OH Pike County: 8 in Rhoden Family Murdered Over Custody Issue 4 Members Wagner Family Arrested#41

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
MittenScarpetta said:
Maybe no one would bring her clothes. That really doesn’t seem likely though. Lawyers have been known to provide court clothes for their clients if needed. Especially in death penalty cases.

I look forward to seeing what Billy will be wearing. And just an observation, but GW4 attire actually looked very nice. JW’s clothes didn’t seem as crisp and put together as GW4’s.
Click to expand...

I think GW4 wants out of there.

I can't imagine the W sons plight. If they all end up on death row won't they be there with GW3/Dad? How can they cut a deal without being stuck with him in prison?

Most parents would try to lessen their sons crimes if they were all involved.

Why don't these parents fall on their sword for their sons since they were just as involved?

This is a strange group of people and their instincts are way off. JMO.
 
Cool Cats said:
Y'all have great opinions. Enjoy hearing them. So why do y'all (my Appalachian roots) think Angie was wearing jail scrubs, and her son's were not?

Any and all opinions welcome.......
Click to expand...
I think someone brought her clothes that had a message written inside them and jail staff found it, so they wouldn't allow her to wear the clothes that was brought to her. Ergo she had to wear jail scrubs.

JMO
 
RAISINISBACK said:
I got the impression that CG wasn't making much of an effort to see the child and that was what she was so PO'ed about. She claimed he took no interest during the pregnancy and indeed only went to one Dr. appointment because he needed a Dr's slip for work. I don't think he wanted to be a father. She said he was on drugs and drank. I know FR and HG said he wanted to, but apparently HR had tried to get him interested in the baby and he just blew her off. That's why she was so furious with him. I think that is why MG has K now. He just simply isn't interested, even now.

JMO
Click to expand...
I agree. I’m also very curious as to why HMR & CG split. A lot of times, not all, but it happens often, after a breakup when the woman finds out she’s pregnant, the relationship becomes rekindled (and then falls apart a few months after the birth JMO). I just wonder what caused the sudden discord between the two. Social media posts and comments between the two made it seem they were happy and playful with one another in comments back and forth.

I also could’ve swore I read in an article somewhere in the past almost 3 years that CG blamed himself and has since refused to date again out of fear the same thing would happen. It was something along those lines and I can’t find the article now. Does anyone recall that statement made to a journalist ? @Betty P @rsd1200 do either of you remember that?
 
CIA Team Member said:
I bugged out for a bit during this entire case. Can someone be so kind to update me as to WHY Reader stated in court "he had no problem with K going with JW?" (paraphrasing a bit) If Reader/LE KNEW so early on as some have speculated WHY would Reader state that and allow to proceed? Was it still to early on and truly JM was suspected (set up IMO by the W's).
Click to expand...

If you're referring to S, yes that was strange. JMO, unfortunately Reader and BCI were not focused on Wagners as suspects at that time, nor for quite a long time after. JW's sympathy ploys and fake alibis worked for quite a while.
 
RAISINISBACK said:
I think he knew full well that child was not his. He only told the reporter it was to make it look like there was no way he killed Hanna with his 4 day old baby in the bed beside her. The point he was trying to get across to LE was what loving father would put his child in danger of a stray bullet like that? Jake as with his grandmother Fred is always onstage performing for the media.

JMO
Click to expand...
Yes! And here’s another statement that has long bothered me that Jakey boy made. This statement comes off as entitled to me.

“But if he isn't Kylie's dad, and if the courts deem another man suitable to care for her, he will step aside -- at least partially.

"I'm not going to take her," Wagner said. "But I will want mandatory visitation in order to see her regularly."

What gave Jake the right to believe he would be entitled to mandatory visitation to a child that wasn’t his? Why would he even believe he would be granted mandatory visitation? Or was this another statement by one of the defendants to paint a false picture of the defendants?

Also the part - “But I’m not going to take her” comes off to me like he has experience taking a child (aka Sophia). And how did he take S? By murdering her entire immediate maternal family and mother. Just to clarify, I’m pulling my thoughts I wrote down in my notes when this article came out. And that was long before arrests or even before the W’s were named a “laser focus” by DeWine.

All JMO.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cincinnati.com/amp/85231530
 
Last edited:
Just a few observations on Fred's appearance.

