Speaker 1: No Wagner family DNA was found on a crime scene.
Speaker 1: Does it matter to this case? I would say that
Speaker 1: they absolutely need some sort of physical evidence. It clearly
Speaker 1: isn't happening with the DNA, is the shoe prints, and
Speaker 1: it's the ballistics that's got juror's eyes were glued to
Speaker 1: the latest witness to testify in George Wagner the Fourth's
Speaker 1: murder trial. This is the Piked and Massacre returned to
Speaker 1: Pike County season four, episode nine, Connecting the dots. I'm
Speaker 1: Courtney Armstrong, a television producer at Katie Studios, with Stephanie
Speaker 1: Lydecker and Jeff Shane. It's important to note that George
Speaker 1: Wagner has pleaded not guilty and has maintained he did
Speaker 1: not kill anyone. His father, Billy Wagner, whose trial is upcoming,
Speaker 1: has also pleaded not guilty to all charges. Here's Stephanie
Speaker 1: and Jeff speaking about some of the revelations from the
Speaker 1: autopsy results. They mentioned doctor Karen Luhman, who you may
Speaker 1: remember is the forensic pathologist who performed all at autopsies
Speaker 1: and testified at the child How were three people at
Speaker 1: Dana Roden's home shot in their sleep. I just am
Speaker 1: trying to wrap my head around how the perpetrators were
Speaker 1: able to walk around home shooting one person at a
Speaker 1: time without waking anyone else up. And also, one thing
Speaker 1: that I thought was interesting about Luman's testimony was how
Speaker 1: she determined that some of the shots fired that night
Speaker 1: were what she called at intermediate range, which is essentially
Speaker 1: anywhere between three inches and three feet from someone, and
Speaker 1: then others weren't. She said that's based on something called stippling,
Speaker 1: or actual evidence of damage to the victim, based on
Speaker 1: how close the muzzle of the gun was to the
Speaker 1: victim itself. Some victims had that and were seemingly shot
Speaker 1: at close range, but some didn't. So the choreographing of
Speaker 1: all of that seems so complicated. Who was where when?
Speaker 1: This morning? Lead Prosecutor Angie Kaneppa begins by addressing exactly
Speaker 1: this question. Back on the stand is doctor Karen Luhman
Speaker 1: speaking about Hannah Hazel Gilly's injuries? Can you tell us
Speaker 1: where was gunshot? Wound number one located on the diagram.
Speaker 1: Number one is on the far left. It looks like
Speaker 1: it's on the right forehead. It's a little more on
Speaker 1: the side of the forehead. Doctor, can you tell us
Speaker 1: what did you determine the distance to be of that
Speaker 1: gunshot wound? That is intermediate? And again that intermediate is
Speaker 1: somewhere not contact or lose contact, but somewhere less than
Speaker 1: three feet Yeah, okay, Shots two, three, and four we're indeterminate,
Speaker 1: while shot five was again close range or what she
Speaker 1: calls intermediate. When you conducted your examination of Hannah Rode in,
Speaker 1: how many gunshot wounds did you observe her to have? Two?
Speaker 1: And can you tell us if you determined a distance? Yes?
Speaker 1: And what was that it was indetermined? Canepa has a
Speaker 1: chart where she keeps track of the myriad of gunshots,
Speaker 1: some at a distance, some close, all while the victims
Speaker 1: were asleep. Then she brings up the idea of how
Speaker 1: this might be affected by the use of a silencer.
Speaker 1: And doctor loman I believe you testified to this before.
Speaker 1: But do you know or do you have an opinion
Speaker 1: if there was a silencer used on a weapon, could
Speaker 1: that possibly impact your distance determinations? It possibly could? Yes, Okay.
Speaker 1: The defense has no choice but to address the introduction
Speaker 1: of a possible use of a silencer as well. On
Speaker 1: the last one, of the last points the prostitute made
Speaker 1: the silence, How would that impact determination of the distance?
