OH Pike Co., 8 in Rhoden Family Murdered Over Custody Issue, 4 Members Wagner Family Arrested #54

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dudly said:
BBM

This was a weekday when KR would normally be at his regular job. Kendra thought he was at work and tried to call him at work that day. Why does DS say KR would normally be working on cars at 5:30am when that is about the time others have stated he left for work? Something doesn't sound right in my opinion only...
Click to expand...
Dudly said:
BBM

This was a weekday when KR would normally be at his regular job. Kendra thought he was at work and tried to call him at work that day. Why does DS say KR would normally be working on cars at 5:30am when that is about the time others have stated he left for work? Something doesn't sound right in my opinion only...
Click to expand...

Agree, and even KR's "sidekick" wasn't told KR had taken the day off as he said he stopped at the camper and blowed the horn but Kenny never came out so he left and went on to work. o_Oo_O
 
Cool Cats said:
She has always worn jail clothes and at her last hearing Judge Deering made it clear she can wear street clothes. Interesting to see if she does. She could have worn street clothes to her last hearing but for some reason didn't.

From Angela's December 11th, 2019 court hearing
Judge Deering:

"I'm not sure whether a motion has been filed in this regard or not. I'm sure that it was granted but also note that she's not appearing in civilian clothing. I want to make it clear that the court has granted that motion in other cases and if that's the desire of the defense then the court will grant that in this case too - that she can appear in civilian clothing."
Click to expand...

CC, I've just reviewed AW's docket journal entries, and in short, found the following:

12/14/18 Motion 18 - Defendant's Motion to Permit Accused to Appear in Civilian Clothing and Without Restraints at All Proceedings filed.

3/7/19 State's Response filed.

9/30/19 Court issues the following decision with Motion 18. The Court grants Defendant's No. 18 in part, and hereby,

TO THE EXTENT THAT THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION 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
D E N I E D.

Sorry, on my phone and difficult to copy and paste.

Maybe Angela wanted her way or no way! JMO
 
Last edited:
Cool Cats said:
She has always worn jail clothes and at her last hearing Judge Deering made it clear she can wear street clothes. Interesting to see if she does. She could have worn street clothes to her last hearing but for some reason didn't.

From Angela's December 11th, 2019 court hearing
Judge Deering:

"I'm not sure whether a motion has been filed in this regard or not. I'm sure that it was granted but also note that she's not appearing in civilian clothing. I want to make it clear that the court has granted that motion in other cases and if that's the desire of the defense then the court will grant that in this case too - that she can appear in civilian clothing."
Click to expand...

CC, I've just reviewed AW's docket journal entries, and in short, found the following:

12/14/18 Motion 18 - Defendant's Motion to Permit Accused to Appear in Civilian Clothing and Without Restraints at All Proceedings filed.

3/7/19 State's Response filed.

9/30/19 Court issues the following decision with Motion 18. The Court grants Defendant's No. 18 in part, and hereby,

TO THE EXTENT THAT THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION 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
D E N I E D.

Sorry, on my phone and difficult to post.

Maybe Angela wanted her way or no way! JMO
 
Loomis124 said:
CC, I've just reviewed AW's docket journal entries, and in short, found the following:

12/14/18 Motion 18 - Defendant's Motion to Permit Accused to Appear in Civilian Clothing and Without Restraints at All Proceedings filed.

3/7/19 State's Response filed.

9/30/19 Court issues the following decision with Motion 18. The Court grants Defendant's No. 18 in part, and hereby,

TO THE EXTENT THAT THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION 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
D E N I E D.

Sorry, on my phone and difficult to copy and paste.

Maybe Angela wanted her way or no way! JMO
Click to expand...
If she thinks she can get no restraints at all that is delusional. All the Wagners got this response to this motion.

The prosecution responded to this motion March 7th, 2019. So if she had really wanted to wear her clothes and had been vocal about it with her attorneys, like the Wagner men evidently were because they have been wearing their own clothes all year, then she could have worn street clothes to all these court hearings but chose not to:

03/20/2019 01:30 PM PRE-TRIAL
05/16/2019 01:30 PM PRE-TRIAL
07/03/2019 01:30 PM PRE-TRIAL
09/16/2019 01:30 PM MOTION HEARING
12/11/2019 01:30 PM PRE-TRIAL

It's not a big deal unless she comes to court Tuesday in jail garb. Then I would think something is wrong.
Right now I think she just hasn't cared about it, unlike the Wagner men. I guess some defendants really want their own clothes but some just don't care very much about it.
I think Jake was in such a hurry he wore his own clothes before an official ruling. Remember, he wouldn't come out in handcuffs until the camera person said they wouldn't show the cuffs....2 Cents.......

