June 15, 2022 • 32 mins
As the eldest Wagner son prepares to start his trial, there are two key motions that will seemingly play a large part in the case. In this episode, we examine what those are and how they could affect George Wagner’s upcoming court proceedings.
Check us out online:
www.instagram.com/PiketonMassacre
www.twitter.com/PiketonMassacre
www.facebook.com/PiketonMassacre
Learn more about your ad choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
This just in today. Attorneys for George Wagner, the fourth
sake there is proof he did not kill any of
the eight victims and therefore could avoid the death penalty.
Judge Randy Deering heard an impassioned plea from George Wagner's attorney,
who said his client never pulled a trigger on the
night eight members of the Rodent family were killed execution style.
(00:23):
The state made a deal with the devil. Basically, so far,
Edward Jake Wagner and his mother, Angela Wagner have confessed
to prosecutors and have agreed to testify against the rest
of the family. George and Billy Wagner are still going
through the court process. The trial has been sent for
April of next year. This is George Wagner's defense attorney
(00:46):
talking about Jake Wagner. He's the person that is most
responsible for this. He's the actual killer. He's the actual shooter.
He's the one that snuck into these homes in the
middle of the night and shot the victims in the head.
All right, Our client didn't shoot anybody made the double
in this case. Four of the individuals are charged in
(01:08):
This is the piked in massacre returned to Pike County
Season three, Episode four, State of Ohio Versus George Wagner
The Fourth. I'm Courtney Armstrong, a television producer at Katie
(01:29):
Studios with Stephanie Lydecker and Jeff Shane, with both Jake
and Angela taking plea deals. The possible outcome of George
Wagner's trial seems on the surface limited in scope. It
is anything but that the defense is trying to position
themselves to win the case by limiting what evidence will
be admissible through a series of motions. Each motion involves
(01:53):
a request to the court by the defense to make
a decision on a specific issue before the trial begins.
Here's retired prosecutor and Flanagan. If you look at any trial,
it is the state that has to put out everything.
It's like throwing a party and you're the host or
hostess and you have to have everything ready. Well, you
(02:15):
might have a guest on the other side who's going
to come and say, well, you didn't get yes, you
didn't do this, you didn't do that. So all they
have to do is whittle away at the state's witnesses
and evidence. It's up to the judge to make a
decision on each of these changes. In this episode, we're
taking a deep dive into George Wagner's pre trial and
(02:37):
how these motions could radically change the outcome of the trial.
Two motions eighty and eighty one have been introduced specifically
to keep evidence off the table for a capital murder
case like George's. It could mean the difference between life
and death, and as we'll find out, even with their
plea deals in place, it could affect whether Jake and
(02:58):
Angela reopen them selves to the death penalty. The first
motion will discuss is eighty one. Here's journalist Angeanette Levy,
followed by criminal attorney and legal analyst Mike Allen. They're
both speaking with producer Chris Graves. On January tenth of
twenty twenty two, the defense for George Wagner filed motion
(03:18):
number eighty one, and it was a motion to suppress
audio recordings. And the thing they're taking issue with in
this motion is the fact that apparently BCI agents and
other law enforcement involved in this case placed listening devices
in a truck that was driven by both George Wagner
and Jake Wagner before the Wagners were arrested in twenty eighteen.
(03:42):
Hundreds of hours of audio were recorded by Ohio BCI.
I'm looking at this and I'm thinking to myself, what
on earth could be so damning in these recordings. There
may be nothing, or there may be something. I don't know.
This is all speculation at this point, but there might
be something that George incriminated himself on that they're trying
(04:03):
to suppress. Right, there would have to be, or they
wouldn't go to the problem to file the motion, no
question about it. Defense counsel wants something with respect to
those statements thrown out. We just don't know what it is.
So in your mind, George or someone in his cab
or on some conversation possibly incriminated the family. Absolutely, absolutely,
(04:28):
they wouldn't be going through all this if that weren't
the case. To obtain the recordings, homicide detectives had to
gain physical access to George's truck. Here's Stephanie and Jeff.
I think there's a really big piece to the puzzle
here about wire tapping and bugging, and there seems to
be some sort of a difference between the two that
(04:51):
is now really a big piece of George's defense. Wire
tapping and bugging, I think often get confused, and you
see wire and bugging a lot in movies and TV shows,
but it's actually a little more nuanced than what you
see on the screen. So how wire tapping works specifically
is that you need to get permission from a phone
(05:12):
company to tap into the cell transmission tower. And back
in the old days, what you would see done in
the movies is cops literally clipping wires to the phone
line in the basement or something like that. But now
it's all done remotely electronically, so in conjunction with the
warrant served to the cell phone provider, officials are able
to do it from the comfort of their office. Bugging
(05:33):
literally is this transmitter with a microphone that needs to
be planted someplace physically in a space where authorities would
want to pick up conversations, which is, by the way,
very interesting because they have to go through a very
layered process to be able to get permission to bug
a vehicle. Bugging is much more invasive because you're actually
(05:58):
able to record private versations in someone's home or their car,
and in this case, they were able to get all
types of conversations that George Wagner was having, so law
enforcement was apparently able to listen to and remotely record
everything that was said in that truck twenty four to seven.
I mean in person conversations, phone conversations, and even mister
(06:23):
Wagner talking to himself. The defense is claiming that the
recordings are inadmissible for a number of reasons, many pertaining
to the fact that it was George's truck that was bugged.
The case of the bugging is slightly complicated as it
applies to the Wagner's because what the BCI bugged was
(06:45):
not George's vehicle. It was the truck that he used
for work, so he didn't own this big rigged truck.
It was his employer's truck, and so presumably the BCI
was given permission to access the vehicle from the employer
and planted the bug when George was not with the truck.
The type of truck George would drive is a typical
(07:07):
semi that you see all over the country on the highways,
and so the semi has a sleeper cab in the back,
which is where the drivers go to take a rest,
relax sleep for the night. So Ohio BCI agents put
the bug in the sleeper cab portion of the semi truck,
and this small detail is one of the four things
the defense is using to get the motion dismissed. There
(07:28):
could be an issue with that because that sleeper cabin
on the semi could be analogized to being someone's home,
and you know, for all intention purposes, it probably was
when mister Wagner was on the road, and the house
is the most constitutionally protected thing that there is, so
(07:49):
there might be a potential problem there with the authorization itself.