Speaker 1: A silencer in general would fit around or in the
Speaker 1: area of the muzzle, and it could capture some of
Speaker 1: the soot or stipling that normally would have landed on
Speaker 1: clothes or the body. It may capture that. So, if
Speaker 1: I understand what you're saying, the distance could actually be
Speaker 1: closer than what you have observed. Yes, this is a
Speaker 1: turning point in the trial. It's the first of many
Speaker 1: loose threads that the prosecution finally begins to weave together
Speaker 1: for a jury, a public, and a media weary after
Speaker 1: weeks of detail specific testimony. So far, the prosecution has
Speaker 1: worked in a meticulous linear fashion, laying out the grizzly
Speaker 1: narrative that they want the jury to consider. Here's long
Speaker 1: crime reporter Anjeanette Levy. I've covered a lot of trials
Speaker 1: my career, a lot of criminal cases, but I've never
Speaker 1: seen one presented in this fashion in court, where it's
Speaker 1: all chronological or goes in chronological order of the investigation.
Speaker 1: You know, it's a two and a half year investigation
Speaker 1: between the time of the homicides and the arrest sometimes
Speaker 1: it just feels like we're bouncing around a lot. You know,
Speaker 1: it'll be up to the jury to determine whether or
Speaker 1: not that was a good strategy. I've often wondered, are
Speaker 1: they confused by this? Here's James Pilcher, longtime investigative reporter
Speaker 1: in Cincinnati, now with Local twelve. When it comes to
Speaker 1: physical evidence, it's the shoe prints, and it's the ballistics
Speaker 1: without Guy. And this is exactly how the prosecution begins
Speaker 1: to connect the dots and tighten the new son George
Speaker 1: and the Wagner family. Today, prosecutors present some of the
Speaker 1: most crucial evidence yet in the trial of George Wagner
Speaker 1: the Fourth and the Pike County massacre. Local twelve James
Speaker 1: Pilcher reports on key footprints that were found at the scene.
Speaker 1: Susan Elliott, a shoeprint specialist for the AHIB Bureau of
Speaker 1: Criminal Investigation at the time of the murders, declined to
Speaker 1: be on camera with her testimony, but she matched footprints
Speaker 1: found at the first crime scene with an actual shoe
Speaker 1: style in size. Juror's eyes were glued to the latest
Speaker 1: witness to testify in George Wagner the Fourth's murder trial
Speaker 1: as she opened large pizza boxes inside pieces of flooring
Speaker 1: cut from one of the Pike County crime seats, the
Speaker 1: trailer on Union Hill Road where Chris Roden Senior and
Speaker 1: Gary Rodin were murdered. She said these impressions that have
Speaker 1: since been enhanced, were not in the crime lab's shoe database.
Speaker 1: You may recall from last season the testimony of shoeprint
Speaker 1: expert William Bodsiac during pre trial motions. Bodesiac, who worked
Speaker 1: on the oj Simpson case, stated that investigators finally found
Speaker 1: the model shoe that made the Prince at Walmart with
Speaker 1: Susan Elliott who made the actual discovery James Pilcher. She's
Speaker 1: the one to found at all. She was the one
Speaker 1: that new will be looking out for the Walmart shoes
Speaker 1: because she remembered, you know, our shoeprin expert found these
Speaker 1: shoes of Walmarts, so we need to be looking for
Speaker 1: anything for Walmar. Here is testimony from Brian Scheiterer had
Speaker 1: BCI investigator who provided testimony the same day about how
Speaker 1: they use that information As a result of learning that
Speaker 1: you were looking for a size eleven shoe that you
Speaker 1: believed belonged to whoever committed these murders, or at least
Speaker 1: one of the individuals. What did you guys do? In
Speaker 1: response to that information, it was decided that we would
Speaker 1: contact the walmarts within a fifty mile radius of Pike
Speaker 1: County and asked for all their records for transactions involving
Speaker 1: that shoe dated back to January first of twenty sixteen.
