GUILTY OH Pike Co., 8 in Rhoden Family Murdered Over Custody Issue, 4 Members Wagner Family Arrested #61

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks for reposting the prior acts evidence document. I'm not a very good researcher and I've been trying to find the reference to BW transporting drugs. FACT

I find both Ohioblue and Seattle very knowledgeable on the case. It is refreshing when you can read posts that are light on speculation and heavy on facts/evidence. JMO

We are creatures of habit. I don't think it is a coincidence BW brandished a .40 caliber during a potential road rage incident in 2001 and then he or GW IV had one on UHR the night of the murders. It was a different weapon but same caliber. JMO
 
Speculation. Not Fact.

In thinking about Prior Acts of any manner, it seems logical to me that those Prior Acts ( info outlined, not detailed in document) did not happen or were not committed solo, meaning only Billy, only George, only Jake, etc. .
I think it is logical other people (currently unknown to us) were involved.
Sort of like a team or a network of, for example, ( suggestion only) drug trafficking, pill trafficking, theft, receipt of stolen goods, sale of stolen goods.
When Canepa provides the facts ( looks like she has volumes of info.) behind the Prior Acts document we are looking at, it may become very clear.
Facts and details will clarify.
Then we will know more about the Prior Acts that Canepa feels sure are admissible.
Who might investigators seek out, research and talk to about these action of the past?
Probably convicted felons serving time in prison. Or same who have served their time and are released.

I hope I have worded this in a manner that is ok, it is all my speculation.
 
ohioexpat63 said:
Thanks for reposting the prior acts evidence document. I'm not a very good researcher and I've been trying to find the reference to BW transporting drugs. FACT

I find both Ohioblue and Seattle very knowledgeable on the case. It is refreshing when you can read posts that are light on speculation and heavy on facts/evidence. JMO

We are creatures of habit. I don't think it is a coincidence BW brandished a .40 caliber during a potential road rage incident in 2001 and then he or GW IV had one on UHR the night of the murders. It was a different weapon but same caliber. JMO
Click to expand...

Agree. we are creatures of habit.

At this moment in time, we won't find facts on this specific reference to BW transporting drugs. I wish we had those facts to discuss now.
Canepa outlines what investigators have looked into.
So, we can't know exactly what it all means without more information, which Canepa will provide in 30 days.
In the mean time we try to discuss, but yes, it is mostly speculation. I really wish we had many more facts.
The next 30 days will pass too slowly.
 
Last edited:
The prior acts of alleged evidence outlined by the Prosecutor was filed in Pike County Common Pleas Court on Feb 22, 2021.

IMO, I think much of prior acts evidence pursuant to Rule 404b will be deemed no longer relevant or will not be admitted following JW's agreement to plead guilty to all related charges -- essentially confirming the plot to kill the Rhoden family members stemmed from a failing relationship between Wagner and Hanna Rhoden, who had a child together (i.e., the motive).

Another important factor affecting prior acts evidence is that JW admitted to personally killing five of the eight victims. JW also led investigators to the weapons that were used in three of the killings, along with vehicles used during the offenses.

Prosecutors say that based on all this information, they have overwhelming evidence that the Wagner family was responsible for planning and carrying out the homicides. Direct evidence is far more valuable than the hurdle Prosecutors faced trying to admit prior acts evidence.

Court Clarifies Rule on Admissibility of ‘Other-Acts’ Evidence

Sept 22, 2020

The Ohio Supreme Court recently clarified the standards under which a prosecutor may introduce evidence of a defendant's prior bad acts in a trial for a new crime.

The Court’s opinion stated the decisions are meant to help Ohio courts and attorneys by clearing up “some of the confusion that exists regarding the use of ‘other-acts evidence’ ” under the Ohio Rules of Evidence.

Supreme Court Analyzes Use of Other-Act Evidence

In the Hartman decision, Justice DeWine explained that under Ohio Evid.R. 404(B), evidence of other “crimes, wrongs, or acts” cannot be admitted to prove the accused has the “propensity” or the natural tendency to behave in a particular way. The rule is meant to prevent a jury from concluding that because the accused has acted in a similar way in the past, the person must be guilty of the currently alleged crime.

