OH Pike Co., 8 in Rhoden Family Murdered Over Custody Issue, 4 Members Wagner Family Arrested #52

[Cool Cats]

I find this very interesting and I’m obsessed with speculating about contents of the “Box of Important Stuff”
After all, it was labeled by “someone” as Important Stuff.

Statement from Defense:
“which the Defense thought may contain forms or documents relevant to the present action.”

Statement from Prosecutors:
”...it (the box) did not contain any such forms or documents as those sought by Defendant ...”

MOO
Possibly Defense worded motion poorly, too narrow.
Prosecutor worded response very carefully.
Attorneys use words, definitions, to their advantage. Not saying anyone lies, but “word games” are known to happen.

The contents of the box must be something DEFINED as other than documents or forms, items such as papers, receipts, hand written notes, letters, or information downloaded and printed regarding ...almost anything ... items that were not a document or form by DEFINITION.
Or
Contents of the box are items that ‘do not pertain to the present action’ but perhaps pertain to a future action, or can be a building block in some way relevant to one of other 4 Defendants actions.

Speculation as to exactly what is in the box could be endless

Defense Attorney may have lost sight of what was happening here and now this evidence has come in due to good work by Prosecutors.

BBM
MOO

Ritas's Attorney:
July 20-19 we asked for a list of copies of the entire contents and documents contained in the tub marked important stuff that was seized from Angela Wagner in which the State claims does contain the custody documents allegedly notarized by Rita Newcomb. We are searching for certain documents that the prosecution is aware of previously dated 8 something which these alleged custody documents, but actually they're guardian documents.

Judge: They're what?

Rita's Attorney:
It's actually titled guardian summarized as custody documents.

Judge: So you've asked for copies?

Rita's Attorney:
I want to know what is in this box where they found the original---I put original I'm not sure they are original---copies of something that was copied from a Texas Website talking about guardianship. But there's others that we're looking at, hand written signed on dates she notarized, some of that were hand written dated on the dates in which she notarized the printed document.

Judge:
Ok you found out about these through discovery? And then you asked for copies of them?

Rita's Attorney:
Yes, well we want to know what was in them that particular tub of materials that I'm looking for. I don't need to know everything that's in it, it's just these 3 handwritten (similar?)
documents. Documents which are dated the same dates as the ones printed out--- the subject of which the documents---same date as the documents that are the subject of this particular trial.

Judge:
I guess maybe I'm not following, you found out about these documents through discovery?

Rita's Attorney:
Well yes through search warrants that were issued for those---I think it represented prosecution that they had received this tub marked important stuff.

Later Canepa tells the Judge that Rita's attorney found out about this box marked important stuff from "inventory of contents from the Search Warrant" and from "discussions from Angela Wagner on phone calls." I assume Angela told Rita then Rita told her attorney.

Last edited: Sep 10, 2019

 

[Fight4justice]

I find this very interesting and I’m obsessed with speculating about contents of the “Box of Important Stuff”
After all, it was labeled by “someone” as Important Stuff.

Statement from Defense:
“which the Defense thought may contain forms or documents relevant to the present action.”

Statement from Prosecutors:
”...it (the box) did not contain any such forms or documents as those sought by Defendant ...”

MOO
Possibly Defense worded motion poorly, too narrow.
Prosecutor worded response very carefully.
Attorneys use words, definitions, to their advantage. Not saying anyone lies, but “word games” are known to happen.

The contents of the box must be something DEFINED as other than documents or forms, items such as papers, receipts, hand written notes, letters, or information downloaded and printed regarding ...almost anything ... items that were not a document or form by DEFINITION.
Or
Contents of the box are items that ‘do not pertain to the present action’ but perhaps pertain to a future action, or can be a building block in some way relevant to one of other 4 Defendants actions.

Speculation as to exactly what is in the box could be endless

Defense Attorney may have lost sight of what was happening here and now this evidence has come in due to good work by Prosecutors.

