Open House – 2nd Viewing

Price(d) Right

When they finished talking, Price, Ward and Wone went upstairs, Wone to take a shower and Ward to retire to his room. Price went on up to the 3rd floor to join Victor Zaborsky who had already gone to bed.

The 2nd floor features 2 bedrooms, an open den/loft area, and a shared bath. Dylan Ward’s bedroom was at the top of the stairs in the rear of the building, and Robert Wone was staying in the front guest room, at the opposite end of the house. It was in this room where Price and Zaborsky found Wone in the fold-out sleeper sofa.

Bedroom/Den Front 2nd Floor 1509

Front Bedroom/Guest Room 2nd Floor 1509

Den/Loft Area 2nd Floor 1509

Den/Loft Area 2nd Floor 1509

Rear Bedroom 2nd Floor 1509

Rear Bedroom 2nd Floor 1509

Floorplan 2nd Floor 1509

2nd Floor 1509

Price and Zaborsky shared the 3rd floor master bedroom suite, which included a spacious, marble bath and access to the roof deck. Sometime between 11:00pm and 11:30pm Price and Zaborsky heard a gurgling sound from downstairs. They discovered Robert Wone when they went to investigate.

Master Bedroom 3rd Floor 1509

Master Bedroom 3rd Floor 1509

Master Bath 3rd Floor 1509

Master Bath 3rd Floor 1509

Floorplan 3rd Floor 1509

3rd Floor 1509

1509 Swann Street was sold by Joseph Price and Victor Zaborsky on June 3, 2008, for $1,475,000.

Here is the link to our first Open House for those who missed it.

– posted by Michael

92 comments for “Open House – 2nd Viewing

  1. CDinDC
    03/13/2009 at 5:42 PM

    After seeing the layout of the house, I’m wondering if Dylan Ward acted completely alone, and Price and Zaborsky are merely protecting him (and/or following his instructions). The allegiance in a BDSM relationship can be quite intense. Written contracts are often used to spell out the explicit expectations of the master. No one has come forward from the BDSM community (that we are aware of) to reveal the extent of the master/submissive relationship of Ward and Price. And the BDSM community is very tight. “Honor” runs deep.

    • Theo
      03/16/2009 at 8:17 AM

      The BDSM community may be tight but unlike what clueless folks might like to think there is no one in the actual BDSM community in Washington that would ever support or try to cover up a murder. Not to mention acting like there is only one BDSM community in Washington and then making the totally false claim that some sense of “honor” in quotes of course would stop people from coming forth with information about a murder.

      The reality is that even the biggest perverts know murder is BAD and WRONG. Having a D/s relationship doesn’t mean you suddenly thinking murder is a-ok anymore than you suddenly thinking stealing is a-ok.

      I get that a lot of people have huge misconceptions about BDSM but the bottom line is that it is all about consent and if Dylan Ward was manipulating or coercicing the other people that is about PARTNER ABUSE not consensual BDSM. Those written contracts also can contain such expectations as being mentally stable, not doing drugs and being physically healthy.

      A man was murder after having sex. The crime is the murder, not what type of sex was involved unless it wasn’t consensual in which case it would be sexual assault. If all people can do is focus on the BDSM, then they have more mental problems than any leather people they came are covering up the truth.

      • CDinDC
        03/16/2009 at 12:33 PM

        Relax, Theo. Let me rephrase since you’re up in arms. Ward’s BDSM community may be tight.

        And just as I shouldn’t make blanket statements, nor should you. “…there is no one in the actual BDSM community in Washington that would ever support or try to cover up a murder.” What do you know about everyone in the BDSM community in Washington? Have you had a personal scene with each and every one of them? And wasn’t Dylan Ward in the that community? Think again, Theo. Not everyone plays by the rules.

        • Theo
          03/16/2009 at 3:27 PM

          No I do not know everyone in the male leather scene as well the more causal PNP party boys (and no I do not PNP) but I know a damn lot and just like the rich boys with their Dupont parties everyone talks and gossips. While your allusion of it being all honor bound and hush hush may sound good, that’s far from the reality.

          There has loads of talk about the case over the last two years mostly under the heading of, great more methed up gay boys doing stupid things because they are mentally fucked up and of course people want to drag up their kink history as proof that they commitment the murder.