Speaker 1: In an addition to getting the records of any transactions,
Speaker 1: did you also get a request and receive video surveilance
Speaker 1: that corresponded with this y? As we know from previous episodes,
Speaker 1: this is how the recorded video of Angela buying the
Speaker 1: same model she is was found. Subsequently, they then seized
Speaker 1: a receipt from the purchase. Here's Jeff speaking with Mike
Speaker 1: Allen and your expertise as a lawyer. How big is
Speaker 1: this piece of evidence? It's really big because you've got
Speaker 1: the receipt for purchasing them, they match up in size,
Speaker 1: and then of course she got the bloody footprint in
Speaker 1: one of the trailers. So it's very strong evidence. And
Speaker 1: I think that's something that the jury is going to
Speaker 1: be thinking about. And do you think you know without
Speaker 1: DNA evidence, this shoeprint is maybe the closest thing we have.
Speaker 1: How much weight can the prosecution put on it? Oh,
Speaker 1: I think they can put a lot of weight on it.
Speaker 1: I mean the odds of it being some kind of
Speaker 1: coincidence are in the millions, So I think they'll put
Speaker 1: a lot of weight on It's it's real strong evidence
Speaker 1: for the statement. What's the defensive counter argument to this?
Speaker 1: How do they defend the shoe print? I guess you
Speaker 1: would have to argue that it's a pretty popular brand
Speaker 1: of shoe at Walmart. You'd have to do your homework
Speaker 1: and it. I don't know any other way to do that, because,
Speaker 1: like I said, it's such strong evidence, you'd have to
Speaker 1: argue that well, you know, it is what it is.
Speaker 1: But they were in a real tough position on that one.
Speaker 1: I don't know how they're going to do it. They're
Speaker 1: just going to have to argue coincidence, and I don't
Speaker 1: think the jury's going to buy that. Here's forensic death
Speaker 1: investigator Joseph Scott Morgan. Well, for me, shoper prints tell everything.
Speaker 1: The shoe prints are indicative of purpose. They're indicative of
Speaker 1: thought and air being taken when it comes to planning,
Speaker 1: because from where did the shop prints originate, well, they
Speaker 1: originated from a pair of shoes that were purchased for
Speaker 1: the sole purpose of, you know, following through with this
Speaker 1: horrible plan. We've already got Angela Wagner actually stating that
Speaker 1: she purchased the shoes and for them to have the
Speaker 1: utility to go out for them to commit these crops. Next,
Speaker 1: angel Wilson turns to ballistics. Mister White, where do you work?
Speaker 1: I work at the Bureau of Criminal Investigation also known
Speaker 1: as BCA in London, Ohio. We have been able to
Speaker 1: gather from preliminary motions and prosecution filings that there is
Speaker 1: a connection, they assert between shell casings found at at
Speaker 1: least one of the crime scenes and weapons link back
Speaker 1: to the Wagner family. So we do expect that this
Speaker 1: ballistics expert will prove a very important to this case.
Speaker 1: White is a striking presence on the stand. He wears
Speaker 1: a broad shouldered black three piece suit and sports a
Speaker 1: wide flat beard that ends the midway down his chest.
Speaker 1: When Matt White comes to work in London, Ohio, VCI,
Speaker 1: what does he do every day? Our primary duties involved
Speaker 1: examination of firearms to determine their operability, as well as
Speaker 1: looking at fired ammunition components, be it a fire cartridge
Speaker 1: case or a fire bullet. I can perform microscopic examinations
Speaker 1: to determine if they've been fired in or from a
Speaker 1: particular farm, and if not, I could generate a potential
Speaker 1: list of farms that could have been fired from. I
Speaker 1: want to take you back to April of two sixteen,
Speaker 1: April twenty sixteen, at some point where you asked to
Speaker 1: Adam of fads that have been collected as part of
Speaker 1: an investigation of an eight person homicide in Pike count Yes,
Speaker 1: I was, And can you tell the jury how were
Speaker 1: you initially brought into this case or asked to assist.
Speaker 1: My supervisors notified us that there was a larger case
Speaker 1: that was coming into the laboratory, and I just happened
Speaker 1: to be the person selected to work the case at
Speaker 1: the time. White goes on to testify that he identified
Speaker 1: two types of bullets at Chris Senior's home, thirty caliber
Speaker 1: bullets from a high profiled rifle and forty caliber bullets
Speaker 1: from an unknown firearm crime scene too. The home of
Speaker 1: Frankie Rowden and Hannah Hazela Gilly was a different story,
Speaker 1: were several of the items that you examined from this
Speaker 1: scene shell casings had been recovered by the crime scene unit.