While other-acts evidence cannot be used to prove a person’s tendency to commit crime, the rule does allow a court to admit the evidence for several other purposes, such as proof of motive, intent, plan, or identity, or that the act was not a mistake or accident.

The opinion stated the courts have “long struggled with differentiating” whether the evidence is being used for a purpose on the “permitted list” or being used improperly in trying to prove the accused’s guilt based solely on past behavior.

The Court outlined a process for trial courts to follow when determining whether other-acts evidence can be admitted and explained ways that the courts can better instruct juries about how to consider the evidence if it is used.

Evidence Admission Process Explained

The Court explained that the trial court first must determine that the evidence is relevant not only to the case but also to the particular purpose for which the state is offering it, such as to prove motive or intent.

The trial court should also ensure that the evidence is being used to address a matter that is actually in dispute between the parties. For instance, it would be improper for a court to allow other-acts evidence to be used to identify the defendant as the perpetrator when the defendant has admitted being involved, but instead claims another defense to the crime.

The Court provided examples of the most common uses of other-acts evidence. One type is “modus operandi” evidence, which is relevant to prove identity. The opinion explained that modus operandi evidence is evidence of “signature, fingerprint-like characteristics” unique enough to suggest that the prior act and the current crime were committed by the same person.

Another common use of other-acts evidence is to show that the prior act and the current crime were part of the same overarching “plan” or “scheme.” This evidence may be used to identify the accused as the perpetrator or to explain the accused’s motive or reason for committing the current crime. Using an episode of the television show “Breaking Bad” as an example, the Court explained that in a prosecution for illegally manufacturing drugs, evidence that a defendant recently stole the ingredient methylamine from a warehouse could be admissible to show the defendant’s scheme to produce methamphetamine.

Finally, the Court explained that other-acts evidence can be used to show that the defendant’s conduct was not accidental or the result of a mistake. This is relevant to establish that the accused acted with criminal intent.

Once the trial court determines that the evidence can be admitted under Evid.R. 404(B), it must conduct a balancing test under Evid.R. 403(A) and consider whether the benefit of the evidence outweighs the risk of it being unfairly prejudicial to the defendant.

The Court explained that trial courts should document their analysis so that reviewing courts can follow the logic behind the court’s decision to admit or exclude the evidence.

The Court also said that the trial court’s instructions to juries must be tailored to the facts of the case and explain, in plain language, the purpose for which the other-acts evidence may or may not be considered. The Court noted the jury instructions in both Hartman’s and Smith’s cases related to the jurors that the evidence could be considered for every purpose on the “permitted list,” even inapplicable ones, and did not explain the different terms.

To tell a jury a certain piece of evidence can be considered as “proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity or absence of mistake” imparts “nothing meaningful,” the opinion stated, noting it is “akin to telling the jurors that the evidence may be considered for any purpose.”

Court Clarifies Rule on Admissibility of ‘Other-Acts’ Evidence
https://www.scribd.com/document/501686655/Billy-Wagner-404-B-motion#from_embed
 
Last edited:
IType said:
Snipped from above, BBM

It was my understanding that JW led investigators to the three guns that were used in all eight of the murders. JMO
Click to expand...

Is there a different news link citing only three guns used in all 8 murders?

I believe JW probably identified the gun he used to personally kill 5 of the victims and maybe only 3 guns used in total for the massacre. However, I'm only finding links that cite what I quoted earlier:

Jake Wagner recently sat down with prosecutors, where he led investigators to the weapons that were used in three of the killings, along with vehicles used during the offenses.

Prosecutor: Hacked Facebook accounts, custody dispute led to Rhoden killings | NBC4 WCMH-TV
 
Seattle1 said:
The prior acts of alleged evidence outlined by the Prosecutor was filed in Pike County Common Pleas Court on Feb 22, 2021.

IMO, I think much of prior acts evidence pursuant to Rule 404b will be deemed no longer relevant or will not be admitted following JW's agreement to plead guilty to all related charges -- essentially confirming the plot to kill the Rhoden family members stemmed from a failing relationship between Wagner and Hanna Rhoden, who had a child together (i.e., the motive).