          When you and the general ilk stop making the assumption that doing BDSM is a motive in commiting a murder, then I will relax.

          As for whether I think they did, yes from the limited info I personally do but that doesn’t matter one way or another. While public pressure like this site may cause the police to actually deal with the case, the gossipy tone and self-importance of the site is a bit much for my less privileged taste.

          What matter in the end isn’t the public opinion but that of a jury and a judge.

          • CDinDC
            03/16/2009 at 4:59 PM

            Theo… are the one to assume. You assume my statements are about the entire BDSM community. They are not. You also assume that I believe “that doing BDSM is a motive in commiting a murder.” I do not. That would be like saying all football players murder their wives. Sheesh.

            You also assume I know nothing of the BDSM community. Perhaps I know more about the community than you think.

            So, please…..the BDSM community’s reputation is intact and untainted in my opinion.

            It’s the Ward/Price/Zaborsky triad that is being examined here.

            Your points are graciously taken. Okay?

          • N.M.
            03/20/2009 at 12:54 PM

            Well, Theo, C.D. is being very kind to you but I think you need to yanked back to reality.

            You write “A man was murder [sic] after having sex”. Wrong. A man was murdered after having been raped. There is no indication whatsoever that Mr. Wone consensually engaged in anything more than walking in the front door.

            Even if one were to entertain the notion — and I am not — that upon arriving, Mr. Wone was struck by Magic Gay Lightning and instantly turned queer, there’s a huge difference between experimenting with a man and participating in extreme sex.

            But it is not worth entertaining that notion, because if the sex were consensual, there would have been no need to inject Mr. Wone with drugs to incapacitate him.

            Think, Theo. Think.

            You can whine about “honor” and the “misrepresentation” of your community all you want, but the fact remains that members of the BDSM community have *not* been forthcoming with their knowledge of Ward’s and Price’s proclivities and past behavior.

            That fact speaks for itself.

            You do yourself no favors when you report that the big topic of conversation in your circles is how the murder is bad PR.

            Finally, you acknowledge that you don’t really care about the crime itself – but you take issue with the “tone.” Well here’s a news flash from the big city: if Ward and Price are not brought to justice, how long will it be before they kill another unsuspecting man? Perhaps, even – gasp – somebody you care about?

      • SwannStObserver
        03/16/2009 at 5:12 PM

        “there is no one in the actual BDSM community in Washington that would ever support or try to cover up a murder”

        Well there sure as hell appears to be now, doesn’t there?

        And what makes you think membership in the BDSM community, or any community for that matter, negates the possibility of being evil or doing evil? Name a single social or professional subset of society that has a pure membership. What nonsense.

  2. IKWDI
    03/13/2009 at 6:07 PM

    I’m wondering more about the plaid window shades in the master bath.

    • CDinDC
      03/13/2009 at 6:13 PM

      Oh yeah…that got a bigger response than #2. Good things it’s after hours.

      • CDinDC
        03/13/2009 at 6:16 PM

        And I really don’t see where Master Dylan could have stored his rack and bed of nails. Were all those goodies in the den?

    • 03/13/2009 at 8:11 PM

      lol!!!! thanks IKWDI.

      and CDinDC,i think your first post here solved the case! at some point, the sub will crack and spill the beans (not enema style, sorry ms. price). oh, victor — it’s not too late to do the right thing?

  3. Nelly
    03/13/2009 at 10:24 PM

    Looking at these photos and the diagram, I am even more convinced that at least one of the 3 did it. There’s no way an ‘intruder’ could have gone all the way in and up to the 2nd floor to the guestroom, stabbed Wone, dragged him to wash him off in the bathroom, put him back, cleaned up the blood, and run down the stairs without alerting the attention of Dylan Ward.

    And as for the tackiness of the plaid blinds, these pictures were taken when the house was for sale before Price and Zaborsky bought it. So it’s the decor of the prior owner.

  4. Nelly
    03/13/2009 at 10:26 PM

    Also, it was reported that Pirce and Z. allegedly heard low grunts or moans as opposed to “gurgling” noises.

  5. 03/14/2009 at 12:00 AM

    Congrats on your MyFoxDC appearance! But why is only the local Fox TV channel interested? Isn’t FOX a right-wing channel?

