Speaker 1: This just in today. Attorneys for George Wagner, the fourth
Speaker 1: sake there is proof he did not kill any of
Speaker 1: the eight victims and therefore could avoid the death penalty.
Speaker 1: Judge Randy Deering heard an impassioned plea from George Wagner's attorney,
Speaker 1: who said his client never pulled a trigger on the
Speaker 1: night eight members of the Rodent family were killed execution style.
Speaker 1: The state made a deal with the devil. Basically, so far,
Speaker 1: Edward Jake Wagner and his mother, Angela Wagner have confessed
Speaker 1: to prosecutors and have agreed to testify against the rest
Speaker 1: of the family. George and Billy Wagner are still going
Speaker 1: through the court process. The trial has been sent for
Speaker 1: April of next year. This is George Wagner's defense attorney
Speaker 1: talking about Jake Wagner. He's the person that is most
Speaker 1: responsible for this. He's the actual killer. He's the actual shooter.
Speaker 1: He's the one that snuck into these homes in the
Speaker 1: middle of the night and shot the victims in the head.
Speaker 1: All right, Our client didn't shoot anybody made the double
Speaker 1: in this case. Four of the individuals are charged in
Speaker 1: This is the piked in massacre returned to Pike County
Speaker 1: Season three, Episode four, State of Ohio Versus George Wagner
Speaker 1: The Fourth. I'm Courtney Armstrong, a television producer at Katie
Speaker 1: Studios with Stephanie Lydecker and Jeff Shane, with both Jake
Speaker 1: and Angela taking plea deals. The possible outcome of George
Speaker 1: Wagner's trial seems on the surface limited in scope. It
Speaker 1: is anything but that the defense is trying to position
Speaker 1: themselves to win the case by limiting what evidence will
Speaker 1: be admissible through a series of motions. Each motion involves
Speaker 1: a request to the court by the defense to make
Speaker 1: a decision on a specific issue before the trial begins.
Speaker 1: Here's retired prosecutor and Flanagan. If you look at any trial,
Speaker 1: it is the state that has to put out everything.
Speaker 1: It's like throwing a party and you're the host or
Speaker 1: hostess and you have to have everything ready. Well, you
Speaker 1: might have a guest on the other side who's going
Speaker 1: to come and say, well, you didn't get yes, you
Speaker 1: didn't do this, you didn't do that. So all they
Speaker 1: have to do is whittle away at the state's witnesses
Speaker 1: and evidence. It's up to the judge to make a
Speaker 1: decision on each of these changes. In this episode, we're
Speaker 1: taking a deep dive into George Wagner's pre trial and
Speaker 1: how these motions could radically change the outcome of the trial.
Speaker 1: Two motions eighty and eighty one have been introduced specifically
Speaker 1: to keep evidence off the table for a capital murder
Speaker 1: case like George's. It could mean the difference between life
Speaker 1: and death, and as we'll find out, even with their
Speaker 1: plea deals in place, it could affect whether Jake and
Speaker 1: Angela reopen them selves to the death penalty. The first
Speaker 1: motion will discuss is eighty one. Here's journalist Angeanette Levy,
Speaker 1: followed by criminal attorney and legal analyst Mike Allen. They're
Speaker 1: both speaking with producer Chris Graves. On January tenth of
Speaker 1: twenty twenty two, the defense for George Wagner filed motion
Speaker 1: number eighty one, and it was a motion to suppress
Speaker 1: audio recordings. And the thing they're taking issue with in
Speaker 1: this motion is the fact that apparently BCI agents and
Speaker 1: other law enforcement involved in this case placed listening devices
Speaker 1: in a truck that was driven by both George Wagner
Speaker 1: and Jake Wagner before the Wagners were arrested in twenty eighteen.
Speaker 1: Hundreds of hours of audio were recorded by Ohio BCI.
Speaker 1: I'm looking at this and I'm thinking to myself, what
Speaker 1: on earth could be so damning in these recordings. There
Speaker 1: may be nothing, or there may be something. I don't know.
