the tattoo that is listed on the discovery papers: MOO here I'd like to hear more about how people put their tattoos on their guns which was really strange but enlightening to me and see a website depicting such. To me and only to me, a picture of a tattoo could simply mean they found the trailer's surveillance tapes and saw the tattoo even if they wore masks and other clothes to conceal their identity. It would put them at the scene of the crime right there. Could be the guns and tats though to. We will see when the trial takes place.

All this is MOO... Much respect going out.

The only mention of a tattoo in discovery is a tattoo on GW3 (some think it could be GW4 and not GW3 because at one point just George Wagner was listed without the designated 3 or 4........confused yet?)

My own 2 Cents is that the prosecution is referring to GW3's scorpion tattoo of which it is my opinion he acquired this over a year after the murders and I had already posted a photo about it etc....

His scorpion tattoo is on his trigger finger and is comprised of eight sections which can sometimes be a way to indicate how many victims you have killed.

I haven't seen any suspicious tattoos on GW4's arms from when he was in court and from his ex-wife's facebook. Tattoos, a few, but they are hard to see and don't stand out like this scorpion on George "Billy" (GW3) Wagner.

....My 2 Cents Only......

 

[Betty P]

Hope I did this right lol.....

I'm always hoping someone in law with a degree can help out with my statements/questions. It helps out tremendously. Googling things doesn't always turn up the best answers. MOO I've watched a well-known murder trial just to see how trials work. I do have a place on the web, don't know if I'm allowed to mention who's or what social media it is so I'll just leave it out. Anyhow, after one is convicted of a crime such as this I feel, and this is only for me, that it would be an injustice to not allow family and friends to make their impact statements because somehow closure is not met. I viewed it as not only a statement to where jury is listening but more of a personal ability to get out what they feel and how they feel to those who did, (in this case), a very horrible, evil crime. Who protected the victims of hearing evil from their murderers? NO ONE... they, the victim's family, should be able to confront their loved one's murderers with how they are feeling in their hearts and in a court of law with witnesses present leaves out the "get even factor" or the "possibility of major violence" factor (although there is always a chance). NOT ONE PERSON was there to silence those who murdered and they could say and do any evil mean manipulative thing they wanted to their victims? That to me would be a great injustice. Like I have always stated, innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, however at the mitigation phase after all is said and done it HAS to be proven without a reasonable doubt the crimes were committed, that takes those rights completely away from the guilty parties (MOO). Maybe I'm going to be looked at as mean. NOTICE I am not even adding in the trial phase because of that presumption of innocence.

As far as pictures go. In the hearing I stated I watched, there was a certain individual who had been called to the stand, under oath, who had been involved in some pictures that incriminated her and the defendant. The attorny's asked for the photos to be taken out, as irrelevant, the judge went through them one by one and did take some out. He left the pictures that would make the point of what the prosecution was trying to prove and one photo that showed the defendant in a mirror thus placing him at the scene of where the photos were taken. PROVING beyond a doubt that he was there.

We do not need to see every single bullet wound with exit wound. We will know by the medical examiner's who performed the autopsy's testimonies how many wounds there were and where they were, if it's done right.

As to the tattoo that is listed on the discovery papers: MOO here I'd like to hear more about how people put their tattoos on their guns which was really strange but enlightening to me and see a website depicting such. To me and only to me, a picture of a tattoo could simply mean they found the trailer's surveillance tapes and saw the tattoo even if they wore masks and other clothes to conceal their identity. It would put them at the scene of the crime right there. Could be the guns and tats though to. We will see when the trial takes place.

All this is MOO... Much respect going out.

Thanks, I'm probably overthinking the part of the motion that mentions witness impact evidence in both the trial and sentencing phase.

As for victim impact evidence, yes, it can be powerful, helpful to jurors and the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of allowing it.

I also hope the photos and other evidence from the crime scene area allowed. As you say, they don't need to show all of it, but they do need to show evidence that is pertinent to the prosecution making their case against the defendants. They also probably need some of it to show the depraved and cruel nature of the murders, as well as evidence that demonstrates planning, premeditation, revenge and other mitigating factors. Of course they'll also need to submit anything that shows multiple killers at the scene, identifying evidence, ballistics, evidence from the silencer/suppressor, etc.

I also suspect the prosecution will show the photos taken of Frankie and Hanna's baby covered in blood, left lying for hours between his dead parents. Those photos were mentioned in the list of evidence, so assume the Wags are going to try to prevent the jury from seeing them. It shows their depraved indifference to the needs and safety of the infants.

