GUILTY OH - Pike Co, 8 in Rhoden Family Murdered Over Custody Issue, 4 Members Wagner Family Arrested #66

[joe jones]

I can't begin to say how much I look forward to George 4's attorneys trying to make these arguments in court, particularly when his brother and mother are both on the witness stand, under oath, telling the court what actually happened and why George4's shoe prints were there that night.

The more I consider it, the more I look forward to it. He may end up facing the DP after all.

JMO

they won't be involved in the Daubert hearing, the hearing wont be focused solely on the prints from the crime scene but whether their is a solid case to be made that shoe print evidence as a whole is solid forensic evidence, I think it is time every defence atty began challenging evidence that courts have relied on for years without delving into its validity, bite mark evidence was once thought to be scientifically proven and was used to convict many, it is only now it has been discredited that the many people who were convicted and sentenced due to it's use are being seen to have been wrongly convicted,'
I have issues with the over broad use of unvalidated forensic evidence used in courts, fingerprints are an art not a science, and in blind trials fingerprint examiners have been shown not to be able to match known samples,

 

[joe jones]

FBI apologizes to lawyer held in Madrid bombings (nbcnews.com)

this case highlights issues with fingerprints,

 

[Cool Cats]

their is also a body of work saying it lacks scientific vigour, and their have never been any proper studies or scientific testing of the validity, but I think the court will let it in, it will be interesting to see a Daubert hearing on it and to at least allow it to be challenged,
The questionable science of tire track and shoe print analysis | In the Dark | APM Reports
If the Shoe Fits: CSAFE Study Improves Shoe Print Forensics (cmu.edu)

last report is an attempt to make it more scientific

Billy asked for a Daubert Hearing on ballistic and shoeprint evidence and it was granted. Also possibility of doing a Daubert Hearing for all the defendants on the same day.

09/21/2021 JOURNAL ENTRY On this 5th day of April, 2021, this cause came on for a pre-trial hearing and a hearing on pretrial motions.

After hearing arguments of counsel, the Court granted Defendant's Motion 42 and Defendant's Motion 43 and ordered that a Daubert hearing would be held concerning the admissibility of ballistics evidence and opinions and concerning the admissibility of shoeprint evidence and opinions.

Counsel for the Defendant indicated to the Court that he would contact counsel for the co-defendants in order to see whether, if Daubert hearings are to be held in such other cases, the Daubert hearings in all cases could be scheduled on the same day in order to avoid the necessity of having to make the experts involved available on several different days.

Daubert Standard (Admissibility of Expert Witness In Court)

The objective of the Daubert Standard is to prevent parties from introducing “pseudoscientific” evidence or “junk science” in the court of law.

The party introducing the expert evidence has the burden of proof to demonstrate that the expert witness’s testimony is considered as “scientific knowledge” and follows a methodology or technique that is generally accepted in the scientific community.

 

[Betty P]

Billy asked for a Daubert Hearing on ballistic and shoeprint evidence and it was granted. Also possibility of doing a Daubert Hearing for all the defendants on the same day.

09/21/2021 JOURNAL ENTRY On this 5th day of April, 2021, this cause came on for a pre-trial hearing and a hearing on pretrial motions.

After hearing arguments of counsel, the Court granted Defendant's Motion 42 and Defendant's Motion 43 and ordered that a Daubert hearing would be held concerning the admissibility of ballistics evidence and opinions and concerning the admissibility of shoeprint evidence and opinions.

Counsel for the Defendant indicated to the Court that he would contact counsel for the co-defendants in order to see whether, if Daubert hearings are to be held in such other cases, the Daubert hearings in all cases could be scheduled on the same day in order to avoid the necessity of having to make the experts involved available on several different days.

Daubert Standard (Admissibility of Expert Witness In Court)

The objective of the Daubert Standard is to prevent parties from introducing “pseudoscientific” evidence or “junk science” in the court of law.

The party introducing the expert evidence has the burden of proof to demonstrate that the expert witness’s testimony is considered as “scientific knowledge” and follows a methodology or technique that is generally accepted in the scientific community.

Yes, we already know this.

JMO, it's a grave miscalculation on the part of Nash. I look forward to seeing George 4's defense continue to circle the drain as his attorneys make one mistake after another and his chances of evading the DP disappear.

