Speaker 1: The cheerleaders at a gym in Buffalo have been recording
Speaker 1: themselves to make a new documentary where the news reporters
Speaker 1: because one year ago a mass shooting changed their lives.
Speaker 1: He just walked around shot all the black people. The
Speaker 1: cheer squad, most of whom are black, had to figure
Speaker 1: out how to go on and how to compete. I
Speaker 1: wanted to win for them more than anything this season.
Speaker 1: Listen to the embedded podcast from NPR within the iHeartRadio app,
Speaker 1: or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Carol Fisher and
Speaker 1: I'm hosting a podcast called The Girlfriends. It's Las Vegas,
Speaker 1: it's the nineteen nineties, and it is time to find
Speaker 1: a husband. There were four Jewish doctors who were felt
Speaker 1: to be eligible bachelors. One of them was of the
Speaker 1: Baron bat On paper he was perfect, but in reality,
Speaker 1: this guy's a wacko. He shouted to the point went unconscious.
Speaker 1: I would call him and I would say, I know
Speaker 1: you killed my sister. You can listen to The girl
Speaker 1: Friends on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcast, or wherever you
Speaker 1: get your podcasts. Hi, it's Elvis Duran on my new podcast,
Speaker 1: Thinking out Loud with Elvis Duran. I'll be bringing you
Speaker 1: candid and maybe sometimes a little crazy interviews with people
Speaker 1: from all walks of life. We'll touch on subjects that
Speaker 1: you just can't talk about on the radio, like life, love, success, failure,
Speaker 1: or whatever else comes to mind, but all jacked up
Speaker 1: because after being in this business for as long as
Speaker 1: I have, I want to get to the bottom of
Speaker 1: what makes people tick. And listen to my new podcast,
Speaker 1: Thinking Out Loud on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts or
Speaker 1: wherever you get your podcasts. Hi, it's me Isaac MS
Speaker 1: Rahi and oh my god, we have such a special
Speaker 1: guest coming up on Hello Isaac. It's the fabulous Andy Cohen.
Speaker 1: He's here to talk to us about all the stuff
Speaker 1: you want to talk to Andy about and Darling's That
Speaker 1: episode is coming out on Monday, July thirty. First listen
Speaker 1: to Hello Isaac on the iHeartRadio app or wherever you
Speaker 1: get your podcasts. This just in today. Attorneys for George
Speaker 1: Wagner the Fourth Sake there is proof he did not
Speaker 1: kill any of the eight victims and therefore could avoid
Speaker 1: the death penalty. Judge Randy Deering heard an impassioned plea
Speaker 1: from George Wagner's attorney, who said his client never pulled
Speaker 1: a trigger on the night eight members of the Rodent
Speaker 1: family were killed execution style. The state made a deal
Speaker 1: with the devil. Basically, so far, Edward Jake Wagner and
Speaker 1: his mother Angela Wagner have confessed to prosecutors and have
Speaker 1: agreed to testify against the rest of the family. George
Speaker 1: and Billy Wagner are still going through the court process.
Speaker 1: The trial has been sent for April of next year.
Speaker 1: This is George Wagner's defense attorney talking about Jake Wagner.
Speaker 1: He's the person that is most responsible for this. He's
Speaker 1: the actual killer. He's the actual He's the one that
Speaker 1: snuck into these homes in the middle of the night
Speaker 1: and shot the victims in the head. All right, Our
Speaker 1: client didn't shoot anybody anyway, says we made a deal
Speaker 1: with the double unfortunated window in this case, and that
Speaker 1: is all four of the individual two are charged in
Speaker 1: this This is the piked In massacre Returned to Pike
Speaker 1: County Season three, Episode four, State of Ohio Versus George
Speaker 1: Wagner the Fourth I'm Courtney Armstrong, a television producer at
Speaker 1: KAT Studios. With Stephanie Lydecker and Jeff Shane, with both
Speaker 1: Jake and Angela taking plea deals. The possible outcome of
Speaker 1: George Wagner's child seems, on the surface limited in scope.
Speaker 1: It is anything but that the defense is trying to
Speaker 1: position themselves to win the case by limiting what evidence
Speaker 1: will be admissible through a series of motions. Each motion
Speaker 1: involves a request to the court by the defense to
Speaker 1: make 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 themselves to the death penalty. The first motion
Speaker 1: will discuss is eighty one. Here's journalist Angeanette Levy, followed
Speaker 1: by criminal attorney and legal analyst Mike Allen. They're both
Speaker 1: speaking with producer Chris Graves. On January tenth of twenty
Speaker 1: twenty two, the defense for George Wagner filed motion number
Speaker 1: eighty one, and it was a motion to suppress audio recordings.
