OH Pike County: 8 in Rhoden Family Murdered Over Custody Issue, 4 Members Wagner Family Arrested#49

[Johnny B Bad]

Sometimes I think it gets lost how tragic some of these cases are. There were a lot of lives changed forever in one night. Children that will never know their mom/dad/grandmother..I don't know why but I'm concerned that GW4 is going first. I think I just felt his was the weakest case (IMO) but then again we don't know exactly what they have so I'll keep hoping that justice is served.

Didn’t George 4th ask for a speedy trial?

 

[Johnny B Bad]

Perhaps because of the lack of DNA necessary for a direct tie---Thus relying on a overwhelming berth of circumstantial evidence?

They are throwing the "kitchen sink" at them. Enough will stick for a conviction. Many cases rise and fall based only on the circumstantial evidence.

DNA Found At Rhoden/Gilley Crime Scenes

The recent discovery filed in both George IV and Edward Jake Wagner’s criminal cases indicate extensive DNA was found upon BCI investigation. Records also reflect firearms were recovered. What we (the public) don’t know at this time is what the DNA is indicative of. Time will tell.

Your right CC, and if you notice the LE are keeping Billy last on everything, LE has Billy and Jake dead to right, JMO

 

[Kyshoegal]

Didn’t George 4th ask for a speedy trial?

@Johnny B Bad ..I'm not sure?? That would be one explanation, I thought all 4 had waiver the right but I could easily be mistaken.

 

[Betty P]

This one Angela listed September 16, 2016?

https://i.imgur.com/Ford/Excursion

https://i.imgur.com/evidence?
No link, just my opinion that it came from the guy who bought it. Again, just opinion only, but we do know their vehicles were searched.

Sorry I overlooked your comment, but that's the one I was referring to. There's a better copy of that supplemental discovery for AW. I think its a ScribD document at a link posted in Media & Timelines.

 

[Wild Rose]

THIS. Made me always wonder if the marks on the spent casings would match ANOTHER murder. Then LE could connect the dots for commonality. IMO.

 

[Wild Rose]

THIS I meant in response to LovelyB about the brass catcher. Quote didn't post! Sorry!

 

[Johnny B Bad]

Wagner is also trying to prevent a witness she claims may be "unavailable" from testifying at her trial.

Angela Wagner to appear in court for pretrial hearing in Rhoden family murders

Just sharing.

A person that lived up around the murders site hasn’t been seen in a very long time, they maybe a witness and may have saw something the night the murders, their name has been in the Wagners court finding and could be a state witness, JMO

 

[Yellowbeak]

A person that lived up around the murders site hasn’t been seen in a very long time, they maybe a witness and may have saw something the night the murders, their name has been in the Wagners court finding and could be a state witness, JMO

I’m confused on how AW can state that the witness is unavailable. How would she know that?
Is the witness in protective custody due to incriminating evidence? Or is the person missing?

 

[Johnny B Bad]

I’m confused on how AW can state that the witness is unavailable. How would she know that?
Is the witness in protective custody due to incriminating evidence? Or is the person missing?

I don’t know but I found it on a pod cast about this person missing and read about what AW said also, this person is in all discovery and could be a witness just listen to Rhoden massacre podcast and you can hear the name, I don’t think the Mods would want it put on Websleuth, JMO

 

[RAISINISBACK]

A person that lived up around the murders site hasn’t been seen in a very long time, they maybe a witness and may have saw something the night the murders, their name has been in the Wagners court finding and could be a state witness, JMO

So do you think the W's may have made him disappear? I don't think the R's were their first rodeo.

JMO

 

[RAISINISBACK]

I’m confused on how AW can state that the witness is unavailable. How would she know that?
Is the witness in protective custody due to incriminating evidence? Or is the person missing?

IMO she would know it if she was involved in making him "unavailable".

JMO

 

[Betty P]

IMO she would know it if she was involved in making him "unavailable".