  6. 03/14/2009 at 8:39 AM

    you would have to be on drugs to pick those window shades; oops, nevermind.

    why are there no other pictures of ward anywhere besides the 1/2 crazed mug shot?

  7. stan
    03/14/2009 at 10:20 AM

    Why – wouldn’t – a ‘right wing’ TV channel be interested in covering the murder of a nice married man by a seemingly respectable gay couple with two kids by two different women, a live-in S&M sex mate, etc.?

    I wonder if the ankle bracelets are wired?

    • CDinDC
      03/14/2009 at 11:10 AM

      Stan, I think the electronic monitoring is no longer. In fact, I saw Joe Price walking down 18th Street in Adams Morgan a few weeks ago. My friend turned to see him walking past and said “he’s small.” In so many ways.

      It just galls me that these 3 defendants continued to live together, all the while perfecting their story; traipsing around the community like nothing happened.

  8. Robert A Spiegel, Esq.
    03/17/2009 at 6:44 AM

    I think it fair to say that cross-cultural studies will
    show that murder is generally considered to be an
    offense against individual as well as group survival
    in virtually all societies. However, murder may be
    defined in different way from one society to next.

    In any event, the identity of murderer of Robert
    Wone is not dependent upon the sexual practices
    of a group to which a defendant may be a member.

    To the extent that there may be so-called “good”
    people and so-called “bad” people in the world, I
    suspect that virtually all groups are well
    represented across the spectrum.

    So far as coming forward: from any community or
    segment thereof it does not appear that anybody
    has done so. Do we all have/keep secrets?

    The only people coming forward are 3 defendants
    who have been described as “traipsing around.”
    Were they to do otherwise, one might think that
    they were guilty of something like murder maybe.

    Greater number of people involved in something
    like conspiracy, more difficult it is to keep group
    activities secret over time (whatever that means).

    If it wasn’t for blinds, it would be curtains for all
    of us. LOL Sorry to hear that townhouse decor is
    passe. Given my lousy sex life, I was really looking
    forward to Gay townhouse tour and getting pLAID.

  9. VincentChin
    04/06/2009 at 12:31 AM

    OMG that’s a magnificent master bathroom. I’ve seen street of dreams homes for $2m that don’t have bathrooms like this. What’s with Mr. Swanst dismissing this as a cheap big box parts facelift? Where in the world could Dylan have stashed the garage full of stuff listed in the affadavit? I don’t think even a BDSM shop would have stocked every thing that he had.

  10. Randy
    08/01/2009 at 12:27 AM

    If this were reversed, a homosexual man killed by three straight guys, this would have made national headlines and you can just hear the screams of “hate crime” and “homophobia”. You don’t see the PC crowd holding candlelight marches for Robert. No editorials in the Washington Post or other leftist rags calling for tougher penalties. You always hear about crimes where gays are the victims but when the situation is reversed they just want the story to go away.

    • Bea
      08/01/2009 at 12:30 AM

      But the gay men and women here on this site are among the first to cry ‘foul’ here on Robert’s behalf and try to get justice for him – if that matters to you.

      • CDinDC
        08/01/2009 at 9:46 AM

        And Robert’s murder wasn’t a hate crime. Robert wasn’t murdered because he was straight, or because he was asian.

        Frankly, homosexuals don’t go around targeting hetrosexuals.

        • Clio
          08/01/2009 at 10:44 AM

          If the worst aspects of contemporary gay male cultures (narcissism; sex and drug addictions; ultra-extreme BDSM fantasies involving rape and murder) may have contributed to this tragedy, then the best aspects of those same cultures (the interdisciplinary assault of wisdom and wit offered by this site) — joined by the indispensible offerings of others (Bea, in particular) who happen not to be gay men — are trying very hard to expose the gay male individuals thought to be most responsible for Robert’s murder. And, the withering spotlight of this site may be proving to be worth more than a few candle-light vigils to the ultimate resolution of this case.

          • Robert
            08/04/2009 at 3:32 AM

            I would like to think that in looking for
            Messrs Badbars, there are even some of
            we narcissistic Gay men who do not use
            drugs, sex or rock and roll.

            Moreover there are some like BEA who
            think that the fag hag Sarah played a
            role in this tragedy.

            In any event, I was at anniversary
            observance of Robert Wone’s killing.