Speaker 1: This is all speculation at this point, but there might
Speaker 1: be something that George incriminated himself on that they're trying
Speaker 1: to suppress. Right, there would have to be, or they
Speaker 1: wouldn't go to the problem to file the motion, no
Speaker 1: question about it. Defense counsel wants something with respect to
Speaker 1: those statements thrown out. We just don't know what it is.
Speaker 1: So in your mind, George or someone in his cab
Speaker 1: or on some conversation possibly incriminated the family. Absolutely, absolutely,
Speaker 1: they wouldn't be going through all this if that weren't
Speaker 1: the case. To obtain the recordings, homicide detectives had to
Speaker 1: gain physical access to George's truck. Here's Stephanie and Jeff.
Speaker 1: I think there's a really big piece to the puzzle
Speaker 1: here about wire tapping and bugging, and there seems to
Speaker 1: be some sort of a difference between the two that
Speaker 1: is now really a big piece of George's defense. Wire
Speaker 1: tapping and bugging, I think often get confused, and you
Speaker 1: see wire and bugging a lot in movies and TV shows,
Speaker 1: but it's actually a little more nuanced than what you
Speaker 1: see on the screen. So how wire tapping works specifically
Speaker 1: is that you need to get permission from a phone
Speaker 1: company to tap into the cell transmission tower. And back
Speaker 1: in the old days, what you would see done in
Speaker 1: the movies is cops literally clipping wires to the phone
Speaker 1: line in the basement or something like that. But now
Speaker 1: it's all done remotely electronically, so in conjunction with the
Speaker 1: warrant served to the cell phone provider, officials are able
Speaker 1: to do it from the comfort of their office. Bugging
Speaker 1: literally is this transmitter with a microphone that needs to
Speaker 1: be planted someplace physically in a space where authorities would
Speaker 1: want to pick up conversations, which is, by the way,
Speaker 1: very interesting because they have to go through a very
Speaker 1: layered process to be able to get permission to bug
Speaker 1: a vehicle. Bugging is much more invasive because you're actually
Speaker 1: able to record private versations in someone's home or their car,
Speaker 1: and in this case, they were able to get all
Speaker 1: types of conversations that George Wagner was having, so law
Speaker 1: enforcement was apparently able to listen to and remotely record
Speaker 1: everything that was said in that truck twenty four to seven.
Speaker 1: I mean in person conversations, phone conversations, and even mister
Speaker 1: Wagner talking to himself. The defense is claiming that the
Speaker 1: recordings are inadmissible for a number of reasons, many pertaining
Speaker 1: to the fact that it was George's truck that was bugged.
Speaker 1: The case of the bugging is slightly complicated as it
Speaker 1: applies to the Wagner's because what the BCI bugged was
Speaker 1: not George's vehicle. It was the truck that he used
Speaker 1: for work, so he didn't own this big rigged truck.
Speaker 1: It was his employer's truck, and so presumably the BCI
Speaker 1: was given permission to access the vehicle from the employer
Speaker 1: and planted the bug when George was not with the truck.
Speaker 1: The type of truck George would drive is a typical
Speaker 1: semi that you see all over the country on the highways,
Speaker 1: and so the semi has a sleeper cab in the back,
Speaker 1: which is where the drivers go to take a rest,
Speaker 1: relax sleep for the night. So Ohio BCI agents put
Speaker 1: the bug in the sleeper cab portion of the semi truck,
Speaker 1: and this small detail is one of the four things
Speaker 1: the defense is using to get the motion dismissed. There
Speaker 1: could be an issue with that because that sleeper cabin
Speaker 1: on the semi could be analogized to being someone's home,
Speaker 1: and you know, for all intention purposes, it probably was
Speaker 1: when mister Wagner was on the road, and the house
Speaker 1: is the most constitutionally protected thing that there is, so
Speaker 1: there might be a potential problem there with the authorization itself.