Speaker 1: Yes they were. Yes, this is one fired watching long
Speaker 1: rifle cartridge case. The fact that that cartridge has the
Speaker 1: name long rifle, does that mean that it has to
Speaker 1: be or can only be fired out of a rifle. No,
Speaker 1: certainly not. Twenty long rifle cartridge is generic. It can
Speaker 1: be fired in a pistol, revolver, a rifle, any fire
Speaker 1: that's designed to actually fire that specific cartridge. Were you
Speaker 1: also ask to be I think it came from Seeing three. Yes,
Speaker 1: I was. Was one of the items that you were
Speaker 1: asked to look at with respect the scene three as
Speaker 1: shell casing. That was our cartridge casing that was recovered
Speaker 1: from under a crib in this residence. Yes, that's correct.
Speaker 1: This is a fire twenty two long rifle cartridge case
Speaker 1: remick and brand with a rectangular wedge shaped fine pin impressure.
Speaker 1: That item had the same general class characteristics as the
Speaker 1: shell casings that you just testified too from scene two. Yes,
Speaker 1: that's correct, and again or those consistent with the other
Speaker 1: projectiles recovered. An autopsy of the other victims have Seen
Speaker 1: three and the other victims have scene two. Yes, they
Speaker 1: are Stephanie and Jeff. So we have two types of
Speaker 1: bullets found at the scene. We have thirty caliber high
Speaker 1: powered rifle bullets and forty caliber bullets found in Chris
Speaker 1: Senior's home. And we know from Fortner's testimony last week
Speaker 1: that the thirty calibers were sprayed from outside the trailer
Speaker 1: and the forties were found to have gone through the
Speaker 1: floor and into the dirt below the home, so they
Speaker 1: were shot inside. Now here's where it gets confusing, because
Speaker 1: at Frankie and Dana Roden's homes they found twenty two
Speaker 1: caliber bullets. Does that mean that whoever did this, whether
Speaker 1: it's one person or many people, did they do that
Speaker 1: by switching out guns mid murder scene? Or does that
Speaker 1: mean they almost divided and conquered and that different family
Speaker 1: members were using different guns and that they were committing
Speaker 1: these murders simultaneously. They moved on to crime scene four,
Speaker 1: Kenneth Roden's house. If you recall there was only one
Speaker 1: shot fired Station Divot D two eighty two. You've already
Speaker 1: opened her up. Do you recognize the markings on that package? Yes,
Speaker 1: laboratory number, item number and my initials and we're able
Speaker 1: to examine that item and reach any conclusion with respect
Speaker 1: to brand and caliber associated with that Yes, I was
Speaker 1: able to conclude this as a fired forty Smith and
Speaker 1: Wesson cartridge case horn Day brand. Were you asked to
Speaker 1: make some comparisons in this case to determine whether or
Speaker 1: not certain pieces of evidence had been fired by the
Speaker 1: same weapon at each scene? Yes, I was. Were you
Speaker 1: able to reach a conclusion to a reasonable degree of
Speaker 1: scientific certainty as to whether or not the forty caliber
Speaker 1: shell casing a scene one was fired from the same
Speaker 1: firearm that fired the forty caliber shellcasing the scene forty Yes,
Speaker 1: microscopic comparison examining of the two fired forty Smith and
Speaker 1: Weston cartridge cases, I was able to conclude the two
Speaker 1: forty Smith and Weston cartridge cases had been fired in
Speaker 1: the same fire. Media outlets jumped on the breaking news. Today,
Speaker 1: prosecutors turned to the bullets used in all eight murders.
Speaker 1: The casings included a forty caliber shell found on Chris
Speaker 1: Senior's kitchen floor. He also showed the bullets to retrieved
Speaker 1: from the victim's bodies. His testimony came after another BCI
Speaker 1: agent walked through the crime scene where police found Chris
Speaker 1: Senior's brother, Kenneth Rowden, shot in his bed. Agents also
Speaker 1: found a forty caliber shell in his bed. We're going
Speaker 1: to take a break. We'll be back in a moment.