        • Randy
          08/02/2009 at 12:05 AM

          It was indeed a “hate crime”. All violent crimes are hateful, not just those committed against members of a highly organized, well-funded, well-educated, so-called minority group.

          • Clio
            08/02/2009 at 9:06 AM

            Well-educated, yes. Well-organized and well-funded, no. (If Dylan Ward was the best fundraiser that Equality Virginia ever had, then even you should get that point!) A definite rather than “so-called” minority, unfortunately yes.

            Violent crimes are inherently hateful, but not all murders are hate crimes. See the legal analysis of CD above.

            • NYer
              08/02/2009 at 10:38 AM

              But, if one were to subscribe to the “come-to-jesus” theory put forth by Detective Wagner during the interrogation of Price, then I think one could argue that an assault/attack upon Wone could be classified as a hate crime (although certainly an atypical one).

              • Robert
                08/06/2009 at 10:22 AM

                Could you explain this comment
                connecting the Wagner theory
                and a potential hate crime; not
                sure that I totally understand?

            • Randy
              08/02/2009 at 11:58 AM

              Funny thing, I don’t know many disadvantaged minorities living in million dollar plus town homes.

              • Clio
                08/02/2009 at 12:23 PM

                True, Randy, but most gay men, like most straight and bisexual men in the U.S., do not live in million-dollar townhouses. Yet, there are wealthy members of all kinds of disadvantaged minority groups; their wealth does not completely insulate them from day-to-day, customary prejudice and discrimination. And, most gratefully, their wealth does not exempt them from obeying the law. Mr. Price, in particular, may have forgotten that last fact.

              • Bea
                08/02/2009 at 11:52 PM

                One “minority” covered by Hate Crimes legislation lives in the White House. OF COURSE there are affluent members of any minority. You seem to ignore everything that doesn’t serve your “point” and then post aggravating posts to insult others.

                I’ve said a number of times that ONE of many reasons that I want the guilty parties behind bars is that it absolutely galls me that “poster boys” of the gay community could be such awful people and drag an entire community into the filth with them. You want to talk injustices? Start with Robert’s murder – absolutely heinous. But another sideshow is likely that Fox News will run countless pieces on what “the gay community” did that fateful August night – not one or two (or even three) gay men, but “gays” in general. As a gay person, I am appalled and outraged by their acts and if I could I’d wave my wand and dismiss them from ‘our’ tribe. Horrible people are horrible people. End of story on this issue as I see it.

                • Robert
                  08/04/2009 at 4:36 AM

                  About these “poster boys,” I
                  agree completely with BEA .

                  In fact, I think that there are
                  many sympathies in the LGBT
                  community on account of
                  Price, Ward and Zaborsky not
                  only being Gay but being so-
                  called Gay activists.

                  As you may know, for reasons
                  of group protection as well as
                  moral disapproval: minorities
                  do not wish members of their
                  own group to be found guilty
                  of crimes — esp heinous ones.

                  An example of this would be
                  concern of Asian community
                  when Korean kid killed many
                  students at Virginia Tech U.

                  But just as I don’t believe that
                  more than others: one should
                  admire people of one’s race,
                  religion, ethnicity, sex, ability,
                  age or orientation, I do not
                  believe that more than others:
                  one should be ashamed of
                  those who share such traits.

                  I admire Gandhi and I am not Indian ascetic; I admire King and I am not Black Baptist;
                  I admire Chavez and I am not Chicano Catholic and I admire Suu Kyi & I am not Buddhist woman. Though like myself Rustin was Quaker and Gay, I admired him before I was Quaker or knew I was Gay.

                  I would rather that everybody
                  admire Milk because of his
                  values than his orientation.
                  But then I guess, Zaborsky
                  “Got Milk” in a different way.

                  Except in a universal sense, I
                  am not responsible for acts of
                  those such as Price, Ward and
                  Zaborsky. I am as guilty for
                  their acts as I’m for Klansmen
                  who lynched two of my bro’s
                  fellow Freedom Rider’s and
                  friends at Mississippi in 1963.

          • Robert
            08/04/2009 at 3:44 AM

            I am not going to get into middle of this
            argument between CDINDC and you.

