Speaker 1: Welcome to The Piked and Massacre, a production of iHeartRadio
Speaker 1: and Katie Studios. I gotta tell you from kind of
Speaker 1: a visceral standpoint, when I heard the news that this
Speaker 1: kid had rolled over on this case, one thing that
Speaker 1: kind of came to mind from me is, you know,
Speaker 1: I kind of envisioned his mother in almost a mob
Speaker 1: Barker kind of way, that she's kind of the puppet
Speaker 1: master that's controlling everything. He's sitting there all along, and
Speaker 1: suddenly he has this lucid moment where he's out from
Speaker 1: under that though, and he realizes, I'm going to get
Speaker 1: the needle for all of this. This is The Piked
Speaker 1: and Massacre. Returned to Pike County Season two, Episode three,
Speaker 1: Wagner Versus Wagner m Courtney Armstrong, a television producer at
Speaker 1: Katie Studios with Stephanie Lydecker and Jeff Shane. On April
Speaker 1: twenty second, twenty twenty one, Jake Wagner pleaded guilty to
Speaker 1: eight aggravated murder charges in the Rodent family massacre. As
Speaker 1: part of his plea deal, he implicated his mother, Angela Wagner,
Speaker 1: father Billy Wagner, and brother George Wagner as co conspirators
Speaker 1: in the killings. He's also agreeing to testify against his
Speaker 1: parents and brother, who are also charged in these murders.
Speaker 1: Here's reporter Anjeanette Levy. I don't believe anybody knew he
Speaker 1: was going to do this, So it's it's a pretty
Speaker 1: stunning development to see Jake Wagner, the youngest of the
Speaker 1: entire family, who would you would think would be, you know,
Speaker 1: maybe the most pliable in some respects because he is
Speaker 1: the youngest. But to see him just break away from
Speaker 1: his family, I don't know, it's it's pretty interesting. The
Speaker 1: significance of Jake Wagner folding on his family cannot be overstated.
Speaker 1: But what does it mean moving forward? Criminal defense attorney
Speaker 1: Mike Allen told Stephanie that it could signal an impending
Speaker 1: legal chess match. In terms of Jake Wagner's admission of guilt.
Speaker 1: I'm just curious about what that means altogether. He's confessed
Speaker 1: to killing five of the eight Rodents. Personally, is he
Speaker 1: trying to save himself or trying to save his family?
Speaker 1: You know, obviously, you know, if he did five out
Speaker 1: of eight, you still have three left, and you know
Speaker 1: it'll come out who who actually did the killing on
Speaker 1: those other three, but it was probably a strategic move
Speaker 1: on the prosecutor's part not to let that out yet.
Speaker 1: And you know Proscue is not going to show his cards,
Speaker 1: or in this case, she Angie when she's got three
Speaker 1: other defendants to try, so they're still going to hold
Speaker 1: it close to the vest I think. Stephanie asked reporter
Speaker 1: James Pilcher if there were still moves left for Jake
Speaker 1: to play. Is it possible that he'll say that Jacob
Speaker 1: could say I was in a very controlling environment. My mother,
Speaker 1: Angela Wagner, controlled us, My father was a bully and
Speaker 1: said I had to do these things, and we were
Speaker 1: coerced into it. Is there any value in that even?
Speaker 1: I mean, that's entirely possible, and some of the reporting
Speaker 1: that's what we've heard Lee Coal. The other thing I
Speaker 1: will say is that maybe they're going after bigger game
Speaker 1: than Jake, and they figured we'll cut this deal. Now
Speaker 1: he'll give us what we want and then we can
Speaker 1: go get the mom and the dad. But clearly they
Speaker 1: were going after the people who plotted it. This was
Speaker 1: not Jake's idea, right or at least not according to
Speaker 1: the prosecutors. This was a family coming together. That's what
Speaker 1: the prosecutors are after, is that, Okay, we get Jake
Speaker 1: to help us, we get Jake to plead out. It
Speaker 1: shows that this really did happen. Now we can go
Speaker 1: after the people who actually planned it. On April twenty eighth,
Speaker 1: just six days after Jake Wagner's hearing, his accused brother,
Speaker 1: George Wagner, walked into the Pike County Courthouse. The first
Speaker 1: court hearing since last week's surprise plea deal in the
Speaker 1: Pike County murder trials took place today. This hearing for
Speaker 1: George Wagner was supposed to center on a few defense
Speaker 1: emotions involving discovery evidence. Anette Levy was on the scene
Speaker 1: that day. She spoke to producer Chris Graves. He kind
Speaker 1: of described the mood and what was going on. The
Speaker 1: mood was a lot lighter than it had been in
Speaker 1: the past. The Roden family is a little bit that
Speaker 1: I saw of them. They just seemed happy for the
Speaker 1: first time in a long time. And I think I
Speaker 1: saw Hannah Gilly's mother and she actually seemed happy. And
Speaker 1: they can start to finally look fitthered, So it was
Speaker 1: just a much lighter mood. But you know George the Fourth,
Speaker 1: obviously it wasn't a lighter mood for him. He looked
Speaker 1: very stressed. He looked very thin. He doesn't look good.