BBM
MOO

Can the defense attorneys for all defendants charged in connection to the crime confer with each other? If so then surely the W’s attorneys know what is being used as evidence by the state against them that was in the box. So RN’s attorney knows the same. Maybe what is in the box is evidence to other crimes committed in other “counties” and or “states” that do not pertain to these crimes therefore they would not be revealed to defense. But did the state turn the evidence over to the detectives in the other “counties” and or “states”. Maybe that is what they are trying to find out. And could the state turn this evidence over without revealing it? My thoughts and opinions only.

 

[Betty P]

Can the defense attorneys for all defendants charged in connection to the crime confer with each other? If so then surely the W’s attorneys know what is being used as evidence by the state against them that was in the box. So RN’s attorney knows the same. Maybe what is in the box is evidence to other crimes committed in other “counties” and or “states” that do not pertain to these crimes therefore they would not be revealed to defense. But did the state turn the evidence over to the detectives in the other “counties” and or “states”. Maybe that is what they are trying to find out. And could the state turn this evidence over without revealing it? My thoughts and opinions only.

That's where Gerlach alleges there are some kind of "hand written" notarized documents that are relevant. If they were relevant to this case, prosecution would use them.

If Gerlach thinks prosecution is hiding these documents, he can ask for them to be submitted as evidence in court. No big thing. He could have asked for them months ago.

If RN and AW cooked this up in their phone conversations, Gerlach knows all the details now. If he wants to bring that up during the trial, he can.



MOO/IANAL

 

[Johnny B Bad]

All this stuff going on right now is what Angela refers to as Buzz Words, JMO

 

[Cool Cats]

First trial linked to Ohio family slayings set to start

Houston Chronicle
Daily Newspaper

Nothing we haven't read before but nice to see press as far away as Houston TX taking an interest.

 

[evelezrn]

First trial linked to Ohio family slayings set to start

Houston Chronicle
Daily Newspaper

Nothing we haven't read before but nice to see press as far away as Houston TX taking an interest.

I agree. I think I read somewhere that Dailey got his law degree in Texas. JMO.

https://www.avvo.com/attorneys/45690-oh-bruce-dailey-44346.html

I'm worried that RNs trial might not be televised tomorrow. Since the impeachment hearings are already interrupting regular programming.

 

[Cool Cats]

This is just over the top, IMO. What do you think the defense is really looking to do with this? What possibly could the Pike County Auditor have to do with RN's supposed forgeries?

"Also in the motion, the state says that Newcomb’s lawyers dropped a bombshell: they plan to call suspended Pike County Sheriff Charles S. Reader to the stand, along with his brother former Pike County Prosecutor’s Investigator Brian Reader, and the county’s elected auditor, Kayla Slusher."

Pike County Sheriff Charles Reader to testify in Rita Newcomb's trial next week - Scioto Valley Guardian

Even the prosecution doesn't know the answer to your question:

"..The state cannot fathom, and the defense has not articulated, what relevant and admissible testimony these witnesses would have to offer in this case,” Canepa wrote in her motion. “It is the state’s belief that the defense only seeks to call these witnesses in order to impeach them or to force them to assert their Fifth Amendment rights and refuse to testify.”

 

[Cool Cats]

I agree. I think I read somewhere that Dailey got his law degree in Texas. JMO.

https://www.avvo.com/attorneys/45690-oh-bruce-dailey-44346.html

I'm worried that RNs trial might not be televised tomorrow. Since the impeachment hearings are already interrupting regular programming.

"..This attorney attended South Texas College of Law Houston and has been licensed for 23 years.. "

No wonder Houston News picked it up.
As for televising the trial? I feel same as you.

 

[Dudly]

JMO, see above. It's a distraction, a defense attorneys ruse to get people to focus on something other than RN's forgery activities.

Then again, it might be some evidence linked to the murders. We'll find out!

Kind of like saying, Turn left...Right Here!!!

 

[Johnny B Bad]

A serial killer is typically a person who murders three or more people, usually in service of abnormal psychological gratification, with the murders taking place over more than a month and including a significant period of time between them.