Because the truck was both not owned by George and
served as a sleeping quarters, the defense may argue it
is similar to bugging a hotel room. We also know
that Jake was in the truck as well. At some
point the two brothers were alone for hours or even
(08:10):
days on the road and what they assumed was a
completely private setting. That really does speak to the question
of assumed privacy and conversations that may have happened between
Jake and George. Allegedly, those conversations are probably very relevant
for this trial. So the fact that the defense wants
to question that speaks more to what they're potentially hiding.
(08:34):
Here's Judge Pat dink a locker. This is interesting because
we don't get bugging cases wire tapping cases much. When
I looked through this, I thought to myself, if they
had an expectation of privacy, the two of them, okay
in the state illegally vied it that, then this is
the proper motion that the judge could grant, say that
(08:56):
they're not allowed to bring those audio recordings into evidence.
Here's Judge Sylvia Hendon, who works as a visiting judge
out of the Ohio Supreme Court. It's a violation sixth Amendment.
We see that all the time. You have an expectation
of privacy. Does your expectation of privacy increase if you're
(09:18):
in a sleeper cab truck versus a regular cab truck.
I don't know the answer to that. But again, speaking
from an appellate perspective, I can tell you that whichever
way Judge during goes on this, it's going to be
an issue. I believe in an event of an appeal,
I would have to believe that that motion to suppress
(09:40):
is going to loom large in the Court of Appeals.
In the event of a guilty finding, I will be
very interested to see his ruling. If I'm employed by somebody,
even if I'm sleeping there, I wouldn't think that I
walk into a building or an entity owned by somebody
else that's employing me. I wouldn't think that I would
have an expect of privacy. Here's former BCI homicide investigator
(10:04):
Seth Hageman testifying in court he oversaw the creation of
the warrants for the Wagner case. So when you're installing devices,
you need a search warrant in the county where you're
going to install the device Correctly and specifically, you're talking
about the search warrant that was installed in the RNL truck,
(10:25):
correct that both the defendant, George Wagner and his brother
Jake Wagner drove in tandem. Correct. To get approval to
bug or wire tap, investigators must adhere to an even
stricter protocol than a standard search warrant. They must also
produce what's called an interception warrant. Interception warrants are inherently
(10:47):
scrutinized to a greater degree because of the privacy issues
that they raise, and there's very specific statutory requirements of
other things. In addition to just the normal problem cause
of the search warrant that needs to be addressed among
the is not only do I have to show there's
probable cause that a crime was committed, you have to
show that there is probable cause that a specific person
or person's committed that crime. You actually have to show
(11:09):
that you've exhausted other methods of investigation that were less
intrusive prior to applying for that, and so those are
the different steps that make it more complicated in a
much more difficult process to obtain. Hageman and ohio Bci
felt that after months of the investigation, they had grounds
to successfully lobby for an interception warrant. During the investigation,
(11:31):
Inspector Hageman put together a lengthy report and submitted it
for approval of an interception warrant to bug the Wagner's truck.
The warrant was approved, giving homicide a period of thirty
days to monitor the truck once the bug was installed.
The state played it one hundred percent by the book,
but the prosecution's case is complicated by the fact that
(11:52):
ohio Bci coordinated the bugging of George's truck with his employer,
and the defense has raised this as a second point
of contention in their motion. Here again reporter Angrenette Levy,
followed by attorney and legal analyst Mike Ellen. The defense
is saying this basically violated George's rights because the owner
(12:13):
of the truck allowed it to happen and he had
an expectation of privacy. But I'm not really sure you
have an expectation of privacy in a truck that your
employer owns. Apparently the owner consented to the bug, but
it's a case of where the owner is actually acting
as the government's agent and authorizing that, and there could
(12:37):
be problems with that. It probably would be upheld. You know.
It all depends on what the cops probable cause for
the search warrant to do that would be, And I
think that's one of the sticking points on this one.
There is a third complicating issue for the prosecution. Much
(13:00):
of the audio was recorded across state lines. Would any
statement that is given outside of the state of Ohio
be valid under that warrant. I don't have the warrant,
so I don't know for sure, but I think that's
going to be questioned as well. Usually warrants are just
limited to the geographical jurisdiction, and in this case, it'd
(13:23):
be Pike County and or the state of Ohio. But
let's just say he said something incriminating in Tennessee. I
don't know. I mean, there may be problems with that too.
If it was a federal warrant, then they'd be okay,
But a state warrant, they might have some issues with that.
I've not researched it. I've never encountered it ever as
(13:46):
an attorney, law student, whatever, But it's an issue that
if I were defense counsel, I'd be pursuing it. The
defense also claims that the investigators on the case tried
to eat the Wagner brothers into incriminating themselves. They talk
about in the motion that they were trying to stimulate
(14:07):
incriminating conversation by initiating the contact, and that could be
problematic for the government too. I mean, if a statement
is freely and voluntarily given, then there's no problem with it.
But if the government induces someone to make a statement,
that could be problematic. What I also thought was very
(14:30):
interesting about this was the fact that police would actually
put things out on social media in hopes that one
of the Wagners, or specifically Angela Wagner accused killer Mom
that she would see these posts and that would maybe
stir up conversation that they would then have with each other,
and then those conversations would be bugged. This is actually
(14:52):
called tickling the wire, and tickling the wire means that
the Feds have wire taps in place and are placing
stories and then waiting for revealing conversations to happen because
of said stories. And that's the question, specifically, is that
baiting or is that just good process. Angela Wagner's mother,
(15:15):
Rita Joe Newcombe, was sent a court order to have
these conversations where she would go with the boys into
having further conversations with her mother and father about the crimes.
Remember when she got arrested, her mother also got arrested.