Speaker 1: You can see it on his face. In the aftermath
Speaker 1: of Jake Wagner's shocking confession, many wondered how accused older
Speaker 1: brother George Wagner's hearing would play out. We spoke at
Speaker 1: length about George in the last two episodes. It was
Speaker 1: at his wedding that the last known picture of the
Speaker 1: Roden and Wagner families was taken. Also, George and his
Speaker 1: ex wife dealt with eerily similar custody issues that would
Speaker 1: foreshadow what would happen between victim Hannah Roden and Jake Wagner.
Speaker 1: His lawyer, Rick Nash, has been very assertive and maintained
Speaker 1: that George the Fourth there was no case against him,
Speaker 1: that there was no evidence against him. But now he's
Speaker 1: kind of having to swallow his pride a little bit,
Speaker 1: I think and realize that there may be some really
Speaker 1: good evidence tying his client to this and this emotion.
Speaker 1: Hearing was for like all these boilerplate death penalty motions.
Speaker 1: Death penalty is off the table now. People following the
Speaker 1: case wondered would George Wagner strike a plea deal as well.
Speaker 1: My opinion of George the fourth is that he's kind
Speaker 1: of is the weakest link in this family because he's
Speaker 1: got the most to lose. He has a son who
Speaker 1: he loves dearly, and he wants to be with his son.
Speaker 1: And so I was wondering, what's George going to do?
Speaker 1: Instead of a guilty plead, the court heard something far
Speaker 1: less dramatic. It took us in five minutes for George
Speaker 1: wage to the fourth to ask for more time to
Speaker 1: evaluate the situation. No, Judge, I don't think so. We
Speaker 1: I think everybody's agreed that, given recent events, that everybody
Speaker 1: needs to step back and reassess. The hearing concluded with
Speaker 1: an agreement to reschedule the motion for June twenty first,
Speaker 1: twenty one. Though there were no bombshell developments, it's clear
Speaker 1: that the next few weeks will be pivotal. George Wagner
Speaker 1: and his accused parents, Angela and Billy Wagner must now
Speaker 1: decide how they will proceed. Do you think that it's
Speaker 1: possible that now that Jake took the plea deal and
Speaker 1: admitted to the murders that we may see Billy Angela
Speaker 1: and or George doing this same thing. I think it's
Speaker 1: possible that the others could plead out. But at the
Speaker 1: same time, what's the point They have nothing to lose
Speaker 1: by going to trial, because they either to plead out
Speaker 1: get life in prison, or they roll the dice and
Speaker 1: go to trial and maybe they can hang a jury.
Speaker 1: As Mike Allen points out, there's no one case that
Speaker 1: assures an Is there any version of this where one
Speaker 1: of them is found guilty and the other are found innocent.
Speaker 1: It's possible, Yeah, I mean, it just it all depends
Speaker 1: on what the individual juries want to do. Yeah, I mean,
Speaker 1: that's very possible, And it's happened on trials that where
Speaker 1: they're two defendants that have been severed, where one has
Speaker 1: found guilty and the other one is not. You know,
Speaker 1: different juries are different and it'll be a different jury
Speaker 1: for every one of these trials, and lawyers will tell you,
Speaker 1: especially criminal lawyers, you never know what is going to
Speaker 1: happen with the jury. And I've been at this for
Speaker 1: forty years and juries are becoming even more unpredictable. I
Speaker 1: don't know why, but they are. But in answer to
Speaker 1: your question, yeah, that's a possibility. Last episode, we heard
Speaker 1: Bureau of Criminal Investigation agent Ryan Scheiderer testify about the
Speaker 1: Wagner's cult like family dynamic. They're very They lived together,
Speaker 1: They've always lived together. Their finances are intermingled, the homeschool together,
Speaker 1: they raise their kids together. Everything is done together. As
Speaker 1: well as we have an informat who says that every
Speaker 1: decision within that family is made as a family decision.
Speaker 1: Without any of the other Wagners coming forward with plea deals,
Speaker 1: there are still a lot of questions that need to
Speaker 1: be answered about the family that is alleged to have
Speaker 1: carried out Ohio's most notorious crime. It's worth noting that
Speaker 1: while Jake Wagner pleaded guilty, Angela Billy and George Wagner
Speaker 1: have pleaded not guilty. The state is kind of maintained
Speaker 1: that each person in this conspiracy had their own role,
Speaker 1: They had their own kind of part to play, And
Speaker 1: you know, it's going to be interesting to see how
Speaker 1: strong the evidence is to support their assertion that each
Speaker 1: person had a role in this conspiracy. At this point,
Speaker 1: one thing is clear, Jake Wagner holds the fate of
Speaker 1: his family in his hands, and the united front the
Speaker 1: Wagner family has built is beginning to erode. How it
Speaker 1: will all unfold is anyone's guess. Remember, we don't know
Speaker 1: exactly what Jake said and how he said it. We
Speaker 1: just know that he confessed and led them to evidence.
Speaker 1: So there's still a lot we don't know based on
Speaker 1: what the prosecution outlined in court. So let's take a
Speaker 1: look at the evidence we know about based on what
Speaker 1: we've heard through preliminary hearings over the past three years.