Speaker 1: And the thing they're taking issue with in this motion
Speaker 1: is the fact that apparently DCI agents and other law
Speaker 1: enforcement involved in this case placed listening devices in a
Speaker 1: truck that was driven by both George Wagner and Jake
Speaker 1: Wagner before the Wagners were arrested in twenty eighteen. Hundreds
Speaker 1: of hours of audio were recorded by Ohio BCI. I'm
Speaker 1: looking at this and I'm thinking to myself, what on
Speaker 1: earth could be so damning in these recordings. There may
Speaker 1: 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 Georgia's truck. Here's Stephanie and Jeff.
Speaker 1: I think there's a really big piece to the puzzle
Speaker 1: here about why are tapping and bugging, and there seems
Speaker 1: to be some sort of a difference between the two
Speaker 1: that is now really a big piece of George's defense.
Speaker 1: Wire tapping and bugging, I think often get confused, and
Speaker 1: you see wire tapping and bugging a lot in movies
Speaker 1: and TV shows, but it's actually a little more nuanced
Speaker 1: than what you see on the screen. So how wire
Speaker 1: tapping works specifically is that you need to get permission
Speaker 1: from a phone company to tap into the cell transmission tower.
Speaker 1: And back in the old days, what you would see
Speaker 1: done in the movies is cops literally clipping wires to
Speaker 1: the phone line in the basement or something like that.
Speaker 1: But now it's all done remotely electronically, so in conjunction
Speaker 1: with the warrant served to the cell phone provider, officials
Speaker 1: are able to do it from the comfort of their office.
Speaker 1: Bugging literally is this transmitter with a microphone that needs
Speaker 1: to be planted someplace physically in a space where authorities
Speaker 1: would 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 conversations 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 happening, 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 Wagners 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 the 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 point,
Speaker 1: the two brothers were alone for hours or even days
Speaker 1: on the road and what they assumed was a completely
Speaker 1: private setting. That really does speak to the question of
Speaker 1: assumed privacy and conversations that may have happened between Jake
Speaker 1: and George. Allegedly, those conversations are probably very relevant for
Speaker 1: this trial. So the fact that the defense wants to
Speaker 1: question that speaks more to what they're potentially hiding. Here's
Speaker 1: Judge pat Dinka Locker. This is interesting because we don't
Speaker 1: get bugging cases wire tapping cases much. When I looked
Speaker 1: through this, I thought to myself if they had an
Speaker 1: expectation of privacy, the two of them, okay in the
Speaker 1: state illegally vid that then this is the proper motion
Speaker 1: that the judge could grant, say that they're not allowed
Speaker 1: to bring those audio recordings into evidence. Here's Judge Sylvia Hendon,
Speaker 1: who works as a visiting judge out of the Ohio
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. It's a violation sixth Amendment. We see that
Speaker 1: all the time. You have an expectation of privacy. Does
Speaker 1: your expectation of privacy increase if you're in a sleeper
Speaker 1: cab truck versus a regular cab truck. I don't know
Speaker 1: the answer to that, But again, speaking from an appellate perspective,
Speaker 1: I can tell you that whichever way Judge during goes
Speaker 1: on this, it's going to be an issue. I believe
Speaker 1: in the event of an appeal, I would have to
Speaker 1: believe that that motion to suppress is going to loom
Speaker 1: large in the Court of Appeals. In the event of
Speaker 1: a guilty finding, I will be very interested to see
Speaker 1: his ruling. If I'm employed by somebody, even if I'm
Speaker 1: sleeping there, I wouldn't think that I walk into a
Speaker 1: building or an entity owned by somebody else that's employing me.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't think that I would have an expectation of privacy.
Speaker 1: Here's former BCI homicide investigator Seth Hageman testifying in court.
Speaker 1: He oversaw the creation of the warrants for the Wagner case.
Speaker 1: So when you're installing devices, you need a search warrant
Speaker 1: in the county where you're going to install the device
Speaker 1: correctly and specifically, you're talking about the search warrant that
Speaker 1: was installed in the RNL truck, correct that both the defendant,
Speaker 1: George Wagner and his brother Jake Wagner drove in tandem.
Speaker 1: Correct To get approval to bug or wire tap, investigators
Speaker 1: must adhere to an even stricter protocol than a standard
Speaker 1: search warrant. They must also produce what's called an interception warrant.
Speaker 1: Interception warrants are inherently scrutinized to a greater degree because
Speaker 1: of the privacy issues that they raise, and they're very
Speaker 1: specific statutory requirements of other things in addition to just
Speaker 1: the normal probable cause of the search warrant. That needs
Speaker 1: to be addressed among those is not only do I
Speaker 1: have to show there's probable cause that a crime was committed.