That's Rita Newcome. So here is Rita trying to get
herself also out of this mess that she was dragged
into because she was accused of all this forgery with
(15:37):
the original custody documents. Now she's basically working with BCI
to start conversations with the Wagner boys to hopefully get
them to say something incriminating and that just shows the
dissension between mother daughter, that's her grandsons and that's her
(15:57):
daughter and her son in law. Rida Nucombe was charged
with forgery, perjury, and obstructing justice. In twenty nineteen, Nwcombe
reached a plea deal and those charges were dropped. She
ultimately pleaded guilty to a reduced misdemeanor charge of obstructing
official business. It must have been probably a hard celt
(16:17):
to swallow. We know she didn't have much choice because
it was a court order, but at this point we
do know a little bit of her frame of mind.
According to her son, Chris Newcomb, that she felt really
betrayed by Angela. She has her son and other grandchildren
to look out for and so if Angela and her
sect of the family are not going to look out
for her, why is she going to look out for them?
(16:38):
I mean, that must have been the most brutal decision
to have to make. Do you actually turn against your
own daughter and your grandsons and your son in law.
And by the way, it must have worked and got
them talking, because the defense is adamant that they do
not want these conversations to be a part of any
of this moving forward. So you could imagine those conversations
(17:00):
must be very telling. During testimony, Seth Hagman confirmed the
success of this approach in the past. How many other
interception warrants would you say that you've been a part of.
We already has been related to a cool case homicide
four or five. And in those situations, did you use
(17:20):
this same method as far as tickling the wire or
provoket of acts or whatever your terminology is for that. Yes,
in every single one, even the ones that had some
level of correct crime happening, we would use some level
of tickling the wire just to try to get conversation
about those past events. Okay, And have you been met
with success in those efforts? There were success in all
(17:43):
of them. In most cases we've developed information that's led
to either ongoing prosecutions or guilty pleas or verdicts. And
in another case I've actually exonerated someone using that method.
Here again, as attorney my Gallen, it's just a real
fine line as far as inducement. The government has some flexibility,
(18:05):
but still, I mean, they can't elicitly for an illicit
purpose to goad them into making a comment. Every case
rises and falls on its own set of facts. And
I know that's not really a helpful answer, but it's
an accurate answer. Besides investigators and the Wagners themselves, no
(18:27):
one but the prosecution and defense know what is on
those tapes. If the guy makes some incriminating statements and
they are validly taken, that's a problem. I mean, it's
a problem for the defense because they are stuck with them.
If you were in the prosecution's seat and you saw
this come down, what are you thinking? Well as the prosecution,
(18:49):
I mean, I would fight as hard as I could,
obviously to make sure the judge keeps it in. But again,
I'm just assuming that they've got a lot of other
evidence as well. But the defense attorney's doing his job here.
I mean, he wants to whittle away at Stage's evidence
as much as he can. And you know, this is
all a part of it. She's so hard to say
(19:11):
how much it would damage the stage case when we
don't know what other cards they're holding. We're going to
take a break. We'll be back in a moment. Another motion,
Motion eighty has been put forth by the defense to
(19:32):
block Jake and Angelis testimony. It's another possible game changer
as part of his plea deal, Jake makes many claims
that seemingly exonerate George of the worst aspects of this
grizzly massacre. Here again Chris Graves speaking with retired prosecutor
and Flanagan. This is from Jake's profferty. Jake has stated
(19:55):
clearly that George did not shoot new One, did not
fire a shot, was not supposed to go with Jake
and Billy on the murder spree, and only when it's
a last second to protect Jake from Billy, who was
thought he might kill Jake at the end of the
series of accurgated murders, presumably to get rid of a witness.
(20:16):
Do you never really emotions to suppress the testimony of
someone else, So he has still the capability of trying
to show some kind of dishonesty on Jake's part, or
that he's not testifying truthfully. But what they're a thing
the court to do is to take this away to
suppress their statements before the jury ever gets to hear it.
(20:39):
Grounds to suppress are usually based on misconduct of officers.
Was their coercive activity on the part of officers and
they weren't coerce clearly Angela and Jake. For one thing,
the defense attorneys here don't represent the Angela or Jake,
so they don't have standing to suppress their statements. Because
(21:00):
they're representing George, they can move to suppress his statements,
but not Jake's and Angela. So this is somewhat novel.
They're trying to suppress it, not because of any course
of activity, but because he might be motivated to lie
under oath because he wants to get his agreement enforced.
(21:20):
So our proffers done under oath they can be. They
don't have to be. I don't know how they did
it here. I know I have done that on occasion
when I have a co defendant or someone that's going
to cooperate, I have tried to get it under oath.
In case they don't testify in accordance with it, I
can bring that up and cross examine them. Look, you
(21:43):
gave a sworn statement before you under oath. You said
it was the truth, and you're now you're saying this,
So I'm assuming they may have done that, but it's
not required. It's possible Jake could have lied to get
out of the death penalty or said what he had
to say to save his brother. You're obviously putting some trust,
(22:06):
in some faith in his statement. You're putting somebody up
there to testify to this when you may not be
exactly sure that he's telling the whole truth. And that
happens sometimes in cases where somebody they're telling you the truth,
but maybe not the whole truth. Like you're not getting
the whole story, the entire story, but you're basically getting
(22:26):
what happened, but not every little detail. Because maybe Jake
was trying to protect his brother at some point too.
You know, maybe he's thinking, God, I can't take my
brother down with me. I'm not sure why father would
kill his son or why another son would be fearful
of That affects even the motivation. Potentially is Billy the mastermind? Yeah, mastermind?
(22:53):
And also to his motive if he's trying to eliminate witnesses.
And certainly she think this is not the most functional family.
The presumption has been that it was Angela who kind
of masterminded everything. And I'm not saying she's not deserving.
I don't know here, but we're hard on matriarchs sometimes
or mothers, And did we do that legitimately It does
(23:20):
really kind of make you think who was calling your
shops in this operation? If that's indeed true, that George
only went along at the last minute to protect his
brother from their father, what was going on there? What
is Billy capable of? I mean, I guess George in
this scenario was ready to die for his brother protecting him.
(23:41):
That would be one hell of a car ride, wouldn't it. Yeah,
I don't know much about Billy. Nobody's spoken about Billy
very much. Is that the kind of defense they're fashioning,
That he's here to protect Jake from big Dad Billy
and that they're both afraid of him? And how is
he going to protect him from bad Billy unless he
hits a firearm? Maybe? Do you know what kind of
(24:04):
dad he was? I was here with Jake and George.