I noticed Robin was not sitting front and center but a few rows back. I think Fred is a very smart woman who noticed how those media cameras focused on Robin every time and decided to play that. So she put Robin a few rows back so the cameras would be all on Fred. Then she played those cameras like a fiddle to get out in the public what she wanted them to know.

Things I came away with after Fred and her lawyers performance.

1. Fred is innocent.
2. Fred is a victim of an unfortunate misunderstanding on the part of law enforcement.
3. Fred is a decent woman.
4. If Fred did lie it is because she didn't hear the question right and answered incorrectly.
5. Fred is loyal to her family.
6. Fred is being unfairly treated by LE not allowing her to write her family.
7. Fred's son and his family are innocent.
8. Fred's son and his family are being persecuted and should hang in there until such time as LE catches the "real" killers.

Her attorney had to strain to get all that out in the few minutes he had. And Fred perked up at just the right moments in her attorneys speech to get just the right visual image to his words out there.

Overall a stellar performance by Fred.

I wonder how much her attorney is billing her for it?

JMO
 
RAISINISBACK said:
Just a few observations on Fred's appearance.

I noticed Robin was not sitting front and center but a few rows back. I think Fred is a very smart woman who noticed how those media cameras focused on Robin every time and decided to play that. So she put Robin a few rows back so the cameras would be all on Fred. Then she played those cameras like a fiddle to get out in the public what she wanted them to know.

Things I came away with after Fred and her lawyers performance.

1. Fred is innocent.
2. Fred is a victim of an unfortunate misunderstanding on the part of law enforcement.
3. Fred is a decent woman.
4. If Fred did lie it is because she didn't hear the question right and answered incorrectly.
5. Fred is loyal to her family.
6. Fred is being unfairly treated by LE not allowing her to write her family.
7. Fred's son and his family are innocent.
8. Fred's son and his family are being persecuted and should hang in there until such time as LE catches the "real" killers.

Her attorney had to strain to get all that out in the few minutes he had. And Fred perked up at just the right moments in her attorneys speech to get just the right visual image to his words out there.

Overall a stellar performance by Fred.

I wonder how much her attorney is billing her for it?

JMO
Click to expand...

ETA: I think Jake came by his ability as a master manipulator honestly.
 
RAISINISBACK said:
Just a few observations on Fred's appearance.

I noticed Robin was not sitting front and center but a few rows back. I think Fred is a very smart woman who noticed how those media cameras focused on Robin every time and decided to play that. So she put Robin a few rows back so the cameras would be all on Fred. Then she played those cameras like a fiddle to get out in the public what she wanted them to know.

Things I came away with after Fred and her lawyers performance.

1. Fred is innocent.
2. Fred is a victim of an unfortunate misunderstanding on the part of law enforcement.
3. Fred is a decent woman.
4. If Fred did lie it is because she didn't hear the question right and answered incorrectly.
5. Fred is loyal to her family.
6. Fred is being unfairly treated by LE not allowing her to write her family.
7. Fred's son and his family are innocent.
8. Fred's son and his family are being persecuted and should hang in there until such time as LE catches the "real" killers.

Her attorney had to strain to get all that out in the few minutes he had. And Fred perked up at just the right moments in her attorneys speech to get just the right visual image to his words out there.

Overall a stellar performance by Fred.

I wonder how much her attorney is billing her for it?

JMO
Click to expand...
Fast forward to the 6:20 mark. I rewatched FW’s pretrial this morning on YouTube and noticed her lawyer states “she lied about bullet proof vests”. He doesn’t say she allegedly lied. Was that a slip up? Or am I hearing it out of context somehow?

 
Betty P said:
Heard that. Something about writing cards and letters, etc. Assume she's been using RW to try to pass along these messages. I don't think the Judge is going to be a pushover on these tactics, though. He seems like a decent judge, but he may not want to put up with the defense and defendants trying to play games and defy him.

JMO
Click to expand...

IMO, RW and perhaps CN, too, are the third parties.
 
MittenScarpetta said:
Yes! And here’s another statement that has long bothered me that Jakey boy made. This statement comes off as entitled to me.

“But if he isn't Kylie's dad, and if the courts deem another man suitable to care for her, he will step aside -- at least partially.