6711844-6432421-image-a-50_1543345804001.jpg

Jake trying not to look at the families during arraignment
 
Last edited:
Cool Cats said:
If she thinks she can get no restraints at all that is delusional. All the Wagners got this response to this motion.

The prosecution responded to this motion March 7th, 2019. So if she had really wanted to wear her clothes and had been vocal about it with her attorneys, like the Wagner men evidently were because they have been wearing their own clothes all year, then she could have worn street clothes to all these court hearings but chose not to:

03/20/2019 01:30 PM PRE-TRIAL
05/16/2019 01:30 PM PRE-TRIAL
07/03/2019 01:30 PM PRE-TRIAL
09/16/2019 01:30 PM MOTION HEARING
12/11/2019 01:30 PM PRE-TRIAL

It's not a big deal unless she comes to court Tuesday in jail garb. Then I would think something is wrong.
Right now I think she just hasn't cared about it, unlike the Wagner men. I guess some defendants really want their own clothes but some just don't care very much about it.
I think Jake was in such a hurry he wore his own clothes before an official ruling. Remember, he wouldn't come out in handcuffs until the camera person said they wouldn't show the cuffs....2 Cents.......

6711844-6432421-image-a-50_1543345804001.jpg

Jake trying not to look at the families during arraignment
Click to expand...

Yes, but I think she will still come in Tuesday in jail clothes. Spoiled Brat. I think her attorneys are going to try to make a big deal of it somewhere along the line. Lol

I'll guarantee she's going against the court for the no restraints at all. She and her attorneys are sickening to mankind. JMO
 
@Cool Cats - What I don't understand is where that part of her motion came to be. It had to be added somewhere early on. Of course, we are in the dark. Literally, maybe one tenth of the hearings and such have been shared, the other 90% has been behind closed doors. Wonder how much longer this crap will go on?
 
Loomis124 said:
@Cool Cats - What I don't understand is where that part of her motion came to be. It had to be added somewhere early on. Of course, we are in the dark. Literally, maybe one tenth of the hearings and such have been shared, the other 90% has been behind closed doors. Wonder how much longer this crap will go on?
Click to expand...

Crap will continue till trials :mad: Here is the standard jail clothes motion edited to just the stun belt and full restraint issues.

DEFENDANTS MOTION TO PERMIT ACCUSED TO APPEAR
IN CIVILIAN CLOTHING AND WITHOUT RESTRAINTS
AT ALL PROCEEDINGS

Defendant respectfully moves this Court for an order permitting Defendant to appear at all in-court proceedings (including all pre-trial hearings at which Defendant appears in court) in civilian clothes instead of a prison uniform and without restraint by any means, including shackles or a stun belt. In addition, once trial begins, Defendant requests that measures be taken to ensure that the jurors never see him in restraints in or out of the courtroom.

2. Appearance Without Restraints
Defendant contends that there are no facts specific to this case that would justify restraint in any manner during pretrial or trial proceedings including by means of a stun belt, hand restraints, leg restraints, or other similar tools of confinement.

The Federal and the State Constitutions guarantee a criminal defendant the right to effective assistance of counsel. The use of physical restraints diminishes that right. Shackles can interfere with the accused' s ability to communicate with his lawyer. Indeed, they can interfere with a defendant's ability to participate in his own defense, say by freely choosing whether to take the witness stand on his own behalf.

Defendant specifically asserts that there is no justification for restraining him by use of a stun belt. Defendant anticipates that the State may contend that, unlike old-fashioned shackles, a stun belt does not run afoul of the edicts against restraining trial defendants without just cause. The Ohio Supreme Court has reversed cases where a stun belt has not been amply justified on the record.
Therefore any such contention made by the State fails because, like chains and shackles, a stun belt remains visible to the public and to jurors, and it restrains the defendant in part with psychological fear and anxiety that manifests itself in a defendants demeanor in ways inimical to the constitutional rights at issue in Deck.

This Court must guard against heightened security precautions that make the accused look like a dangerous individual.

Providing adequate and routine courtroom security serves as a reasonable alternative to restraining Defendant. Instead of utilizing restraints, this Court can simply employ security personnel to ensure order and decorum on the assumption that the number of security persons does not in and of itself overwhelm Defendants presumption of innocence. There has been no indication that more is needed.
 