Speaker 1: Because the truck was both not owned by George and
Speaker 1: served as a sleeping quarters, the defense may argue it
Speaker 1: is similar to bugging a hotel room. We also know
Speaker 1: that Jake was in the truck as well. At some
Speaker 1: point the two brothers were alone for hours or even
Speaker 1: days on the road and what they assumed was a
Speaker 1: completely private setting. That really does speak to the question
Speaker 1: of assumed privacy and conversations that may have happened between
Speaker 1: Jake and George. Allegedly, those conversations are probably very relevant
Speaker 1: for this trial. So the fact that the defense wants
Speaker 1: to question that speaks more to what they're potentially hiding.
Speaker 1: Here's Judge Pat dink a locker. This is interesting because
Speaker 1: we don't get bugging cases wire tapping cases much. When
Speaker 1: I looked through this, I thought to myself, if they
Speaker 1: had an expectation of privacy, the two of them, okay
Speaker 1: in the state illegally vied it that, then this is
Speaker 1: the proper motion that the judge could grant, say that
Speaker 1: they're not allowed to bring those audio recordings into evidence.
Speaker 1: Here's Judge Sylvia Hendon, who works as a visiting judge
Speaker 1: out of the Ohio Supreme Court. It's a violation sixth Amendment.
Speaker 1: We see that all the time. You have an expectation
Speaker 1: of privacy. Does your expectation of privacy increase if you're
Speaker 1: in a sleeper cab truck versus a regular cab truck.
Speaker 1: I don't know the answer to that. But again, speaking
Speaker 1: from an appellate perspective, I can tell you that whichever
Speaker 1: way Judge during goes on this, it's going to be
Speaker 1: an issue. I believe in an event of an appeal,
Speaker 1: I would have to believe that that motion to suppress
Speaker 1: is going to loom large in the Court of Appeals.
Speaker 1: In the event of a guilty finding, I will be
Speaker 1: very interested to see his ruling. If I'm employed by somebody,
Speaker 1: even if I'm sleeping there, I wouldn't think that I
Speaker 1: walk into a building or an entity owned by somebody
Speaker 1: else that's employing me. I wouldn't think that I would
Speaker 1: have an expect of privacy. Here's former BCI homicide investigator
Speaker 1: Seth Hageman testifying in court he oversaw the creation of
Speaker 1: the warrants for the Wagner case. So when you're installing devices,
Speaker 1: you need a search warrant in the county where you're
Speaker 1: going to install the device Correctly and specifically, you're talking
Speaker 1: about the search warrant that was installed in the RNL truck,
Speaker 1: correct that both the defendant, George Wagner and his brother
Speaker 1: Jake Wagner drove in tandem. Correct. To get approval to
Speaker 1: bug or wire tap, investigators must adhere to an even
Speaker 1: stricter protocol than a standard search warrant. They must also
Speaker 1: produce what's called an interception warrant. Interception warrants are inherently
Speaker 1: scrutinized to a greater degree because of the privacy issues
Speaker 1: that they raise, and there's very specific statutory requirements of
Speaker 1: other things. In addition to just the normal problem cause
Speaker 1: of the search warrant that needs to be addressed among
Speaker 1: the is not only do I have to show there's
Speaker 1: probable cause that a crime was committed, you have to
Speaker 1: show that there is probable cause that a specific person
Speaker 1: or person's committed that crime. You actually have to show
Speaker 1: that you've exhausted other methods of investigation that were less
Speaker 1: intrusive prior to applying for that, and so those are
Speaker 1: the different steps that make it more complicated in a
Speaker 1: much more difficult process to obtain. Hageman and ohio Bci
Speaker 1: felt that after months of the investigation, they had grounds
Speaker 1: to successfully lobby for an interception warrant. During the investigation,
Speaker 1: Inspector Hageman put together a lengthy report and submitted it
Speaker 1: for approval of an interception warrant to bug the Wagner's truck.
Speaker 1: The warrant was approved, giving homicide a period of thirty
Speaker 1: days to monitor the truck once the bug was installed.