He's an asshole. Chris knwcom, who we've heard from before,
is Angela Agner's half brother. Now, Karen Billy get into
some screaming matches. Billy's about a useless sustance on a borehole.
That's the guy who run the truth up. How do
you mean? I mean that man is one hundred percent
just lazy and hale useless, always conniving on something, trying
(24:27):
to think how to do something, to make a quick book.
I think the most horseless human being I think I've
ever met in my life. Despite Billy's nature, angelisted by
his side. Some see a parallel with Angela's dad, Eddie
pug Carter. I knew him, his hug Carter. He always
wore this slight metal brace and he walked with a limp.
What I heard from my dad was that he would
(24:49):
five electric holes and still copper or something off the holes,
and he's got electric huted and it affected his walking.
It could be that Angela was fiercely loyal to Bill
because he reminded her of her father. At the end
of the day, the prosecution in this particular case is
focused on one job, putting George Wagner behind bars, or
(25:10):
possibly even sending him to death row. It will be
up to the jury to navigate the muddy waters of
the Wagner family dynamic. If you are a group of
people and you are going to go do something, if
one person holds back and says, now, I'm not going
to do this, it may not happen. If two do,
(25:33):
certainly it may not happen. But when you hear these
people bolstering each other and actually sharing ideas and dynamics,
they're just as much a part of all that ended
up happening as the person who actually pulled the trigger.
And I know that, and I think jurors know that,
and people know that, But will they really hold them accountable?
(25:56):
It's a little harder to understand how the police are
going to work into the trial. Actually presiding over four
separate cases is a lot easier than presiding over four
people together, because in a separate case, you're focused on
that particular defendant. Now you're still going to have to
keep things straight. You're going to have to know when
to exclude evidence. There's a lot of rules about confessions
(26:18):
of co defendants that you're going to have to follow.
But to try to balance a case with four defendants,
because right away you've got eight lawyers. If you're talking
about a capital murder case, so you've got a minimum
of eight lawyers, four defendants, and lordliners how many witnesses.
Let's stop here for another break. Without the audio from
(26:44):
George's truck, the jury will not get to hear what
the detectives heard in private conversations between the brothers, and
if the defense's motions are successful, Jake and Angeli's testimony
will be off the table as well. Would you be
concerned if it's a live witness and Angela steps on
the stand and she's facing her oldest son testifying against them,
(27:08):
is there a word that might cause her not to Yeah,
ny witness who's somewhat involved with the defense. Even though
they've said they're testifying and they've given good information to pass,
you have to wonder what's the physical, visceral effects, emotional
effect of sitting in front of that person. Will they freeze?
Will they talk? Will they tell us what they've told
(27:28):
us before? This brings us to the final issue. The
defense and prosecution must navigate how Jake and Angela's plea
deal relates to these motions and what that means for
the future of all four Wagners. As of now, the
death penalty is still on the table for George Wagner,
and Jake and Angela's deal to avoid death row is
(27:50):
not guaranteed. It's contingent upon their testimony being what the
court calls to the satisfaction of the prosecution. We look
at this family and their story keeps changing, and I
am curious to know what the air quote satisfaction of
the prosecution even means. Does that mean that if Jake
(28:13):
and Angela, who we know have taken plea agreements, if
they don't deliver the goods, then what is their death
sentence put back on the table or all of their
death sentences put back on the table? Who decides the
satisfaction piece? It would be the prosecution. And so basically,
under the terms of their deal, they probably agreed to
(28:33):
the version of events of that night and the months
they let up to the crime. And so if once
they're on the stand under oath and they don't stick
to the script for lack of a better term, than
the whole deal would be off and death penalty would
be back on the table for the entire family. Georgia's
sticking to his not guilty plea, which would imply that
(28:54):
he's not involved in this at all, And so Jake
and Angela's testimony, which we can assume is going to
say something along the lines of will. While George might
not have pulled the trigger, he certainly knew about the
murders and might have been there the night of the
murders and helped cover the murders up, and so that
testimony is going to be pretty damning for his not
guilty plea. It does also speak to the fact that
(29:18):
there are so many endings that could still be you know,
we see plea deals and you think that's the end
of the road for Jake Wagner, but now that's not so.
There's a big performance ahead and he and now his mother,
who he's essentially working with and against at the same time.
How this plays out in court with George and then
(29:38):
later Billy Dad, every piece of it affects the other person.
So the totality of it is massive, and this whole
case from the beginning has been utterly unpredictable. And so
to assume when Billy and George's trials start that we
know what's going to happen and we know what Jake
and Angela are going to say when they're on the stand,
(30:00):
I think would be naive. I think what we can
assume is that we don't really know the ending yet.
We've been told several theories even just this season alone,
that speak to a larger plot happening behind the scenes,
and that it's possible that the Wagoners are lying, Jake
(30:21):
may have a hand in deciding whether he and his
brother live or die. It's also possible the defense and
prosecution don't know the whole story that Angela and Jake
have to tell. There's a tenseness about it that isn't
there with other cases. We don't know what other evidence exists,
you know, we just don't know, to be honest with you, though,
(30:43):
it all depends on what their story is on that
day in a courtroom, face to face with the son,
with a brother and a jury of their peers, I mean,
with whisperings of Carton involvement and other rumors still lingering
in Pike County. If given the opportunity to test, if
I could Jake and Angela Wagner choose to blow this
(31:03):
whole thing up? Or are they being put up to
it behind bars? We have heard many rumors regarding the
Cartel and that there's a larger story happening here, and
that the Rodents murder was not just merely over custody,
but that there's larger issues at play with some different
(31:25):
dealings between the families, and that's dangerous stuff. And maybe
it's possible that the Wagoners are safest behind Bars. More
on that next time. If you're enjoying The Pikes and Massacre,
listen to our other hit series, Crazy and Love. New
episodes there every Tuesday wherever you get your podcasts. For
(31:49):
more information and case photos, follow us on Instagram at
Katie Underscore Studios. The Pikes and massacres produced by Stephanie Lydecker,
Jeff Shane, Chris Graves and me Courtney Armstrong. Editing and
sound designed by Jeff Tis, music by Jared Aston, audio
mixing by Ken Novak. The Piked and Massacre is a
(32:11):
production of Katie Studios and iHeartRadio. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio,
visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen
to your favorite shows.
