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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Shoot the Women First by Eileen MacDonald is a book about the mind set of women terrorist. It's an interesting read if anyone wants to delve into the mind of a female who decides to cross the line and murder because feels her family is at stake. It's a proven fact women in these situations will go much further than their male counterparts. What happened to the Rhodens was and in my mind remain an act of terrorism. Reading the book might help people get a better understanding of what AW could be capable of doing especially if she thought they were going to lose control of SW.
It's just my opinion but I feel you can apply the above cases to how AW was and still is thinking. What people have a hard time wrapping their minds around is how a female, who is supposed to be the nurturer of a family, could do such a thing. By stepping outside of how and what we would do and put ourselves in her twisted shoes we might get a quick glimpse of what she would be capable of doing.

It's a scary thought I know but I honestly think they felt they were going to lose a family member and instead of doing what everyone else would do they jumped to murder.

I have heard soldiers that were in WWII and Vietnam say that groups of women with sticks, rocks, and pitch forks would attack armed military personnel. A friend that was in 'Nam driving supply trucks said you absolutely did not stop for a local woman in the road. So yes, women are capable of killing people without a second thought when compelled to do so...
 
I just recently watched a Netflix movie called the The Eichmann Show. In it the director filming the 1961 trial of Adolf Eichmann is obsessed at one point with keeping the camera on his face wanting to see him break down. The producer says to him something like, you're looking for the humanity that's just not there.

I think you will drive yourself crazy if you try and look for the humanity in any of the W four. IMO, none to be found. All those questions you pose, there's nothing there, no answers worth a damn. AJMO

I totally agree!
 
I have heard soldiers that were in WWII and Vietnam say that groups of women with sticks, rocks, and pitch forks would attack armed military personnel. A friend that was in 'Nam driving supply trucks said you absolutely did not stop for a local woman in the road. So yes, women are capable of killing people without a second thought when compelled to do so...

If we take this one step further what would compel AW? If we look at how the W's live...living together as a unit long after grown men should have their own homes...moving as a unit all the way to Alaska and back...killing as a unit. It's still my humble opinion the W's have a twisted view of what family is. When one of the family members was threatened they all moved together. I think AW was as invested 110%. It's funny but if there is a weak link I think it's JW. There is something about him that screams mommy's boy.
 
JMO, but the alleged hatred AW showed toward Dana, no doubt in my mind
that she put the gun under Dana's chin and pulled the trigger. Again, JMO

I do think it was Angela that shot Dana, whoever put that gun under her chin looked her in the eye and pulled the trigger. That is pure hate, anger and revenge.
 
Shoot the Women First by Eileen MacDonald is a book about the mind set of women terrorist. It's an interesting read if anyone wants to delve into the mind of a female who decides to cross the line and murder because feels her family is at stake. It's a proven fact women in these situations will go much further than their male counterparts. What happened to the Rhodens was and in my mind remain an act of terrorism. Reading the book might help people get a better understanding of what AW could be capable of doing especially if she thought they were going to lose control of SW.
It's just my opinion but I feel you can apply the above cases to how AW was and still is thinking. What people have a hard time wrapping their minds around is how a female, who is supposed to be the nurturer of a family, could do such a thing. By stepping outside of how and what we would do and put ourselves in her twisted shoes we might get a quick glimpse of what she would be capable of doing.

It's a scary thought I know but I honestly think they felt they were going to lose a family member and instead of doing what everyone else would do they jumped to murder.

I think Angela thought elimination of Hanna and her family to secure custody of Sophia for Jake was being the nurturer of the family. She went to all lengths and cost to make sure her sons got what they wanted.
 
I do think it was Angela that shot Dana, whoever put that gun under her chin looked her in the eye and pulled the trigger. That is pure hate, anger and revenge.
JMO it was BW or JW, the so call fight a couple weeks prior on Union Hill Road, Dana could have had a curse match with one of the Wagners.
 
GW 4 was only married once. His ex is an innocent bystander and not part of the Wagner investigation, so we don't discuss her, post her name, or post photos of her etc....out of respect for her privacy.

It is Court Record---so it is OK to mention---that his ex did file last October for more visitation, of which GW4 countered with a Court request that she have a mental health evaluation.