Speaker 1: One of the most informative was a hearing for accused
Speaker 1: brother George Wagner that took place on August thirty first,
Speaker 1: twenty twenty. That day, George's attorneys requested that he be
Speaker 1: allowed to post bail, arguing that there was no evidence
Speaker 1: to tie him to the case, and Neette Levy was
Speaker 1: at the Pike County courthouse that day. It was actually
Speaker 1: a fool's errand because in the state of Ohio, someone
Speaker 1: charged with aggravated murder in which the deaf count Vias thought,
Speaker 1: can be held without bail automatically. There's really no question
Speaker 1: about it. So they were kind of wanting to, I
Speaker 1: think get some more information about the evidence in the
Speaker 1: case and the BCI agent on the case. The lead agent,
Speaker 1: Ryan Scheiterer, took the stand and answered a series of
Speaker 1: questions about the evidence in the case that they have
Speaker 1: against George. Swear or firm testimony were about gears true
Speaker 1: the whole I see that special Agent Ryan Scheiderer of
Speaker 1: the Bureau of Criminal Investigation taking his oath in court.
Speaker 1: During the hearing, George Wagner's attorney tried to distance his
Speaker 1: client from the crime and his accused family. His attorney
Speaker 1: had set something to the effect of the evidence of
Speaker 1: you know, if it tied anybody to this, it was
Speaker 1: Jake and Angela, not George. What text or digital communications
Speaker 1: did you find too or from him? If you think
Speaker 1: is relevant specifically about text messages with George, I don't
Speaker 1: remember any. Did you collect a cell phone from George?
Speaker 1: I don't believe we ever collected George celler What connection
Speaker 1: does George had to do with that laptime? The device
Speaker 1: was registered to Jake, specifically Angela, who seemed to be
Speaker 1: the primary user of that laptop, but there was some
Speaker 1: evidence that implicated George Wagner along with his brother Jake
Speaker 1: and the crimes. One of the most striking parts of
Speaker 1: Agent Scheider's testimony had to do with the type of
Speaker 1: guns used in the homicides. We know the three calibers
Speaker 1: of firearms that were used to convent these murders, and
Speaker 1: they were a twenty two caliber long rifle, a forty
Speaker 1: caliber and a thirty caliber. Scheiderer went on to make
Speaker 1: a direct correlation between the twenty two caliber shell casings
Speaker 1: found at victims Dana Rodin and Frankie Roden's homes and
Speaker 1: the property owned by the Wagner family. Here's Agent Scheiterer
Speaker 1: being questioned by Prosecutor Angie Kaneppa. We recovered twenty two
Speaker 1: caliber shell casings and where we recovered those which at
Speaker 1: two sixty Peterson Road, which was a property that was
Speaker 1: owned by George Wager and his brother Jake. And were
Speaker 1: those shell casings submitted to the lab or comparison to
Speaker 1: the shell casings that had been recovered from both Frankie's
Speaker 1: and Dana's residences. Yes, and what was the opinion of
Speaker 1: the The weapon that fired the shell casings at two
Speaker 1: sixty Pierson Road also fired the shell casings at Anna's
Speaker 1: and Dana's residence as well as Frankie and Anna Gillis residence.
Speaker 1: So the same firearm had been suspired on the same properties. Okay,
Speaker 1: So he eat exact same gun, not just the same
Speaker 1: type of gun, the same firearms, okay. Forensic expert Joseph
Speaker 1: Morgan explained the intricate science involved in tying a shell
Speaker 1: casing back to a specific gun. The inside of a
Speaker 1: handgun like this has got rifling. That means it's got lands,
Speaker 1: which are kind of flat plateau looking formations. And also
Speaker 1: because these are soft metal brass casings that are being
Speaker 1: ejected once the round is fired, you have what are
Speaker 1: referred to as extraction marks. This spent case in it
Speaker 1: leaves these little marks that are unique to the interior
Speaker 1: housing of this particular weapon. And even you can have
Speaker 1: a weapon that rolls off the line with fifty other
Speaker 1: weapons that are the same same model, but they're all
Speaker 1: going to be unique at a microscopic level, and that's
Speaker 1: how they tied back the projectile to a specific weapon.
Speaker 1: Another suspicious item was found during a different search of
Speaker 1: the same Wagner property. The police went back and they
Speaker 1: found what the ATF says was likely used as a
Speaker 1: homemade silencer for a gun. Agent Scheiderer elaborated recovered a
Speaker 1: maglite flashlight turned into the suppressor. Yeah adapter at one
Speaker 1: end that as a solid adapter, they closed in and
Speaker 1: they at the other end you add a thread adapter
Speaker 1: and it's designed to catch cleaning solvent when you're cleaning
Speaker 1: your firearm, but it can easily be converted into a suppressor.
Speaker 1: They determined that it was a suppressor as defined by
Speaker 1: federal statue, been fired at least one time because they
Speaker 1: could see a bull of striking inside the suppressor. Thing.