This just in today. Attorneys for George Wagner, the fourth
sake there is proof he did not kill any of
the eight victims and therefore could avoid the death penalty.
Judge Randy Deering heard an impassioned plea from George Wagner's attorney,
who said his client never pulled a trigger on the
night eight members of the Rodent family were killed execution style.
(00:23):
The state made a deal with the devil. Basically, so far,
Edward Jake Wagner and his mother, Angela Wagner have confessed
to prosecutors and have agreed to testify against the rest
of the family. George and Billy Wagner are still going
through the court process. The trial has been sent for
April of next year. This is George Wagner's defense attorney
(00:46):
talking about Jake Wagner. He's the person that is most
responsible for this. He's the actual killer. He's the actual shooter.
He's the one that snuck into these homes in the
middle of the night and shot the victims in the head.
All right, Our client didn't shoot anybody made the double
in this case. Four of the individuals are charged in
(01:08):
This is the piked in massacre returned to Pike County
Season three, Episode four, State of Ohio Versus George Wagner
The Fourth. I'm Courtney Armstrong, a television producer at Katie
(01:29):
Studios with Stephanie Lydecker and Jeff Shane, with both Jake
and Angela taking plea deals. The possible outcome of George
Wagner's trial seems on the surface limited in scope. It
is anything but that the defense is trying to position
themselves to win the case by limiting what evidence will
be admissible through a series of motions. Each motion involves
(01:53):
a request to the court by the defense to make
a decision on a specific issue before the trial begins.
Here's retired prosecutor and Flanagan. If you look at any trial,
it is the state that has to put out everything.
It's like throwing a party and you're the host or
hostess and you have to have everything ready. Well, you
(02:15):
might have a guest on the other side who's going
to come and say, well, you didn't get yes, you
didn't do this, you didn't do that. So all they
have to do is whittle away at the state's witnesses
and evidence. It's up to the judge to make a
decision on each of these changes. In this episode, we're
taking a deep dive into George Wagner's pre trial and
(02:37):
how these motions could radically change the outcome of the trial.
Two motions eighty and eighty one have been introduced specifically
to keep evidence off the table for a capital murder
case like George's. It could mean the difference between life
and death, and as we'll find out, even with their
plea deals in place, it could affect whether Jake and
(02:58):
Angela reopen them selves to the death penalty. The first
motion will discuss is eighty one. Here's journalist Angeanette Levy,
followed by criminal attorney and legal analyst Mike Allen. They're
both speaking with producer Chris Graves. On January tenth of
twenty twenty two, the defense for George Wagner filed motion
(03:18):
number eighty one, and it was a motion to suppress
audio recordings. And the thing they're taking issue with in
this motion is the fact that apparently BCI agents and
other law enforcement involved in this case placed listening devices
in a truck that was driven by both George Wagner
and Jake Wagner before the Wagners were arrested in twenty eighteen.
(03:42):
Hundreds of hours of audio were recorded by Ohio BCI.
I'm looking at this and I'm thinking to myself, what
on earth could be so damning in these recordings. There
may be nothing, or there may be something. I don't know.
This is all speculation at this point, but there might
be something that George incriminated himself on that they're trying
(04:03):
to suppress. Right, there would have to be, or they
wouldn't go to the problem to file the motion, no
question about it. Defense counsel wants something with respect to
those statements thrown out. We just don't know what it is.
So in your mind, George or someone in his cab
or on some conversation possibly incriminated the family. Absolutely, absolutely,
(04:28):
they wouldn't be going through all this if that weren't
the case. To obtain the recordings, homicide detectives had to
gain physical access to George's truck. Here's Stephanie and Jeff.
I think there's a really big piece to the puzzle
here about wire tapping and bugging, and there seems to
be some sort of a difference between the two that
(04:51):
is now really a big piece of George's defense. Wire
tapping and bugging, I think often get confused, and you
see wire and bugging a lot in movies and TV shows,
but it's actually a little more nuanced than what you
see on the screen. So how wire tapping works specifically
is that you need to get permission from a phone
(05:12):
company to tap into the cell transmission tower. And back
in the old days, what you would see done in
the movies is cops literally clipping wires to the phone
line in the basement or something like that. But now
it's all done remotely electronically, so in conjunction with the
warrant served to the cell phone provider, officials are able
to do it from the comfort of their office. Bugging
(05:33):
literally is this transmitter with a microphone that needs to
be planted someplace physically in a space where authorities would
want to pick up conversations, which is, by the way,
very interesting because they have to go through a very
layered process to be able to get permission to bug
a vehicle. Bugging is much more invasive because you're actually
(05:58):
able to record private versations in someone's home or their car,
and in this case, they were able to get all
types of conversations that George Wagner was having, so law
enforcement was apparently able to listen to and remotely record
everything that was said in that truck twenty four to seven.
I mean in person conversations, phone conversations, and even mister
(06:23):
Wagner talking to himself. The defense is claiming that the
recordings are inadmissible for a number of reasons, many pertaining
to the fact that it was George's truck that was bugged.
The case of the bugging is slightly complicated as it
applies to the Wagner's because what the BCI bugged was
(06:45):
not George's vehicle. It was the truck that he used
for work, so he didn't own this big rigged truck.
It was his employer's truck, and so presumably the BCI
was given permission to access the vehicle from the employer
and planted the bug when George was not with the truck.
The type of truck George would drive is a typical
(07:07):
semi that you see all over the country on the highways,
and so the semi has a sleeper cab in the back,
which is where the drivers go to take a rest,
relax sleep for the night. So Ohio BCI agents put
the bug in the sleeper cab portion of the semi truck,
and this small detail is one of the four things
the defense is using to get the motion dismissed. There
(07:28):
could be an issue with that because that sleeper cabin
on the semi could be analogized to being someone's home,
and you know, for all intention purposes, it probably was
when mister Wagner was on the road, and the house
is the most constitutionally protected thing that there is, so
(07:49):
there might be a potential problem there with the authorization itself.