"I'm not going to take her," Wagner said. "But I will want mandatory visitation in order to see her regularly."

What gave Jake the right to believe he would be entitled to mandatory visitation to a child that wasn’t his? Why would he even believe he would be granted mandatory visitation? Or was this another statement by one of the defendants to paint a false picture of the defendants?

Also the part - “But I’m not going to take her” comes off to me like he has experience taking a child (aka Sophia). And how did he take S? By murdering her entire immediate maternal family and mother. Just to clarify, I’m pulling my thoughts I wrote down in my notes when this article came out. And that was long before arrests or even before the W’s were named a “laser focus” by DeWine.

All JMO.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cincinnati.com/amp/85231530
Click to expand...

Yes, those were very odd and inappropriate comments to make. When he first said that I kind of ignored it thinking he was talking to be saying something to the press. Later I thought what in the h*ll is he talking about? Saying he wouldn't take her? Amazing how ridiculous that statement was. He didn't say mandatory visitation for S since they were sisters, which I could understand.
 
MittenScarpetta said:
Fast forward to the 6:20 mark. I rewatched FW’s pretrial this morning on YouTube and noticed her lawyer states “she lied about bullet proof vests”. He doesn’t say she allegedly lied. Was that a slip up? Or am I hearing it out of context somehow?

Click to expand...
Yes. he said it. I don't know if it was a slip up. Probably was. That is one slick lawyer. I did notice that when Angela C was talking that Fred looked straight at her. It would seem that if Fred was hard of hearing she would have turned her right side to Ms. C to better hear what she was saying.

JMO

One other observation. Fred wants her day in the court of public opinion via press conferences.

I personally think her business is suffering from all this. You will not be in business long if you appear to your customers or the public to be dishonest. So she is trying to get out there via media cameras that she has been falsely accused and would never lie about anything. Further evidence is that she is just a hard working woman who cares about her disabled patients in the care facility and a God fearing woman who just wants to go to church.

That is one good attorney. He got all that in there in just one court appearance. I think we can expect more theatrics from both him and Fred in the upcoming appearances.
 
MittenScarpetta said:
Yes! And here’s another statement that has long bothered me that Jakey boy made. This statement comes off as entitled to me.

“But if he isn't Kylie's dad, and if the courts deem another man suitable to care for her, he will step aside -- at least partially.

"I'm not going to take her," Wagner said. "But I will want mandatory visitation in order to see her regularly."
Click to expand...

What gave Jake the right to believe he would be entitled to mandatory visitation to a child that wasn’t his? Why would he even believe he would be granted mandatory visitation? Or was this another statement by one of the defendants to paint a false picture of the defendants?

Also the part - “But I’m not going to take her” comes off to me like he has experience taking a child (aka Sophia). And how did he take S? By murdering her entire immediate maternal family and mother. Just to clarify, I’m pulling my thoughts I wrote down in my notes when this article came out. And that was long before arrests or even before the W’s were named a “laser focus” by DeWine.

All JMO.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cincinnati.com/amp/85231530
Click to expand...
MittenScarpetta said:
Yes! And here’s another statement that has long bothered me that Jakey boy made. This statement comes off as entitled to me.

“But if he isn't Kylie's dad, and if the courts deem another man suitable to care for her, he will step aside -- at least partially.

"I'm not going to take her," Wagner said. "But I will want mandatory visitation in order to see her regularly."

What gave Jake the right to believe he would be entitled to mandatory visitation to a child that wasn’t his? Why would he even believe he would be granted mandatory visitation? Or was this another statement by one of the defendants to paint a false picture of the defendants?

Also the part - “But I’m not going to take her” comes off to me like he has experience taking a child (aka Sophia). And how did he take S? By murdering her entire immediate maternal family and mother. Just to clarify, I’m pulling my thoughts I wrote down in my notes when this article came out. And that was long before arrests or even before the W’s were named a “laser focus” by DeWine.

All JMO.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cincinnati.com/amp/85231530
Click to expand...
And THEN, as we all now know, Jake was not the father of K. He didn’t seek that mandatory visitation to the child. Further, him and his cohorts not only sold off all that they could and hightailed it 4100 miles out of Ohio to the great state of Alaska, BUT Angie also contradicted herself immensely.