Speaker 1: The state played it one hundred percent by the book,
Speaker 1: but the prosecution's case is complicated by the fact that
Speaker 1: ohio Bci coordinated the bugging of George's truck with his employer,
Speaker 1: and the defense has raised this as a second point
Speaker 1: of contention in their motion. Here again reporter Angrenette Levy,
Speaker 1: followed by attorney and legal analyst Mike Ellen. The defense
Speaker 1: is saying this basically violated George's rights because the owner
Speaker 1: of the truck allowed it to happen and he had
Speaker 1: an expectation of privacy. But I'm not really sure you
Speaker 1: have an expectation of privacy in a truck that your
Speaker 1: employer owns. Apparently the owner consented to the bug, but
Speaker 1: it's a case of where the owner is actually acting
Speaker 1: as the government's agent and authorizing that, and there could
Speaker 1: be problems with that. It probably would be upheld. You know.
Speaker 1: It all depends on what the cops probable cause for
Speaker 1: the search warrant to do that would be, And I
Speaker 1: think that's one of the sticking points on this one.
Speaker 1: There is a third complicating issue for the prosecution. Much
Speaker 1: of the audio was recorded across state lines. Would any
Speaker 1: statement that is given outside of the state of Ohio
Speaker 1: be valid under that warrant. I don't have the warrant,
Speaker 1: so I don't know for sure, but I think that's
Speaker 1: going to be questioned as well. Usually warrants are just
Speaker 1: limited to the geographical jurisdiction, and in this case, it'd
Speaker 1: be Pike County and or the state of Ohio. But
Speaker 1: let's just say he said something incriminating in Tennessee. I
Speaker 1: don't know. I mean, there may be problems with that too.
Speaker 1: If it was a federal warrant, then they'd be okay,
Speaker 1: But a state warrant, they might have some issues with that.
Speaker 1: I've not researched it. I've never encountered it ever as
Speaker 1: an attorney, law student, whatever, But it's an issue that
Speaker 1: if I were defense counsel, I'd be pursuing it. The
Speaker 1: defense also claims that the investigators on the case tried
Speaker 1: to eat the Wagner brothers into incriminating themselves. They talk
Speaker 1: about in the motion that they were trying to stimulate
Speaker 1: incriminating conversation by initiating the contact, and that could be
Speaker 1: problematic for the government too. I mean, if a statement
Speaker 1: is freely and voluntarily given, then there's no problem with it.
Speaker 1: But if the government induces someone to make a statement,
Speaker 1: that could be problematic. What I also thought was very
Speaker 1: interesting about this was the fact that police would actually
Speaker 1: put things out on social media in hopes that one
Speaker 1: of the Wagners, or specifically Angela Wagner accused killer Mom
Speaker 1: that she would see these posts and that would maybe
Speaker 1: stir up conversation that they would then have with each other,
Speaker 1: and then those conversations would be bugged. This is actually
Speaker 1: called tickling the wire, and tickling the wire means that
Speaker 1: the Feds have wire taps in place and are placing
Speaker 1: stories and then waiting for revealing conversations to happen because
Speaker 1: of said stories. And that's the question, specifically, is that
Speaker 1: baiting or is that just good process. Angela Wagner's mother,
Speaker 1: Rita Joe Newcombe, was sent a court order to have
Speaker 1: these conversations where she would go with the boys into
Speaker 1: having further conversations with her mother and father about the crimes.
Speaker 1: Remember when she got arrested, her mother also got arrested.
Speaker 1: That's Rita Newcome. So here is Rita trying to get
Speaker 1: herself also out of this mess that she was dragged
Speaker 1: into because she was accused of all this forgery with
Speaker 1: the original custody documents. Now she's basically working with BCI
Speaker 1: to start conversations with the Wagner boys to hopefully get
Speaker 1: them to say something incriminating and that just shows the
Speaker 1: dissension between mother daughter, that's her grandsons and that's her
Speaker 1: daughter and her son in law. Rida Nucombe was charged
Speaker 1: with forgery, perjury, and obstructing justice. In twenty nineteen, Nwcombe
Speaker 1: reached a plea deal and those charges were dropped. She
Speaker 1: ultimately pleaded guilty to a reduced misdemeanor charge of obstructing
Speaker 1: official business. It must have been probably a hard celt
Speaker 1: to swallow. We know she didn't have much choice because
Speaker 1: it was a court order, but at this point we
Speaker 1: do know a little bit of her frame of mind.