Speaker 1: The next day, the prosecution picks up once again with
Speaker 1: testimony from Matthew White Angel. Wilson is intent on further
Speaker 1: closing the loop on the physical ballistic evidence. In addition
Speaker 1: to that information that you passed onto the investigators, did
Speaker 1: you do further work or further analysis to try to
Speaker 1: determine what kind of twenty two or what kind of
Speaker 1: forty was involved in these homicides? Yes. Oftentimes, if I'm
Speaker 1: encountered evidence and there's no firearms submitted, I can look
Speaker 1: at certain features of the fire cartridge cases or the
Speaker 1: fire bullets to give a possible list of firearms that
Speaker 1: could have fired them to aid investigators and what they
Speaker 1: should be looking for. In the case of the twenty two,
Speaker 1: he pinpoints the probable gun used. I was able to
Speaker 1: examine other examples of test fires taken with Walter Cold
Speaker 1: nineteen eleven twenty two pistols. I was able to physically
Speaker 1: examine a couple different of the specific guns. I was
Speaker 1: able to disassemble them, look at them further, examine the
Speaker 1: firing pin itself, take additional test fires for comparison. In
Speaker 1: addition to that, I corresponded with a design engineer at
Speaker 1: Walter in Germany about the shape the orientation of the
Speaker 1: fine pin impression. He was able to look at some
Speaker 1: stock examples at the factory of farms that they were producing,
Speaker 1: and he agreed and concurred that the shape of the
Speaker 1: fine pin impression and the orientation of it was consistent
Speaker 1: with the farms that they produced the Walter Colt nineteen
Speaker 1: eleven twenty two pistols. In the case of the forty caliber,
Speaker 1: he pulls up an enlargement of the bullet casing, pointing
Speaker 1: out marks around the base of it. You can see
Speaker 1: the fine pin impression itself. It's elliptical, it is not
Speaker 1: circular in shape. Those two features are very common with
Speaker 1: block firearms. So based on those observations, again, did you
Speaker 1: begin to feel that a block firearm or a forty
Speaker 1: cow block was responsible for shooting the showcases recover from
Speaker 1: scene one in ze four. Yes, the lock is by
Speaker 1: far the most common firearm encountered that has those two characteristics. Next,
Speaker 1: the prosecution asked a key question of light. But at
Speaker 1: that time, when you were doing your initial work in
Speaker 1: this case, did you have a firearm that had been
Speaker 1: plected as evidence to compare from the scene or from
Speaker 1: a suspect. No, I did not to understand the recovery
Speaker 1: of the Wagner's firearms. Brian Scheider is asked to step
Speaker 1: back and give the jury a big picture on how
Speaker 1: they began their investigation. Remember, at the time, BCI did
Speaker 1: not yet know the Wagners were involved. Back to that
Speaker 1: very first day, you responded to the Sheriff's office, you
Speaker 1: interviewed some people, then what happened? Then what did you do?
Speaker 1: Things were still very confusing at that time. There's a
Speaker 1: lot of information coming in, as you can expect. The
Speaker 1: media was on scene at the time, so this had
Speaker 1: went statewide as well as national. So eventually we went
Speaker 1: back to the piked And Police Department and we try
Speaker 1: to organize things like we knew this was going to
Speaker 1: be We're going to be in for the long haul
Speaker 1: on this. We're trying to say, here's what we had
Speaker 1: at the crime scenes, here's what the families told us,
Speaker 1: and here's tips that are coming in. That's all happening
Speaker 1: extremely fast. Like it's overwhelming, it overloads you, it's coming
Speaker 1: in so fast. We also established a tip system because
Speaker 1: we had so many tips coming in. Ultimately, I believe
Speaker 1: we had eleven hundred and forty three tips that came
Speaker 1: in through the end of the investigation to the arrests,
Speaker 1: and eleven forty three of those tips were investigated and cleared.