JMO

I hope we're wrong about that. Recall at the beginning of all this we were questioning why LE didn't appear to be offering anyone "witness protection" services. Hopefully, they did in this person's case. Has this person been officially listed by LE as missing?

 

[Dudly]

I hope we're wrong about that. Recall at the beginning of all this we were questioning why LE didn't appear to be offering anyone "witness protection" services. Hopefully, they did in this person's case. Has this person been officially listed by LE as missing?

Do we even have the name of the person AW is referring to? It would be hard to tell if they were missing, or deceased, not having a name...

 

[Betty P]

Do we even have the name of the person AW is referring to? It would be hard to tell if they were missing, or deceased, not having a name...

Others here have mentioned the name appears in discovery docs. Anyone want to post a link? TIA

 

[Dudly]

Others here have mentioned the name appears in discovery docs. Anyone want to post a link? TIA

If it is the name listed with all the phones, I thought his whereabouts was known. Or, at least he had been seen by someone.

 

[Caylee Advocate]

If it is the name listed with all the phones, I thought his whereabouts was known. Or, at least he had been seen by someone.

Deleted by me as it "might" be against TOS. Regardless, that person is alright.

 

[Cool Cats]

Sorry I overlooked your comment, but that's the one I was referring to. There's a better copy of that supplemental discovery for AW. I think its a ScribD document at a link posted in Media & Timelines.

Ok. I'll check it out thanks

 

[Cool Cats]

Angela's Motion #32
NOTE: USE THIS MOTION IF THE WITNESS IS ALIVE, BUT STATE SAYS NOT AVAILABLE.
MODIFY THIS MOTION IF THE WITNESS IS DEAD, IN WHICH CASE THE SOLE FOCUS FALLS ON WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD AN EFFECTIVE OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE WITNESS AT THE EARLIER PROCEEDING.

DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING THE INADMISSIBILITY OF PRIOR TESTIMONY FROM A WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION

Defendant moves this Court to prohibit the State from admitting the prior testimony of an allegedly unavailable witness.

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT

It is defense counsels understanding that the prosecution plans to rely on the prior testimony of a witness because the State contends that witness is unavailable, and that the witness was effectively subjected to cross examination at an earlier proceedings.


Defendant contends that this evidence is inadmissible because (1) it has not been proven that the witness is unavailable;
and (2) Defendant did not have an opportunity to conduct an effective cross examination of that witnesses in circumstances equal to those that would apply were the witness to appear in person during trial.

 

[Loomis124]

Angela's Motion #32
NOTE: USE THIS MOTION IF THE WITNESS IS ALIVE, BUT STATE SAYS NOT AVAILABLE.
MODIFY THIS MOTION IF THE WITNESS IS DEAD, IN WHICH CASE THE SOLE FOCUS FALLS ON WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD AN EFFECTIVE OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE WITNESS AT THE EARLIER PROCEEDING.

DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING THE INADMISSIBILITY OF PRIOR TESTIMONY FROM A WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION

Defendant moves this Court to prohibit the State from admitting the prior testimony of an allegedly unavailable witness.

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT

It is defense counsels understanding that the prosecution plans to rely on the prior testimony of a witness because the State contends that witness is unavailable, and that the witness was effectively subjected to cross examination at an earlier proceedings.


Defendant contends that this evidence is inadmissible because (1) it has not been proven that the witness is unavailable;
and (2) Defendant did not have an opportunity to conduct an effective cross examination of that witnesses in circumstances equal to those that would apply were the witness to appear in person during trial.

Wow, CC! Great information! Thank you!

I'm a little confused about something though. What was the "proceeding" that has already taken place? It doesn't sound like it was the GJ. The defendant and attorneys weren't there, right? Any help would be appreciated.

 

[Loomis124]

Deleted by me as it "might" be against TOS. Regardless, that person is alright.

Is it possible we have the wrong person in mind? TY