GUILTY OH - Pike Co, 8 in Rhoden Family Murdered Over Custody Issue, 4 Members Wagner Family Arrested #69

LMDlong

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2021
Messages
637
Reaction score
3,190
I believe Deering said there would be a hearing on June 21, I do not remember what motions it was for.

They also are going to contact the Supreme Court on the Defense Certification of Non Disclosure Rule 16 filed yesterday to see if a judge with a blanket appointment can hear that or if the Supreme Court will have to appoint a judge to hear that. If they get an answer on that sooner than later they could have a hearing on that motion before 7/5. (It is in regard to information about JW ex)
05/16/2022CERTIFICATION OF NON-DISCLOSURE PURSUANT TO CRIMINAL RULE 16(D) FILED
What is this rule 16 about ?
 

Covert Operative

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2021
Messages
1,283
Reaction score
7,342
Might G4 have gotten a tattoo of some combination of playing cards before and added to it (the skull and eight ball) after the murders? It would explain some of the conflicting testimony.

JMO
Yes, great point. It was confusing the way he worded his statement about the tattoos to know exactly what he meant.
 

Cool Cats

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2018
Messages
7,937
Reaction score
55,201
Pretty serious to try to get your SS card changed. Didn't Canepa say that EW became some kind of threat to them? The only kind off threat I can think of that is so bad she runs, hides, tries to change her identity, and even files 2 police reportes on Jake, is that she knew about the murders. Remember when they talked about the murders in front of her at Fred's (revenge) and then The Wagner Crime Family only let her call her family once a year we just learned?

Still, you would think she'd be safe with them in jail. I gotta wonder if there is someone "out and about" of whom she is still scared of?

Remember if George gets out she still has the whole custody thing to worry about. Probably with Billy too. My thought is that she won't feel completely safe until ALL 4 are locked up in prison for years and years.

I bet she, her case, is one that is under seal.

I keep thinking of her and am very concerned for her. Anyone else?

EW filed harassment and identity theft charges against Jake - Ohio Uniform Incident Report - 8/15/18 (4 pp) Probably trying to get Mortgage Fraud, my guess. According to Other Acts Evidence The Wagner Crime Family threatened to kill her family if they showed up to see her more than once a year.

This is Moderator Approved Discovery, going way back to March 20, 2019. Been used many times.

1653048014443.png
 
Last edited:

Cool Cats

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2018
Messages
7,937
Reaction score
55,201
A judge did not rule Monday as to whether prosecutors can use certain evidence in the upcoming trial of George Wagner IV involving the death of a family in Pike County, though he said he will at a later date.

Pike County Common Pleas Judge Randy Deering said in court that he will hear arguments on June 21 on Wagner's motions to suppress audio recordings and his family's testimony, as well as to dismiss the death specifications filed against him.


 

Piffcat

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 18, 2019
Messages
181
Reaction score
1,428
So now Rob Junk is seeking election as a JUDGE? Where does that leave him on the Wagner prosecution case?

this could be a blessing in disguise. junk nots exactly what id call dynamic. been known to snooze off at court lol.

i feel like with 300 possible witnesses and all the other detail work that goes into this kind of trial, canepa needs a strong 2nd chair. always good to have 2 different types play off each others strengths. considering the insane amount of motions the state has answered there must be some good associates who know the case up and down. someone consise and savy. one thing weve seen in the johnny depp fiasco is just how much cross examination can matter. and thats 100 percent on the attorney.
this female attorney with the white suit just put on an absolute crash course on shutting down the other sides case. to the point where the state lost so many objections they stopped asking questions. the detail in this investigation and the callousness evil nature of the murders will get alot of attention once trial starts. for some reason case has been largely ignored in national press, but this can be common in how the press covers murders day of, arrest day, trial day are the big 3 periods. trials. once this trial starts so much will be known that cant be unheard.
im glad g4 is going to trial. angela didnt have to get roasted for her sick stuff at trial these criminals should not be allowed to slink into their cages. they need to be despised. he will regret this decision. billy may take a deal afterwords and take the credit for alot more then he did. considering the statements jake made against billy hes pretty screweed either way. which is great
 

Cool Cats

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2018
Messages
7,937
Reaction score
55,201
Junk had already said he would only do one or 2 Wagner trials because of prior commitments. This was a long time ago before he sought a judgeship.