BJM and her brother JM will also have very powerful testimony about that morning that the Wags will try to suppress.

JMO

 

[OhioBlues]

The only mention of a tattoo in discovery is a tattoo on GW3 (some think it could be GW4 and not GW3 because at one point just George Wagner was listed without the designated 3 or 4........confused yet?)

My own 2 Cents is that the prosecution is referring to GW3's scorpion tattoo of which it is my opinion he acquired this over a year after the murders and I had already posted a photo about it etc....

His scorpion tattoo is on his trigger finger and is comprised of eight sections which can sometimes be a way to indicate how many victims you have killed.

I haven't seen any suspicious tattoos on GW4's arms from when he was in court and from his ex-wife's facebook. Tattoos, a few, but they are hard to see and don't stand out like this scorpion on George "Billy" (GW3) Wagner.

....My 2 Cents Only......

The document that you are referring to refers to BW cell phone records (Billy) and then it refers to GW tattoo. I believe they are referring to GW4 tattoo but jmo.

We've probably all seen the document that I am talking about. The reporters have it but they won't post it online and just pick and choose pieces to report.

HOW can we get copies of these documents to refer to on WS?
We either need the media to upload the documents so that we don't violate TOS or we need them from the clerks office (which I am still not sure if that wouldn't violate TOS).

Any ideas?

jmo

 

[Betty P]

The document that you are referring to refers to BW cell phone records (Billy) and then it refers to GW tattoo. I believe they are referring to GW4 tattoo but jmo.

We've probably all seen the document that I am talking about. The reporters have it but they won't post it online and just pick and choose pieces to report.

HOW can we get copies of these documents to refer to on WS?
We either need the media to upload the documents so that we don't violate TOS or we need them from the clerks office (which I am still not sure if that wouldn't violate TOS).

Any ideas?

jmo

FOIA request? Not sure, but I think that's how the news media gets them. The odd part of all this is that most sheriff's depts and courts routinely post these kinds of documents online for the public once the defense attorneys and news media have them. Sometimes there's a nominal charge to download them.

 

[Cool Cats]

The document that you are referring to refers to BW cell phone records (Billy) and then it refers to GW tattoo. I believe they are referring to GW4 tattoo but jmo.

We've probably all seen the document that I am talking about. The reporters have it but they won't post it online and just pick and choose pieces to report.

HOW can we get copies of these documents to refer to on WS?
We either need the media to upload the documents so that we don't violate TOS or we need them from the clerks office (which I am still not sure if that wouldn't violate TOS).

Any ideas?

jmo

I think a person should make a FOIA request directly to the Pike County Court Clerk's Office. Ask directly how Joe Public can obtain the Prosecution Evidence Documents that have already been turned over to the defense. For some reason the press won't disclose the entirety of these documents.

It doesn't violate TOS when I post court documents from Scribd. These documents are going straight to the internet and not through the MSM.

I think someone, you? Me? Anyone? Should seriously look into it. If it's legal to do so, and the court documents are real, and pertain to this case, I see no reason for such documents to not be posted here.

EDIT: Also, if someone gets documents through a FOIA request, they can ask the moderators how they feel about people posting documents that are obtained in this way----IF Joe Public CAN obtain them this way.

 

[sunshineray]

I was thinking about all those interviews the W's have been through. Remembering that some were surely questioned early on after the murders and then all those interviews right before the searches. I came upon a law that I never even knew existed, "Silence as evidence". It seems that in non-custodial interviews,(where you agree to come talk and answer questions from LE) if asked a question and you remain silent AND you don't invoke your 5th Amendment right at that moment, your silence to that question can be brought before a trial jury to show your guilt. There's the case from 1992 that set the precedent in the link below. Makes you wonder about all those W interviews and if they had a lawyer present at each and every one of them.

Silence as evidence: U.S. Supreme Court holds that the Fifth Amendment does not bar using a suspect’s silence as evidence of guilt - Lexology

 

[sunshineray]

I may have read it incorrectly, but I thought AW's motions were dealing with victim testimony both before and after the verdicts have been reached. LOL, my memory is sketchy lately and I've had a lot of distractions.