Speaker 1: That was pretty interesting because that wasn't found. That was
Speaker 1: found in I think October of twenty eighteen, right before
Speaker 1: the indictments came out, and that property, the Peterson Road home,
Speaker 1: had been searched in May of twenty seventeen. I mean,
Speaker 1: when I hear that, it sounds like someone told them
Speaker 1: about it. We know, but Jake led them to the guns,
Speaker 1: the murder weapons, the car used purchased and news and
Speaker 1: so who knows. Maybe. During cross examination by George Wagner's attorney,
Speaker 1: Agent Scheiderer highlighted some of the other evidence the state
Speaker 1: has on George, including wire tap surveillance. Could you approximate
Speaker 1: to the nearest hundred many hours you have regarding this
Speaker 1: recording of George Wagner hours? Not really, but I would
Speaker 1: say over one hundred days, over agred days, Okay, And
Speaker 1: so I want you to focus on those hundred days,
Speaker 1: and maybe your answer is the same, but I'm going
Speaker 1: to ask it a different way. Could you tell us
Speaker 1: over that one hundred days of recording George Wagner what
Speaker 1: statement he made that you recorded that ties him into
Speaker 1: this case. I mean, he never confessed, if that's what
Speaker 1: you're getting at, but he made incriminating statements. At a
Speaker 1: different hearing, George Wagner appeared in court for an unusual
Speaker 1: request to be put in solitary confinement. Here's Jeff speaking
Speaker 1: with Mike Allen. What about George Wagner asking for solitary confinement?
Speaker 1: What do you make of that? His stated reason was
Speaker 1: that he wanted to be able to study the Bible
Speaker 1: in peace. That's a little unusual when inmates ask for
Speaker 1: solitary A lot of times, although they may not say it,
Speaker 1: they're asking for that because they've been threatened, and you know,
Speaker 1: they want to make sure that they're as safe as
Speaker 1: they can be in jail. Yeah, it's hard. It's hard
Speaker 1: to know what's going through his head. But I mean,
Speaker 1: either he's immersing himself in the Holy Bible or somebody
Speaker 1: saying that they're going to do something to him. Either way,
Speaker 1: his mental state is probably not good. But when I
Speaker 1: read that, I kind of wondered, is that the real reason?
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, you just have to wonder what
Speaker 1: the motivation is. Since his arrest in twenty eighteen, accused
Speaker 1: father Billy Wagner has also staunchly maintained his innocence. Billy
Speaker 1: Wagner's attorney has been very adamant that there's no evidence.
Speaker 1: There's no case against Billy Wagner, but there's nothing. They have,
Speaker 1: nothing that ties him to this. Last year, Billy Wagner
Speaker 1: made an audacious move to separate himself from the other
Speaker 1: members of his family and move his trial word. He
Speaker 1: took it upon himself to file a motion in court.
Speaker 1: It had to do with his right to what's referred
Speaker 1: to as a speedy trial, an Ohio procedural rule stipulating
Speaker 1: that anyone charged with a felony must be brought to
Speaker 1: trial within two hundred and seventy days of their arrest.
Speaker 1: While accused father Billy Wagner, had initially waived his right
Speaker 1: to a speedy trial, it seems he suddenly had a
Speaker 1: change of heart. The court received a handwritten motion from
Speaker 1: Billy Wagner asking that his right to a speedy trial
Speaker 1: be invoked and that he withdraw his waiver of this
Speaker 1: speedy trial right. He was pretty frustrated. I guess that
Speaker 1: he's sitting in jail. He says he's innocent and was
Speaker 1: frustrated and submitted this or to the court. But it
Speaker 1: was actually some fairly good jailhouse lawyering. I'm assuming he
Speaker 1: had somebody in the jail can write this for him
Speaker 1: and his attorneys. They became aware of it and talked
Speaker 1: with him and withdrew it immediately. Mike Allen gave us
Speaker 1: his professional opinion on Billy's homespun legal strategy. I don't
Speaker 1: care how small your jail is, you're going to have
Speaker 1: jail house lawyers and criminal defense attorneys instruct their clients.
Speaker 1: Do not listen to the jail house lawyers. They don't
Speaker 1: know what they're talking about. If they did, they wouldn't
Speaker 1: be where they are. So that's every criminal defense lawyer's
Speaker 1: worst nightmare is when your client files a motion without
Speaker 1: consulting the attorney. It's a very stupid thing to do.
Speaker 1: So Billy Wagner's lawyer, I'm sure, probably had some strong
Speaker 1: words for him for doing that. Well, Billy and George
Speaker 1: Wagner have been busy filing legal motions to help their cases.
Speaker 1: The same camp be said about accused mother Angela Wagner.
Speaker 1: Bob Craypence is what you would call, you know, the
Speaker 1: first chair on this case for her defense team, and
Speaker 1: he's been very it's been very quiet on that front. However,
Speaker 1: Angela Wagner has appeared in court for other reasons. At
Speaker 1: a r in twenty nineteen, Judge Randy Deering revoked Angelo
Speaker 1: Wagner's mail and phone privileges after she was caught trying
Speaker 1: to discuss case strategy with her family. Here's her lawyer
Speaker 1: speaking in court that day, which stipulated that Vita she
Speaker 1: was in fact instructed she was having no contact with
Speaker 1: the codefendants in this case. This team half presented as
Speaker 1: was some information indicative of a violation of that stipulated
Speaker 1: that she did in fact hilate that court or some
Speaker 1: of Angelo Wagner's alleged orchestration was presented by Agent Scheiterer
Speaker 1: at George's bail hearing last year. He testified about shoe
Speaker 1: prints that were found at a few of the crime scenes.
Speaker 1: This evidence points directly to Angelo Wagner's role in the conspiracy.