As long as Deering is running the show and can get other prosecutors in there, maybe even still Junk, everything should be fine. Stenogrphers have left, Canepa left the AG's office, attorneys have retired, BCI agents have retired or gone on, main reporters have left etc...

Point is, the court has actions in place to deal with all these sorts of changes. Life goes on and things change. Some people's addressess can now not be found as people move away, and FW changed her testimony and Motions were dropped.

So I believe justice will still be served and this August trial will get underway with no way for a bunch of appeals after George loses. My take on it.

George will lose his 8 murder indictments and then lose his appeals of which he likely won't have the same attorneys, maybe, but not necessarily.

Just when we think we're in - they pull us back!

(Godfather.)
 
Last edited:

Cool Cats

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2018
Messages
7,937
Reaction score
55,201
Is it just me? Or does it seem harder to wait for the trial the closer it gets? And those Motions! Would take me a day to figure them out! So many!. I still might try to have a "stab" at them.

Billy:

The Court finds that at the last hearing held in this action on November 17, 2021, Defendant's Motions Nos. 44, 46, 47 and 48 were withdrawn, and Defendant's attorneys indicated to the Court that hearing upon Defendant's Motions Nos. 42, 43, 45 and 49 would be held at a later date. It was further indicated to the Court at the hearing on November 17, 2021, that counsel for the State of Ohio and counsel for the Defendant were planning to meet in mid-December, 2021 away from the Court in order to discuss scheduling of the Defendant's motions and possibly to narrow the issues to be argued at a motion hearing; however, it is the Court's understanding that such meeting did not take place. Counsel for the Defendant suggested that Daubert hearings on Defendant's Motions Nos. 42 and 43 could be scheduled in coordination with similar hearings that may be scheduled in the case of co-defendant, George Washington Wagner IV, and further suggested a separate motion hearing on other Defendant's motions, be scheduled no later than August 31, 2022, and that a jury trial be scheduled to commence no later than October 31, 2022. Defendant's counsel further indicated that there was work to be done by the defense concerning mitigation, and that the defense would need until approximately August 31, 2022, in order to prepare for hearing on some of the Defendant's motions and until approximately October 31, 2022, in order to prepare for trial.

George:

JOURNAL ENTRY -- This cause came on for oral argument on May 2, 2022, upon the following motions of the Defendant: DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 65: "DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF 'OTHER ACTS' EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO EVID.R. 404(B)." DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 77: "DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION TO COMPEL THE PRODUCTION OF 'OTHER ACTS' EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO EVID.R. 404(B)." DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 78: "DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION." (Concerning testimony of an accomplice) DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 79: "DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION." (Concerning "immutable characteristics.") DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 82: "DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE TO PROHIBIT THE INTRODUCTION OF OTHER ACTS EVIDENCE AT TRIAL." DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 83: "DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE." DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 84: "DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL ALL BRADY OR INFORMANT DISCOVERY."
 
Last edited:

NWLady

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
2,038
Reaction score
8,157
Attached is the jury view motion. It specifically mentions the big pond in the motion, not sure if that is the pond where the guns were found or which pond is considered the big pond. The trailers and truck are not mentioned in the motion but Deering stated today that the jury will also see the trailers/homes and a truck that is in impound.
Canepa also mentioned a red truck as an example in her questioning but I am not sure that is just an example.
Moderator approved post of motion obtained through court view.
Thank you, as always, for posting these documents for us!
 

altojack

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2017
Messages
1,718
Reaction score
9,656
So now Rob Junk is seeking election as a JUDGE? Where does that leave him on the Wagner prosecution case?


I don't think it'll have much effect on these trials going forward. Or does something like move quickly? I can't visualise him as a judge, JMO a fat, lazy slob, nodding off in court isn't what you need I'm Court.
 

NWLady

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
2,038
Reaction score
8,157
Ah - just went to the court site - updated with yesterday's stuff. It's a long one.