Speaker 1: According to her son, Chris Newcomb, that she felt really
Speaker 1: betrayed by Angela. She has her son and other grandchildren
Speaker 1: to look out for and so if Angela and her
Speaker 1: sect of the family are not going to look out
Speaker 1: for her, why is she going to look out for them?
Speaker 1: I mean, that must have been the most brutal decision
Speaker 1: to have to make. Do you actually turn against your
Speaker 1: own daughter and your grandsons and your son in law.
Speaker 1: And by the way, it must have worked and got
Speaker 1: them talking, because the defense is adamant that they do
Speaker 1: not want these conversations to be a part of any
Speaker 1: of this moving forward. So you could imagine those conversations
Speaker 1: must be very telling. During testimony, Seth Hagman confirmed the
Speaker 1: success of this approach in the past. How many other
Speaker 1: interception warrants would you say that you've been a part of.
Speaker 1: We already has been related to a cool case homicide
Speaker 1: four or five. And in those situations, did you use
Speaker 1: this same method as far as tickling the wire or
Speaker 1: provoket of acts or whatever your terminology is for that. Yes,
Speaker 1: in every single one, even the ones that had some
Speaker 1: level of correct crime happening, we would use some level
Speaker 1: of tickling the wire just to try to get conversation
Speaker 1: about those past events. Okay, And have you been met
Speaker 1: with success in those efforts? There were success in all
Speaker 1: of them. In most cases we've developed information that's led
Speaker 1: to either ongoing prosecutions or guilty pleas or verdicts. And
Speaker 1: in another case I've actually exonerated someone using that method.
Speaker 1: Here again, as attorney my Gallen, it's just a real
Speaker 1: fine line as far as inducement. The government has some flexibility,
Speaker 1: but still, I mean, they can't elicitly for an illicit
Speaker 1: purpose to goad them into making a comment. Every case
Speaker 1: rises and falls on its own set of facts. And
Speaker 1: I know that's not really a helpful answer, but it's
Speaker 1: an accurate answer. Besides investigators and the Wagners themselves, no
Speaker 1: one but the prosecution and defense know what is on
Speaker 1: those tapes. If the guy makes some incriminating statements and
Speaker 1: they are validly taken, that's a problem. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: a problem for the defense because they are stuck with them.
Speaker 1: If you were in the prosecution's seat and you saw
Speaker 1: this come down, what are you thinking? Well as the prosecution,
Speaker 1: I mean, I would fight as hard as I could,
Speaker 1: obviously to make sure the judge keeps it in. But again,
Speaker 1: I'm just assuming that they've got a lot of other
Speaker 1: evidence as well. But the defense attorney's doing his job here.
Speaker 1: I mean, he wants to whittle away at Stage's evidence
Speaker 1: as much as he can. And you know, this is
Speaker 1: all a part of it. She's so hard to say
Speaker 1: how much it would damage the stage case when we
Speaker 1: don't know what other cards they're holding. We're going to
Speaker 1: take a break. We'll be back in a moment. Another motion,
Speaker 1: Motion eighty has been put forth by the defense to
Speaker 1: block Jake and Angelis testimony. It's another possible game changer
Speaker 1: as part of his plea deal, Jake makes many claims
Speaker 1: that seemingly exonerate George of the worst aspects of this
Speaker 1: grizzly massacre. Here again Chris Graves speaking with retired prosecutor
Speaker 1: and Flanagan. This is from Jake's profferty. Jake has stated
Speaker 1: clearly that George did not shoot new One, did not
Speaker 1: fire a shot, was not supposed to go with Jake
Speaker 1: and Billy on the murder spree, and only when it's
Speaker 1: a last second to protect Jake from Billy, who was
Speaker 1: thought he might kill Jake at the end of the
Speaker 1: series of accurgated murders, presumably to get rid of a witness.
