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

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
sunshineray said:
When the judge was naming names present for the record, what the heck did her attorneys and AW find so amusing about BCI agent Jennifer Comsfords? That was an extremely overt and mocking tete-a-tete they exchanged.
Click to expand...

Looks and sounds like Krapenc says to AW, "That's her, right?"
 
Johnny B Bad said:
Loomis
Could Angela possibility lie and-use those little action for a miss-trial, JMO
Click to expand...

I have no idea, Johnny. But I think anything is possible. These defense attorneys are the scum, IMO, based on the ways they've acted. But I think there's so much evidence against AW that there is no way she will get off. Her face screams Guilty! JMO
 
sunshineray said:
Didn't RN's son set up a conference call with AW and JW, when AW called RN? Maybe loyalties and lack of loyalties were discussed and FW came out of that convo lacking, as not caring about JW's mother? Just thinking out loud.
Click to expand...

Yes. Rita's son CN set up the 3-way call. I think how they did it was
CN talked to Angela through a phone call or visit then set up a day and time for Angela to call Rita. Then CN talked to Jake and tells Jake to call him on that same day and time.

Then on that day and time CN is at Rita's house and low and behold Jake calls CN's cell phone and at the same time Angie calls Rita's land line and voila! You have Rita, Angie, and Jake "together" for a 3-way call.

In regards to Fred not caring about Angie remember that Fred was on house arrest all the way up until June 26th 2019, and she was not allowed any contact with Angela at all.
It is not known if Fred can now talk to Angela. We know Rita can't.

However, Fred can go to Angie's hearings and Angie has had 3 hearings (July, September, December) since Fred got off house arrest. For some unknown reason Fred didn't go to any of these 3 hearings. What shows me that there could be a glitch in their relationship is that even though Fred was at Jake's hearing this morning, she skipped out on Angela's hearing this afternoon.

If their relationship was OK I doubt Fred would drive all the way out to Waverly and then ignore Angela's hearing. Fred sits in court happily taking off her sunglasses for Jake, but then ignores Angie's hearing just a few hours later.

But who knows? :rolleyes: Fred could be putting money into her account and ordering books from Amazon to be sent to her at the DCJ.

....2 Cents....
 
Last edited:
sunshineray said:
Betty, I couldn't watch AW's hearing. When her lawyers asked about getting discovery for the last search of the Flying W did they not also mention discovery from anything RN tells the prosecution per conditions of her plea deal, like JW's lawyer did?
Click to expand...

Yes, they did. Either they or the judge mentioned it. He's getting set to handle this for all of the 4 Wags.
 
Loomis124 said:
I know, Johnny. I watched and even reviewed the short clip several times. First of all, Krapenc (not Hunt) is the white-haired attorney that starts the show. He seems to ask AW, "That's her, isn't it?" And he smiles big. I can't make out what he says next, but AW laughs, followed by a remark and smile by the other attorney, Mark Hunt. AW barely has time to straighten herself up before answering the Judge's question. We, the audience, understand, they've discussed this agent before. Disgustingly rude and disrespectful, IMO, for Krapenc to initiate such an inappropriate moment in court. Krapenc always has acted like an azz IMO since he came in bragging about his experience in death penalty cases. JMO

And yes, flirting is a good word to use here!
Click to expand...

Very unprofessional. A waste of our taxpayer dollars.
 
Johnny B Bad said:
Loomis please watch video of Angels Wagners trials today and the part where Mark Hunt looks at Angela when the judge say the agents name, Hunt and Angela are not making fun of her name their flirting with each other, something is not right, JMO
Click to expand...
Krapenc not Hunt. Hunt is her other attorney who sits on her left.
I think maybe he is trying to lighten things up for her? Keep her in good spirits? He did the same thing at her March 20th pre-trial as you can see here. Just after the judge adjourned the hearing Krapenc said something to make her laugh, he's really smiling at her.

web1_a-wagner-2.jpg

March 20th Pre-Trial
 
Last edited:
I thought maybe Angela's civilian clothes motion hadn't been granted yet and this is why Angela is in jail clothes when the other 3 have been in regular clothes for quite a while. Then I found this Journal Entry and sure enough, Angela's motion to wear civilian clothing had in fact been granted back on September 16th.

09/30/2019 JOURNAL ENTRY -- On September 16, 2019, this cause came on for a pre-trial hearing and for an oral hearing upon forty-nine (49) pre-trial motions filed by the Defendant on December 14, 2018.

As to Defendant's Motion No. 18, entitled "DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO PERMIT ACCUSED TO APPEAR IN CIVILIAN CLOTHING AND WITHOUT RESTRAINTS AT ALL PROCEEDINGS": The Court grants Defendant's Motion No. 18, in part, and hereby orders that the Defendant shall be permitted to appear in civilian clothing at all proceedings in this action, and it is further ordered that the Defendant shall be permitted to appear without restraints visible outside of the Defendant's clothing at all proceedings.

So here's the thing, the motion is for 2 things, not just wearing civilian clothes but also to not have to wear restraints. So what I don't get is why is Angie wearing a shock vest with no visible restraints but at the same time still wearing her jail clothes?

It's like she is only using 1\2 her motion. o_O

Going without visible restraints goes hand in hand with being able to wear her own clothes, it's absolutely the same concept. Otherwise a person might just as well show up in chains.
 
Last edited:
evelezrn said:
Just wondering what AW's motive is for continuing to wear jail attire. There must be a reason in her mind.

Even the judge mentioned it so it would be in the legal court record. Judge said something indicating (very loose paraphrasing) "Even though the court allowed your request motion asking to wear regular clothes to court, you appear to have chosen to wear jail stripes today...".