ETA: Here's the wording of the motion:

12/14/2018(36) DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO PROHIBIT VICTIM-IMPACT EVIDENCE DURING THE TRIAL AND, IF NECESSARY, THE MITIGATION PHASE FILED Attorney: KRAPENC, ROBERT F

https://pikecountycpcourt.org/eserv...o0OMDRdeIP47yp2qz*lopEm9ug04QJA31-SVyRAvikM0g

So, it mentions both "during the trial" and "the mitigation phase". I'm def not a lawyer, but I assumed this to mean victim impact evidence prior to the verdict and "mitigation phase" referring to arguments made prior to sentencing, when the defense argues all the reasons why, for example, the defendant should not receive the DP.

Aggravating and Mitigating Factors Overview :: Justia

I could be wrong on this. I wish we could get one of the WS attorneys to help us out with this.

Thank you, yes that's what it says. I suppose that would mean and family or friends that are going to be witnesses cannot speak to their sorrow at the loss of their loved ones, only the facts of evidence they know about. That I can see but not muzzling them after a guilty verdict in the penalty phase. I just think that would be an injustice and I think the defense is wrong and contrary for even including that with the motion now while claiming innocence. jmo

 

[Sleuthinsleuther]

Which witness does AW want juvenile record exposed? Sounds like either BJM or JM

 

[Cool Cats]

I was thinking about all those interviews the W's have been through. Remembering that some were surely questioned early on after the murders and then all those interviews right before the searches. I came upon a law that I never even knew existed, "Silence as evidence". It seems that in non-custodial interviews,(where you agree to come talk and answer questions from LE) if asked a question and you remain silent AND you don't invoke your 5th Amendment right at that moment, your silence to that question can be brought before a trial jury to show your guilt. There's the case from 1992 that set the precedent in the link below. Makes you wonder about all those W interviews and if they had a lawyer present at each and every one of them.

Silence as evidence: U.S. Supreme Court holds that the Fifth Amendment does not bar using a suspect’s silence as evidence of guilt - Lexology

This is why ALWAYS CONSULT AN EXPERIENCED CRIMINAL TRIAL ATTORNEY BEFORE YOU GIVE AN INTERVIEW WITH LE.

As you mentioned, the Wagners gave interviews after the murders and at the time of the searches:

"The state has also turned over interviews of Jake Wagner, his mother Angela, his brother George and father Billy. The records show the first video interview of Jake Wagner was conducted on May 13, 2016 -- nearly a month after the murders. Angela Wagner was interviewed the same day."

"Jake and Angela were interviewed five times from May 2016 through May 2017. Two of the interviews were video interviews that were conducted the same day their former home in Adams County was searched by BCI agents."

Jake Wagner appears in court, some evidence turned over to his attorneys

 

[Puzzles8]

I think the FOIA is going to be a no....

Exemptions:
A(1)g & h
(g) Trial preparation records;
(h) Confidential law enforcement investigatory records;

Lawriter - ORC - 149.43 [Effective Until 3/22/2019] Availability of public records for inspection and copying.

 

[OhioBlues]

Which witness does AW want juvenile record exposed? Sounds like either BJM or JM

It reads "the juvenile records of the witnesses the state intends to call at trial".

Angela.wagner.motions.12.14.18

 

[Sleuthinsleuther]

It reads "the juvenile records of the witnesses the state intends to call at trial".

Angela.wagner.motions.12.14.18

Bjm, jm and ds are all considered witnesses

 

[Puzzles8]

Bjm, jm and ds are all considered witnesses

They are eyewitnesses. Legal definition of "witness" is much broader.
"The term witness in its strict legal sense, means one who gives evidence in a cause before a court of law, but has also been defined as one who has knowledge of a fact or occurrence sufficient to testify with respect to it, and an eyewitness has been defined as one who testifies to what he (or she) has seen."
Witness Definition
IMO, the juvenile records of the witness must have something to do with a conflict involving one of the W4 when the witness was a juvenile. The Motion reads to me as they want the juvenile records revealed to show the witness has a bias against the W4 and their witness testimony would be unfairly tainted by that.

 

[Cool Cats]

They are eyewitnesses. Legal definition of "witness" is much broader.
"The term witness in its strict legal sense, means one who gives evidence in a cause before a court of law, but has also been defined as one who has knowledge of a fact or occurrence sufficient to testify with respect to it, and an eyewitness has been defined as one who testifies to what he (or she) has seen."
Witness Definition
IMO, the juvenile records of the witness must have something to do with a conflict involving one of the W4 when the witness was a juvenile. The Motion reads to me as they want the juvenile records revealed to show the witness has a bias against the W4 and their witness testimony would be unfairly tainted by that.