Speaker 1: And so how was that tip system established. They would
Speaker 1: mark the tip, it would get assigned to an agent,
Speaker 1: and the agent would go out investigate the tip and
Speaker 1: respond back and report his or her findings. At some point,
Speaker 1: they received a tip about the Wagner's collection of firearms.
Speaker 1: Here's Jeff speaking with Mike Gallen. Law enforcement have to
Speaker 1: verify who sent the tip or does it not matter
Speaker 1: if if it checks out? You mean, when the tip
Speaker 1: comes in, try to figure out who it is. Yeah,
Speaker 1: Like if they got a tip that, oh, you should
Speaker 1: search this property because there might be weapons there. If
Speaker 1: that tip checks out, doesn't matter who called it in.
Speaker 1: In theory, wouldn't they want to track that person down
Speaker 1: because that's a good witness or they don't care. They
Speaker 1: probably would have to have more than that. You know,
Speaker 1: they get a tip like that, they'd have to develop
Speaker 1: its somewhat, you know, just some Tom Dick or Harry
Speaker 1: calling and saying, Hey, you know, I think there's a
Speaker 1: bunch of evidence and weapons down there Joe Jones's house.
Speaker 1: The cops will have to have more than that. You
Speaker 1: just use the term to develop the tip. I've never
Speaker 1: heard that. What does that mean? You know, perhaps try
Speaker 1: to find out whatever this witness said, maybe go to
Speaker 1: the place, check it out, maybe talked to other people.
Speaker 1: I just think that would be very weak to go
Speaker 1: to a judge and ask for a search warrant just
Speaker 1: based on a completely anonymous tips that they would have
Speaker 1: to bolster that somehow it was enough to get warrants
Speaker 1: to search the Wagner's property. We also talked about you
Speaker 1: seeking court orders for various phone records and Facebook records
Speaker 1: and any other records are correct, and can you tell
Speaker 1: us kind of at what point did that start to
Speaker 1: happen and what kinds of information were you receiving that
Speaker 1: led you to turn your attention to them. It takes
Speaker 1: a long time to examine those things, you know, many
Speaker 1: of those files are extremely large, several thousand pages. It
Speaker 1: is these electronic records a lead BCI to Jake Wagner
Speaker 1: via social media posts about custody of his and Hannime
Speaker 1: Rodin's young child. When we first made contact with Jake Wagner,
Speaker 1: he had indicated that everything was okay, that he had
Speaker 1: a good relationship with Hannah, and there's no issues involving
Speaker 1: their child that they shared together. So that that was
Speaker 1: a little suspicious morranted a little further investigation, obviously, But
Speaker 1: we were also conducting an interviews of friends and family
Speaker 1: who were reporting a similar situation. So you kind of
Speaker 1: have conflicting stories, right. You have one side that's saying
Speaker 1: everything's okay, and then you have records and family members
Speaker 1: and friends that are saying that's not true. So that
Speaker 1: kind of you know, you need to investigate that that's important,
Speaker 1: that's a lead, that's that's something that needs to be
Speaker 1: ran down, and so that's what we started to do.
Speaker 1: Did you also look at Jake's fall and did you
Speaker 1: find anything of interest on that phone? Yes? And can
Speaker 1: you tell us what you thought? And again, these were
Speaker 1: expedited reviews of these records. It wasn't like we had
Speaker 1: days to go through these. We literally downloaded these phones
Speaker 1: and started going through quickly. But one of the most
Speaker 1: interesting things that we found on Jake's phone at that
Speaker 1: time was under the note section, and it was a
Speaker 1: list of guns owned by the Wagoners or purported to be.
Speaker 1: So basically there's a list with each Wagner's name and
Speaker 1: then a list of guns underneath each of those names.