Could it possibly be that AW thinks it might get her sympathy?
Click to expand...
Who is going to bring the clothes? The lawyers? Aren't they state lawyers and pro bono? I imagine FW and RW don't like her much and blames her for the current state of affairs, and her mom is pretty poor and caregiver for her own mother. She has a brother, doesn't she? But her own family is doubtless not happy about the document forgery.
They need to watch her. She might kill herself before the trial. I'd hate her to escape trial. Or maybe she plans to take all the blame to save the boys.
 
Johnny B Bad said:
Does anyone think that the State found a murder weapon, I wouldn’t think the Wagners would be dumb enough to keep those guns, (just a thought)
Click to expand...

Moo. Speculation:

We don’t know if the State has found the Guns used.
I agree, W’s would not have kept those weapons.

But it is very possible the State has found the individual from whom the W’s purchased specific guns.
And, if W’s can’t produce those weapons, one would have to wonder why, or where they are
Could be a serious problem for W’s.
 
Gracie55 said:
Who is going to bring the clothes? The lawyers? Aren't they state lawyers and pro bono? I imagine FW and RW don't like her much and blames her for the current state of affairs, and her mom is pretty poor and caregiver for her own mother. She has a brother, doesn't she? But her own family is doubtless not happy about the document forgery.
They need to watch her. She might kill herself before the trial. I'd hate her to escape trial. Or maybe she plans to take all the blame to save the boys.
Click to expand...

We don't know if no one will bring her clothes to wear. We don't know if she is purposely wearing the jail uniform for a reason.
One would think that a family member, friend, church pastor, or church member would bring her something to wear in court.
Even someone with a no contact order could drop something off to her attorney or jail, or somewhere...
Then there is the possibility that no one wants to get involved with her for a reason.
 
Dudly said:
We don't know if no one will bring her clothes to wear. We don't know if she is purposely wearing the jail uniform for a reason.
One would think that a family member, friend, church pastor, or church member would bring her something to wear in court.
Even someone with a no contact order could drop something off to her attorney or jail, or somewhere...
Then there is the possibility that no one wants to get involved with her for a reason.
Click to expand...

It occured to me she might be trying to dress to make herself look more guilty, and her sons less so. Dress for success, you know.
 
Cool Cats said:
snipped by me...

So here's the thing, the motion is for 2 things, not just wearing civilian clothes but also to not have to wear restraints. So what I don't get is why is Angie wearing a shock vest with no visible restraints but at the same time still wearing her jail clothes?
Click to expand...

Further on into Motion 18 decision - is this:

Until further order of the Court, the Sheriff's Department may use only such restraining devices upon the Defendant as are concealed under the defendant's clothing, and therefore not visible to those viewing the Defendant, throughout each and every appearance of the Defendant at any and all proceedings in this action. The Sheriff's Department shall be permitted to use other reasonable restraints when transporting the Defendant. To the extent that Defendant's Motion No. 18 requests that the Defendant be permitted to appear without any restraints at all, even those that are not visible outside the Defendant's clothing, the motion is denied.
 
Niner said:
Further on into Motion 18 decision - is this:

Until further order of the Court, the Sheriff's Department may use only such restraining devices upon the Defendant as are concealed under the defendant's clothing, and therefore not visible to those viewing the Defendant, throughout each and every appearance of the Defendant at any and all proceedings in this action. The Sheriff's Department shall be permitted to use other reasonable restraints when transporting the Defendant. To the extent that Defendant's Motion No. 18 requests that the Defendant be permitted to appear without any restraints at all, even those that are not visible outside the Defendant's clothing, the motion is denied.
Click to expand...
The only part of that motion that was denied is letting her go without any restraints at all, including the ones the prospective jury doesn't see under her clothes. What's relevant is she can wear her own clothes without visible restraints but she only chose to do without the visible restraints, she chose to keep her jail clothes on.

Being in jail is not allowed to stop her from her right to a fair trial. The court ruled, the judge decided, to grant her motion to not look like a guilty prisoner in front of the prospective jury pool. Regular clothes without visible restraints is to make her look innocent until proven guilty. Otherwise a defendant looks guilty until proven innocent.

So if she is not wearing her own clothes it is her decision. Judge Deering told one of the Wagner guys that his clothes can be kept in the courthouse so one of the LE officers who is going to be guarding Angela in court, could easily bring her clothes to the courthouse. It has to be done if she wants it done. If Angie told her lawyers she wants it done they would
arrange it to get it done, one way or the other. The 3 Wagner guys wanted it and they got it, she's no different.
She didn't care about it this time, maybe she will care in February.

....2 Cents....
 
Last edited:
Niner said:
Further on into Motion 18 decision - is this:

Until further order of the Court, the Sheriff's Department may use only such restraining devices upon the Defendant as are concealed under the defendant's clothing, and therefore not visible to those viewing the Defendant, throughout each and every appearance of the Defendant at any and all proceedings in this action. The Sheriff's Department shall be permitted to use other reasonable restraints when transporting the Defendant. To the extent that Defendant's Motion No. 18 requests that the Defendant be permitted to appear without any restraints at all, even those that are not visible outside the Defendant's clothing, the motion is denied.
Click to expand...

So she is denied being allowed to appear without any restraints, but it doesn't say she cannot appear in civilian clothes with restraints that are not visible. That is what it seems to mean to me... My opinion only...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 168 more.
Total: 1,303 (members: 169, guests: 1,134)

Online statistics

Members online
169
Guests online
1,134
Total visitors
1,303
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,778
Messages
17,958,704
Members
228,606
Latest member
JerseyLizard
Back
Top