Think this over. If george was really there during the murders, then he knew Chris sr was killed at 11PM. So why did he tell BCI he went to bed at 12:30 AM? That would have put him right in the thick of things.I think if it was that big of a deal and what AC was asking or saying wasn't true, the defense would have objected and they would have played it. I think they likely advised George to say exactly what he said. He didn't recall saying that. For some reason the defense didn't want it played either or they would have played it. Maybe they didn't want to highlight his lies either. If he was really asked to be a spy, they would have played it. Most ask why didn't the state play it then, but why aren't we asking why the defense didn't play it? Maybe because he said 15 times that he would have heard someone leave that night, maybe because he said he wasn't sleeping till 1230 and then on the stand he said something else. Why would AC ask him a question about something he said if he didn't say it? Why wouldn't the defense object if it was a lie and why wouldn't George deny saying it if it was a lie.
If George would have said, I didn't say that or denied the statements she was asking him about, then they might have played the tape. He never denied saying any of the statements at the border. He only said he didn't recall. I don't think AC needed to play the tape. I don't think the defense wanted the tape played and for that reason I don't think that tape helped George in any way or they would have played it.
AC didn't need to play a 4 hour interview to get the info out. After he testified, she just him about the inconsistent statements and instead of denying them, he said he didn't remember. That speaks a lot because he did remember a whole lot of things much less important than his alibi, but he just can't recall what he said about where he was when 8 people were murdered.
Maybe Jake and Angie knew he would draw the line at murder. After all they know him better than we do.I know the burden of proof is on the prosecution, but if I were a juror I wouldn’t wonder “Why would George IV be there?” I’d think “Why ^wouldn’t* he?”
Iirc all the testimony about the intertwining lives of the four Wagners supports the idea that they were pretty much always in each other’s business- their finances, their crimes, the family meetings, the “All for one, one for all” mindset. So are we supposed to believe that sure, George IV was involved in 5000 other things that the family did, but for *just this one thing• (murdering the Rhodens & Hannah Hazel) the three of them discussed various scenarios, planned & prepped, did these awful murders, destroyed evidence & cleaned up… & totally kept it all secret from George VI? For what purpose would they have kept him in the dark?
I can never believe that GWIV never saw that 1911 pistol. JW was so proud of it he took pictures of it. Not mentioning or showing it to GWIV is not the norm for these two.AW admitted guilt. I'd expect her to know about the truck, JW admitted guilt before her, and is the one who gave up the location. G3 sure hasn't and he drove it to his niece's home (what a guy!). No JW, no truck. No JW cooperation, and no pond buckets full of cement, firearm pieces, and a cheap, TWD knife, w/tip unbroken.
I don't recall hearing a tape of G4 stating he'd never seen the 1911, but, I never could see why he couldn't admit he was w/JW at a 2015 gun show. The Prosecution says there was no planning til early 2016. "These murders happened after a period of three months of planning, plotting, and purchasing, and preparing, and executing eight individuals of a family,” Canepa said" (during opening statements).
She is the Special Prosecutor. They've seen her face the most, she opened, and she's questioned 90% of the witnesses, if I were a juror, I'd think something was off if she didn't close, even if I dreaded listening.
Agree.Why didn't the defense play George's tape when he was on the stand?
Why didn't the defense play Jake's tape when he was on the stand?
Why didn't the defense highlight what size George's foot was?
I think some want to say the state is withholding evidence or information because they know George isn't guilty, but the defense has the same evidence and it's just as easy for them to share that info. Why didn't they?
They didn't object to ANY of the questions AC asked about the border interview.
My thinking is it was more beneficial for the defense to suggest he was asked to be a spy than to show he was asked because then they'd have to play the entire interview. The entire interview where he says he was watching a movie and all the things AC asked him about he said. If he didn't say them why didn't the defense object?
The defense could have played Jake's interview once he was on the stand, they didn't. Maybe because it matched George's.
If the state is hiding something, then the defense is also. It makes no sense for the defense to not highlight whatever people think the state is hiding from us. The defense has access to everything people are saying the state isn't presenting and they can just as easily present it.
Once Jake was on the stand they can play his interview.
Once George is on the stand, they can play his interview.
They can share George's shoe size just the same as the state can. If George has a super large foot that won't fit in an 11 or 10.5, why isn't the defense presenting that to clear him from wearing the shoes?
Edited to add: the state only objected to the play of Jake's recording BEFORE he was on the stand. The defense wanted to play it to discredit him ahead of his testimony. They could have played it when he took the stand. They could have played George's then also once George was on the stand.
If there is anything the state didn't present that proves George innocent, then the defense not playing it or showing it is 100% worse than the state not presenting it. I'd ask why didn't the defense share this amazing evidence that helps George? THAT IS THEIR JOB.
So I'll just side with it didn't help him in any way and since the state didn't need to share it to ask him about what he said, he didn't deny saying anything the state asked about, then what does that leave? He lied at the border to create an alibi and the defense knows the recording is damning for their client so they aren't going to play it.
IMO, if a hung jury, the prosecutors/family will resolve the case to avoid another trial.I personally don't see 4 being exonerated. At best I believe he can hope for a hung jury.
If hung jury, and the prosecutors say they'll retry the case, what are the chances of 4 being released on bond?
Wonder if the purpose was to watch and set up Tab and HR for forthcoming custody hearings.So, I think a couple of things about this DVR. I think Billy just had an overall aversion to video cameras anywhere. Probably did not want his coming and going recorded while they might be committing any of their crimes. More specifically once he knew they were going to murder the rhodens he did not want any investigators having video evidence that they left the peterson road address that night and what vehicle they were driving. It is possible by the time Billy noticed it on the house they had already purchased the murder truck(I am not sure about this). and so he wanted it destroyed to eliminate any possibility of that truck being on video at any point in time. Destroying video recording equipment would be more preferable to a criminal than returning the video equipment for money. Should investigators be able to catch this purchase, track down the equipment (at the store it is returned to) and review what is digitally recorded it might become evidence against them.
That photo of Jake holding the 1911 pistol, it showed the tattoo on his ring finger, was sent to Hanna May Rhoden Facebook, probably to intimidate her, I saw the picture before it was taken down! JMOI thought they sent the photo of the gun to G4. I didn't hear G4 say that was that in the truck cab?
I didn't hear G4 say that 13 x at the border, either. Was that more audio from the vehicles?
Some of those tapes I even slowed down and couldn't make them out.
He told AC on the witness stand he went to bed at 10:00 and at the border he said the whole family stayed up to 12:30 watching a movie together,Think this over. If george was really there during the murders, then he knew Chris sr was killed at 11PM. So why did he tell BCI he went to bed at 12:30 AM? That would have put him right in the thick of things.
That is because he WAS NOT there and had no idea what time Chris was killed.
Another hole big enough to throw a cat through in the states case, because I cannot believe that at least a few of the jurors are not thinking the same thing about George's bedtime.
I hope the banner at Law and Crime is incorrect and they aren't waiting until 9am to start the live feed.
Anyone have an alternate site?
Going to be terrible if the defense starts without us.