Speaker 1: Exhibits eight and nine. These are the shoe impression prints
Speaker 1: that were lifted from Chris Rogan Senior's residence, and those
Speaker 1: are shoe impressons that are later determined to be from
Speaker 1: a specific shoe that is determined to be sold by Walmart. Correct?
Speaker 1: And then did you ultimately execute a search warrant up
Speaker 1: on State out for you? One? Yes? And you described
Speaker 1: to us what you were searching there there were two
Speaker 1: pickup trucks and three trailers that were parked at that
Speaker 1: location that belonged to the Wagoner family. Did you find
Speaker 1: a receipt? Yes, we did. There was a Walmart receipt
Speaker 1: resin Weird. The receipt was and Jake Wagner's okay, and
Speaker 1: specifically in a tub marked important things or something correct, Okay,
Speaker 1: what was the significance of that receipt? So this Walmart
Speaker 1: receipt is for the Waverley Ohio walmart on Emma Avenue.
Speaker 1: It is dated April seventh, twenty sixteen, time stamp at
Speaker 1: sixteen fifty eight hours. On there there are the purchase
Speaker 1: of two Athletic brand tennis shoes, which is consistent with
Speaker 1: the shoes that we were looking for. And you indicated
Speaker 1: that Angela told made a statement to your fellow agents
Speaker 1: that she had purchased those shoes specifically for Jacob George. Correct.
Speaker 1: And you were asked if you've recovered those shoes, if
Speaker 1: you found those shoes, yes, and you did not correct. Correct,
Speaker 1: And isn't it true that Angela said that she had
Speaker 1: thrown those shoes away the very same day that she
Speaker 1: bought them. Yes, because the boys didn't like the shoes. Correct,
Speaker 1: But Jacob George told they denied knowledge of the shoes
Speaker 1: ever seen. Correct. We're going to take a quick break here.
Speaker 1: We'll be back in a moment. Altogether, it appears the
Speaker 1: prosecution has amassed an overwhelming amount of evidence against the
Speaker 1: Wagner family. Here is Agent Scheider telling George Wagner's attorney
Speaker 1: just how much audio evidence the state has at their disposal.
Speaker 1: What reportings do you have that you feel are relevant
Speaker 1: for this or some evidence. Here. In these case, we
Speaker 1: have you know, approximately eight thousand recordings primarily of the
Speaker 1: Wagner individuals, the family. You know, we also have interviews where,
Speaker 1: you know, I feel there was incriminating statements made within
Speaker 1: the interviews. They've got wire taps in this case. They
Speaker 1: have video surveillance evidence, they have, you know, countless interviews
Speaker 1: with people. The prosecution has said, you know, this is
Speaker 1: a voluminous file. They've said it takes up terabytes and terabytes.
Speaker 1: A terabyte is a huge amount of space on a computer.
Speaker 1: So like it kind of gives you an idea of
Speaker 1: what they've gathered. The sheer volume of evidence shocked even
Speaker 1: seasoned attorney Mike Allen. Here he is talking to Jeff
Speaker 1: you as an expert. Is that a high amount? Is
Speaker 1: that a normal amount of evidence? No, that's just astronomical.
Speaker 1: I would not have expected it to be that high.
Speaker 1: It's not normal at all. According to investigative reporter Jodi Barr,
Speaker 1: George and the other accused Wagners could have implicated each
Speaker 1: other without even knowing. What we don't know is whether
Speaker 1: the Waggoners gave statements and what statements they made. Two
Speaker 1: investigators before during or after the charge. We don't know
Speaker 1: what the contents of any intercepted phone calls as they've
Speaker 1: been in jail might be. Who knows what the state
Speaker 1: of Ohio has as far as whether you know, statements
Speaker 1: made by one Wagner could almost assure a conviction of another.
Speaker 1: So how could we see the legal battles play out
Speaker 1: in the courtroom if the Wagner's aside to go to trial.
Speaker 1: As it stands, Billy Angela and George Wagner have all
Speaker 1: been charged with eight counts of aggravated murder. If convicted, they,
Speaker 1: like Jake, will spend the rest of their lives in prison.
Speaker 1: Never have I seen anything even remotely close to this case.
Speaker 1: I've been involved in some bad ones, but this one
Speaker 1: is by far the worst. One of the many things
Speaker 1: that's so unique about this offense is you do have
Speaker 1: generations of family members just taken out completely excuse hard
Speaker 1: to imagine a fact scenario, you know, more bizarre than
Speaker 1: this one. It's so unique in so many ways. One
Speaker 1: of them is the enormous burden the trials will place
Speaker 1: on the legal teams and the Ohio criminal justice system.
Speaker 1: You're trying the case in a small county with limited resources.
