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

[bowler]

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.

Did someone give a "statement" earlier and has since died?
That would be the most "unavailable" a person could be? Right?

 

[Loomis124]

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

JMO, but there are several pages of names in that document, and I am beginning to wonder if the one we are assuming is the witness is indeed "the real witness." Local folks might know, but I don't. I do know he was discussed and accused early on by PP on the site that sailed off into the sunset. Long before arrests were made, I had decided to myself that we had really been taken by PP. I suspect now that poster was AW. She outright accused him of the murders after the Cartel theory passed on. I believe the evidence will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Wagners committed these murders and they will be found guilty. All my opinion only.

 

[Loomis124]

Did someone give a "statement" earlier and has since died?
That would be the most "unavailable" a person could be? Right?

Sure. But I don't think the unavailability of a deceased person would be argued at this point...? JMO

 

[Loomis124]

Very strange feeling that it is a Motion to Suppress. The Wagners want the witness and the
info about the suppressed or the prosecution wants the witness alive and able to testify at
trial. Believe it has been an undercurrent to the lack of response for certain discovery.

FSC, or Betty, can you please discuss the happenings at the time? Was this about the 3 sealed motions? And were those the Prosecution's motions, or Defendants? Which Defendant? IIRC, JW was up to bat at that time, so why would sealed motions have been about witness in AWs case? Can someone please explain? TY

 

[Johnny B Bad]

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...

They live in a camper is what the podcast said (Rhodens Massacre Podcast) IMO

 

[evelezrn]

Re "unavailable" witness:

This scenario is not hinting at anything. I don't have anyone in mind. It's an honest question.

Let's say someone just had not been seen for a period of time (even if not formally reported "missing"). Could that person be considered as possibly/potentially "unavailable" (at time of indictments)?

What if that person's body later turned up somewhere and identified as dead? IOW, they went from being considered "unavailable" at one time to "definitely never going to be available" at a later point in time (after being listed in indictments).

Edited to clarify

 

[Cool Cats]

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.

BMM: This is only my take on "the proceeding". Please weigh in. Any attorneys out there?

Preparing For Trial — Discovery
When your attorney gets the Discovery list of people who are witnesses against you, you will need to review this with your attorney and provide all the information you have regarding these witnesses.

Once you have discussed the list of witnesses with your attorney, you can decide which witnesses to have your attorney question. This gives your attorney an opportunity to question a witness under oath prior to trial to find out what the witness will testify to at trial.

During the Rhoden/Gilley murder investigation the BCI/LE came across a variety of witnessess and what usually happens is the witness will give a Sworn Statement called an Affidavit.

Use of Affidavits in Criminal Cases

Affidavit
An Affidavit is a sworn statement. The witness giving the statement, signs the written document, swearing that the information contained within is true and acknowledging that he may be charged with perjury if it contains information later proved to be false.

In most U.S. courts, affidavits usually cannot be submitted as direct evidence in a criminal trial unless the witness who wrote and signed the affidavit is testifying.

I gather that the Prosecution has an Affidavit from a witness that they want to use against Angela in court. This type of witness needs to be in court unless they are deceased or there is some other mitigating reason they are unavailable. (up to the Judge)
Angela's defense is not "buying it" and wants to have the opportunity to question the witness, and if they can't, then to NOT have the witness testimony be admissible in court.

A mystery indeed. Could this be a relative who has to remain anonymous for their own well being? Any ideas?
Perhaps someone else who wishes to remain anonymous?
.....Again, only my opinion on it.....