Another important factor affecting prior acts evidence is that JW admitted to personally killing five of the eight victims. JW also led investigators to the weapons that were used in three of the killings, along with vehicles used during the offenses.

Prosecutors say that based on all this information, they have overwhelming evidence that the Wagner family was responsible for planning and carrying out the homicides. Direct evidence is far more valuable than the hurdle Prosecutors faced trying to admit prior acts evidence.

Court Clarifies Rule on Admissibility of ‘Other-Acts’ Evidence

Sept 22, 2020

The Ohio Supreme Court recently clarified the standards under which a prosecutor may introduce evidence of a defendant's prior bad acts in a trial for a new crime.

The Court’s opinion stated the decisions are meant to help Ohio courts and attorneys by clearing up “some of the confusion that exists regarding the use of ‘other-acts evidence’ ” under the Ohio Rules of Evidence.

Supreme Court Analyzes Use of Other-Act Evidence

In the Hartman decision, Justice DeWine explained that under Ohio Evid.R. 404(B), evidence of other “crimes, wrongs, or acts” cannot be admitted to prove the accused has the “propensity” or the natural tendency to behave in a particular way. The rule is meant to prevent a jury from concluding that because the accused has acted in a similar way in the past, the person must be guilty of the currently alleged crime.

While other-acts evidence cannot be used to prove a person’s tendency to commit crime, the rule does allow a court to admit the evidence for several other purposes, such as proof of motive, intent, plan, or identity, or that the act was not a mistake or accident.

The opinion stated the courts have “long struggled with differentiating” whether the evidence is being used for a purpose on the “permitted list” or being used improperly in trying to prove the accused’s guilt based solely on past behavior.

The Court outlined a process for trial courts to follow when determining whether other-acts evidence can be admitted and explained ways that the courts can better instruct juries about how to consider the evidence if it is used.

Evidence Admission Process Explained

The Court explained that the trial court first must determine that the evidence is relevant not only to the case but also to the particular purpose for which the state is offering it, such as to prove motive or intent.

The trial court should also ensure that the evidence is being used to address a matter that is actually in dispute between the parties. For instance, it would be improper for a court to allow other-acts evidence to be used to identify the defendant as the perpetrator when the defendant has admitted being involved, but instead claims another defense to the crime.

The Court provided examples of the most common uses of other-acts evidence. One type is “modus operandi” evidence, which is relevant to prove identity. The opinion explained that modus operandi evidence is evidence of “signature, fingerprint-like characteristics” unique enough to suggest that the prior act and the current crime were committed by the same person.

Another common use of other-acts evidence is to show that the prior act and the current crime were part of the same overarching “plan” or “scheme.” This evidence may be used to identify the accused as the perpetrator or to explain the accused’s motive or reason for committing the current crime. Using an episode of the television show “Breaking Bad” as an example, the Court explained that in a prosecution for illegally manufacturing drugs, evidence that a defendant recently stole the ingredient methylamine from a warehouse could be admissible to show the defendant’s scheme to produce methamphetamine.

Finally, the Court explained that other-acts evidence can be used to show that the defendant’s conduct was not accidental or the result of a mistake. This is relevant to establish that the accused acted with criminal intent.

Once the trial court determines that the evidence can be admitted under Evid.R. 404(B), it must conduct a balancing test under Evid.R. 403(A) and consider whether the benefit of the evidence outweighs the risk of it being unfairly prejudicial to the defendant.

The Court explained that trial courts should document their analysis so that reviewing courts can follow the logic behind the court’s decision to admit or exclude the evidence.

The Court also said that the trial court’s instructions to juries must be tailored to the facts of the case and explain, in plain language, the purpose for which the other-acts evidence may or may not be considered. The Court noted the jury instructions in both Hartman’s and Smith’s cases related to the jurors that the evidence could be considered for every purpose on the “permitted list,” even inapplicable ones, and did not explain the different terms.

To tell a jury a certain piece of evidence can be considered as “proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity or absence of mistake” imparts “nothing meaningful,” the opinion stated, noting it is “akin to telling the jurors that the evidence may be considered for any purpose.”

