Very interesting. I never thought of that, that maybe George did actually shoot but missed, thus, all the hoopla about George not shooting anyone.
If this were the case then I suspect George shot at Chris Sr. from outside his home. Maybe even was the one who shot the bullet through the floor into the dirt under the house.
They say George didn't shoot anybody but they do not say that George did not shoot AT anybody.
My feeling is that George did shoot someone, possibly Gary, and that mom and brother are covering up. I just read that the lawyers want to distance George from the crime as far as possible and to say he shot nobody and had no intent are 2 ways to do this.
Change of venue in Wagner murder trial denied by Pike County Judge Prosecutors said George Wagner will “try to distance himself from the heinous crimes.”
Also add on:
A defense attorney argued Wednesday that prosecutors should remove the death penalty from charges against a Pike County resident accused in the slayings of eight people in 2016, an attack authorities described as one of the state’s most heinous crimes.
www.cleveland.com
1.) George wasn't sopose to go out that night.
2.) George went at the last minute to protect Jake from Billy.
3.) George tried to talk them out of the murders.
In documents filed last week, defense attorneys cited Jake Wagner’s confession. They said it contained information that his brother “was not supposed to accompany Jake and his father and only went along at the ‘last second’ to protect Jake from their father.”
They added that George Wagner “tried to talk [his family members] out of these murders.”
Canepa said the defense attorneys cherrypicked snippets from Jake Wagner’s detailed statement. She said the confession was clear: “He implicated his brother.”
Also add on trying to get Motions thrown out.
1.) Shoe print expert.
2.) Other Acts.
3.) Jake and Angela's testimony.
4.) Change to a different venue out of Pike County.
5.) Motion and order to seal Jury list.
Docket - WAGNER, IV, GEORGE WASHINGTON
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.