            Suffice to say, that “hate crime” is legal
            term referring to a victim being targeted
            on account of his or her membership in
            a designated class such as race, religion,
            gender, age or ability.

            It is worth noting that LGBT are NOT
            included under federal hate crimes
            legislation or most state hate laws.

            Given that there is no evidence that
            Robert was targeted on account of his
            being Asian, Baptist, male, 32 or able
            bodied, this would only be a hate crime
            if Wone was targeted on account of his
            being hetero and sex orientation was
            was protected from hate under DC law.

            If one such as yourself or myself wishes
            to view all crimes as hateful, this is one
            thing. If one such as yourself wishes to
            declare all criminal offenses are “hate
            crimes,” one has made meaningless the
            term — morally as well as legally.

        • AnnaZed
          08/02/2009 at 12:46 PM

          This post has just made me think a bit on what a hate crime is exactly. In point of fact homosexual criminals (underline criminals) do sometimes particularly target heterosexual people and it seems that they did so in this case. I think that Robert was in fact murdered “because he was straight” in a very real sense.

          • Robert
            08/04/2009 at 3:49 AM

            If Robert was “targeted because” he was
            Straight, then you might be correct that
            his killing was a hate crime.

            If Robert was killed by homos Joseph
            and Dylan because heterosexual Robert
            declined or refused to have sex with
            Price and Ward, that would not qualify
            as a “hate crime” — even if such laws
            covered sexual orientation which most
            hate crimes legislation does not.

    • WH
      08/02/2009 at 12:31 PM

      Randy, what are you doing to contribute to the cause? This website represents an investment (both in time and money) by its creators, who are gay men trying to promote justice for Robert, the straight man. The many contributors here come from all walks of life, in terms of race, sex, orientation, and yes, even financial status. Your anger about a lack of media focus about a straight man’s death seems a bit misdirected at us, as we agree with you. The editors have made a lot of effort to keep attention on this case. We invite you to put your energy into helping us figure out what happened to Robert and who is responsible.

      • Robert
        08/04/2009 at 3:58 AM

        I share RANDY and your concern about lack
        of media attention given to this Wone case.

        But ample attention has been given to crimes
        against high class Straight men throughout
        history, Straight women at least during past
        few centuries and LGBT more and more in
        recent times at least in the Western world.

        I am a member of the Southern Poverty Law
        Center. Founded by the Black activist Rosa
        Parks and Jewish lawyer Morris Dees, SPLC is
        leading anti-intolerance organization in USA.

        One of SPLC’s major activities is monitoring
        hate crimes. After Blacks, Jews are group
        most victimized by hate crimes. And hate
        crimes against Asians are underreported.

        Thus, if there is any “categorial” reason for the
        Wone murder being ignored by the media, it is
        most likely on account of his ORIENTation.

    • Robert
      09/12/2009 at 3:20 PM

      You are absolutely right. Remember the Jesse Dirkhising murder? He was a 13 year boy who was raped, tortured and murdered by two homosexuals in Prairie Grove, Arkansas back in 1999. This was less than a year after the Matthew Shepard case. The mainstream media didn’t want to touch this case just like they are reluctant to bring to front the Robert Won case. Contrast this to when a homosexual is the victim. It will make national news and may even end up the cover of national periodicals. The mainstream media is in bed with the homosexual movement and many gays work in the national media. They know bringing the facts to the forefront about this case and other crimes committed by homosexuals would be negative and bad publicity for the perverted lifestyle they are so desperately trying to shove down everyones throat.

      • Clio
        09/12/2009 at 4:57 PM

        Yawn. “Robert” or whoever you are, use apostrophe s to indicate possession, as in everyone’s throat.

        I only wish that the mainstream media was “in bed with the homosexual movement,” but the lack of consistent and detailed coverage of the Wone murder came mainly from a paternalistic squeamishness at the gay and, later, BDSM dimensions of the case. You seem to share that distaste with the “liberal” Washington Post. The initial, deafening silences came not from any sincere support for the trouple as gay men. And, of course, it was gay men in the media who brought us this fabulous blog to seek justice for the straight victim. Go figure!

        Yes, many gays work in the national media, but most prefer not to let any advocacy “interfere” with their work, either by choice or by custom. Even Miss Anderson Cooper, a Vanderbilt by birth, does not have the social capital to embrace GLBT “agendas” without very, very discreet editing.