I agree with others that Nash's brash moves come from his anger that Prosecutor Canepa was the one who won LWOP for George4. It's usually defense attorneys who boast of that victory in capital cases.

The prosecutor robbed him of that victory and he's now on an extremely ill-advised campaign with an unrealistic goal of getting George 4 completely exonerated. He's literally risking the DP, all because of his wounded pride. Nash, George 4 (and George 3) have that personality trait in common.

I suppose, at best, with his brother and mother testifying against him at trial, he could end up with a mistrial. He'll have to remain in jail to repeat the whole sordid process all over again. Taxpaying jurors will not be forgiving of a man who helped massacre an innocent family of 8 people, then burned up millions of dollars of their money in a misguided attempt to make the state apologize to his murdering self.

JMO, MOO

 

[Johnny B Bad]

What do you think about this statement, bolded:

Thus, the State seeks to hold the death penalty over the head of George Wagner who did not kill anybody while it has struck a remarkable plea bargain with the actual killer of at least 5 victims who also shot a sixth victim.

This statement making it sound like Jake shot Chris Sr but it wasn't a shot that killed him. Makes no sense.

CC
Why did Jake Wagner tell the judge during his statement of guilt that he shot and killed 5 victims and now Nash said Jake Wagner shot 6 victims? Another question is how did GW4 know Jake shot 6 victims did GW4 see Jake shoot 6 people ??? JMO

 

[Cool Cats]

CC
Why did Jake Wagner tell the judge during his statement of guilt that he shot and killed 5 victims and now Nash said Jake Wagner shot 6 victims? Another question is how did GW4 know Jake shot 6 victims did GW4 see Jake shoot 6 people ??? JMO

This is from George's Motion 73 and we need to see the prosecutor's response to this Motion to help answer the question.

10/25/2021
STATE'S MEMORANDUM CONTRA DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS AGGRAVATED MURDER COUNTS AND/OR DEATH SPECIFICATIONS AND STATE'S MOTION TO STRIKE FILED

09/24/2021
MOTION #73--MOTION TO DISMISS AGGRAVATED MURDER COUNTS AND/OR DEATH SPECIFICATIONS FILED

Motion To Dismiss George Wagner IV Murder Charges | PDF

 

[Betty P]

CC
Why did Jake Wagner tell the judge during his statement of guilt that he shot and killed 5 victims and now Nash said Jake Wagner shot 6 victims? Another question is how did GW4 know Jake shot 6 victims did GW4 see Jake shoot 6 people ??? JMO

Good points. Take what Nash says with a grain of salt. He says a lot of things in the news media and his motions when the prosecution and everyone else are obeying a gag order. His dirty tricks will catch up with him.

 

[joe jones]

CC
Why did Jake Wagner tell the judge during his statement of guilt that he shot and killed 5 victims and now Nash said Jake Wagner shot 6 victims? Another question is how did GW4 know Jake shot 6 victims did GW4 see Jake shoot 6 people ??? JMO

one reason could have been that they were in initial stages of making a plea deal with AW and they only wanted to release as little information as was needed in order for JW to make his plea, so the 6th person he shot was contained in his taped interviews but they were under seal until AW made her plea, this meant they could check AW version of events against JW

GW4 knows exactly what JW and AW have now said it has been handed over to their defence teams, so the motion to remove murder charges and/or DP specifications due to his not shooting and killing anybody came after the defence got the information in the taped interviews of JW and AW thus he is not admitting to personal knowledge of who shot who but revealing it was from discovery that he gleaned this information, this means he is not admitting to knowing anything from being their which means he does not stray into any areas where guilty knowledge could be construed

 

[Betty P]

This is from George's Motion 73 and we need to see the prosecutor's response to this Motion to help answer the question.

10/25/2021
STATE'S MEMORANDUM CONTRA DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS AGGRAVATED MURDER COUNTS AND/OR DEATH SPECIFICATIONS AND STATE'S MOTION TO STRIKE FILED

09/24/2021
MOTION #73--MOTION TO DISMISS AGGRAVATED MURDER COUNTS AND/OR DEATH SPECIFICATIONS FILED

Motion To Dismiss George Wagner IV Murder Charges | PDF

Really looking forward to this one.

BTW, I wish I had a nickel for every time someone brings up that Motion here at Websleuths. I'd be very wealthy by now. I'm surprised I haven't memorized it by now. You'd think it was the second coming.