Cool Cats said:
Crap will continue till trials :mad: Here is the standard jail clothes motion edited to just the stun belt and full restraint issues.

DEFENDANTS MOTION TO PERMIT ACCUSED TO APPEAR
IN CIVILIAN CLOTHING AND WITHOUT RESTRAINTS
AT ALL PROCEEDINGS

Defendant respectfully moves this Court for an order permitting Defendant to appear at all in-court proceedings (including all pre-trial hearings at which Defendant appears in court) in civilian clothes instead of a prison uniform and without restraint by any means, including shackles or a stun belt. In addition, once trial begins, Defendant requests that measures be taken to ensure that the jurors never see him in restraints in or out of the courtroom.

2. Appearance Without Restraints
Defendant contends that there are no facts specific to this case that would justify restraint in any manner during pretrial or trial proceedings including by means of a stun belt, hand restraints, leg restraints, or other similar tools of confinement.

The Federal and the State Constitutions guarantee a criminal defendant the right to effective assistance of counsel. The use of physical restraints diminishes that right. Shackles can interfere with the accused' s ability to communicate with his lawyer. Indeed, they can interfere with a defendant's ability to participate in his own defense, say by freely choosing whether to take the witness stand on his own behalf.

Defendant specifically asserts that there is no justification for restraining him by use of a stun belt. Defendant anticipates that the State may contend that, unlike old-fashioned shackles, a stun belt does not run afoul of the edicts against restraining trial defendants without just cause. The Ohio Supreme Court has reversed cases where a stun belt has not been amply justified on the record.
Therefore any such contention made by the State fails because, like chains and shackles, a stun belt remains visible to the public and to jurors, and it restrains the defendant in part with psychological fear and anxiety that manifests itself in a defendants demeanor in ways inimical to the constitutional rights at issue in Deck.

This Court must guard against heightened security precautions that make the accused look like a dangerous individual.

Providing adequate and routine courtroom security serves as a reasonable alternative to restraining Defendant. Instead of utilizing restraints, this Court can simply employ security personnel to ensure order and decorum on the assumption that the number of security persons does not in and of itself overwhelm Defendants presumption of innocence. There has been no indication that more is needed.
Click to expand...

What date was the docket entry for this in AW's record? Or in what hearing was it discussed?

I need specific docket entries or references to specific hearings for AW case, please, otherwise this is in general and doesn't apply.

Also, what makes you think this Tuesday Feb 25 will be different from all the past hearings, as far as clothing goes?
 
Antimony said:
I am not sure that Kenny would have had the door to the camper locked from the inside.
No reason to do that. The real danger in a camper is fire, not armed robbery. A prudent person would not lock himself in a camper. Do you lock yourself in your camper while out in the woods?
Click to expand...
Absolutely I do,in a fifth wheel.And I'm not sitting on a bunch of pot or money.
 
Caylee Advocate said:
Agree, and even KR's "sidekick" wasn't told KR had taken the day off as he said he stopped at the camper and blowed the horn but Kenny never came out so he left and went on to work. o_Oo_O
Click to expand...

That jogs my memory, and brings me to a logical explanation for the discrepancies. Since it's in a realm we're not to discuss, I have to leave it alone.
 
Loomis124 said:
What date was the docket entry for this in AW's record? Or in what hearing was it discussed?

I need specific docket entries or references to specific hearings for AW case, please, otherwise this is in general and doesn't apply.

Also, what makes you think this Tuesday Feb 25 will be different from all the past hearings, as far as clothing goes?
Click to expand...
This is everything I can find regarding "specific docket entries or references to specific hearings for AW case" that you asked for regarding Motion #18
I am only guessing that she will wear her own clothes because I can't think of why she wouldn't because her attorneys will make sure clothes are brought to the court house (my opinion). From a previous hearing Deering was letting a Wagner keep street clothes in the court house.

12/14/2018 #18 DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO PERMIT ACCUSED TO APPEAR IN CIVILIAN CLOTHING AND WITHOUT RESTRAINTS AT ALL PROCEEDINGS FILED

This Motion 18 is discussed in court 26 minutes 50 seconds in.

Defense says it is their motion and they have no rebuttal for it. Prosecution has no problem with it as Junk explains the Sheriff's office is taking care of it, but he said they want to limit the motion to visible restraints.

09/16/2019 01:30 PM MOTION HEARING


09/30/2019 JOURNAL ENTRY --

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. 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 not visible to those viewing the Defendant. 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.