Speaker 1: Do you never really emotions to suppress the testimony of
Speaker 1: someone else, So he has still the capability of trying
Speaker 1: to show some kind of dishonesty on Jake's part, or
Speaker 1: that he's not testifying truthfully. But what they're a thing
Speaker 1: the court to do is to take this away to
Speaker 1: suppress their statements before the jury ever gets to hear it.
Speaker 1: Grounds to suppress are usually based on misconduct of officers.
Speaker 1: Was their coercive activity on the part of officers and
Speaker 1: they weren't coerce clearly Angela and Jake. For one thing,
Speaker 1: the defense attorneys here don't represent the Angela or Jake,
Speaker 1: so they don't have standing to suppress their statements. Because
Speaker 1: they're representing George, they can move to suppress his statements,
Speaker 1: but not Jake's and Angela. So this is somewhat novel.
Speaker 1: They're trying to suppress it, not because of any course
Speaker 1: of activity, but because he might be motivated to lie
Speaker 1: under oath because he wants to get his agreement enforced.
Speaker 1: So our proffers done under oath they can be. They
Speaker 1: don't have to be. I don't know how they did
Speaker 1: it here. I know I have done that on occasion
Speaker 1: when I have a co defendant or someone that's going
Speaker 1: to cooperate, I have tried to get it under oath.
Speaker 1: In case they don't testify in accordance with it, I
Speaker 1: can bring that up and cross examine them. Look, you
Speaker 1: gave a sworn statement before you under oath. You said
Speaker 1: it was the truth, and you're now you're saying this,
Speaker 1: So I'm assuming they may have done that, but it's
Speaker 1: not required. It's possible Jake could have lied to get
Speaker 1: out of the death penalty or said what he had
Speaker 1: to say to save his brother. You're obviously putting some trust,
Speaker 1: in some faith in his statement. You're putting somebody up
Speaker 1: there to testify to this when you may not be
Speaker 1: exactly sure that he's telling the whole truth. And that
Speaker 1: happens sometimes in cases where somebody they're telling you the truth,
Speaker 1: but maybe not the whole truth. Like you're not getting
Speaker 1: the whole story, the entire story, but you're basically getting
Speaker 1: what happened, but not every little detail. Because maybe Jake
Speaker 1: was trying to protect his brother at some point too.
Speaker 1: You know, maybe he's thinking, God, I can't take my
Speaker 1: brother down with me. I'm not sure why father would
Speaker 1: kill his son or why another son would be fearful
Speaker 1: of That affects even the motivation. Potentially is Billy the mastermind? Yeah, mastermind?
Speaker 1: And also to his motive if he's trying to eliminate witnesses.
Speaker 1: And certainly she think this is not the most functional family.
Speaker 1: The presumption has been that it was Angela who kind
Speaker 1: of masterminded everything. And I'm not saying she's not deserving.
Speaker 1: I don't know here, but we're hard on matriarchs sometimes
Speaker 1: or mothers, And did we do that legitimately It does
Speaker 1: really kind of make you think who was calling your
Speaker 1: shops in this operation? If that's indeed true, that George
Speaker 1: only went along at the last minute to protect his
Speaker 1: brother from their father, what was going on there? What
Speaker 1: is Billy capable of? I mean, I guess George in
Speaker 1: this scenario was ready to die for his brother protecting him.
Speaker 1: That would be one hell of a car ride, wouldn't it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I don't know much about Billy. Nobody's spoken about Billy
Speaker 1: very much. Is that the kind of defense they're fashioning,
Speaker 1: That he's here to protect Jake from big Dad Billy
Speaker 1: and that they're both afraid of him? And how is
Speaker 1: he going to protect him from bad Billy unless he
Speaker 1: hits a firearm? Maybe? Do you know what kind of
Speaker 1: dad he was? I was here with Jake and George.
Speaker 1: He's an asshole. Chris knwcom, who we've heard from before,
Speaker 1: is Angela Agner's half brother. Now, Karen Billy get into
Speaker 1: some screaming matches. Billy's about a useless sustance on a borehole.