Speaker 1: You have to show that there is probable cause that
Speaker 1: a specific person or person's committed that crime. You actually
Speaker 1: have to show that you've exhausted other methods of investigation
Speaker 1: that were less intrusive prior to applying for that, and
Speaker 1: so those are the different steps that make it more
Speaker 1: complicated in a much more difficult process to obtain. Hageman
Speaker 1: an Ohio BCI felt that after months of the investigation
Speaker 1: they had grounds to successfully lobby for an interception warrant.
Speaker 1: During the investigation, Inspector Hageman put together a lengthy report
Speaker 1: and submitted it for approval of an interception warrant to
Speaker 1: bug the Wagners truck. The warrant was approved, giving homicide
Speaker 1: a period of thirty days to monitor the truck once
Speaker 1: the bug was installed. The state played it one hundred
Speaker 1: percent by the book, but the prosecution's case is complicated
Speaker 1: by the fact Ohiobci coordinated the bugging of George's truck
Speaker 1: with his employer, and the defense has raised this as
Speaker 1: a second point of contention in their motion. Here again
Speaker 1: reporter Angrenette Levy, followed by attorney and legal analyst Mike Ellen.
Speaker 1: The defense is saying this basically violated George's rights because
Speaker 1: the owner of the truck allowed it to happen and
Speaker 1: he had an expectation of privacy. But I'm not really
Speaker 1: sure you have an expectation of privacy in a truck
Speaker 1: that your employer owns. Apparently the owner consented to the bug,
Speaker 1: but it's a case of where the owner is actually
Speaker 1: acting as the government's agent and authorizing that, and there
Speaker 1: could be problems with that. It probably would be upheld.
Speaker 1: You know. It all depends on what the cops probable
Speaker 1: cause for the search warrant to do that would be,
Speaker 1: And I think that's one of the sticking points on
Speaker 1: this one. There is a third complicating issue for the prosecution.
Speaker 1: Much of the audio was recorded across state lines. Would
Speaker 1: any statement that is given outside of the state of
Speaker 1: Ohio be valid under that warrant? Now I don't have
Speaker 1: the warrant, so I don't know for sure, but I
Speaker 1: think that's going to be questioned as well. Usually warrants
Speaker 1: are just limited to the geographical jurisdiction, and in this case,
Speaker 1: it'd be Pike County and or the state of Ohio.
Speaker 1: But let's just say he said something incriminating in Tennessee.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I mean, there may be problems with
Speaker 1: that too. If it was a federal warrant, then they'd
Speaker 1: be okay, but a state warrant they might have some
Speaker 1: issues with that. I've not researched it. I've never encountered
Speaker 1: it ever as an attorney, law student, whatever, But it's
Speaker 1: an issue that if I were defense counsel, I'd be
Speaker 1: pursuing it. The defense also claims that the investigators on
Speaker 1: the case tried to lead the Wagner brothers into incriminating themselves.
Speaker 1: They talk about in the motion that they were trying
Speaker 1: to stimulate incriminating conversation by initiating the contact, and that
Speaker 1: could be problematic for the government too. I mean, if
Speaker 1: a statement is freely and voluntarily given, then there's no
Speaker 1: problem with it. But if the government induces someone to
Speaker 1: make a statement, that could be problematic. What I also
Speaker 1: thought was very interesting about this was the fact that
Speaker 1: police would actually put things out on social media in
Speaker 1: hopes that one of the Wagners, or specifically Angela Wagner
Speaker 1: accused killer Mom, that she would see these posts and
Speaker 1: that would maybe stir up conversation that they would then
Speaker 1: have with each other, and then those conversations would be bugged.
Speaker 1: This is actually called tickling the wire, and tickling the
Speaker 1: wire means that the Feds have wire taps in place
Speaker 1: and are placing stories and then waiting for revealing conversations
Speaker 1: to happen because of said stories. And that's the question specifically,
Speaker 1: is that baiting or is that just good process. Angela
Speaker 1: Wagner's mother, Rita Joe Newcombe was sent a court order
Speaker 1: to have these conversations where she would go with the
Speaker 1: boys into having further conversations with her mother and father
Speaker 1: about the crimes. Remember when she got arrested, her mother
Speaker 1: also got arrested. That's Rita Newcome. So here is Rita
Speaker 1: trying to get herself also out of this mess that
Speaker 1: she was dragged into because she was accused of all
Speaker 1: this forgery with the original custody documents. Now she's basically
Speaker 1: working with BCI to start conversations with the Wagner boys
Speaker 1: to hopefully get them to say something incriminating. That just
Speaker 1: shows the dissension between mother daughter. That's her grandsons and
Speaker 1: that's her daughter and her son in law. Rita Nucombe
Speaker 1: was charged with forgery, perjury, and obstructing justice. In twenty nineteen,
Speaker 1: Nucombe reached a plea deal and those charges were dropped.