        • Robert
          09/13/2009 at 8:54 AM

          I do not know who this “Robert” is but he is not me who has not responded on this site in quite some time. My guess is that in my absence, he is using my name to conceal his true identity.

          • Robertr
            09/13/2009 at 9:01 AM

            Correction: it is not “I’

      • Robert
        09/13/2009 at 8:48 AM

        I do not not who you are, but you are not me — the “Robert” who has been a blogger on this site in the past and has not participated in some time.

        • Robertr
          09/13/2009 at 9:04 AM

          Correction: it is not “I”

      • Robertr
        09/13/2009 at 9:03 AM

        I do not who you are, but you are not I who has not commented on this siter for a long time.

        • Clio
          09/13/2009 at 11:33 AM

          Thanks, Dr. Spiegel, for the clarification. I knew that that particular post did not come from you.

          I also trust that the hijacking of screen names is not being coordinated at 7900 Ariel Way: the residents there have many more important things to address.

          Welcome back!

          • CDinDC
            09/13/2009 at 1:41 PM

            I’m sure there’s more than one Robert in the world. Perhaps it wasn’t at all an act of hijacking someone’s name.

            Excellent example of why we should have unique screen names.

            • Robert S
              09/14/2009 at 12:37 AM

              You are right on all counts.

              I do not know whether it was a case of hijacking. I just wanted to make clear that the comment in question did not represent my thinking.

              I also think that you make a good point about the advantage of unique screen names. Perhaps moderators will consider adopting your idea.

              • CDinDC
                09/14/2009 at 9:01 AM

                Welcome back, by the way. Your perspective is always interesting, Robert.

          • Robert S
            09/14/2009 at 12:22 AM

            Thanks! My suspicion that the hijacker is somebody with an anti-gay agenda who may have already been posting.

            In any case, I wish hijacking a screen name was the worst crime committed by those hiding out on Ariel Way.

            Let us hope that the diabolic trio are worrying to the point that one or more of them will break well before the trial.

  11. CDinDC
    08/02/2009 at 12:58 PM

    For anyone that cares to know what a “hate crime” is:

    Hate crimes (also known as bias-motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group, usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political affiliation.

    A “hate crime” generally refers to criminal acts which are seen to have been motivated by hatred of one or more of the listed conditions.

    The defendants did not hate Robert. They did not kill him because he was straight or asian. The killed him, most likely, because they found themselves in a very very bad situation and wanted to cover their own asses.

    Hateful? yes. Hate crime….don’t think so.

    (thanks Wikipedia for the definition.)

    • NYer
      08/02/2009 at 2:05 PM

      Personally I don’t think that this was likely a hate crime, based on the totality of the circumstances here. But, as I stated above, if one were to accept Det. Wagner’s hypo, then a case for this being a hate crime could be argued. Here’s a re-cap of Wagner’s interrogation:

      …Detective Daniel Wagner, then a 23-year veteran of the force, goaded Price, saying it was obvious to him that the men had planned to make Wone a part of their family that night.
      “I got three homosexuals in the house and I got one straight guy,” Wagner said to Price. “What’s he doing over there? What’s he doing over there?”
      Then he answered his own question. “I think we were all drinking wine,” the detective said. And he imagined the men’s thoughts toward their visitor: “You are coming to Jesus tonight; that’s what is going on tonight.”…

      Thus, seen through this prism, for Ward/Price to target Wone based on his sexual orientation, and then to perpetrate a crime upon him – whether it be sexual assault or murder- would arguably then render this a hate crime.

      • Robert
        08/04/2009 at 4:13 AM

        Please see several discussions of “hate crimes”
        in my posts above. There is a good reason why
        police are not called upon to make ultimate
        legal determinations about offenses.

        In this case, Ofr Wagner was viewing Straight
        man being seduced into sexual encounter with
        Gay men in an apparently different way then
        he would have viewed Gay man being beaten
        by frat boys or woman being raped by anyone.

        Whatever “thoughts” may have contributed to
        the killing of Robert Wone, one may not be
        prosecuted for one’s thoughts. For this to be
        classified as a “hate crime” prosecutors would
        have to prove Price and Ward were motivated
        by “intents” to eliminate Robert on account of
        his membership in legally designated category.