Speaker 1: At this point, the defense objects and everyone approaches Judge
Speaker 1: during upon request, they consult briefly and during rules testimony
Speaker 1: can continue. Thank you, honor, Agent Scheider. I'm going to
Speaker 1: show you what is going to be marked as students
Speaker 1: at h two. Okay, and can you tell us first
Speaker 1: of all, Agent Scheider, what are we looking at? This
Speaker 1: was again, this is a an extraction report or a
Speaker 1: snippet of an extraction report related to Jake's iPhone that
Speaker 1: we took of May of seventeen, and this was found
Speaker 1: in the notes section of the phone, and it is
Speaker 1: a list of firearms and associated Wagner names. Go through
Speaker 1: those and tell us which guns are listed belonging and
Speaker 1: belonging to do and what date was that list created
Speaker 1: pursuing to the reports. I'm having trump to see you
Speaker 1: that February eleventh, twenty fifteen. Okay, thank you, and go
Speaker 1: ahead and tell us what guns are listed there? Starting
Speaker 1: at the top, the list starts with George's and Acadian possession,
Speaker 1: and it says Glock seventeen nine millimeter, Baretta ninety six
Speaker 1: forty caliber, Taurus Revolver three fifty seven, Remington fourteen twenty two,
Speaker 1: Ruger M seventy seven to seventy, ruger M seventy seven,
Speaker 1: twenty two, Hornets, Remington Woodmaster thirty six, Ruger M seventy
Speaker 1: seven twenty two, c Z twenty two and SKS seven
Speaker 1: point six two by thirty nine. And who else is
Speaker 1: listed on that list? Moms, dad's and Jake's. Okay, that
Speaker 1: is at the extent of the list. It was extracted
Speaker 1: from the phone belonging to Jake Wagner. Yes, but you
Speaker 1: seize pursued to the search warrant. Yes, let's stop here
Speaker 1: for another break. Here's Jeff speaking with McAllen. He pretty
Speaker 1: much figured out what the firearms were through that obviously
Speaker 1: the help of the corner, what the what the rounds showed,
Speaker 1: what kind of weapon they were fired from. And you know,
Speaker 1: they got a real break on Jake's phone when they
Speaker 1: got the search warrant for that and found on the
Speaker 1: notes portion just about every gun that the family had,
Speaker 1: and it matched up. Again. That was just good old
Speaker 1: fashioned police work, not a lot of technology in that.
Speaker 1: What do you make of Jake Wagner writing all this
Speaker 1: stuff down? Stupid? It was just stupid. Why would you
Speaker 1: do that? You know? In many ways, I think he
Speaker 1: covered his tracks, or at least tried to cover his
Speaker 1: tracks pretty well, but it's just stupid. I guess he
Speaker 1: just wanted to keep track of what everybody had, and
Speaker 1: my goodness, you talk about an arsenal, they had just
Speaker 1: about any kind of weapon you can think of. Learning
Speaker 1: a lot of guns, though, does not necessarily make you
Speaker 1: guilty of murder. It definitely does not make you guilty
Speaker 1: of murder. But it's a piece of the puzzle, especially
Speaker 1: when two of the weapons that he had on that
Speaker 1: list were the type of weapons that were used to
Speaker 1: commit theach murders. When you can tie a weapon or weapons,
Speaker 1: you know, to a homicide, that's big. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: good evidence. The jury wants to hear that, so it's
Speaker 1: strong evidence. More on that next time. We're going to
Speaker 1: take a short break. The Piketon Massacre returns with all
Speaker 1: new episodes starting Wednesday, January fourth, with Angela and Jake
Speaker 1: Wagner taking the stand. There's much more to uncover and
Speaker 1: the biggest bombshells are yet to come. Don't defense ready?
Speaker 1: Yes you wish you to call a witness at this time,
Speaker 1: then yes, we call it George. For more information on
Speaker 1: the case and relevant photos, follow us on Instagram at
Speaker 1: Katie Underscore Studios. The Piketon Masaker is produced by Stephanie Lydecker,
Speaker 1: Jeff Shane, Scott de Graw, Andrew ar Now, Gabriel Castillo
Speaker 1: and me Courtney Armstrong. Editing and sound designed by Jeff Tis.
Speaker 1: Music by Jared Aston. The piked In Masacer is a
Speaker 1: production of iHeartRadio and Kati Studios. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio,
Speaker 1: visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen
Speaker 1: to your favorite shows.