 

[Ann99]

Can the defense attorneys for all defendants charged in connection to the crime confer with each other? If so then surely the W’s attorneys know what is being used as evidence by the state against them that was in the box. So RN’s attorney knows the same. Maybe what is in the box is evidence to other crimes committed in other “counties” and or “states” that do not pertain to these crimes therefore they would not be revealed to defense. But did the state turn the evidence over to the detectives in the other “counties” and or “states”. Maybe that is what they are trying to find out. And could the state turn this evidence over without revealing it? My thoughts and opinions only.

Your first question about defense attorneys, can they confer with other..?
Got me wondering if that issue was covered in the early hearings relating to the gag orders. I don’t remember clearly. Does anyone?
I assumed that so early on in the proceedings, individual attorneys would not want to confer or share info. as it might not benefit their client. Meaning, let’s wait a bit and see how things play out, who may be offered a deal or which defendant may talk, before conferring with other attorneys.
There is a term, joint defense privilege or common interest rule
Here is the Wikipedia link.
It seems complicated. I can’t figure out if it applies to these cases, Wagners.
https://en.m.wikipedi a.org/wiki/Joint_defense_privilege

“The joint defense privilege, or common-interest rule, is an extension of the attorney–client privilege. Under “common interest” or “joint defense” doctrine, parties with shared interest in actual or potential litigation against common adversary may share privileged information without waiving their right to assert attorney–client privilege. Because the joint defense "privilege sometimes may apply outside the context of actual litigation, what the parties call a ‘joint defense’ privilege is more aptly termed the ‘common interest’ rule.””
It goes on and on.

A google search of these terms brings up many articles, but all are too complicated for me to understand when or to whom this rule or privilege would apply.

 

[Loomis124]

I came across this when researching the Texas lawyer the other day. Many defense attorneys in Texas view Racehorse Haynes as their hero. I remember him in the news for some notorious cases when I lived there. Check T. Cullen Davis's wife's murder, with her boyfriend and young daughter.

I remembered Racehorse making that statement about defending a client whose dog bit someone, and Google did the rest. Light bulb moment - this is what Gerlach's doing. It sounds crazy when he's running it in the courtroom, but it works to confuse jurors and can make them distrust the prosecution.

ETA: In a case where the jury verdict must be unanimous - using a long list of "alternative facts" in the defense argument can cause different members of the jury to use different "facts" when weighing guilt or innocence.

MOO, IMO

DBM

 

[Betty P]

Your first question about defense attorneys, can they confer with other..?
Got me wondering if that issue was covered in the early hearings relating to the gag orders. I don’t remember clearly. Does anyone?
I assumed that so early on in the proceedings, individual attorneys would not want to confer or share info. as it might not benefit their client. Meaning, let’s wait a bit and see how things play out, who may be offered a deal or which defendant may talk, before conferring with other attorneys.
There is a term, joint defense privilege or common interest rule
Here is the Wikipedia link.
It seems complicated. I can’t figure out if it applies to these cases, Wagners.
https://en.m.wikipedi a.org/wiki/Joint_defense_privilege


“The joint defense privilege, or common-interest rule, is an extension of the attorney–client privilege. Under “common interest” or “joint defense” doctrine, parties with shared interest in actual or potential litigation against common adversary may share privileged information without waiving their right to assert attorney–client privilege. Because the joint defense "privilege sometimes may apply outside the context of actual litigation, what the parties call a ‘joint defense’ privilege is more aptly termed the ‘common interest’ rule.””
It goes on and on.

A google search of these terms brings up many articles, but all are too complicated for me to understand when or to whom this rule or privilege would apply.

Pretty sure they can, from that quote and based on a question that WS member PrairieWind answered for me several weeks ago. They're a verified atty. I can ask again, though, to be sure.

ETA: Just checked last message from PrairieWind and, while they didn't address that issue specifically, I'm not sure the defendants attorneys would share much. It depends, probably on the defendants. If any attorney is planning to ask his client to plea bargain, at some point, they probably wouldn't talk with the others. I'll ask PW.