Because the truck was both not owned by George and
served as a sleeping quarters, the defense may argue it
is similar to bugging a hotel room. We also know
that Jake was in the truck as well. At some
point the two brothers were alone for hours or even
(08:10):
days on the road and what they assumed was a
completely private setting. That really does speak to the question
of assumed privacy and conversations that may have happened between
Jake and George. Allegedly, those conversations are probably very relevant
for this trial. So the fact that the defense wants
to question that speaks more to what they're potentially hiding.
(08:34):
Here's Judge Pat dink a locker. This is interesting because
we don't get bugging cases wire tapping cases much. When
I looked through this, I thought to myself, if they
had an expectation of privacy, the two of them, okay
in the state illegally vied it that, then this is
the proper motion that the judge could grant, say that
(08:56):
they're not allowed to bring those audio recordings into evidence.
Here's Judge Sylvia Hendon, who works as a visiting judge
out of the Ohio Supreme Court. It's a violation sixth Amendment.
We see that all the time. You have an expectation
of privacy. Does your expectation of privacy increase if you're
(09:18):
in a sleeper cab truck versus a regular cab truck.
I don't know the answer to that. But again, speaking
from an appellate perspective, I can tell you that whichever
way Judge during goes on this, it's going to be
an issue. I believe in an event of an appeal,
I would have to believe that that motion to suppress
(09:40):
is going to loom large in the Court of Appeals.
In the event of a guilty finding, I will be
very interested to see his ruling. If I'm employed by somebody,
even if I'm sleeping there, I wouldn't think that I
walk into a building or an entity owned by somebody
else that's employing me. I wouldn't think that I would
have an expect of privacy. Here's former BCI homicide investigator
(10:04):
Seth Hageman testifying in court he oversaw the creation of
the warrants for the Wagner case. So when you're installing devices,
you need a search warrant in the county where you're
going to install the device Correctly and specifically, you're talking
about the search warrant that was installed in the RNL truck,
(10:25):
correct that both the defendant, George Wagner and his brother
Jake Wagner drove in tandem. Correct. To get approval to
bug or wire tap, investigators must adhere to an even
stricter protocol than a standard search warrant. They must also
produce what's called an interception warrant. Interception warrants are inherently
(10:47):
scrutinized to a greater degree because of the privacy issues
that they raise, and there's very specific statutory requirements of
other things. In addition to just the normal problem cause
of the search warrant that needs to be addressed among
the is not only do I have to show there's
probable cause that a crime was committed, you have to
show that there is probable cause that a specific person
or person's committed that crime. You actually have to show
(11:09):
that you've exhausted other methods of investigation that were less
intrusive prior to applying for that, and so those are
the different steps that make it more complicated in a
much more difficult process to obtain. Hageman and ohio Bci
felt that after months of the investigation, they had grounds
to successfully lobby for an interception warrant. During the investigation,
(11:31):
Inspector Hageman put together a lengthy report and submitted it
for approval of an interception warrant to bug the Wagner's truck.
The warrant was approved, giving homicide a period of thirty
days to monitor the truck once the bug was installed.
The state played it one hundred percent by the book,
but the prosecution's case is complicated by the fact that
(11:52):
ohio Bci coordinated the bugging of George's truck with his employer,
and the defense has raised this as a second point
of contention in their motion. Here again reporter Angrenette Levy,
followed by attorney and legal analyst Mike Ellen. The defense
is saying this basically violated George's rights because the owner
(12:13):
of the truck allowed it to happen and he had
an expectation of privacy. But I'm not really sure you
have an expectation of privacy in a truck that your
employer owns. Apparently the owner consented to the bug, but
it's a case of where the owner is actually acting
as the government's agent and authorizing that, and there could
(12:37):
be problems with that. It probably would be upheld. You know.
It all depends on what the cops probable cause for
the search warrant to do that would be, And I
think that's one of the sticking points on this one.
There is a third complicating issue for the prosecution. Much
(13:00):
of the audio was recorded across state lines. Would any
statement that is given outside of the state of Ohio
be valid under that warrant. I don't have the warrant,
so I don't know for sure, but I think that's
going to be questioned as well. Usually warrants are just
limited to the geographical jurisdiction, and in this case, it'd
(13:23):
be Pike County and or the state of Ohio. But
let's just say he said something incriminating in Tennessee. I
don't know. I mean, there may be problems with that too.
If it was a federal warrant, then they'd be okay,
But a state warrant, they might have some issues with that.
I've not researched it. I've never encountered it ever as
(13:46):
an attorney, law student, whatever, But it's an issue that
if I were defense counsel, I'd be pursuing it. The
defense also claims that the investigators on the case tried
to eat the Wagner brothers into incriminating themselves. They talk
about in the motion that they were trying to stimulate
(14:07):
incriminating conversation by initiating the contact, and that could be
problematic for the government too. I mean, if a statement
is freely and voluntarily given, then there's no problem with it.
But if the government induces someone to make a statement,
that could be problematic. What I also thought was very
(14:30):
interesting about this was the fact that police would actually
put things out on social media in hopes that one
of the Wagners, or specifically Angela Wagner accused killer Mom
that she would see these posts and that would maybe
stir up conversation that they would then have with each other,
and then those conversations would be bugged. This is actually
(14:52):
called tickling the wire, and tickling the wire means that
the Feds have wire taps in place and are placing
stories and then waiting for revealing conversations to happen because
of said stories. And that's the question, specifically, is that
baiting or is that just good process. Angela Wagner's mother,
(15:15):
Rita Joe Newcombe, was sent a court order to have
these conversations where she would go with the boys into
having further conversations with her mother and father about the crimes.
Remember when she got arrested, her mother also got arrested.
That's Rita Newcome. So here is Rita trying to get
herself also out of this mess that she was dragged
into because she was accused of all this forgery with
(15:37):
the original custody documents. Now she's basically working with BCI
to start conversations with the Wagner boys to hopefully get
them to say something incriminating and that just shows the
dissension between mother daughter, that's her grandsons and that's her
(15:57):
daughter and her son in law. Rida Nucombe was charged
with forgery, perjury, and obstructing justice. In twenty nineteen, Nwcombe
reached a plea deal and those charges were dropped. She
ultimately pleaded guilty to a reduced misdemeanor charge of obstructing
official business. It must have been probably a hard celt
(16:17):
to swallow. We know she didn't have much choice because
it was a court order, but at this point we
do know a little bit of her frame of mind.