Speaker 1: She ultimately pleaded guilty to a reduced misdemeanor charge of
Speaker 1: obstructing official business. It must have been probably a hard
Speaker 1: celt to swallow. We know she didn't have much choice
Speaker 1: because it was a court order, but at this point
Speaker 1: we do know a little bit of her frame of mind.
Speaker 1: According to her son Chris Newcombe, 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 Hageman 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
Speaker 1: of where it has been related to a cool case
Speaker 1: homicide four or five? And in those situations, did you
Speaker 1: use this same method as far as tickling the wire
Speaker 1: or provocative 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 thinks actually exonerated someone using that
Speaker 1: nothing here Again, as attorney my Gallen, it's just a
Speaker 1: really fine line as far as inducement. The government has
Speaker 1: some flexibility, but still, I mean, they can't elicitly for
Speaker 1: an illicit purpose kind of god them into making a comment.
Speaker 1: Every case rises and falls on its own set of facts.
Speaker 1: And I know that's not really a helpful answer, but
Speaker 1: it's an accurate answer. Besides investigators and the Wagners themselves,
Speaker 1: no one but the prosecution and defense know what is
Speaker 1: on those tapes. If the guy makes some incriminating statements
Speaker 1: and they are validly taken, that's a problem. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's a problem for the defense because they're 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 state'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 state's 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. Oh.
Speaker 1: I'm Carol Fisher, and I'm hosting a podcast called The Girlfriends.
Speaker 1: Back in the nineteen nineties in Las Vegas, a few
Speaker 1: of us dated the most eligible bachelor in town, Bob.
Speaker 1: He spoke several languages, he did medical missionary work, and
Speaker 1: he was Jewish. He was perfect on paper, but he wasn't.
Speaker 1: He really wasn't. He shouted and to the point she
Speaker 1: went unconscious. Could lie about anything, but only takes the
Speaker 1: one time when somebody ends up dead. Unfortunately for Bob,
Speaker 1: us girlfriends know how to fight back. I wanted him
Speaker 1: to pay for his crime. He needed to be put
Speaker 1: to justice. I'll be honest with you. If I saw
Speaker 1: him right now, I'd spit on him. I would call
Speaker 1: him and I would say, I know you killed my sister.
Speaker 1: I will always hound you and haunt you. You can
Speaker 1: listen to the girlfriends on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcast,
Speaker 1: or wherever you get your podcasts. LA's reputation not so great.
Speaker 1: People from LA will have a very superficial, nice conversation
Speaker 1: with you, and they won't lift a finger to help you.
Speaker 1: To LA, people represent rapidity, stop that like oh the
Speaker 1: best girls like ah shoot Lee. As someone born and
Speaker 1: raised here, I can tell you there's much more to
Speaker 1: LA than this. My name is James Kim, and I'm
Speaker 1: the creator of a new anthology fiction podcast, call You
Speaker 1: Feeling This. There's ten different stories about LA and the
Speaker 1: real people who make up this city. What up Bar?
Speaker 1: Did you listen to My message we're just trying to
Speaker 1: get bought. I think I was just freaking out because
Speaker 1: I'm scared by connecting with each other. I'm going to
Speaker 1: be a father. Ye Are you feeling? This? A fiction
Speaker 1: podcast mixtape about love. Listen to it on the iHeartRadio app,
Speaker 1: Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcast. How Rude
Speaker 1: Tanta Rito's is the Full House rewatch podcast you've been
Speaker 1: waiting for. Each week, get together with iconic characters Stephanie
Speaker 1: Tanner and Kimmy Gibbler, also known as actresses Jody Sweeten
Speaker 1: and Andrea Barber as they team up to relive every
Speaker 1: episode of your favorite Friday night comfort show. We spent
Speaker 1: our entire childhoods on a little show called Full House,
Speaker 1: playing frenemies but becoming besties whenever the cameras weren't rolling,
Speaker 1: And now, thirty five years later, it's our biggest adventure yet.
Speaker 1: Get ready for Jody and Andrea to tell all as
Speaker 1: they take an in depth book back at life in
Speaker 1: and around the Tanner Home from the very very beginning.
Speaker 1: So if you think you know everything there is to
Speaker 1: know about Full House, How Rude, We'll be reliving every
Speaker 1: moment with you, and we'll be joined by our full
Speaker 1: house family, including all your favorites from one hundred and
Speaker 1: ninety two episodes. We'll reveal the hidden treasures you may
Speaker 1: have missed within the show, and we'll take a trip
Speaker 1: down memory lane together. Listen to how Rude Tannertos on
Speaker 1: the iHeartRadio appcable podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Everybody,
Speaker 1: we know there are a ton of podcasts out there. Well,
Speaker 1: we have one we would love for you to check out.