Speaker 1: That's the guy who run the truth up. How do
Speaker 1: you mean? I mean that man is one hundred percent
Speaker 1: just lazy and hale useless, always conniving on something, trying
Speaker 1: to think how to do something, to make a quick book.
Speaker 1: I think the most horseless human being I think I've
Speaker 1: ever met in my life. Despite Billy's nature, angelisted by
Speaker 1: his side. Some see a parallel with Angela's dad, Eddie
Speaker 1: pug Carter. I knew him, his hug Carter. He always
Speaker 1: wore this slight metal brace and he walked with a limp.
Speaker 1: What I heard from my dad was that he would
Speaker 1: five electric holes and still copper or something off the holes,
Speaker 1: and he's got electric huted and it affected his walking.
Speaker 1: It could be that Angela was fiercely loyal to Bill
Speaker 1: because he reminded her of her father. At the end
Speaker 1: of the day, the prosecution in this particular case is
Speaker 1: focused on one job, putting George Wagner behind bars, or
Speaker 1: possibly even sending him to death row. It will be
Speaker 1: up to the jury to navigate the muddy waters of
Speaker 1: the Wagner family dynamic. If you are a group of
Speaker 1: people and you are going to go do something, if
Speaker 1: one person holds back and says, now, I'm not going
Speaker 1: to do this, it may not happen. If two do,
Speaker 1: certainly it may not happen. But when you hear these
Speaker 1: people bolstering each other and actually sharing ideas and dynamics,
Speaker 1: they're just as much a part of all that ended
Speaker 1: up happening as the person who actually pulled the trigger.
Speaker 1: And I know that, and I think jurors know that,
Speaker 1: and people know that, But will they really hold them accountable?
Speaker 1: It's a little harder to understand how the police are
Speaker 1: going to work into the trial. Actually presiding over four
Speaker 1: separate cases is a lot easier than presiding over four
Speaker 1: people together, because in a separate case, you're focused on
Speaker 1: that particular defendant. Now you're still going to have to
Speaker 1: keep things straight. You're going to have to know when
Speaker 1: to exclude evidence. There's a lot of rules about confessions
Speaker 1: of co defendants that you're going to have to follow.
Speaker 1: But to try to balance a case with four defendants,
Speaker 1: because right away you've got eight lawyers. If you're talking
Speaker 1: about a capital murder case, so you've got a minimum
Speaker 1: of eight lawyers, four defendants, and lordliners how many witnesses.
Speaker 1: Let's stop here for another break. Without the audio from
Speaker 1: George's truck, the jury will not get to hear what
Speaker 1: the detectives heard in private conversations between the brothers, and
Speaker 1: if the defense's motions are successful, Jake and Angeli's testimony
Speaker 1: will be off the table as well. Would you be
Speaker 1: concerned if it's a live witness and Angela steps on
Speaker 1: the stand and she's facing her oldest son testifying against them,
Speaker 1: is there a word that might cause her not to Yeah,
Speaker 1: ny witness who's somewhat involved with the defense. Even though
Speaker 1: they've said they're testifying and they've given good information to pass,
Speaker 1: you have to wonder what's the physical, visceral effects, emotional
Speaker 1: effect of sitting in front of that person. Will they freeze?