05/16/2022 CERTIFICATION OF NON-DISCLOSURE PURSUANT TO CRIMINAL RULE 16(D) FILED

05/16/2022 (MOTION NO 89) DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER REQUIRING AN EXHIBIT LIST PRIOR TO TRIAL FILED
Attorney: PARKER, JOHN PATRICK

05/16/2022 JOURNAL ENTRY -- This cause came on for oral argument on May 2, 2022, upon the following motions of the Defendant:
DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 65: "DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF 'OTHER ACTS' EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO EVID.R. 404(B)."
DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 77: "DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION TO COMPEL THE PRODUCTION OF 'OTHER ACTS' EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO EVID.R. 404(B)."
DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 78: "DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION." (Concerning testimony of an accomplice)
DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 79: "DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION." (Concerning "immutable characteristics.")
DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 82: "DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE TO PROHIBIT THE INTRODUCTION OF OTHER ACTS EVIDENCE AT TRIAL."
DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 83: "DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE."
DEFENDANT'S MOTION NO. 84: "DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL ALL BRADY OR INFORMANT DISCOVERY."

The Defendant was present in Court and was represented by his attorneys, John Patrick Parker and Richard M. Nash, Jr. The State of Ohio was represented by the Prosecuting Attorney, Robert Junk, and by Special Prosecuting Attorney Angela Canepa and Special Prosecuting Attorney David A. Wilson. Also present was Ryan Scheiderer, Special Agent with the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation.
The Court finds that the Defendant appeared in civilian clothing and without visible restraints outside his clothing.
With regard to Defendant's Motion No. 65 and Defendant's Motion No. 77, the Court finds that on February 22, 2021, the State of Ohio filed a "NOTICE OF INTENT TO USE OTHER ACTS EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 404(B)'" and that such notice, especially as supplemented by the State of Ohio's oral presentation and argument at the hearing on May 2, 2022, satisfies the requirement of Evid.R. 404(B) that "the proponent of evidence to be offered under" [Evid.R. 404(B)] "shall provide reasonable notice in advance of trial . . . of the general nature of any such evidence it intends to introduce at trial." The Court therefore grants Defendant's Motion No. 65 and Defendant's Motion No. 77 to the extent only that such motions request an order of the Court compelling the State of Ohio to provide notice of the general nature of any such other acts evidence that the State of Ohio intends to introduce at trial and it is so ordered. The Court finds that the State of Ohio has satisfied the pre-trial notice requirement of Crim.R. 404(B) by providing reasonable notice of the general nature of such evidence as set forth in the State of Ohio's "Notice of Intent To Use Other Acts Evidence Pursuant to 404(B)" filed on February 22, 2021 and as further presented by the Special Prosecuting Attorney on May 2, 2022.
The Court further finds that Defendant's Motion No. 82 requests that the Court issue an order in limine prohibiting the State of Ohio from introducing other acts evidence at trial, and that on May 2, 2022, the State of Ohio filed a "MEMORANDUM CONTRA MOTION IN LIMINE" in response to Defendant's Motion No. 82. Defendant's Motion No. 82 was orally argued at the hearing on May 2, 2022.
Having been fully informed through oral argument of counsel on May 2, 2022, as well as through counsel's written memoranda, the Court issued orders orally at the hearing concerning Defendant's Motion No. 83 and Defendant's Motion No. 84, and the Court took under advisement Defendant's Motion No. 78, Defendant's Motion No. 79, and Defendant's Motion No. 82. Decisions and orders concerning the motions taken under advisement are set forth below in this Journal Entry.
With regard to Defendant's Motion No. 83, entitled "DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE," it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants' Motion No. 83 is overruled and denied; however, the Court may reconsider the ruling upon Defendant's Motion No. 83, if it appears through careful and searching voir dire of the prospective jurors at trial, or otherwise, that a fair and impartial jury cannot be seated in this action, due to any pretrial publicity or other reason.
With regard to Defendant's Motion No. 84, entitled "DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL ALL BRADY OR INFORMANT DISCOVERY," Special Prosecuting Attorney Canepa indicated in oral argument that the State of Ohio agrees that the State of Ohio must comply with the provisions of Crim.R. 16 and Brady v. Maryland, but argues that the State of Ohio has already satisfied its discovery obligations pursuant to Crim.R. 16 and Brady v. Maryland and its progeny. The Special Prosecuting Attorney further indicated that the State of Ohio has provided the Defendant with information concerning all potential witnesses, including recorded statements of several potential witnesses, including any agreements between the State of Ohio and any potential witnesses in exchange for testimony, and including any information as to persons whom the defense may refer to as "informants," but that the State of Ohio did not think that in the present action there are any "informants," in the traditional sense that the term is used.