12/13/2019 JOURNAL ENTRY --

The Defendant appeared at the pre-trial hearing in jail clothing but was without restraints visible outside of her clothing.

The Court finds that the Court has previously granted, in part, DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO PERMIT ACCUSED TO APPEAR IN CIVILIAN CLOTHING AND WITHOUT RESTRAINTS AT ALL PROCEEDINGS and ordered that the Defendant be permitted to appear in civilian clothing at all proceedings in this action and that the Defendant be permitted to appear without restraints visible outside of the Defendant's clothing at all proceedings.
 
Last edited:
Cool Cats said:
Yes, it's not the court's fault at all. Strange, to me, that the defense had zero response when Deering brought up the clothes issue. He said if it's the defense's desire she can wear civilian clothes but the defense didn't say it was her desire or say anything. But I will bet she's out of jail garb next Tuesday, if not then it would be a defense tactic or Angela being stubborn and angry.....2 Cents.....

She looks unkept.
Click to expand...

It's just my opinion, but I think she'll keep appearing in the prison garb--especially since her defense team remained tight-lipped when the Judge discussed the subject. No explanation, no excuse, no acknowledgement of any kind from her lawyers when the judge addressed the issue.

I personally feel that her attorneys know their client is a real handful and is dead set on controlling every aspect of her life and her case. She continued to contact her mother when she was not supposed to. Every time it was mentioned at a hearing, AW's own attorneys acknowledged the fact that they were aware of her defying the gag order and had told her not to do it. Maybe her lawyer has gotten tired of acknowledging his client's bad behavior and unwillingness to do as she is told, so he just kept his mouth shut.

I think the jail garb is just a ploy by AW to get people to feel sorry for her. I suspect she knows she's going to get blamed as the mastermind (or she and JW together), so she is just trying to look as pitiful as possible and will say her husband bullied her into it.

Just my thoughts.
 
IType said:
It's just my opinion, but I think she'll keep appearing in the prison garb--especially since her defense team remained tight-lipped when the Judge discussed the subject. No explanation, no excuse, no acknowledgement of any kind from her lawyers when the judge addressed the issue.

I personally feel that her attorneys know their client is a real handful and is dead set on controlling every aspect of her life and her case. She continued to contact her mother when she was not supposed to. Every time it was mentioned at a hearing, AW's own attorneys acknowledged the fact that they were aware of her defying the gag order and had told her not to do it. Maybe her lawyer has gotten tired of acknowledging his client's bad behavior and unwillingness to do as she is told, so he just kept his mouth shut.

I think the jail garb is just a ploy by AW to get people to feel sorry for her. I suspect she knows she's going to get blamed as the mastermind (or she and JW together), so she is just trying to look as pitiful as possible and will say her husband bullied her into it.

Just my thoughts.
Click to expand...
agree.. personally I think she looks good in prison garb..... that's what she deserves...and she better get used to it!
 
So what do all you sleuthers think about this? This could be ANYBODY trying to find out who posters are. I got this message out of the blue.....
90 minutes? What does this person want to know? My life history? Is this normal for posters to get these messages on Websleuths?..o_O


ddean38Member
Messages:
8
Likes Received:
40
Trophy Points:
13
Hey there,

I am doing a research paper on Online Communities at Georgia Tech. I am reaching out to do interviews with participants and came across your profile. It is a 90-minute interview that can be over the phone or through instant messaging. It would just be about your experiences with this site. If you have any questions please feel free to reach out!

Thank you,
Dezarae Dean
 
Last edited:
Cool Cats said:
So what do all you sleuthers think about this? This could be ANYBODY trying to find out who posters are. I got this message out of the blue.....
90 minutes? What does this person want to know? My life history? Is this normal for posters to get these messages on Websleuths?


ddean38Member
Messages:
8
Likes Received:
40
Trophy Points:
13
Hey there,

I am doing a research paper on Online Communities at Georgia Tech. I am reaching out to do interviews with participants and came across your profile. It is a 90-minute interview that can be over the phone or through instant messaging. It would just be about your experiences with this site. If you have any questions please feel free to reach out!

Thank you,
Dezarae Dean
Click to expand...

I would report it to a moderator. Seems strange to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 205 more.
Total: 4,277 (members: 206, guests: 4,071)

Online statistics

Members online
206
Guests online
4,071
Total visitors
4,277
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,156
Messages
17,964,366
Members
228,705
Latest member
mhenderson
Back
Top