 

[sunshineray]

Even the prosecution doesn't know the answer to your question:

"..The state cannot fathom, and the defense has not articulated, what relevant and admissible testimony these witnesses would have to offer in this case,” Canepa wrote in her motion. “It is the state’s belief that the defense only seeks to call these witnesses in order to impeach them or to force them to assert their Fifth Amendment rights and refuse to testify.”

So what...they want to tick off the judge? They want him do or say something to get a mistrial? Will the judge rule on this before jury selection?

 

[Loomis124]

A little history on Bruce Dailey and his brother, Tim:

Dailey v. Uhrig

 

[Cool Cats]

So what...they want to tick off the judge? They want him do or say something to get a mistrial? Will the judge rule on this before jury selection?

Motion denied. The prosecution objected to these witnesses as stated in their Motion to Continue (postpone) the trial. Judge Deering ruled against their Motion and did not add any provision onto his ruling that would bar the defense from calling these witnesses to the stand.

The prosecution can however, argue in court to have these witnesses excused from taking the stand but that might interfere with defendant's right to call witnesses on her own behalf. Pretty weak case if 3 witnesses can derail it.
--Just opinion.

 

[Merrygirl]

So it seems like JW (plaintiff) took some type of legal action against HR (defendant) at some point while she was still living. JMO.
Also Just wondering if that was the same document that was labeled Juvenile Division from Common Pleas Court.

‘JMO, but I don’t think so. This document is dated and recorded on Apr 28. I believe it is written this way because she is deceased and maybe it is unclear at this point who will be executor of her estate. We also have to remember this is requesting CUSTODY after the murders. The documents allegedly forged are SURVIVORSHIP after death. This is why I think the Apr 3 SURVIVORSHIP documents were allegedly forged after the murders. Otherwise, why would JW need to seek a lawyer and explain how he is the biological father (without having DNA)? If the SURVIVORSHIP docs were drawn on Apr 3 then allegedly HMR has already promised SMW to JW if anything was to happen to her. Since we haven’t seen evidence yet that the SURVIVORSHIP docs were recorded at court, then maybe AW & JW were afraid to present them legally OR perhaps that’s WHY they were created, cuz the judge said he’d give temporary custody but needed more proof for permanent custody. JMOO.

 

[bowler]

Even the prosecution doesn't know the answer to your question:

"..The state cannot fathom, and the defense has not articulated, what relevant and admissible testimony these witnesses would have to offer in this case,” Canepa wrote in her motion. “It is the state’s belief that the defense only seeks to call these witnesses in order to impeach them or to for them to assert their Fifth Amendment rights and refuse to testify.”

DBM

make them distrust the prosecution. << for sure
And he comes off as mumbly, bumbly to me

Can the defense attorneys for all defendants charged in connection to the crime confer with each other? If so then surely the W’s attorneys know what is being used as evidence by the state against them that was in the box. So RN’s attorney knows the same. Maybe what is in the box is evidence to other crimes committed in other “counties” and or “states” that do not pertain to these crimes therefore they would not be revealed to defense. But did the state turn the evidence over to the detectives in the other “counties” and or “states”. Maybe that is what they are trying to find out. And could the state turn this evidence over without revealing it? My thoughts and opinions only.

Defense wants to blow up any part of case against others along with Rita's MOO

 

[Loomis124]

Any oldtimers here remember this?

Meet the Full-Service Social Media Secretary for Prisoners

 

[Merrygirl]

Gerlach goes on to claim an attorney for the prosecution told defense counsel the documents were taken to Newcomb’s home in Scioto County “where they were allegedly notarized by the defendant.
The defense attorneys stands before judge Deering trying to get Rita’s case dismissed and tells him the custody paperwork was notarized by his client in Scioto County, last week Gerlach is trying to say It’s not Rita signature? Man this attorney know how to twist words, JMO

‘I wonder if there is a possibility that the expert said “it’s not her (meaning HMR) signature but Gerlach has mistaken it for “her” meaning RN? Jmo