According to her son, Chris Newcomb, that she felt really
betrayed by Angela. She has her son and other grandchildren
to look out for and so if Angela and her
sect of the family are not going to look out
for her, why is she going to look out for them?
(16:38):
I mean, that must have been the most brutal decision
to have to make. Do you actually turn against your
own daughter and your grandsons and your son in law.
And by the way, it must have worked and got
them talking, because the defense is adamant that they do
not want these conversations to be a part of any
of this moving forward. So you could imagine those conversations
(17:00):
must be very telling. During testimony, Seth Hagman confirmed the
success of this approach in the past. How many other
interception warrants would you say that you've been a part of.
We already has been related to a cool case homicide
four or five. And in those situations, did you use
(17:20):
this same method as far as tickling the wire or
provoket of acts or whatever your terminology is for that. Yes,
in every single one, even the ones that had some
level of correct crime happening, we would use some level
of tickling the wire just to try to get conversation
about those past events. Okay, And have you been met
with success in those efforts? There were success in all
(17:43):
of them. In most cases we've developed information that's led
to either ongoing prosecutions or guilty pleas or verdicts. And
in another case I've actually exonerated someone using that method.
Here again, as attorney my Gallen, it's just a real
fine line as far as inducement. The government has some flexibility,
(18:05):
but still, I mean, they can't elicitly for an illicit
purpose to goad them into making a comment. Every case
rises and falls on its own set of facts. And
I know that's not really a helpful answer, but it's
an accurate answer. Besides investigators and the Wagners themselves, no
(18:27):
one but the prosecution and defense know what is on
those tapes. If the guy makes some incriminating statements and
they are validly taken, that's a problem. I mean, it's
a problem for the defense because they are stuck with them.
If you were in the prosecution's seat and you saw
this come down, what are you thinking? Well as the prosecution,
(18:49):
I mean, I would fight as hard as I could,
obviously to make sure the judge keeps it in. But again,
I'm just assuming that they've got a lot of other
evidence as well. But the defense attorney's doing his job here.
I mean, he wants to whittle away at Stage's evidence
as much as he can. And you know, this is
all a part of it. She's so hard to say
(19:11):
how much it would damage the stage case when we
don't know what other cards they're holding. We're going to
take a break. We'll be back in a moment. Another motion,
Motion eighty has been put forth by the defense to
(19:32):
block Jake and Angelis testimony. It's another possible game changer
as part of his plea deal, Jake makes many claims
that seemingly exonerate George of the worst aspects of this
grizzly massacre. Here again Chris Graves speaking with retired prosecutor
and Flanagan. This is from Jake's profferty. Jake has stated
(19:55):
clearly that George did not shoot new One, did not
fire a shot, was not supposed to go with Jake
and Billy on the murder spree, and only when it's
a last second to protect Jake from Billy, who was
thought he might kill Jake at the end of the
series of accurgated murders, presumably to get rid of a witness.
(20:16):
Do you never really emotions to suppress the testimony of
someone else, So he has still the capability of trying
to show some kind of dishonesty on Jake's part, or
that he's not testifying truthfully. But what they're a thing
the court to do is to take this away to
suppress their statements before the jury ever gets to hear it.
(20:39):
Grounds to suppress are usually based on misconduct of officers.
Was their coercive activity on the part of officers and
they weren't coerce clearly Angela and Jake. For one thing,
the defense attorneys here don't represent the Angela or Jake,
so they don't have standing to suppress their statements. Because
(21:00):
they're representing George, they can move to suppress his statements,
but not Jake's and Angela. So this is somewhat novel.
They're trying to suppress it, not because of any course
of activity, but because he might be motivated to lie
under oath because he wants to get his agreement enforced.
(21:20):
So our proffers done under oath they can be. They
don't have to be. I don't know how they did
it here. I know I have done that on occasion
when I have a co defendant or someone that's going
to cooperate, I have tried to get it under oath.
In case they don't testify in accordance with it, I
can bring that up and cross examine them. Look, you
(21:43):
gave a sworn statement before you under oath. You said
it was the truth, and you're now you're saying this,
So I'm assuming they may have done that, but it's
not required. It's possible Jake could have lied to get
out of the death penalty or said what he had
to say to save his brother. You're obviously putting some trust,
(22:06):
in some faith in his statement. You're putting somebody up
there to testify to this when you may not be
exactly sure that he's telling the whole truth. And that
happens sometimes in cases where somebody they're telling you the truth,
but maybe not the whole truth. Like you're not getting
the whole story, the entire story, but you're basically getting
(22:26):
what happened, but not every little detail. Because maybe Jake
was trying to protect his brother at some point too.
You know, maybe he's thinking, God, I can't take my
brother down with me. I'm not sure why father would
kill his son or why another son would be fearful
of That affects even the motivation. Potentially is Billy the mastermind? Yeah, mastermind?
(22:53):
And also to his motive if he's trying to eliminate witnesses.
And certainly she think this is not the most functional family.
The presumption has been that it was Angela who kind
of masterminded everything. And I'm not saying she's not deserving.
I don't know here, but we're hard on matriarchs sometimes
or mothers, And did we do that legitimately It does
(23:20):
really kind of make you think who was calling your
shops in this operation? If that's indeed true, that George
only went along at the last minute to protect his
brother from their father, what was going on there? What
is Billy capable of? I mean, I guess George in
this scenario was ready to die for his brother protecting him.
(23:41):
That would be one hell of a car ride, wouldn't it. Yeah,
I don't know much about Billy. Nobody's spoken about Billy
very much. Is that the kind of defense they're fashioning,
That he's here to protect Jake from big Dad Billy
and that they're both afraid of him? And how is
he going to protect him from bad Billy unless he
hits a firearm? Maybe? Do you know what kind of
(24:04):
dad he was? I was here with Jake and George.
He's an asshole. Chris knwcom, who we've heard from before,
is Angela Agner's half brother. Now, Karen Billy get into
some screaming matches. Billy's about a useless sustance on a borehole.