Speaker 1: It is called The pen Pals Podcast with Daniel Van
Speaker 1: Kirk and Rory Scoville. We are both stand up comedians
Speaker 1: where actors were writers, but now most of all, we
Speaker 1: are your pen pals. Every single episode we get two
Speaker 1: letters that we read from our listeners, our new pen pals.
Speaker 1: It can be about anything going on in their life,
Speaker 1: and sometimes we're also joined by guests like Will Ferrell.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna bring you up in front of the group.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna punch you as hard as I can stomach. Roseburn.
Speaker 1: This is West Hollywood. We keep Clay Jo considered, Brian,
Speaker 1: I'm just showing you that my mind is quick, if
Speaker 1: not that funny, and Mandy Moore. We're all crossing the
Speaker 1: line together. Listen to the pen Pals podcast on Will
Speaker 1: Ferrell's Big Money Players Network, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple
Speaker 1: Podcast or wherever you get your podcasts, and sirely your
Speaker 1: new pen Pals Daniel van Kirk and Rory Scobel. Another
Speaker 1: motion Motion eighty has been put forth by the defense
Speaker 1: to 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 plan. Again, this is from Jake's profferty. Jake has
Speaker 1: stated clearly that George did not shoot new One, did
Speaker 1: not fire a shot, was not supposed to go with
Speaker 1: Jake and Billy on the murder spree, and only went
Speaker 1: as a last second to protect Jake from Billy, who
Speaker 1: was thought he might kill Jake at the end of
Speaker 1: the series of accurgated murders, presumably to get rid of
Speaker 1: a witness. Do you never really emotions to suppress the
Speaker 1: testimony of someone else, so gay you have still the
Speaker 1: capability of trying to show some kind of dishonesty on
Speaker 1: Jake's part, or that he's not testifying truthfully. But what
Speaker 1: there is a thing the court to do is to
Speaker 1: take this away to suppress their statements before the jury
Speaker 1: ever gets to hear it. Grounds to suppress are usually
Speaker 1: based on a misconduct of officers. Was their coercive activity
Speaker 1: on the part of officers and they weren't coerce clearly
Speaker 1: Angela and Jake. For one thing, the defense attorneys here
Speaker 1: don't represent the Angela or Jakes, so they don't have
Speaker 1: standing to suppress their statements. Because they're representing George, they
Speaker 1: can move to suppress his statements, but not Jake's and Angela,
Speaker 1: so this is somewhat novel. They're trying to suppress it
Speaker 1: not because of any course of activity, but because he
Speaker 1: might be motivated to lie under oath because he wants
Speaker 1: to get his agreement enforced. So our proffers done under
Speaker 1: oath they can be, they don't have to be. I
Speaker 1: don't know how they did it here. I know I
Speaker 1: have done that on occasion when I have a co
Speaker 1: defendant or someone that's going to cooperate, I have tried
Speaker 1: to get it under oath in case they don't testify
Speaker 1: in accordance with it, I can bring that up and
Speaker 1: cross examine them. Look, you gave a sworn statement before
Speaker 1: you're under oath. You said it was the truth, and
Speaker 1: you're now you're saying this, So I'm assuming they may
Speaker 1: have done that, but it's not required. It's possible Jake
Speaker 1: could have lied to get out of the death penalty
Speaker 1: or said what he had to say to save his brother.
Speaker 1: You're obviously putting some trust, in some faith in his statement.
Speaker 1: You're putting somebody up there to testify to this when
Speaker 1: you may not be exactly sure that he's telling the
Speaker 1: whole truth. And that happens sometimes in cases where somebody
Speaker 1: they're telling you the truth but maybe not the whole truth.
Speaker 1: Like you're not getting the whole story, the entire story,
Speaker 1: but you're basically getting what happened, but not every little detail.
Speaker 1: Because maybe Jake was trying to protect his brother at
Speaker 1: some point too. You know, maybe he's thinking, God, I
Speaker 1: can't take my brother down with me. I'm not sure
Speaker 1: why father would kill his son or why another son
Speaker 1: would be fearful of that. Even the motivation potentially is
Speaker 1: Billy the mastermind. Yeah, but mastermind and also his motive
Speaker 1: if he's trying to eliminate witnesses, and certainly makes you
Speaker 1: think this is not the most functional family. The presumption
Speaker 1: has been that it was Angela who kind of masterminded everything.
Speaker 1: And I'm not saying she's not deserving. I don't know here,
Speaker 1: but we're hard on matriarchs sometimes or mothers, and did
Speaker 1: we do that legitimately? It does really kind of make
Speaker 1: you think who was calling the shots in this operation.
Speaker 1: If that's indeed true, that George only went along at
Speaker 1: the last minute to protect his brother from their father,
Speaker 1: what was going on there? What is Billy capable of?
Speaker 1: I mean, I guess George in this scenario was ready
Speaker 1: to die for his brother protecting him. That would be
Speaker 1: one hell of a car ride, wouldn't it. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: don't know much about Billy. Nobody's spoken about Billy very much.
