OH Pike County: 8 in Rhoden Family Murdered Over Custody Issue 4 Members Wagner Family Arrested#43

[IQuestion]

Does anyone have an opinion on which video clip of "The Boondock Saints" was found and entered as evidence?

I'm going with the clip, "Kill them. Kill them all." It was the same term used in the FB posting 10 days before April 22nd. (Per previous posts as I do not FB.) The same post I read on another site...over 2 years ago. (But I do not think I am allowed to link the post, but how about if I just link the story where I found the post?) And, also the fact "they" did 'kill them all.' However, I keep having the feeling W4's were expecting one more person to be at DR's residence and that person (he?) left the residence before the attack. Not because the person planned to leave, I think it was merely a coincidence they were not there that night. Although W4's had surveilled the property in advance, aware of the various locations etc., they could not be 100% certain who would actually be on the properties at the time of the attacks. But, I think the killers knew who would be coming after them in retribution, so they made the additional effort of driving to that location and killing KR. (It hurts to even write that.) Or, as some have suggested to "add credence to a cartel attack." Impossible for me to put myself into the mind of killers...it is a madness I don't really want to understand or imagine.
Anyone could have decided to ride home with DR that night, spend the night with their buddy, or drop by to check on HMR. No matter who was at those locations that night, the mantra was, "Kill them all."
I found it odd that someone used nearly the exact same words, over 2 years ago while commenting on an article ( There are 47 comments, but only one uses those words: adjust to oldest comments first....#6).
Trailer seized in search for killer of Ohio family | Daily Mail Online
Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence and three times is a pattern. It is just so odd, IMO. Again, just something I have been thinking about, and more informed posters will no doubt have a different/better opinion. (Because no one but the actual investigators have access to all the information...so everything I post is just a guess.)

 

[IQuestion]

Can I just get clarification on DeWines comments of Oct. 1. 2016 stating there was "enough evidence" to prosecute, but apparently the GJ did not agree? Were they convened after his comments and asked for evidence?....ie the silencer recovery was the deciding factor in the arrest?
We have already read that DNA evidence from a female offspring (adult child) has been used in the past to identify a serial killer. Could DNA from a minor child or grandmother of the suspects be used to identify the adults in the DNA found at this crime scene? Something to think about. In this " thousand piece puzzle" there are no right or wrong pieces, I think all of have thought of at least one piece that fits. Good night, no more thoughts on that, for now.

 

[Cool Cats]

Can I just get clarification on DeWines comments of Oct. 1. 2016 stating there was "enough evidence" to prosecute, but apparently the GJ did not agree? Were they convened after his comments and asked for evidence?....ie the silencer recovery was the deciding factor in the arrest?
We have already read that DNA evidence from a female offspring (adult child) has been used in the past to identify a serial killer. Could DNA from a minor child or grandmother of the suspects be used to identify the adults in the DNA found at this crime scene? Something to think about. In this " thousand piece puzzle" there are no right or wrong pieces, I think all of have thought of at least one piece that fits. Good night, no more thoughts on that, for now.

When he said they have enough physical evidence to try the Case, that was in October 2016. As you can see, they were NOT ready to take it to the Grand Jury at that time. It's obvious because this is what DeWine said the following month, November, 2016:
______________________________________________________________________
Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine knows there are people withholding information who could help his investigators solve the case of the Rhoden family killings.

Look, we are focused like a laser on this,'' he said. "There are people who we have talked to, who we know have not been candid with us ... we don't take kindly to that."

DeWine continued to call the investigation extremely active, adding authorities continue to field tips.

"I'm not going to say we are close to an arrest, because that is not true,'' he said. "But we certainly know more about what is going on in Pike County with drug and criminal activity. We will solve this Case."
______________________________________________________________________
The Wagner's gave their DNA so no need to match them through a relative. Besides, I'm sure they all found reasons to enter all 4 homes from January through April 2016 so they would have an excuse for their DNA being there, like from a piece of hair, or from an animal hair they had on their clothes that dropped off etc...