Wow. No words.

CC, I believe you are mistaken about the former wife of GW3 being part of the
Wagner investigation. She deserves privacy, yes; however there was an investigation
by the courts and LE and made public.
 
BBM
Ha! Your making fun of me lol!
But it is all in good fun. I thought you would get a kick out of it.

Realistically though we don't know if Angie lived a law abiding life. We don't know her personally and we don't know the secrets in her life. All we have to go by is what is public knowledge. What she got caught doing not all the things she did not get caught doing.

has lived a law abiding life, then suddenly starts shooting mothers in their beds with their babies. Middle aged people like that don't go from law abiding to serial killer in one night


I agree with you on this part. I don't think she went from law abiding to enraged killer in one night. I think there is a whole lot about Angie that we don't know and may come out at her trial. Keep in mind when Billy was trying to intimidate the people in the road rage incident, Angie was the one who pulled the gun out of her purse. How many women do you know that carries a gun in their purse when out driving around with their 6 foot plus 350 pound grizzly bear of a husband? Why was she carrying it that day? Why did she think she needed to carry it? That doesn't sound too motherly to me. My mother never carried a gun in her purse. I don't carry a gun in my purse. And I live in an open carry, concealed carry, stand your ground state that is trying to let 18 year olds openly carry a gun around. I live in one of the most liberal gun law states in the nation and I do not know one single woman who carries a gun in her purse. So why was Angie carrying one? What business did she plan to conduct with that gun? I have a feeling she was not going to use it to dig up soil to plant tomatoes. Think on that for just a bit.

Like some on here I do not think this is the first time the W's have killed. There are a whole lot of unsolved murders in the area they lived in. This is just the first time they got caught. And I don't think they would have gotten caught if they hadn't went over board and killed 8 people. If they had just killed Hannah they would have probably gotten away with it again.

JMO

BBM
Lots of women carry around this region. Maybe not all of them, and maybe not all the time, but we carry. Between my spouse and I, I am the one who carries most often, and yes, even when he's with me. The fact that she either couldn't, or didn't, diffuse the situation, speaks more to me than her having a firearm in her purse, when they were pulled over. We don't know what conversation went on between them in the cab of the truck. Did he reach over and get it, did he demand it, does she always do as he says, or did she offer it (ftr, I'd not hand my spouse a firearm during a road rage incident. I'd not be afraid to tell him, "NO", if he asked for it, either.).
 
I do think it was Angela that shot Dana, whoever put that gun under her chin looked her in the eye and pulled the trigger. That is pure hate, anger and revenge.
AW very well could have been the one to do that. At the same time, I need to see and hear the autopsy and forensic examinations to know if that shot under the chin was a contact wound. Or if it was a close range shot. I don’t believe that has been released Rhoden family massacre: Autopsy reports indicate one victim was awake when fatally shot IMO, Dana could have been shot at close range, while laying in bed on her back. JMHO.
 
Any thoughts on why child endangerment charges were not added to the indictments? I know and understand that in the big picture, those charges may seem trite in comparison to the murders. However, Jake and George are both fathers to small children. Even incarcerated, they both are still unfortunately the legal fathers of their children. Why not file those charges as well in order to further secure that neither Wagner son will ever see their young children again?

Two infants and a toddler were endangered by the murderers inside two of the crime scenes. The 6 month old left between Frankie and Hannah Hazel, was semi mobile; developmentally he was both rolling and scooting. He could have easily found his way out of that bed that morning and been seriously injured.he also could’ve easily suffocated. Hannah May’s newborn, not even a full five days old when her mother was murdered beside her, could have easily smothered or became dehydrated during the time lapse between the murders and the discoveries of the victims. And what if the victims had not have been found early that morning? What if more time elapsed before the victims were discovered and the babies were left alone even longer? In addition, three year old are curious. B was left in a home with his murdered father and father’s fiancée. The potential risk of B getting into something, wandering off, or getting hurt was significant.