Regardless of what happens, Kylie and Sophia are now, and forever will be, at least half-sisters.

The girls share a bond: They lost the same mommy.

"They need each other,'' said Wagner's mom, Angela Wagner. "When they get old enough to understand, they will really need each other."
Click to expand...

I agree with Angela. The girls do share a bond. After all, they are sisters. It’s very very sad they were robbed of that relationship with eachother early in life. They did and do need eachother. Instead of making that possible, again the Wagners moved S away from her only sibling as well as her entire surviving maternal family.

There’s a quote that comes to mind “Actions prove who a person is. Words are what people want you to believe they are”

Another thought I jotted down about this article when published is that HHG’s family speaks of missing K’s first coos and hoping R was shown pictures of them while in state custody in hopes he would still remember his family.

Not once did JW mention any milestones he was missing as K was held by the state. His statements were all “me, me, me” while the statements made by others in the article displayed great concern for the children. The others interviewed never made it about them. But Jake? Jake made that interview about him and what he would demand and then him and his family’s actions contradicted their words and showed us who they truly were. All JMHO.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cincinnati.com/amp/85231530
 
MittenScarpetta said:
Fast forward to the 6:20 mark. I rewatched FW’s pretrial this morning on YouTube and noticed her lawyer states “she lied about bullet proof vests”. He doesn’t say she allegedly lied. Was that a slip up? Or am I hearing it out of context somehow?

Click to expand...

I think he is saying it is the first time they are seeing in writing that she lied about bullet proof vests.
 
RAISINISBACK said:
Just a few observations on Fred's appearance.

I noticed Robin was not sitting front and center but a few rows back. I think Fred is a very smart woman who noticed how those media cameras focused on Robin every time and decided to play that. So she put Robin a few rows back so the cameras would be all on Fred. Then she played those cameras like a fiddle to get out in the public what she wanted them to know.

Things I came away with after Fred and her lawyers performance.

1. Fred is innocent.
2. Fred is a victim of an unfortunate misunderstanding on the part of law enforcement.
3. Fred is a decent woman.
4. If Fred did lie it is because she didn't hear the question right and answered incorrectly.
5. Fred is loyal to her family.
6. Fred is being unfairly treated by LE not allowing her to write her family.
7. Fred's son and his family are innocent.
8. Fred's son and his family are being persecuted and should hang in there until such time as LE catches the "real" killers.

Her attorney had to strain to get all that out in the few minutes he had. And Fred perked up at just the right moments in her attorneys speech to get just the right visual image to his words out there.

Overall a stellar performance by Fred.

I wonder how much her attorney is billing her for it?

JMO
Click to expand...

Astute observation. JMO, Fred is good at using the news media, or she's gotten good advice. She has strong message discipline and understands very well how to present just the visual message she needs. Further reinforces my feeling that she's manipulating RW and her presence in court. What she wears, where she sits, how she reacts. They're trying to convey an image of familial unity, Christian religious values and victimhood. She wants the public to believe the W's are just regular folk whose lives have been torn asunder by these unjust accusations. Like JW, she's good at projecting an image of twisting the truth. Rather than seeing the Rhoden/Gilley/Manley families as the victims, she's trying to paint her family as the one that has been wronged. The unspoken message is that the deceased victims have caused the injustice and harm to the W family.

JMO, that's always been an undercurrent of JW (and now to some degree, FW's) messaging: "The Rhodens aren't victims, they got what they deserved". "They're responsible for their own deaths." "Anyone who feels sympathy for the Rhodens is wrong." "SW was 'rescued' from them." "The Rhodens are now victimizing the W's from their graves, they should be punished for harming us with their deaths instead of punishing their killers." " They had so many enemies because they were so bad, many people wanted them dead." "The killers did the right thing, a service to the community". For the record, many other killers have conveyed these messages about their victims.

Anyone who has followed SM discussion of the massacre knows these messages have been prevalent from day 1.

Fred W wants the gag order lifted so she can keep message discipline throughout the trial, tainting the jury pool and keeping her jailed family members united. She's done a very good job so far.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 70 more.
Total: 3,710 (members: 71, guests: 3,639)

Online statistics

Members online
71
Guests online
3,639
Total visitors
3,710
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,113
Messages
17,963,415
Members
228,686
Latest member
Pabo1998
Back
Top