Tick, tick, boom, George 4

JMO

 

[Betty P]

one reason could have been that they were in initial stages of making a plea deal with AW and they only wanted to release as little information as was needed in order for JW to makhis plea, so the 6th person he shot was contained in his taped interviews but they were under seal until AW made her plea, this meant they could check AW version of events against JW

GW4 knows exactly what JW and AW have now said it has been handed over to their defence teams, so the motion to remove murder charges and/or DP specifications due to his not shooting and killing anybody came after the defence got the information in the taped interviews of JW and AW thus he is not admitting to personal knowledge of who shot who but revealing it was from discovery that he gleaned this information, this means he is not admitting to knowing anything from being their which means he does not stray into any areas where guilty knowledge could be construed

Keep in mind that Nash has no obligation to be completely honest in the assertions he makes in his motions.

Prosecutor Canepa knew the facts very well about how many people Jake killed and how many the Georges killed. Jake cannot lie without risking his plea agreement and Canepa has a mountain of evidence to back up Jake's claims.

Prosecutor Canepa didn't lie about how many victims Jake killed. She wasn't mistaken. Nash is the one who is either mistaken or bluffing. He's allowed to do that, the state is not.

All Nash has to do is repeat whatever lies George 4 has told him and he's safe. He knows that.

Representing a Client the Lawyer Thinks Is Guilty

Now, if someone believes a killer like George 4 over Prosecutor Canepa and a mountain of evidence and expert testimony, well they shouldn't expect everyone to agree with them.

JMO

ETA: I just re-read your post and wonder if you could clarify something for me. Are you saying that Prosecutor Canepa is lying about how many people Jake killed? Really? I hope I'm wrong. TIA

JMO

 

[Johnny B Bad]

Regardless if GW4 shot and killed any of the victims that night, he went there to kill and he helped in the killing in many other ways, GW4 will get Life without parole, JMO

 

[Covert Operative]

Regardless if GW4 shot and killed any of the victims that night, he went there to kill and he helped in the killing in many other ways, GW4 will get Life without parole, JMO

Complicity is a legal theory which holds a defendant criminally liable for the same crime and punishment as the principal because the complicitor intentionally aided, abetted, or advised the principal who committed an offense.

 

[Betty P]

they won't be involved in the Daubert hearing, the hearing wont be focused solely on the prints from the crime scene but whether their is a solid case to be made that shoe print evidence as a whole is solid forensic evidence, I think it is time every defence atty began challenging evidence that courts have relied on for years without delving into its validity, bite mark evidence was once thought to be scientifically proven and was used to convict many, it is only now it has been discredited that the many people who were convicted and sentenced due to it's use are being seen to have been wrongly convicted,'
I have issues with the over broad use of unvalidated forensic evidence used in courts, fingerprints are an art not a science, and in blind trials fingerprint examiners have been shown not to be able to match known samples,

JMO its a pretty extreme position to state that fingerprinting technology is an art and not a science. I wish the Wagners defense luck in using a case involving the massacre of 8 innocent people with 2 confessions as a test of the scientific validityof fingerprint evidence.

They must not be very bright people if they allow their defense team to put their lives at stake by plsying games in court. This should be amusing to observe with a very predictable outcome.

Apparently they're desperate and willing to go to any lengths to assert their right to massacre innocent families because the women wouldn't behave and follow orders to yield to the Physical abuse from their husbands.

 

[GoBuckeyes]

I think GW the younger did not shoot anyone, the defence attys IMO would not have stated he didn't if their was any doubt, and to file motions on that assertion (now they have the plea agreements) would surely be unethical

Unethical in what sense? His attorney has one job and that is to vigorously defend him and only him, regardless of the contents of plea agreements made with others. In my opinion, defense attorneys still have an obligation to put on a vigorous defense, even if they have doubts. (Unless they ask to be removed from a case/representing a client.) Doubts about a client's innocence don't equal knowledge of guilt. MOO

 

[GoBuckeyes]

Link to article about Agent Scheiderer testifying in George 4's hearing about shoeprint evidence

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

During Monday’s court hearing, Ryan Scheiderer, a special agent with the Ohio Bureau of Investigation (BCI) was the first person to publicly testify in open court against George.

Scheiderer said his team has ballistic evidence, shoe prints, forged documents, recorded conversations and text messages on George.