Court Clarifies Rule on Admissibility of ‘Other-Acts’ Evidence
https://www.scribd.com/document/501686655/Billy-Wagner-404-B-motion#from_embed
Click to expand...

Thank you for this.
With these rules and rulings it looks like A Canepa might face a challenge in admissibility, but I think she is up to it. If anyone can do it - AC can accomplish a ruling in the States favor.
 
Seattle1 said:
Is there a different news link citing only three guns used in all 8 murders?

I believe JW probably identified the gun he used to personally kill 5 of the victims and maybe only 3 guns used in total for the massacre. However, I'm only finding links that cite what I quoted earlier:

Jake Wagner recently sat down with prosecutors, where he led investigators to the weapons that were used in three of the killings, along with vehicles used during the offenses.

Prosecutor: Hacked Facebook accounts, custody dispute led to Rhoden killings | NBC4 WCMH-TV
Click to expand...

GW4 bond hearing, Agent Scheiderer's testimony:
"He also described ballistic evidence that includes shell casings found throughout the house from .40 caliber, .30 caliber and .22 caliber guns that shot the victims." (This is three weapons.)

(I believe AC said that 0.22 gun killed 5 victims--which presumably is DR, HR, CRJR, FR, HG--the five people JW admitted to personally killing himself in his confession, see link below. I also believe AC said 0.40 caliber and 0.30 caliber shells were used at the other two locations--CRSR's trailer and KR's trailer. The interview of GR's father right around the time of GR's funeral revealed that two different size bullets were used to kill CRSR and GR, but I don't have link for that interview, so this is JMO.)

link:
Pike County Massacre: BCI agent testifies about evidence against eldest Wagner son

JW's confession hearing:
According to the Columbus Dispatch, Wagner confessed to killing five of the victims himself.

link:
Wagner pleads guilty to 8 Pike County murders after largest probe in Ohio history
 
FW is also mentioned in the most recent supplementary discovery. Her name is associated with various bank accounts as well as financial transactions from Crystal Springs and her Lucasville Mission. There is also mention of "Cash Analysis".

I wonder if Billy was laundering drug money through any of FW's accounts?

Link to recent SSD - (I hope!) post # 344
OH - 8 Family Members Murdered, Pike Co., Media, Maps & Timeline *NO DISCUSSION*
 
Puzzles8 said:
FW is also mentioned in the most recent supplementary discovery. Her name is associated with various bank accounts as well as financial transactions from Crystal Springs and her Lucasville Mission. There is also mention of "Cash Analysis".

I wonder if Billy was laundering drug money through any of FW's accounts?

Link to recent SSD - (I hope!) post # 344
OH - 8 Family Members Murdered, Pike Co., Media, Maps & Timeline *NO DISCUSSION*
Click to expand...
What better way to laundry money than a nursing home???? IMO
 
Ann99 said:
Thank you for this.
With these rules and rulings it looks like A Canepa might face a challenge in admissibility, but I think she is up to it. If anyone can do it - AC can accomplish a ruling in the States favor.
Click to expand...
I agree. And now more than ever, AC needs the support of her office, community, and family. In her key witness, JW, she's dealing with a slippery snake. Never to let her guard down and never forget he's still a vicious, brutal, murderer. <ModSnip>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ann99 said:
Thank you for this.
With these rules and rulings it looks like A Canepa might face a challenge in admissibility, but I think she is up to it. If anyone can do it - AC can accomplish a ruling in the States favor.
Click to expand...
You had indicated you posted something regarding the 3 inmates mentioned in the legal paperwork recently released, then was deleted. Is there somewhere this is memorialized as I'm really interested in the information stated.
 
CIA Team Member said:
You had indicated you posted something regarding the 3 inmates mentioned in the legal paperwork recently released, then was deleted. Is there somewhere this is memorialized as I'm really interested in the information stated.
Click to expand...
I only found two names of federal inmates mentioned in the SSD filed on 4/28/21. If you google the female-sounding name and FBI, I believe you'll find what you seek.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 214 more.
Total: 4,141 (members: 215, guests: 3,926)

Online statistics

Members online
215
Guests online
3,926
Total visitors
4,141
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,439
Messages
17,968,982
Members
228,770
Latest member
Janewiththedogs
Back
Top