Speaker 1: Was that the kind of defense they're fashioning, that he's
Speaker 1: here to protect Jake from big Dad Billy and that
Speaker 1: they're both afraid of him? And how is he going
Speaker 1: to protect him from big bad Billy unless he has
Speaker 1: a firearm? Maybe? Do you know what kind of dad
Speaker 1: he was? I was here with Jake and George he
Speaker 1: was an asshole. Chris Nwcom, who we've heard from before,
Speaker 1: is Angela Agner's half brother, and now Karen Billy get
Speaker 1: into some screaming matches. Billy's about a useless sustints on
Speaker 1: a borehole. That's the guy who run the truth up.
Speaker 1: How do you mean? I mean that man is one
Speaker 1: hundred percent just lazy and hale, useless, always conniving on something,
Speaker 1: trying to think how to do something, to make a
Speaker 1: quick book. That's the most horseless human being I think
Speaker 1: I've ever met in my life. Despite Billy's nature, angelisted
Speaker 1: by his side. Some see a parallel with Angela's dad,
Speaker 1: Eddie pug Carter. I knew him a hug Carter. He
Speaker 1: always wore this like metal brace and he walked with
Speaker 1: a limp. What I heard from my dad was that
Speaker 1: he would find electric holes and steal copper or something
Speaker 1: else felt holes, and he's gotten elxecuted and it affected
Speaker 1: his walking. It could be that Angela was fiercely loyal
Speaker 1: to Billy because he reminded her of her father. At
Speaker 1: the end of the day, the prosecution in this particular
Speaker 1: case is focused on one job, putting George Wagner behind
Speaker 1: bars or possibly even sending him to death row. It
Speaker 1: will be up to the jury to navigate the muddy
Speaker 1: waters of the Wagner family dynamic. If you are a
Speaker 1: group of people and you are going to go do something,
Speaker 1: if one person holds back and says, now, I'm not
Speaker 1: going 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: and they're just as much a part of all that
Speaker 1: ended up happening as the person who actually pulled the trigger.
Speaker 1: And I know that, and I think jurors know that.
Speaker 1: People know that, but will they really hold them accountable.
Speaker 1: It's a little harder to understand how the pleas 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 lord knows how many witnesses.
Speaker 1: Let's stop here for another break. Oh, I'm Carol Fisher,
Speaker 1: and I'm hosting a podcast called The girl Friends. Back
Speaker 1: in the nineteen nineties in Las Vegas, a few of
Speaker 1: us dated the most eligible bachelor in town, Bob. He's
Speaker 1: spoke several languages, he did medical missionary work, and he
Speaker 1: was Jewish. He was perfect on paper, but he wasn't.
Speaker 1: He really wasn't. He shouted and to the point she
Speaker 1: went unconscious. Bob could lie about anything, but only takes
Speaker 1: the one time when somebody ends up dead. Unfortunately for Bob,
Speaker 1: us girlfriends know how to fight back. I wanted him
Speaker 1: to pay for his crime. He needed to be put
Speaker 1: to justice. I'll be honest with you. If I saw
Speaker 1: him right now, I'd spit on him. I would call
Speaker 1: him and I would say, I know you killed my sister.
Speaker 1: I will always hound you and haunt you. You can
Speaker 1: listen to The Girlfriends on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcast
Speaker 1: or wherever you get your podcasts. Hi, I'm Delia Wild
Speaker 1: and I want to invite you to listen to my
Speaker 1: newest podcast to existed the two styles. It's called The
Speaker 1: Oh My God Particle Show or OMGPS short. How you
Speaker 1: like me? Always wondering about the universally, what the universe
Speaker 1: is made of? What is in the atmospheres of alien punics?
Speaker 1: And you know, how are we even here to even
Speaker 1: ask those questions? So road trip I want to get
Speaker 1: some answers directly from researchers at the Large Hadron Collider.
Speaker 1: We're colliding particles with energies that naturally existed when the
Speaker 1: universe was about a trillions of the second Old. I
Speaker 1: found scientists from all over the world. Everybody is working
Speaker 1: together to get their experiment working. I've got to doctor
Speaker 1: brilliant astrophysicist who collaborated with Brian May, the guitarist from Queen.
Speaker 1: Listen to The Oh My God Particle Show on the
Speaker 1: I Heard Radio app, Apple Podcasts or wherever you get
Speaker 1: your podcasts. She's a Hollywood Western She's Jack Harrowak, but
Speaker 1: in an app dress with brains. She is one of
Speaker 1: the most important American children's authors of the twentieth century.
Speaker 1: She's the basis for a television show still watched around
Speaker 1: the world. Somebody somewhere is watching A Little as the Room.