In response to the Court's inquiry of defense counsel concerning any specific allegations by the defense of deficiencies in the State of Ohio's provision of "Brady or informant discovery," counsel for the Defendant indicated that the defense desires to interview Elizabeth Freeman, but that the State of Ohio has not provided the defense with an address for Elizabeth Freeman and the defense does not know how to contact her. Special Prosecuting attorney Canepa responded that the State of Ohio does not have an exact address for Elizabeth Freeman as of the time of the hearing, but that the State does intend to locate Elizabeth Freeman in order to serve her with a subpoena to appear as a potential witness at trial, and that the State of Ohio will make reasonable effort to have Elizabeth Freeman available for an interview by defense counsel prior to trial. Special Prosecuting Attorney Canepa further argued that Elizabeth Freeman is not a person whose identify has been unknown to the Defendant and that the State of Ohio has identified her to the defense as a prospective witness and has provided the defense with recordings of her statements.
It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant's Motion No. 84, entitled "DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL ALL BRADY OR INFORMANT DISCOVERY," is granted to the extent that the State of Ohio is required to comply with its discovery obligations under Rule 16 of the Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure and Brady v. Maryland and its progeny, but that Defendant's Motion No. 84 is overruled and denied to any extent that such motion may request that the State of Ohio provide more discovery to the Defendant than is required by such applicable rule and case law. Further, if the State of Ohio does not disclose material or portions of material otherwise subject to disclosure under Crim.R. 16 for one or more of the reasons set forth in Crim.R. 16(D), then the Prosecuting Attorney and Special Prosecuting Attorneys shall comply with Crim.R. 16(D) with respect to certification of non-disclosure.
Having considered all arguments in support of and in opposition to Defendant's Motion No. 78, entitled "DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION," the Court finds that the jury instruction proposed by the Defendant adds the following paragraph to the instruction set forth in Section 2923.01(H) R.C.: "An accomplice may have special motives in testifying, and you should carefully examine an accomplice's testimony and use it with great caution and view it with grave suspicion." To the extent that the jury instruction requested and proposed in Defendant's Motion No. 78 tracts exactly the language of Section 2923.01(H), the Court finds that Defendant's Motion No. 78 is well taken and the same is hereby granted, provided that testimony of a person with whom the Defendant has allegedly conspired is introduced at trial and is supported by other evidence, thus justifying the proposed jury instruction set forth in Section 2923.01(H). To the extent that the jury instruction requested and proposed in Defendant's Motion No. 78 adds the above-quoted language to the instruction set forth in Section 2923.01(H) R.C., Defendant's Motion No. 78 is not well taken, and such motion is overruled and denied and the language added by the defense to the instruction shall not be given as part of the instruction.
Having considered all arguments in support of, and in opposition to, Defendant's Motion No. 79, entitled "DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION," the Court finds that the basis of the decision in Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759 (2017), is not shown to be applicable in the present action. The Court concludes that Defendant's Motion No. 79 is not well taken. It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant's Motion No. 79 is hereby overruled and denied. To the extent that other acts evidence is admitted at trial pursuant to Evid.R. 404(B), it is the intention of the Court to provide jury instructions consistent with applicable provisions of OJI and State v. Hartman, 161 Ohio St.3d 214, 2020-Ohio-4440. The Court may reconsider this ruling upon Defendant's Motion No. 79 at trial, if it appears that evidence as to "immutable characteristics" is introduced, rendering an instruction based upon Buck v. Davis appropriate and necessary.
At the hearing on May 2, 2022, the Court heard at length the oral arguments of the State of Ohio in support of the admissibility of "other acts" evidence, the notice of which is included in the State's "Notice of Intent To Use Other Acts Evidence Pursuant to 404(B)" filed on February 22, 2021, and the oral arguments of the Defendant in support of Defendant's Motion No. 82, entitled "Defendant's Objection And Motion In Limine To Prohibit The Introduction Of Other Acts Evidence At Trial."
The Court notes that at the hearing on May 2, 2022, the State of Ohio withdrew items number 3), 4) and 7) that appear on the fourth page of the State's "Notice of Intent To Use Other Acts Evidence Pursuant to 404(B)" filed on February 22, 2021. The withdrawn items stated as follows:
3) Instance of Defendant's father threatening Defendant's mother with a gun.
4) Allegations that Defendant's father has killed/plotted/threatened to kill others
before.
7) Defendant's father/co-defendant threatening Christopher Rhoden, Sr. with a
gun within a week of the homicides.
Having considered the written and oral arguments of counsel, the Court finds that, provided there is a threshold showing through evidence at trial that the act for which the evidence is offered occurred, the State has shown that each item of evidence the notice of which has been given is relevant to the particular purpose for which the State proposes to offer the evidence; that the purpose for which the State proposes to offer each such item of evidence is other than a purpose to show the Defendant's propensity to behave in a way consistent with guilt of the crimes with which he is charged in this action; that the non-propensity purpose for which each such item of evidence is offered is material to issues actually in dispute between the parties; and that the State has sufficiently shown the chain of reasoning that supports the non-propensity purpose for admitting each such item of evidence.