Witnesses of Material Fact/Eye Witnesses
Witnesses who attest to particular facts are the most common. They are generally lay witnesses, or persons without particular expertise in their field. They can testify only to facts and limited opinions. For example, in a traffic court matter, the police officer who issued the citation will typically appear to give his account of what happened. Some parties may act as witnesses when they haven't observed situations directly, but have information related to the case. For example, in a child custody case, a teacher of school counselor might serve as a witness and present documentation about a child's attendance of grades.
Eyewitnesses see and or experience something first hand and may or may not be at the scene of the actual crime. An eye witness can see things before, during, or after a crime, or be the first to discover a crime scene. Examples are seeing a person enter a building where an assault ocurred, or seeing a person exit a building where an assault ocurred, or to see the actual assault take place, or to be the first person to discover the victim after the assault.
Friendly versus Hostile Witnesses
Because any party to a lawsuit can call witnesses, some witnesses will be favorable to one party's case and harmful to the other party's case. It's often helpful for each party and her lawyer to know what witnesses the opposing party has asked to appear so they can anticipate what types of testimony the witnesses might give and how that testimony will affect their case. In most cases, both parties have to provide witness lists so everyone knows who will appear as witnesses at the trial. As part of discovery -- the information-collecting process of a lawsuit -- either party can usually depose the other party's witnesses, asking them questions under oath before trial to get a feeling for how a witness is likely to answer questions later in court.

There are other types of witnesses also, including but not limited to, EXPERT WITNESSES AND CHARACTER WITNESSES.

 

[Betty P]

I think the FOIA is going to be a no....

Exemptions:
A(1)g & h
(g) Trial preparation records;
(h) Confidential law enforcement investigatory records;

Lawriter - ORC - 149.43 [Effective Until 3/22/2019] Availability of public records for inspection and copying.

So how does the news media have access?

 

[Betty P]

It reads "the juvenile records of the witnesses the state intends to call at trial".

Angela.wagner.motions.12.14.18

Agree, my answer was that she wants to dig up dirt on any and all witnesses the state may call. What someone did as a juvenile is irrelevant. No one made Angela Wagner murder the Rhoden family. She chose to do that with her own demented family. No one forced them to do it and there was certainly no justification.

AW is just trying to create some red herrings, try to blame the murders on someone else. JMO, she will be surprised at how that strategy will backfire and how quickly she will be convicted.

ETA: Adding that, at this point, we don't know who is simply an eyewitness or may have witnessed or have greater knowledge of incriminating information. JMO, I'm going to hold off for now on forming an opinion about that. It's also possible that some family members or friends of the Rhodens now perceived as just eyewitnesses may also have knowledge of the activities of the Wagners that is relevant to motive, admission of guilt, or any number of things. For example, there are probably many family members who knew of and possibly witnessed the attempts by the Wagners to force HMR to relinquish custody of her daughter. Some may have seen or heard a member of the W family make threats or intimidate other members of the Rhoden family, including HMR, DR, CR1 or others. I'm just using these as examples. There's still so much about this case we don't know yet.

 

[Dudly]

Agree, my answer was that she wants to dig up dirt on any and all witnesses the state may call. What someone did as a juvenile is irrelevant. No one made Angela Wagner murder the Rhoden family. She chose to do that with her own demented family. No one forced them to do it and there was certainly no justification.

AW is just trying to create some red herrings, try to blame the murders on someone else. JMO, she will be surprised at how that strategy will backfire and how quickly she will be convicted.

ETA: Adding that, at this point, we don't know who is simply an eyewitness or may have witnessed or have greater knowledge of incriminating information. JMO, I'm going to hold off for now on forming an opinion about that. It's also possible that some family members or friends of the Rhodens now perceived as just eyewitnesses may also have knowledge of the activities of the Wagners that is relevant to motive, admission of guilt, or any number of things. For example, there are probably many family members who knew of and possibly witnessed the attempts by the Wagners to force HMR to relinquish custody of her daughter. Some may have seen or heard a member of the W family make threats or intimidate other members of the Rhoden family, including HMR, DR, CR1 or others. I'm just using these as examples. There's still so much about this case we don't know yet.

I agree every "dirty trick" in the books will be tried to discredit witnesses and to show that someone else could have done it. I find it hard to believe that it would not be an air tight case at this point. It looks that way already and we do not know what all they have for evidence. I believe the Ws will have a rude awakening when they realize they are not superior beings to the LE investigators. When that sinks in I think there may be flips on each other and plea bargains wanted....JMO of course...