That's the guy who run the truth up. How do
you mean? I mean that man is one hundred percent
just lazy and hale useless, always conniving on something, trying
(24:27):
to think how to do something, to make a quick book.
I think the most horseless human being I think I've
ever met in my life. Despite Billy's nature, angelisted by
his side. Some see a parallel with Angela's dad, Eddie
pug Carter. I knew him, his hug Carter. He always
wore this slight metal brace and he walked with a limp.
What I heard from my dad was that he would
(24:49):
five electric holes and still copper or something off the holes,
and he's got electric huted and it affected his walking.
It could be that Angela was fiercely loyal to Bill
because he reminded her of her father. At the end
of the day, the prosecution in this particular case is
focused on one job, putting George Wagner behind bars, or
(25:10):
possibly even sending him to death row. It will be
up to the jury to navigate the muddy waters of
the Wagner family dynamic. If you are a group of
people and you are going to go do something, if
one person holds back and says, now, I'm not going
to do this, it may not happen. If two do,
(25:33):
certainly it may not happen. But when you hear these
people bolstering each other and actually sharing ideas and dynamics,
they're just as much a part of all that ended
up happening as the person who actually pulled the trigger.
And I know that, and I think jurors know that,
and people know that, But will they really hold them accountable?
(25:56):
It's a little harder to understand how the police are
going to work into the trial. Actually presiding over four
separate cases is a lot easier than presiding over four
people together, because in a separate case, you're focused on
that particular defendant. Now you're still going to have to
keep things straight. You're going to have to know when
to exclude evidence. There's a lot of rules about confessions
(26:18):
of co defendants that you're going to have to follow.
But to try to balance a case with four defendants,
because right away you've got eight lawyers. If you're talking
about a capital murder case, so you've got a minimum
of eight lawyers, four defendants, and lordliners how many witnesses.
Let's stop here for another break. Without the audio from
(26:44):
George's truck, the jury will not get to hear what
the detectives heard in private conversations between the brothers, and
if the defense's motions are successful, Jake and Angeli's testimony
will be off the table as well. Would you be
concerned if it's a live witness and Angela steps on
the stand and she's facing her oldest son testifying against them,
(27:08):
is there a word that might cause her not to Yeah,
ny witness who's somewhat involved with the defense. Even though
they've said they're testifying and they've given good information to pass,
you have to wonder what's the physical, visceral effects, emotional
effect of sitting in front of that person. Will they freeze?
Will they talk? Will they tell us what they've told
(27:28):
us before? This brings us to the final issue. The
defense and prosecution must navigate how Jake and Angela's plea
deal relates to these motions and what that means for
the future of all four Wagners. As of now, the
death penalty is still on the table for George Wagner,
and Jake and Angela's deal to avoid death row is
(27:50):
not guaranteed. It's contingent upon their testimony being what the
court calls to the satisfaction of the prosecution. We look
at this family and their story keeps changing, and I
am curious to know what the air quote satisfaction of
the prosecution even means. Does that mean that if Jake
(28:13):
and Angela, who we know have taken plea agreements, if
they don't deliver the goods, then what is their death
sentence put back on the table or all of their
death sentences put back on the table? Who decides the
satisfaction piece? It would be the prosecution. And so basically,
under the terms of their deal, they probably agreed to
(28:33):
the version of events of that night and the months
they let up to the crime. And so if once
they're on the stand under oath and they don't stick
to the script for lack of a better term, than
the whole deal would be off and death penalty would
be back on the table for the entire family. Georgia's
sticking to his not guilty plea, which would imply that
(28:54):
he's not involved in this at all, And so Jake
and Angela's testimony, which we can assume is going to
say something along the lines of will. While George might
not have pulled the trigger, he certainly knew about the
murders and might have been there the night of the
murders and helped cover the murders up, and so that
testimony is going to be pretty damning for his not
guilty plea. It does also speak to the fact that
(29:18):
there are so many endings that could still be you know,
we see plea deals and you think that's the end
of the road for Jake Wagner, but now that's not so.
There's a big performance ahead and he and now his mother,
who he's essentially working with and against at the same time.
How this plays out in court with George and then
(29:38):
later Billy Dad, every piece of it affects the other person.
So the totality of it is massive, and this whole
case from the beginning has been utterly unpredictable. And so
to assume when Billy and George's trials start that we
know what's going to happen and we know what Jake
and Angela are going to say when they're on the stand,
(30:00):
I think would be naive. I think what we can
assume is that we don't really know the ending yet.
We've been told several theories even just this season alone,
that speak to a larger plot happening behind the scenes,
and that it's possible that the Wagoners are lying, Jake
(30:21):
may have a hand in deciding whether he and his
brother live or die. It's also possible the defense and
prosecution don't know the whole story that Angela and Jake
have to tell. There's a tenseness about it that isn't
there with other cases. We don't know what other evidence exists,
you know, we just don't know, to be honest with you, though,
(30:43):
it all depends on what their story is on that
day in a courtroom, face to face with the son,
with a brother and a jury of their peers, I mean,
with whisperings of Carton involvement and other rumors still lingering
in Pike County. If given the opportunity to test, if
I could Jake and Angela Wagner choose to blow this
(31:03):
whole thing up? Or are they being put up to
it behind bars? We have heard many rumors regarding the
Cartel and that there's a larger story happening here, and
that the Rodents murder was not just merely over custody,
but that there's larger issues at play with some different
(31:25):
dealings between the families, and that's dangerous stuff. And maybe
it's possible that the Wagoners are safest behind Bars. More
on that next time. If you're enjoying The Pikes and Massacre,
listen to our other hit series, Crazy and Love. New
episodes there every Tuesday wherever you get your podcasts. For
(31:49):
more information and case photos, follow us on Instagram at
Katie Underscore Studios. The Pikes and massacres produced by Stephanie Lydecker,
Jeff Shane, Chris Graves and me Courtney Armstrong. Editing and
sound designed by Jeff Tis, music by Jared Aston, audio
mixing by Ken Novak. The Piked and Massacre is a
(32:11):
production of Katie Studios and iHeartRadio. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio,
visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen
to your favorite shows.
Hosts And Creators
Stephanie Lydecker
Courtney Armstrong
Jeff Shane
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.