Specifically, the issue of the Defendant's identity as a participant in the crimes with which he is charged remains an issue in this action, notwithstanding the fact that co-defendants Edward Jacob Wagner and Angela Jo Wagner have each entered guilty pleas and it is apparently anticipated by the State of Ohio that their testimony will identify the Defendant as a participant in the crimes with which he is charged.
The Court also notes that the Defendant is charged in Count Nine of the Indictment with conspiracy to commit aggravated murder, murder, and/or aggravated burglary over the period on or about the 1st day of January, 2016, through the 12th day of November, 2018, and is charged in Count Twenty-One with engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity over the period on or about the 1st day of January, 2016 through November 12, 2018. The Court further notes that in its Bill of Particulars the State of Ohio provides notice that the State may try the Defendant under the complicity statute, Ohio Revised Code 2923.03(A)(1) through (A)(4), as well for each and every one of the offenses stated in the Bill of Particulars, even though they are stated in terms of the principal offense.
With respect to the nine numbered paragraphs indicated on the State of Ohio's Notice filed on February 22, 2021 as pertaining to the Defendant's and/or Defendant's brother/co-defendant's relationship with Hanna Rhoden, the Court finds that, if the evidence to be presented at trial is as indicated by the State's Notice and by the argument of the Special Prosecuting Attorney, such evidence would be relevant to show the tumultuous and strained relationship between the Wagner's, including the Defendant, herein, and Hanna Rhoden, and thus a motive for committing the crimes, and to show the immediate background of the alleged crimes, as well as to show a common scheme or plan to commit the crimes. Further, with respect to Count Nine and Count Twenty-One, such evidence is relevant to help explain how the alleged illegal relationship between the participants - allegedly the Defendant, his brother Edward Jacob Wagner, his father, George Washington Wagner, III, his mother, Angela Jo Wagner, and possibly others - developed; that the Defendant and Edward Jacob Wagner were part of the same alleged conspiracy and alleged criminal enterprise, and to prove the nature of the alleged conspiracy and the purpose of the alleged enterprise.
With respect to the seven numbered paragraphs indicated on the State's Notice as relating to Tabitha Claytor, the Court finds that, if the evidence that will be presented at trial is as indicated by the Notice and by the argument of the Special Prosecuting Attorney, such evidence would be relevant to show the Defendant's identity as a part of the alleged conspiracy and the alleged criminal enterprise, especially by showing a modus operandi.
If the evidence that will be presented at trial relating to Tabitha Claytor is as indicated by the State's Notice and by the Special Prosecuting Attorney's argument, the Court finds that such evidence would also be relevant to show an association-in-fact between the Defendant, and his brother Edward Jacob Wagner, his mother and his father to achieve a common objective, and to show the Defendant's motive in joining the alleged conspiracy and alleged criminal enterprise.
With respect to the five numbered paragraphs shown in the State's Notice filed on February 22, 2021 as relating to Elizabeth Wagner, the Court finds that, if the evidence that will be presented at trial is as indicated by the State's Notice and by the argument of the Special Prosecuting Attorney, such evidence would be relevant to prove the existence of a conspiracy involving the Defendant, his brother, Edward Jacob Wagner, and the Defendant's mother and father and to show the Defendant's motive in joining the alleged conspiracy and alleged criminal enterprise.
With respect to paragraphs 1), 2), 5), 6), 8), 9), 10), 11), 12), and 13), of the final part of the State's Notice filed on February 22, 2021, if the evidence that will be presented is as indicated by the State's Notice and by the Special Prosecuting Attorney's argument, then such evidence would be relevant to show the existence of a conspiracy, a pattern of corrupt activity and the existence of a criminal enterprise and the Defendant's motive in joining the alleged conspiracy and alleged criminal enterprise, as well as to show consciousness of guilt through evidence of the participants' efforts to hamper the investigation, to avoid detection, capture and prosecution, and to plan escape from incarceration.
The Court further finds that, if the evidence that will be presented at trial is as indicated in the State's Notice and in the Special Prosecuting Attorney's argument, then the probative value of the evidence is not outweighed by any danger of unfair prejudice, of confusion of the issues, or of misleading the jury if such evidence is admitted at trial.
The Court therefore finds and concludes that the Defendant's Motion No. 82, requesting that this Court issue an order in limine prohibiting the State of Ohio from introducing other acts evidence at trial, is not well taken, and it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion No. 82 is hereby overruled and denied.
The Court then inquired of the Defendant whether he is satisfied with the frequency with which he is seeing his attorneys, and the Defendant indicated that he is satisfied. The Court further inquired of the Defendant whether he is satisfied with the services being provided by his attorneys in representing him in this action, and the Defendant indicated that he is satisfied. Upon further inquiry by the Court, the Defendant indicated that he has no complaints concerning the process or the proceedings.