Speaker 1: I don't know how they're going to do it. It's
Speaker 1: just going to be a logistical nightmare. Can the Wagner
Speaker 1: lawyers work together on the defense or does it all
Speaker 1: have to be separate. They can work together, and that
Speaker 1: happens sometimes when you have code defendants. I think at
Speaker 1: some point you run into some strategy problems. But to
Speaker 1: a certain extent they can. But the lawyer obviously has
Speaker 1: to zealously represent his client. But if it's in this
Speaker 1: client's best interest to work with the other lawyers, yeah,
Speaker 1: they definitely would. Witness testimony could also prove to be
Speaker 1: a challenge. You're going to have witness burnout because many
Speaker 1: most probably of the witnesses in one trial will be
Speaker 1: witnesses in the other. And you know that's a burden
Speaker 1: upon the witnesses, but the prosecution has no choice that
Speaker 1: they have to go forward in that nature. Another obstacle
Speaker 1: seating a jury of twelve impartial Pike County residence. Here's
Speaker 1: Chris speaking to reporter James Pilcher. It's Ohio state law
Speaker 1: that you initially have to try and seed a jury
Speaker 1: in the county the crime was committed, correct, So Angela
Speaker 1: Wagner has already requested that her trial be moved out
Speaker 1: of Pike County, but under High I legal procedures, you
Speaker 1: have to try to see the jury in the county
Speaker 1: where the crime was committed before you're allowed to move it.
Speaker 1: So they've got a pull from a jury pool of
Speaker 1: registered voters, will narrow it down to twelve plus a
Speaker 1: couple of alternates, and that process can take anywhere from
Speaker 1: three days to a week, depending on the complexity of
Speaker 1: the case. I mean, that's going to be really difficult,
Speaker 1: isn't it. I Mean there's only I think what twenty
Speaker 1: seven twenty eight thousand residents in all of Pike County.
Speaker 1: You have to pick jurors for cases out of a
Speaker 1: jury pool that small. I would not be surprised to
Speaker 1: see them have to move some of these trials to
Speaker 1: another county. Again, here's Mike Allen. That's probably the judge's
Speaker 1: the biggest headache in this case is to ultimately be
Speaker 1: able to see separate juries that can be fair both
Speaker 1: to the state and to the defense, because I think
Speaker 1: you'd be hard pressed to find any county in the
Speaker 1: stateable Ohio that just was not innundated with media coverage
Speaker 1: about this. But it's important to keep this in mind.
Speaker 1: If a potential juror says under own that, yes, I
Speaker 1: have seen things in the media about this, but I
Speaker 1: can divorce myself from those things and render a fair
Speaker 1: and impartial verdict based upon the evidence that we see
Speaker 1: from the witness stand, the testimony, and the instructions given
Speaker 1: by the judge. That's then a good and acceptable juror.
Speaker 1: And that's the only way that this case is going
Speaker 1: to work. Because unless you're living in some kind of
Speaker 1: a cave, I don't care who you are, you've heard
Speaker 1: about it, and you know you're just not going to
Speaker 1: be able to see a jury of twelve in any
Speaker 1: of these cases where they've not heard anything about it.
Speaker 1: How are each of the cases likely to affect the other?
Speaker 1: Are there things that we should be keeping an eye
Speaker 1: on The first one that goes I think as the
Speaker 1: tougher road, and the guy going last or next to last,
Speaker 1: they're going to have advantage by knowing which way the
Speaker 1: judge will rule on evidentiary motions and things of that nature.
Speaker 1: They'll have the benefit of watching the tape, so to speak,
Speaker 1: like a like a football coach would. But there could
Speaker 1: be one overlooked factor that determines the outcome of the cases,
Speaker 1: the drive of the prosecuting attorneys. When you see a
Speaker 1: case like this and see the position these young kids
Speaker 1: have been put in, what does that make you feel?
Speaker 1: When you see a case like this, it's just absolutely heartbreaking.
Speaker 1: It just is because you just know that that is
Speaker 1: going to permanently affect that child. There's no way that
Speaker 1: it couldn't, but a prosecutors driven by justice for the
Speaker 1: victim and the victim's family. But if you have a
Speaker 1: particularly violent and hand this crime like you have here,
Speaker 1: it's tough. But as a prosecutor, honestly, it makes you
Speaker 1: want to work all the harder to get a conviction.
Speaker 1: And yeah, it's just the way it is. We've heard
Speaker 1: Special Agent Ryan Scheiderer mentioned witnesses who were close to
Speaker 1: the Wagner's and excerpts of his testimony. Since Jake Wagner's confession,
Speaker 1: we haven't heard anything from grandmother of the accused, Frederica Wagner.
Speaker 1: Last season, we talked about how she was arrested on
Speaker 1: obstruction of justice and perjury charges pertaining to bulletproof ESTs
Speaker 1: she purchased for her son, Billy Wagner. Prosecutors believe she
Speaker 1: purchased the best for him to use in the killings.
Speaker 1: Her charges were dropped after a hearing in twenty nineteen,
Speaker 1: as the prosecution feared not being able to try the
Speaker 1: case before the two hundred and seventy days Speedy Trial statute.
Speaker 1: But her case isn't closed yet, Frederica. They've indicated in
Speaker 1: court documents that they may charge her again with obstruction.
Speaker 1: Frederica Wagner has vehemently defended her family's innocence, but is
Speaker 1: it possible that she knows more about what happened the
Speaker 1: night of April twenty first, twenty sixteen than she's let on.
Speaker 1: Depending on what Jake wagen her nose and reveals, it's
Speaker 1: possible that grandmother Frederica Wagner could be looking at new charges.