But yes LE could get DNA from a close relative, if they suspected someone, and use that to help identify and link a suspect to a crime scene. It would be a strong tool.

 

[MyTinkieGirl]

Sorry, deleted.

 

[rsd1200]

I'm going with the clip, "Kill them. Kill them all." It was the same term used in the FB posting 10 days before April 22nd. (Per previous posts as I do not FB.) The same post I read on another site...over 2 years ago. (But I do not think I am allowed to link the post, but how about if I just link the story where I found the post?) And, also the fact "they" did 'kill them all.' However, I keep having the feeling W4's were expecting one more person to be at DR's residence and that person (he?) left the residence before the attack. Not because the person planned to leave, I think it was merely a coincidence they were not there that night. Although W4's had surveilled the property in advance, aware of the various locations etc., they could not be 100% certain who would actually be on the properties at the time of the attacks. But, I think the killers knew who would be coming after them in retribution, so they made the additional effort of driving to that location and killing KR. (It hurts to even write that.) Or, as some have suggested to "add credence to a cartel attack." Impossible for me to put myself into the mind of killers...it is a madness I don't really want to understand or imagine.
Anyone could have decided to ride home with DR that night, spend the night with their buddy, or drop by to check on HMR. No matter who was at those locations that night, the mantra was, "Kill them all."
I found it odd that someone used nearly the exact same words, over 2 years ago while commenting on an article ( There are 47 comments, but only one uses those words: adjust to oldest comments first....#6).
Trailer seized in search for killer of Ohio family | Daily Mail Online
Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence and three times is a pattern. It is just so odd, IMO. Again, just something I have been thinking about, and more informed posters will no doubt have a different/better opinion. (Because no one but the actual investigators have access to all the information...so everything I post is just a guess.)

I don't think, (but I've been wrong before), that he's any of the Ws, IQ. That profile has recently commented on another case I'm following (Savannah Spurlock). I believe he's just a regular reader of the DM. He's posted on several of their stories.

 

[Julia966]

AB01 Sadly, you are absolutely correct....I had them confused. (Not sad that you are right btw, just sad that two actually exist.) Geesh.... First choice, Serial Killer "R" or second choice, Serial Killer "R. What is the world coming to? Seriously! (It makes me so sad to think about it..... two monsters!) I don't want to look at their faces or read about them. (because they should both be dead.)

I get those two confused too, not sure why!

 

[RAISINISBACK]

I'm going with the clip, "Kill them. Kill them all." It was the same term used in the FB posting 10 days before April 22nd. (Per previous posts as I do not FB.) The same post I read on another site...over 2 years ago. (But I do not think I am allowed to link the post, but how about if I just link the story where I found the post?) And, also the fact "they" did 'kill them all.' However, I keep having the feeling W4's were expecting one more person to be at DR's residence and that person (he?) left the residence before the attack. Not because the person planned to leave, I think it was merely a coincidence they were not there that night. Although W4's had surveilled the property in advance, aware of the various locations etc., they could not be 100% certain who would actually be on the properties at the time of the attacks. But, I think the killers knew who would be coming after them in retribution, so they made the additional effort of driving to that location and killing KR. (It hurts to even write that.) Or, as some have suggested to "add credence to a cartel attack." Impossible for me to put myself into the mind of killers...it is a madness I don't really want to understand or imagine.
Anyone could have decided to ride home with DR that night, spend the night with their buddy, or drop by to check on HMR. No matter who was at those locations that night, the mantra was, "Kill them all."
I found it odd that someone used nearly the exact same words, over 2 years ago while commenting on an article ( There are 47 comments, but only one uses those words: adjust to oldest comments first....#6).
Trailer seized in search for killer of Ohio family | Daily Mail Online
Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence and three times is a pattern. It is just so odd, IMO. Again, just something I have been thinking about, and more informed posters will no doubt have a different/better opinion. (Because no one but the actual investigators have access to all the information...so everything I post is just a guess.)