Finally, between Frankie, Hannah Hazel, and Hanna May, at least ten rounds were fired off in close proximity to infants. Even with silencers being used, those shots still wouldn’t have been quiet inside small bedrooms. The risk for hearing loss for the infants was a potential danger. And the worst, if a bullet had hit either baby, there would have been more victims and/or more injuries. Just some thoughts but I cannot understand why felonious child endangerment charges are not being sought in addition to the other 22 (23 for Jake) charges. All JMHO.
 
Any thoughts on why child endangerment charges were not added to the indictments? I know and understand that in the big picture, those charges may seem trite in comparison to the murders. However, Jake and George are both fathers to small children. Even incarcerated, they both are still unfortunately the legal fathers of their children. Why not file those charges as well in order to further secure that neither Wagner son will ever see their young children again?

Two infants and a toddler were endangered by the murderers inside two of the crime scenes. The 6 month old left between Frankie and Hannah Hazel, was semi mobile; developmentally he was both rolling and scooting. He could have easily found his way out of that bed that morning and been seriously injured.he also could’ve easily suffocated. Hannah May’s newborn, not even a full five days old when her mother was murdered beside her, could have easily smothered or became dehydrated during the time lapse between the murders and the discoveries of the victims. And what if the victims had not have been found early that morning? What if more time elapsed before the victims were discovered and the babies were left alone even longer? In addition, three year old are curious. B was left in a home with his murdered father and father’s fiancée. The potential risk of B getting into something, wandering off, or getting hurt was significant.

Finally, between Frankie, Hannah Hazel, and Hanna May, at least ten rounds were fired off in close proximity to infants. Even with silencers being used, those shots still wouldn’t have been quiet inside small bedrooms. The risk for hearing loss for the infants was a potential danger. And the worst, if a bullet had hit either baby, there would have been more victims and/or more injuries. Just some thoughts but I cannot understand why felonious child endangerment charges are not being sought in addition to the other 22 (23 for Jake) charges. All JMHO.

Maybe those charges will be added on to whoever gets a guilty verdict. I have always wondered about this too. Anyone found guilty of the murders is guilty of child endangerment and more.

Most on here think Angela was there but if she was why didn't she move the babies into something safe like their crib or playpen or bassinet where they would at least be safe from suffocation. They moved Chris and/or Gary but why not take a baby out of bed and move it to a safer spot?
 
Maybe those charges will be added on to whoever gets a guilty verdict. I have always wondered about this too. Anyone found guilty of the murders is guilty of child endangerment and more.

Most on here think Angela was there but if she was why didn't she move the babies into something safe like their crib or playpen or bassinet where they would at least be safe from suffocation. They moved Chris and/or Gary but why not take a baby out of bed and move it to a safer spot?
I’m one who does believe she was there, based on a few things-her charges for aggravated burglary, the discovery, and a few other things.

But to answer your question and this is JMO, the four Wagners didn’t care about the babies/children inside those homes. The child they cared about was conveniently in their care and with that, they made sure the one child they cared about from the Rhoden family was not in harms way that night.

There has to be a reason they moved Chris and/or Gary and I’m sure that will be disclosed at trial. Maybe someone known to stay on the property (not in the home) spooked them? I dont know. Maybe they moved Gary to the bedroom so if someone came to the door, that person wouldn’t see Gary through the window, laying there? Maybe by moving Gary, the mindset was he was in a bedroom and wouldn’t be seen through the window by the door hence the discovery of the victims would be delayed and buy the killers time to clean up and get back to “normal life” at home? There’s so many scenarios for that.

In the same respect, the accused clearly had no regard for human lives (besides their own and their own flesh and blood) . Why would they care if a baby suffocated? They didn’t give two flips about the safety or well being of those babies. If they did, they wouldn’t have fired 32 bullets into 8 members of those children’s family. Allegedly, of course. Thank the Heavens three year old B seemed to have remained asleep (or even maybe pretended to remain asleep, idk ) and didn’t see them (or if he did, they didn’t know he saw them) because I have no doubts that if the accused believed that, that child saw, heard, or could identify any of them that night, he would’ve been the 9th victim. All JMHO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
98
Guests online
786
Total visitors
884

Forum statistics

Threads
589,927
Messages
17,927,767
Members
228,002
Latest member
zipperoni
Back
Top