There being no further matters before the Court, the hearing was adjourned.

link: https://www.pikecountycpcourt.org/e...flaEAB9ZG26YSAqmcqj35O4l7Al4ix2yxN3b4XxQAjuzA
Thank you for all of this and all you do!
 

Dudly

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 8, 2016
Messages
3,131
Reaction score
13,141
I don't think it'll have much effect on these trials going forward. Or does something like move quickly? I can't visualise him as a judge, JMO a fat, lazy slob, nodding off in court isn't what you need I'm Court.
He is running unopposed so he can’t lose.
It would be interesting to know his actual involvement in this case since AC was hired…
 

Ann99

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
1,513
Reaction score
7,384
I saw that, too. Just a speculation, but I'm guessing AC conceded to remove those three items from the other acts regarding GW4 because they are all other acts allegedly committed by BW and not GW4 directly. JMO
I agree with you but I’ll add this.
I had a random thought. Speculation only. MO

Because G4 is claiming Billy could have/would have killed JW and G4 only went along to protect JW (or something ridiculous with that general idea) AC may want to remove any reference or debate as to if Billy had killed or murdered in the past, (even though I don't doubt that Billy has done so) any reference that could support G4 claim, (claim, meaning a lie) and it is only a lie as we all know.
I assume these three items will remain on Billy’s paperwork.
MO
 

Ann99

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
1,513
Reaction score
7,384
He is running unopposed so he can’t lose.
It would be interesting to know his actual involvement in this case since AC was hired…
MO
I would bet his involvement is minimal. Also bet AC keeps him at that minimum on purpose.
I was stunned when he was allowed to be involved or appointed to this case. He should not have been on it at all.
MO
 
Last edited:

Ann99

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
1,513
Reaction score
7,384
So GW4 attorneys are saying that Jake and Angela are lying so what about Billy, I wonder what or who he is going to put blame on?
MO
Ive come to realize that Billy has great difficulty forming a thought or speaking a sentence. Has anyone actually heard him speak more than one word responses?
So, I agree with you, Billy’s response (though his attorney) will be interesting.
 

Ann99

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
1,513
Reaction score
7,384
GW4's attorney that is a younger guy and has a shaved head is Parker and the middle-aged attorney with brown hair is Nash, right?

Nash has the shaved head and Parker is the middle aged/older man. When Parker joined the team is when G4 case starting becoming much more active.
You're not alone, I constantly get the two names muddled.
Lol, I had been constantly confused until I developed a way to remember.
Nash = N = No hair
my opinion and speculation.
 

Cool Cats

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2018
Messages
7,937
Reaction score
55,201
@dudley:
I think he was getting SSI (yes) and not Disability Social Security…Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is a Federal income supplement program funded by general tax revenues (not Social Security taxes):

The same year he was indicted, Billy Wagner filed for bankruptcy. His wife is also named in the filing made in federal court in the Southern District of Ohio.

Their assets were listed at about $2,500, and their liabilities at about $10,000, including almost $2,500 owed to Sears for clothing, $500 in medical bills and $325 in unpaid utility bills.

Their only monthly income listed was $530 in (SSI) payments and $389 in food stamps.

 
Last edited:
Top