Speaker 1: She's been called a hero, a racist, a feminist, and
Speaker 1: a propagandist. I think the harm is too great because
Speaker 1: it's just one more thing that Native children have to endure.
Speaker 1: She is Laura Ingles Wilder, author of the book series
Speaker 1: Little House on the Prairie. As a kid, I idolized Laura,
Speaker 1: and last summer I went on the road in search
Speaker 1: of the real Laura. We're literally on the prairie. What
Speaker 1: I found was a complicated person alongside the complicated country
Speaker 1: she represents. I'm Glennis McNicol, and this is Wilder. Listen
Speaker 1: to Wilder on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts or wherever
Speaker 1: you get your podcasts. On the Best Podcast Ever with
Speaker 1: Raven and Miranda, you'll hear well the best cod cast Ever.
Speaker 1: Join Raven Simone and her partner Miranda may Day as
Speaker 1: they let the Wheel of Words determine the topic of
Speaker 1: that week's show. Every episode will spin a wheel of
Speaker 1: random words from things like animosity to something like zodiac
Speaker 1: and whatever it lands on, that's what we're going to
Speaker 1: talk about for around an hour. Think we can't do it, well,
Speaker 1: then you've never heard us talk. Each week, Raven and
Speaker 1: Miranda and celebrity guests like Demi Levado, Kiki Palmer, and
Speaker 1: Megan Trainer will spend the Fateful Wheel and then the
Speaker 1: conversation will begin. Also, we're gonna have a ton of
Speaker 1: amazing guests because you don't want to just hear us
Speaker 1: to all the time. Do yes, you do? And somehow
Speaker 1: We're going to start with something like Spider and end
Speaker 1: with well, when was your last nervous breakdown? Listen to
Speaker 1: the Best podcast Ever with Raven and Miranda on the
Speaker 1: iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: Without the audio from George's hub, the jury will not
Speaker 1: get to hear what the detectives heard in private conversations
Speaker 1: between the brothers, and if the defense's motions are successful,
Speaker 1: Jake and Angela's testimony will be off the table as well.
Speaker 1: Would you be concerned if it's a live witness and
Speaker 1: Angela steps on the stand and she's facing her oldest
Speaker 1: son testifying against them, is there a word that might
Speaker 1: cause her not to Yeah? Any witness who's somewhat involved
Speaker 1: with the defense. Even though they've said they're testifying and
Speaker 1: they've given good information to pass, you have to wonder
Speaker 1: what's the physical, visceral effects, emotional effect of sitting in
Speaker 1: front of that person. Will they freeze? Will they talk?
Speaker 1: Will they tell us what they've told us before? This
Speaker 1: brings us to the final issue. The defense and prosecution
Speaker 1: must navigate how Jake and Angela's plea deal relates to
Speaker 1: these motions and what that means for the future of
Speaker 1: all four Wagners. As of now, the death penalty is
Speaker 1: still on the table for George Wagner, and Jake and
Speaker 1: Angela's deal to avoid death row is not guaranteed. It's
Speaker 1: contingent upon their testimony being what the court calls to
Speaker 1: the satisfaction of the prosecution. We look at this family
Speaker 1: and their story keeps changing, and I am curious to
Speaker 1: know what the air quote satisfaction of the prosecution even means.
Speaker 1: Does that mean that if Jake and Angela, who we
Speaker 1: know have taken plea agreements, if they don't deliver the goods,
Speaker 1: then what is their death sentence put back on the
Speaker 1: table or all of their death sentences put back on
Speaker 1: the table. Who decides the satisfaction piece, it would be
Speaker 1: the prosecution. And so basically, under the terms of their deal,
Speaker 1: they probably agreed to the version of events of that
Speaker 1: night and the months I let up to the crime.
Speaker 1: And so if once they're on the stand under oath
Speaker 1: and they don't stick to the script for lack of
Speaker 1: a better term, than the whole deal would be off
Speaker 1: and death penalty would be back on the table for
Speaker 1: the entire family. George is sticking to his not guilty plea,
Speaker 1: which would imply that he's not involved in this at all.
Speaker 1: And so Jake and Angela's testimony, which we can assume
Speaker 1: is going to say something along the lines of, well,
Speaker 1: while George might not have pulled the trigger, he certainly
Speaker 1: knew about the murders and might have been there the
Speaker 1: night of the murders and helped cover the murders up.
Speaker 1: And so that testimony is going to be pretty damning
Speaker 1: for his not guilty plea. It does also speak to
Speaker 1: the fact that there are so many endings that could
Speaker 1: still be You know, we see plea deals and you
Speaker 1: think that's the end of the road for Jake Wagner.