Shoe prints were found in the blood on the floor of the crime scene, according to the agent.​

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.

Why else would George 4's attorneys be filing motions for a hearing to throw out shoeprint evidence?

<modsnip>

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

Maybe I should add it to the Rhoden Massacre Timeline, too.

BBM

ETA: My signature block has been updated <modsnip> It now includes relevant and frequently requested links to facts about the Rhoden Massacre evidence.

Great info. Thank you for sharing, Betty.

 

[GoBuckeyes]

they won't be involved in the Daubert hearing, the hearing wont be focused solely on the prints from the crime scene but whether their is a solid case to be made that shoe print evidence as a whole is solid forensic evidence, I think it is time every defence atty began challenging evidence that courts have relied on for years without delving into its validity, bite mark evidence was once thought to be scientifically proven and was used to convict many, it is only now it has been discredited that the many people who were convicted and sentenced due to it's use are being seen to have been wrongly convicted,'
I have issues with the over broad use of unvalidated forensic evidence used in courts, fingerprints are an art not a science, and in blind trials fingerprint examiners have been shown not to be able to match known samples,

Interested in reading further. Do you have a couple links to peer reviewed journal articles on the topic of the validity of finger print evidence? TIA

 

[Covert Operative]

FBI apologizes to lawyer held in Madrid bombings (nbcnews.com)

this case highlights issues with fingerprints,

<modsnip - no links> I also understand that you are speaking in general terms, about different types of evidence and its validity. Right now there is no Daubert hearing requested for fingerprint evidence in the W trials which you no doubt are aware of because it is obvious to me that you understand the information in the case, both evidentiary and legal.

 

[Berrybell]

BW's Daubert hearing motion on shoes and ballistics had been approved months back, not sure they will still have one but it was approved to be heard. Based on this I feel G4 will get a Daubert approved also. I agree the evidence will not be disallowed which is what you said, I understood that is what you meant. Your post was not confusing to me, they are always clear and concise.

BW-- After hearing arguments of counsel, the Court granted Defendant's Motion No. 42 and Defendant's Motion No. 43 and ordered that a Daubert hearing would be held concerning the admissibility of ballistics evidence and opinions and concerning the admissibility of shoeprint evidence and opinions.
Case Details - CourtView Justice Solutions (pikecountycpcourt.org)

It will be very interesting to see a Daubert hearing if there is one.

Thank you Covert for your clear and logical opinions. We do not know who wore the shoes that AW bought, we know she said she bought them for her sons, but I would think BW and GW are the same size or close enough to wear the shoes. We also have not seen JW or AW confessions, they may have stated that GW did not shoot anyone (if I remember correctly AW or her defense did not see JWs prior to her confession to make sure there was no conflicting statements). I have not read anywhere that the defense or anyone else is saying he wasn't there only that he did not kill anyone. Does this make him less guilty? No, not in my opinion.

 

[Covert Operative]

Thank you Covert for your clear and logical opinions. We do not know who wore the shoes that AW bought, we know she said she bought them for her sons, but I would think BW and GW are the same size or close enough to wear the shoes. We also have not seen JW or AW confessions, they may have stated that GW did not shoot anyone (if I remember correctly AW or her defense did not see JWs prior to her confession to make sure there was no conflicting statements). I have not read anywhere that the defense or anyone else is saying he wasn't there only that he did not kill anyone. Does this make him less guilty? No, not in my opinion.

Thank you for the kind words. I agree with what you say. You nailed it. It was implied that G4 wore them but it has never been said that the shoeprint was definitely from him. JW may have said in his proffer that G4 had on that shoe, we do not know yet if he did. I will take court hearings and information over an in inaccurate article from a reporters point of view. We do have to think for ourselves and pay attention to the information and it is apparent that you do just that. I have not read anything that is claiming he was not there either. He would be considered just as guilty legally, I agree.

 

[Nanasteele]

I can't begin to say how much I look forward to George 4's attorneys trying to make these arguments in court, particularly when his brother and mother are both on the witness stand, under oath, telling the court what actually happened and why George4's shoe prints were there that night.

The more I consider it, the more I look forward to it. He may end up facing the DP after all.

JMO

GW and GW4 not thinking they deserve the DP amazes me! They watched, were there and knew of the plans! They look like they are mad at the world in the court room when they need to take responsibility for their own actions! I bet their attorneys have their hands full with those two!