Speaker 1: Do you know what Jake pleading guilty, how that will
Speaker 1: impact his grandmother? Well, they can always be reindicted if
Speaker 1: there's additional new evidence. He kind of seems to be
Speaker 1: like he's the key to this entire case. So yeah,
Speaker 1: I suppose it's possible. To our knowledge, Frederica Wagner has
Speaker 1: not been implicated in any other crimes, nor has she
Speaker 1: made any plea deals with the prosecution, but the same
Speaker 1: camp he said for the other grandmother who was charged
Speaker 1: in the case, Rita Newcome, Angela Wagner's mother, had initially
Speaker 1: told investigators that she had notarized and signed some custody
Speaker 1: documents for the child that Jake and Hannah shared in
Speaker 1: the event that they died. But then later as her
Speaker 1: trial approached, on the day of trial, all of the sudden,
Speaker 1: we were all out there ready to go, and the
Speaker 1: trial was canceled. And then a short time later she
Speaker 1: pleaded guilty, and in court the prosecution and outlined how
Speaker 1: they said that Rita admitted that she had lied and
Speaker 1: that her daughter Angela, had asked her to lie about
Speaker 1: signing and notarizing those custody documents. Here's a statement read
Speaker 1: a newcommade during her plea deal, as anyone promised you
Speaker 1: anything at all, or threatened you in any way at all,
Speaker 1: in order to induce you to withdraw your former plea
Speaker 1: of not guilty entered to the original charge of obstructing justice,
Speaker 1: a fifth degree felony in count four, and to enter
Speaker 1: a plea of guilty to the amended charge of obstructing
Speaker 1: official business a misdemeanor of the second degree. No, I
Speaker 1: just feel that it's not a good Christian thing to
Speaker 1: line and I couldn't input it in the more. This
Speaker 1: is all despite Angela Wagner's repeated attempts to further manipulate
Speaker 1: her mother. During court hearings for Angela's mother, Rita Newcome,
Speaker 1: it was stated that Angela Wagner was on jail calls
Speaker 1: telling her mother, you don't have to testify against us.
Speaker 1: Mike Allen told Stephanie about the challenges Rita Newcomb's testimony
Speaker 1: could present if the trials move forward. If it's obvious
Speaker 1: to the trial judge that she doesn't want to be
Speaker 1: testifying to the state, the judge can and probably would,
Speaker 1: designate her as a hostile witness. What is a hostile
Speaker 1: witness If the prosecution has to call a witness to
Speaker 1: establish or help establish one of the elements of the offense,
Speaker 1: and that witnesses someone who's more sympathetic with the defense
Speaker 1: in all likelihood than the judge would designate that person
Speaker 1: a hostile witness, giving the prosecutor the opportunity to ask
Speaker 1: leading questions. So it's not a matter whether they get
Speaker 1: up on the stand and act at crazy or act
Speaker 1: like an idiot. It's a matter of is this person
Speaker 1: going to cooperate with whoever is calling them. Another possibility
Speaker 1: is hearing from one of the long rumored informants we
Speaker 1: discussed last season. Mike Allen discussed the role in formants
Speaker 1: usually play in cases like the Wagner's. Are you able to, Mike,
Speaker 1: just tell us what an informant is. It usually is
Speaker 1: a situation where they go to the police with some information.
Speaker 1: I mean, police can seek out people too, and you know,
Speaker 1: just say hey, you know, you tell us what you
Speaker 1: know about this, And I mean it happens both ways,
Speaker 1: but more often than not, it's it's the police know
Speaker 1: that somebody there's a good chance somebody would know something,
Speaker 1: and they seek that person out. But the thing of
Speaker 1: it is, it's a confidential and reliable informant. So it
Speaker 1: has to be someone that you can build a case
Speaker 1: that they are reliable. At George Wagner's bond hearing last year,
Speaker 1: agent Ryan Scheidier told the court that one informant had
Speaker 1: disclosed a deadly plot that the Wagner family was planning
Speaker 1: on carrying out. It included then Attorney General Mike Dwine,
Speaker 1: Pike County Sheriff Charles Reader, and Scheiderer himself. There is
Speaker 1: a witness that testified that she was present when Sure,
Speaker 1: his brother, Jake, his mom, and his dad were basically
Speaker 1: organizing a retaliation plan should they get arrested and charged,
Speaker 1: specifically targeting myself and the wine and Share for a year. Okay,
Speaker 1: And according to the person who gave you this information,
Speaker 1: when was that stage summer of twenty eighteen. Anjanette Levy
Speaker 1: heard Agent Scheiderer's testimony that day. I think there's supposed
Speaker 1: to be a couple of informants in this case, and
Speaker 1: one of them, which is very interesting, happens to be
Speaker 1: a woman who married Jake Wagner when the family went
Speaker 1: to Alaska. Let's stop here for another quick break. We'll
Speaker 1: be back in a moment. Last season, we talked about
Speaker 1: the Wagner suspicious move to Alaska in June of twenty seventeen,
Speaker 1: at the height of the rod and murder investigation. They
Speaker 1: said this had been planned for some time. The boys
Speaker 1: were looking for good jobs up there, and then Jake
Speaker 1: met a woman at church. They became married, and in
Speaker 1: the discovery documents that detail what was handed over by
Speaker 1: the state to the Wagner attorneys. It states that there
Speaker 1: are several interviews between a Bureau of Criminal Investigations agent
Speaker 1: and the woman that Jake Wagner married while he was
Speaker 1: living in Alaska. So there are a number of interviews
Speaker 1: with her and recorded phone calls between this woman and
Speaker 1: Jake Wagner. What about the witnesses who were left alive
Speaker 1: at the scene the rod and children who were spared
Speaker 1: that fateful night in twenty sixteen. One of the kids
Speaker 1: was a three year old toddler. If that child witnessed
Speaker 1: the murder, I don't know if he's said something when
Speaker 1: the investors came in that pointed to possibly someone in
Speaker 1: the Wagner family, because they would have all known each other.