Speaker 1: But now that's not so there's a big performance ahead
Speaker 1: and he and now his mother, who he's essentially working
Speaker 1: with and against at the same time. How this plays
Speaker 1: out in court with George and then later Billy Dad,
Speaker 1: every piece of it affects the other person. So the
Speaker 1: totality of it is massive. And this whole case from
Speaker 1: the beginning has been utterly unpredictable. And so to assume
Speaker 1: when Billy and George's trials start that we know what's
Speaker 1: going to happen and we know what Jake and Angela
Speaker 1: are going to say when they're on the stand, I
Speaker 1: think would be naive. I think what we can assume
Speaker 1: is that we don't really know the ending yet. We've
Speaker 1: been told several theories, even just this season alone, that
Speaker 1: speak to a larger plot happening behind the scenes, and
Speaker 1: that it's possible that the Wagoners are lying. Jake may
Speaker 1: have a hand in deciding whether he and his brother
Speaker 1: live or die. It's also possible the defense and prosecution
Speaker 1: don't know the whole story that Angela and Jake have
Speaker 1: to tell. There's a tenseness about it that isn't there
Speaker 1: 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.
Speaker 1: It all depends on what their story is on the
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 cartel involvement and other rumors still lingering
Speaker 1: in Pike County. If given the opportunity to testify, could
Speaker 1: Jake and Angela Wagner choose to blow this whole thing up?
Speaker 1: Or are they being put up to it behind bars?
Speaker 1: We have heard many rumors regarding the cartel and that
Speaker 1: there's a larger story happening here and that the Rodents
Speaker 1: murder was not just merely over custody, but that there's
Speaker 1: larger issues at play with some different dealings between the families,
Speaker 1: and that's dangerous stuff and maybe it's possible that the
Speaker 1: Wagners are safest behind bars. More on that next time.
Speaker 1: If you're enjoying The Pikes and Massacre, listen to our
Speaker 1: other hit series, Crazy in Love. New episodes there every
Speaker 1: Tuesday wherever you get your podcasts. For more information and
Speaker 1: case photos, follow us on Instagram at Katie Underscore Studios.
Speaker 1: The Pikes and Massacre is produced by Stephanie Lydecker, Jeff Shane,
Speaker 1: Chris Graves, and me Courtney Armstrong. Editing and sound designed
Speaker 1: by Jeff Tis, music by Jared Aston, Audio mixing by
Speaker 1: Ken Novak. The Pikes and Massacre is a production of
Speaker 1: Katie Studios and iHeartRadio. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit
Speaker 1: the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to
Speaker 1: your favorite shows. I'm Carol Fisher and I'm hosting a
Speaker 1: podcast called The girl Friends. It's Las Vegas, it's the
Speaker 1: nineteen nineties and it is time to find a husband.
Speaker 1: There were four Jewish doctors who were felt to be
Speaker 1: eligible bachelors. One of them one of the spot Baron Bout.
Speaker 1: On paper, he was perfect, but in reality, this guy's
Speaker 1: a workout. He choked it to the point she went unconscious.
Speaker 1: I would call him and I would say, I know
Speaker 1: you killed my sister. You can listen to The Girlfriends
Speaker 1: on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcast or wherever you get
Speaker 1: your podcasts. Hi, it's Elvis Duran on my new podcast,
Speaker 1: Thinking out Loud with Elvis Duran. I'll be bringing you
Speaker 1: candid and maybe sometimes a little crazy interviews with people
Speaker 1: from all walks of life. We'll touch on subjects that
Speaker 1: you just can't talk about on the radio, like life, love, success, failure,
Speaker 1: or whatever else comes to mind, but all jacked up
Speaker 1: because after being in this business for as long as
Speaker 1: I have, I want to get to the bottom of
Speaker 1: what makes people tick. And listen to my new podcast,
Speaker 1: Thinking Out Loud on the iHeartRadio, Apple Apple Podcasts or
Speaker 1: wherever you get your podcasts. Hi, it's me Isaac Msrahi
Speaker 1: And oh my god, we have such a special guest
Speaker 1: coming up on Hello Isaac. It's the fabulous and de Cohen.
Speaker 1: He's here to talk to us about all this stuff
Speaker 1: you want to talk to Andy about and darlings. That
Speaker 1: episode is coming out on Monday, July thirty. First, listen
Speaker 1: to Hello Isaac on the iHeartRadio app or wherever you
Speaker 1: get your podcasts. So, how does the half American, half
Speaker 1: Nicaraguan party girl from New Orleans? There's absolutely no journalism experience,
Speaker 1: right the biggest story of the eighties, That's what journalist
Speaker 1: is all about. I'm a woman, wife beater T shirt,
Speaker 1: not wearing a braw curses like a sailor. I got
Speaker 1: balls bigger than any man. Dan Rather used to call
Speaker 1: me his secret weapon. Listen to Journalist To every Tuesday
Speaker 1: on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcast, or wherever you get
Speaker 1: your podcast