Speaker 1: Will they talk? Will they tell us what they've told
Speaker 1: us before? This brings us to the final issue. The
Speaker 1: defense and prosecution must navigate how Jake and Angela's plea
Speaker 1: deal relates to these motions and what that means for
Speaker 1: the future of all four Wagners. As of now, the
Speaker 1: death penalty is still on the table for George Wagner,
Speaker 1: and Jake and Angela's deal to avoid death row is
Speaker 1: not guaranteed. It's contingent upon their testimony being what the
Speaker 1: court calls to the satisfaction of the prosecution. We look
Speaker 1: at this family and their story keeps changing, and I
Speaker 1: am curious to know what the air quote satisfaction of
Speaker 1: the prosecution even means. Does that mean that if Jake
Speaker 1: and Angela, who we know have taken plea agreements, if
Speaker 1: they don't deliver the goods, then what is their death
Speaker 1: sentence put back on the table or all of their
Speaker 1: death sentences put back on the table? Who decides the
Speaker 1: satisfaction piece? It would be the prosecution. And so basically,
Speaker 1: under the terms of their deal, they probably agreed to
Speaker 1: the version of events of that night and the months
Speaker 1: they let up to the crime. And so if once
Speaker 1: they're on the stand under oath and they don't stick
Speaker 1: to the script for lack of a better term, than
Speaker 1: the whole deal would be off and death penalty would
Speaker 1: be back on the table for the entire family. Georgia's
Speaker 1: sticking to his not guilty plea, which would imply that
Speaker 1: he's not involved in this at all, And so Jake
Speaker 1: and Angela's testimony, which we can assume is going to
Speaker 1: say something along the lines of will. While George might
Speaker 1: not have pulled the trigger, he certainly knew about the
Speaker 1: murders and might have been there the night of the
Speaker 1: murders and helped cover the murders up, and so that
Speaker 1: testimony is going to be pretty damning for his not
Speaker 1: guilty plea. It does also speak to the fact that
Speaker 1: there are so many endings that could still be you know,
Speaker 1: we see plea deals and you think that's the end
Speaker 1: of the road for Jake Wagner, but now that's not so.
Speaker 1: There's a big performance ahead and he and now his mother,
Speaker 1: who he's essentially working with and against at the same time.
Speaker 1: How this plays out in court with George and then
Speaker 1: later Billy Dad, every piece of it affects the other person.
Speaker 1: So the totality of it is massive, and this whole
Speaker 1: case from the beginning has been utterly unpredictable. And so
Speaker 1: to assume when Billy and George's trials start that we
Speaker 1: know what's going to happen and we know what Jake
Speaker 1: and Angela are going to say when they're on the stand,
Speaker 1: I think would be naive. I think what we can
Speaker 1: assume is that we don't really know the ending yet.
Speaker 1: We've been told several theories even just this season alone,
Speaker 1: that speak to a larger plot happening behind the scenes,
Speaker 1: and that it's possible that the Wagoners are lying, Jake
Speaker 1: may have a hand in deciding whether he and his
Speaker 1: brother live or die. It's also possible the defense and
Speaker 1: prosecution don't know the whole story that Angela and Jake
Speaker 1: have to tell. There's a tenseness about it that isn't
Speaker 1: there with other cases. We don't know what other evidence exists,
Speaker 1: you know, we just don't know, to be honest with you, though,
Speaker 1: it all depends on what their story is on that
Speaker 1: day in a courtroom, face to face with the son,
Speaker 1: with a brother and a jury of their peers, I mean,
Speaker 1: with whisperings of Carton involvement and other rumors still lingering
Speaker 1: in Pike County. If given the opportunity to test, if
Speaker 1: I could Jake and Angela Wagner choose to blow this
Speaker 1: whole thing up? Or are they being put up to
Speaker 1: it behind bars? We have heard many rumors regarding the
Speaker 1: Cartel and that there's a larger story happening here, and
Speaker 1: that the Rodents murder was not just merely over custody,
Speaker 1: but that there's larger issues at play with some different
Speaker 1: dealings between the families, and that's dangerous stuff. And maybe
Speaker 1: it's possible that the Wagoners are safest behind Bars. More
Speaker 1: on that next time. If you're enjoying The Pikes and Massacre,
Speaker 1: listen to our other hit series, Crazy and Love. New
Speaker 1: episodes there every Tuesday wherever you get your podcasts. For
Speaker 1: more information and case photos, follow us on Instagram at
Speaker 1: Katie Underscore Studios. The Pikes and massacres produced by Stephanie Lydecker,
Speaker 1: Jeff Shane, Chris Graves and me Courtney Armstrong. Editing and
Speaker 1: sound designed by Jeff Tis, music by Jared Aston, audio
Speaker 1: mixing by Ken Novak. The Piked and Massacre is a
Speaker 1: production of Katie Studios and iHeartRadio. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio,
Speaker 1: visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen
Speaker 1: to your favorite shows.