Speaker 1: You know, he's eight now, if he had any memory
Speaker 1: or had said something at the time when they found him,
Speaker 1: is there any potential that he might be called as
Speaker 1: a witness? Although eight now, in Ohio the rule is
Speaker 1: a child under the age of ten is presumed incompetent
Speaker 1: to testify. Now, if a judge does what they call
Speaker 1: a border of that potential witness and determines that the
Speaker 1: young person does know the difference between telling the truth
Speaker 1: and telling a lie. It's possible that the judge could
Speaker 1: permit the testimony, but boy, any defense attorney are going
Speaker 1: to fight like crazy to keep something like that out.
Speaker 1: It comes down to the reliability. Is it a reliable statement?
Speaker 1: Can you rely on something that a three year old
Speaker 1: saw and something that an eight year old years after
Speaker 1: the fact is trying to explain. It's tough, not impossible
Speaker 1: to get a statement like that in, but I think
Speaker 1: highly unlikely. Mike Allen points it out a compelling entry
Speaker 1: in one of the discovery documents that implies another piece
Speaker 1: of the evidentiary puzzle. Is there one piece of evidence
Speaker 1: just based on what you've seen in terms of the
Speaker 1: discovery list, that is the AHA or something that really
Speaker 1: surprised you. Yeah, there's definitely one thing, says trash poll
Speaker 1: from June eighth, twenty and seventeen, and that can only
Speaker 1: mean one thing that DNA is involved in this case.
Speaker 1: What a trash poll is is when somebody sets their
Speaker 1: trash out at the curb, they do not have a
Speaker 1: privacy interest anymore in that trash. So it's open season
Speaker 1: for the police if they want to go rooting through
Speaker 1: somebody's trash and that's how in many instances, that's how
Speaker 1: law enforcement gets DNA evidence is from trash polls. That's
Speaker 1: the thing that closes the deal, right, that that like
Speaker 1: closes the case essentially, that's the part of the CSI
Speaker 1: thing that you know, jurors watch and that's one thing
Speaker 1: that's accurate. I mean, if it gets into evidence, it's
Speaker 1: it's just devastating. Another revelation we're likely to witness at
Speaker 1: the trial is more information about the rodents autopsy reports.
Speaker 1: Though the documents were released months after the murders in
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen, they were heavily redacted due to a gag
Speaker 1: order imposed by the judge on the case. This is
Speaker 1: just a situation where, you know, the trial judge, who
Speaker 1: has to shepherd these trials through fairly doesn't want the
Speaker 1: public getting this information before trial. One of the reasons
Speaker 1: being you don't want a tainted jury pool, and of
Speaker 1: course the prosecution they don't want to telegraph anything from
Speaker 1: that autopsy with respect of their strategy. Reporter James Pilcher
Speaker 1: told us what journalists were able to glean from the
Speaker 1: initial really he basically laid out where they were found,
Speaker 1: how many times they were shot. You know, where they
Speaker 1: were shot, and you know they did list specifically where
Speaker 1: the kids, the young kids were found. So what can
Speaker 1: we expect from the full reports. A good autopsy, I'll
Speaker 1: tell you a lot about how the victim lived and
Speaker 1: how they died and gets a pivotal critical piece of
Speaker 1: the investigation and possibly reveal information that maybe only the
Speaker 1: killer would know. But the most powerful part of the
Speaker 1: state's case could come from the prosecutor's recreation of the
Speaker 1: events of April twenty first, twenty sixteen. According to forensics
Speaker 1: expert Joseph Morgan, this narrative helps give a voice to
Speaker 1: each member of the slain family. It's something that we'll
Speaker 1: be revealing in real time as the trials for Billy
Speaker 1: Angela and George Wagner proceed. In the case of the
Speaker 1: Masker in Piked and every single human remain every body
Speaker 1: that was there has an individual tale to be told.
Speaker 1: The prosecution is trying to paint a picture here, and
Speaker 1: they're going to do that through these bodies there. That's
Speaker 1: going to be the vessel they're going to travel through here.
Speaker 1: And the more vibrant that the prosecution can make that picture,
Speaker 1: the more effective it shocks the conscience of just people
Speaker 1: that go about their normal day life. They don't expect
Speaker 1: this type of thing to happen and it is pure.
Speaker 1: More on that next time. For more information on the
Speaker 1: case and relevant photos, follow us on Instagram at Katie
Speaker 1: Underscore Studios. The Pikedon Massacre Returned to Pike County is
Speaker 1: executive produced by Stephanie Lydecker and me Courtney Armstrong. Editing
Speaker 1: and sound designed by executive producer Jared Aston. Additional producing
Speaker 1: by Jeff Andrew Becker and Chris Graves. The piked In
Speaker 1: Massacre Returned to Pike County is a production of iHeartRadio
Speaker 1: and Katie Studios. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the
Speaker 1: iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your
Speaker 1: favorite shows.