I have often thought that they expected Hanna's boyfriend CH to be with her that night. I am sure that Jake would have happily taken him out too.

JMO

 

[rsd1200]

I have often thought that they expected Hanna's boyfriend CH to be with her that night. I am sure that Jake would have happily taken him out too.

JMO

I don't think that the Rs were super fond of CH, so, not sure he how often he was there, but... I bet JW despises him (and CG). Also, look how many friends HMR had. Having fun with them, going out to concerts, swimming at her lil pond, and such. I have not heard of a single friend of his, or his bro, come forward, to say anything. I find that odd. There's usually one or two who come out, and say; I'm stunned! We've been friends forever! I can't believe he'd do this.

 

[Loomis124]

Thank you for checking into that! I have to go along with you then, in asking, why do people think GW4 stayed in Alaska?

Again Thankx for checking that!

Thank you for checking into that! I have to go along with you then, in asking, why do people think GW4 stayed in Alaska?

Again Thankx for checking that!

You're very welcome. AW's exact quote (only shows on GW's FB) is posted on Oct 6 2018: "Happy birthday to my oldest son. I love you and am so proud of you. We can't wait to see you in the morning. Love you always."

LE started trying to serve him change of custody papers Oct 9 and he was officially served Oct 10, per the Adams' county common plea records.

 

[Deleted member 237253]

I bet JW was jealous of all men in HMR' s life, including family.

 

[Dudly]

I have done some searching and have not found what I call a definite answer. Can a defense attorney use a co-defendant/co-conspirator as a witness FOR(in favor of) their client? I.E. Can JW's attorney call AW as a witness for him to prove his innocence?

 

[Sleuthinsleuther]

I have done some searching and have not found what I call a definite answer. Can a defense attorney use a co-defendant/co-conspirator as a witness FOR(in favor of) their client? I.E. Can JW's attorney call AW as a witness for him to prove his innocence?

Doubt it

 

[Dudly]

I don't think that the Rs were super fond of CH, so, not sure he how often he was there, but... I bet JW despises him (and CG). Also, look how many friends HMR had. Having fun with them, going out to concerts, swimming at her lil pond, and such. I have not heard of a single friend of his, or his bro, come forward, to say anything. I find that odd. There's usually one or two who come out, and say; I'm stunned! We've been friends forever! I can't believe he'd do this.

I have never heard any mention of anytime JW has talked hunting buddies, fishing buddies, beer drinking buddies, fellow partiers, etc... Maybe I have just not seen it. There have been a few mention on SM that JW was known to them and a nice guy. I don't recall them saying he was their good friend or close friend. His social circle may have been very small...

 

[FrescaandSouthernComfort]

I have done some searching and have not found what I call a definite answer. Can a defense attorney use a co-defendant/co-conspirator as a witness FOR(in favor of) their client? I.E. Can JW's attorney call AW as a witness for him to prove his innocence?

This is where the 5th Amendment can come into play. It can be very useful for all sides and
is completely legal and sometimes very necessary. See Bowles v. United States, 439 F.2d. 536,
545-546 (1970)
JMO

 

[IQuestion]

I have often thought that they expected Hanna's boyfriend CH to be with her that night. I am sure that Jake would have happily taken him out too.

JMO

True RAISIN....bbm. I have wondered "what is true" and what W's made up to cover their actions. Was JW's showing up, to get S at 10:30pm, (his story) part of a reconnaissance mission to find out who would be at DR's home?? It makes me sick to think about JW's motivations...he should have considered the young teen, CRjr more like "a little brother." (!) Maybe CH had to leave for work(?), or left later, so HMR could rest. In any case, I feel badly for him, too.
I have read, been lectured etc on the "presumption of innocence"...but sometimes it gets awfully confusing when I see prosecutors, sitting at a table who DON'T have to presume innocence, do they? In fact, they are so sure the accused is guilty, they have spent the last 2 years accumulating enough evidence to make a jury think that, too. It sounds good in defense "sound bites" but in reality, I see it totally different. "Yah, yah....we know you are innocent, but in the meantime, we will accumulate thousands of pages of evidence and spend millions of dollars to convict you."
Legal conundrum.
ps. Legal talk always confuses me.