 

[Betty P]

FSC, or Betty, can you please discuss the happenings at the time? Was this about the 3 sealed motions? And were those the Prosecution's motions, or Defendants? Which Defendant? IIRC, JW was up to bat at that time, so why would sealed motions have been about witness in AWs case? Can someone please explain? TY

I'll have to go back and re-watch the hearing. There wasn't a lot of discussion involved, IIRC. Prosecution is restricting the information they're providing in discovery because they don't want to compromise the other cases, the murder cases. They can do that. Could be, like many of the other motions made by various defense attorneys, they're looking to use such information to create red herrings. They may want to bring up state witnesses in order to publicly accuse them of the murders, taint the jury pool, etc. Prosecution isn't going to allow the defense to identify and discuss these witnesses before the trial. JMO

 

[Loomis124]

They live in a camper is what the podcast said (Rhodens Massacre Podcast) IMO

JB, and why would you believe that? Or that it is relevant? Early information was that this person wasn't there that night. I don't know.

 

[Loomis124]

They live in a camper is what the podcast said (Rhodens Massacre Podcast) IMO

With all the surveillance the Wagners had going on, they knew every little thing going on at the murder locations that night, so IMO, they planned accordingly.

 

[Merrygirl]

Sure. But I don't think the unavailability of a deceased person would be argued at this point...? JMO

...unless it was recorded before they died. Jmo

 

[Loomis124]

I'll have to go back and re-watch the hearing. There wasn't a lot of discussion involved, IIRC. Prosecution is restricting the information they're providing in discovery because they don't want to compromise the other cases, the murder cases. They can do that. Could be, like many of the other motions made by various defense attorneys, they're looking to use such information to create red herrings. They may want to bring up state witnesses in order to publicly accuse them of the murders, taint the jury pool, etc. Prosecution isn't going to allow the defense to identify and discuss these witnesses before the trial. JMO

TY Betty.

 

[Loomis124]

I'll have to go back and re-watch the hearing. There wasn't a lot of discussion involved, IIRC. Prosecution is restricting the information they're providing in discovery because they don't want to compromise the other cases, the murder cases. They can do that. Could be, like many of the other motions made by various defense attorneys, they're looking to use such information to create red herrings. They may want to bring up state witnesses in order to publicly accuse them of the murders, taint the jury pool, etc. Prosecution isn't going to allow the defense to identify and discuss these witnesses before the trial. JMO

Whose hearing was it...? Ty

 

[Loomis124]

...unless it was recorded before they died. Jmo

Even still, the fact that the person is deceased makes him or her unavailable. And why would AW be fighting against this? JMO

 

[Loomis124]

Still treading "muddy water." My fate, I guess. Every day, I convince myself to let go of this...and getting so close to doing it. RIP Rhodens and Hazel Gilley. I never knew you but loved you the day your lives were taken so horrendously. I pray to God for Justice every day.

 

[Betty P]

Sure. But I don't think the unavailability of a deceased person would be argued at this point...? JMO

If this motion is referring to testimony, e.g. by video,audio or in writing was given by a witness for a grand jury hearing and that person becomes deceased, the defense is saying their testimony cannot be admitted at trial because the defense is unable to cross examine them.

Just my interpretation, IANAL. What do you all think?

 

[Dudly]

Did someone give a "statement" earlier and has since died?
That would be the most "unavailable" a person could be? Right?

Makes me think it may have been testimony from HMR about something like maybe treatment or threats... Was there maybe a GJ before the murders that she testified at?

 

[Betty P]

Even still, the fact that the person is deceased makes him or her unavailable. And why would AW be fighting against this? JMO

Does anyone know if the person is deceased? They may be still living.

 

[Betty P]

Whose hearing was it...? Ty

We won't know that. GJ hearings are secret.

Given the way the Motion is worded, it sounds like the witness is still alive.

Perhaps they're concerned the state won't allow the witness to testify in person or won't be available. All the defense is asking for is to not have the witness testimony admitted if they are unable to more fully cross examine the witness.

That may be a valid point or it may just be posturing in order to impugn the testimony of the witness before the trial, before the jury has a chance to hear what the witness had/has to say.

 

[Johnny B Bad]

JB, and why would you believe that? Or that it is relevant? Early information was that this person wasn't there that night. I don't know.

That person was a good friend to Big Chris and rented of of Big Chris, and there is a chance they saw someone, JMO