 

[Cool Cats]

You're very welcome. AW's exact quote (only shows on GW's FB) is posted on Oct 6 2018: "Happy birthday to my oldest son. I love you and am so proud of you. We can't wait to see you in the morning. Love you always."

LE started trying to serve him change of custody papers Oct 9 and he was officially served Oct 10, per the Adams' county common plea records.

See next post....accidentally posted twice.....

 

[Cool Cats]

You're very welcome. AW's exact quote (only shows on GW's FB) is posted on Oct 6 2018: "Happy birthday to my oldest son. I love you and am so proud of you. We can't wait to see you in the morning. Love you always."

LE started trying to serve him change of custody papers Oct 9 and he was officially served Oct 10, per the Adams' county common plea records.

Thankx. You just cleared something else up. GW4 didn't come back from Alaska because of custody, because he wasn't even served until he got back.

So twice you've done my research for me!...Lol....

 

[Cool Cats]

I have done some searching and have not found what I call a definite answer. Can a defense attorney use a co-defendant/co-conspirator as a witness FOR(in favor of) their client? I.E. Can JW's attorney call AW as a witness for him to prove his innocence?

Very intriguing question. This case (below) seems to show that for a co-defendant to testify favorably for another co-defendant, they have to be severed from the case and have a separate trial.

Issue 1: Whether the trial court erred in denying Mr. Rollerson’s motion to sever his trial from Ms. Burns’s trial in order to be able to call her as a witness to testify he was not involved in the Elvans Road Incident?

Holding: Yes. While a trial court has discretion whether to grant a motion to sever, a court must grant such a motion if a defendant can show there will be “manifest prejudice” from being tried jointly. Under Jackson v. United States, 329 A.2d 782 (D.C. 1974), when a defendant wants to sever a trial from a co-defendant in order to have that person testify in his defense, the court should grant the motion if it has been established that the co-defendant is 1) likely to testify and 2) the testimony will be “substantially exculpatory.”
A Court Should Grant A Motion To Sever If A Co-Defendant Would Provide “Officially Exculpatory” Testimony
Exculpatory evidence
Exculpatory evidence is evidence favorable to the defendant in a criminal trial that exonerates or tends to exonerate the defendant of guilt. It is the opposite of inculpatory evidence, which tends to prove guilt.

WAGNER TRIALS
The Wagner's are not co-defendants ( I think but can't know for sure) because they are all having separate trials.
It's my understanding that any one of them could testify for the other. But we should get a Websleuth Attorney on here to see what they think about the Wags testifying FAVORABLY for each other at each other's trials.
......I'm not an attorney and am only giving my impressions and opinions.....

 

[GoBuckeyes]

Just a few questions for everyone. TIA 1) Did LE determine the physical location of the shatter operation and the people involved?

2) I am ignorant about shatter; what is it?

3) Lastly, concerning John Doe, I've read about cases where John Does have been endicted, but they were always living and to be named later. Does anyone remember a case in which an indicted John Doe was deceased at the time of indictment? TIA

 

[GoBuckeyes]

If I understand the timeline correctly, he remained in Alaska for a while after his family returned to Ohio. Maybe he had an attack of conscience after some time to himself, away from his family's influence (??). Just a thought, JMO.

<modsnip>

This "attack", if it happened, could have driven him to the police to try to get out ahead of the arrests. Maybe he thought he could paint a picture where he's not involved at all. That's one scenario in which G4 may have thought that telling all he knew would help him.