    • Robert
      08/04/2009 at 4:04 AM

      Thank you for the above exposition with which I
      generally agree. As indicated in a prior post of
      mine, sexual orientation is not a designated
      membership class under federal hate crimes
      legislation or most state hate crimes laws.

      That does not change your good point with which
      I wholeheatedly agree: namely, that there is a
      significant difference between a morally
      considered “hateful act” and a legally
      identifiable “hate crime.”

      • Robert
        08/06/2009 at 10:51 AM

        Thanks for the compliment. I feel better now
        that we are agreeing more and fighting less.

  12. Clio
    08/02/2009 at 2:23 PM

    The rape may have been driven by desires revolving around corruption or conversion, but the murder was purely CYA. Were those desires driven by a fear/hatred of straight and/or Asian people in general? My guess, from outside the legal profession: no.

    As for Mr. Wagner’s unfortunate phrasing, I had always suspected that Jesus was a little “funny,” but, if the esteemed detective says so, well, then it must be true. Nevertheless, I do not think that Randy would agree with that
    blasphemous characterization of “our” Saviour.

    • Robert
      08/04/2009 at 4:42 AM

      As for Officer’s comment about three Gay men
      bringing or not bringing Straight man to Jesus,
      it is worth noting that Jesus was never married
      celibate who preached against marriage —
      opposite or same sex!

      But at least Jesus’s conception was immaculate
      whereas Price, Ward and Zaborsky’s perception
      was something less than that — even with Ward’ s
      OCD at work in cleaning up that bloody house.

      • Robert
        08/04/2009 at 4:44 AM

        Postscript: Jesus preachings against marriage
        were explicitly againt heterosexual marriage.
        Opp to homo marriage may only be implied.

    • NYer
      08/04/2009 at 11:37 AM

      I understand how a Christian or others could be offended by the detective’s alleged “come-to-Jesus” phrasing/characterization of what might have happened at 1509. I myself see this phrasing as an off-color way to describe a life-altering conversion of sorts (i.e., switching teams, so to speak). I also interpret the term to connote a submission to death as well, which is obviously disturbing. I don’t subscribe to the alleged theory; but, because so much of what happened that fateful night remains a mystery, ALL theories should be raised as to a possible motive(s). But I do think that the detective’s wording, if he indeed worded it as such, is insensitive and better words could have been chosen.

      • Robert
        08/04/2009 at 11:48 AM

        With respect to Jesus, I agree with you on all counts. I do not believe that people — including Irish cops — should be crucified for what they say whether or not they think anybody is listening.

        After all isn’t that what happened to Jesus?

        Furthermore, there was recently case in S Ct
        about whether cursing on the golf course
        should be subject to obscenity laws.

        When people exclaim “Jesus Christ,” they do
        so for all sorts of reasons — many of them
        having nothing to do with religion.

  13. CDinDC
    08/02/2009 at 3:14 PM

    NYer says: “Here’s a re-cap of Wagner’s interrogation:

    …Detective Daniel Wagner, then a 23-year veteran of the force, goaded Price, saying it was obvious to him that the men had planned to make Wone a part of their family that night.
    ‘I got three homosexuals in the house and I got one straight guy,’ Wagner said to Price. ‘What’s he doing over there? What’s he doing over there?'”

    I’ve not read the interrogation, so I don’t know if those are DIRECT quotes or not, but if he said that, I find that particular “prism” skewed and homophobic.

    Not unlike the conversation we’ve had ad nausem on this board. Why would a straight man go to a gay man’s house? :::rolling my eyes:::

    • Robert
      08/04/2009 at 4:45 AM

      I agree as indicated in several of my posts above.

  14. Randy
    08/03/2009 at 12:15 AM

    “The defendants did not hate Robert”. Whew that makes me feel so much better. I’m so happy and now we can all feel at ease. I’ll sleep better. Thanks.

    However I have to confess I don’t understand “hate crimes”. Please enlighten this ignorant soul.

    If a criminal attacks a gay guy to steal his wallet but the criminal does not mention or know the guys sexual orientation then this is not a “hate crime” right? Or is this a hate crime because he attacked someone who falls under special protected status even though the attacker did not know this?

    What if a person under protected status attacks another person under special protected status (e.g.
    A Muslim attacks a homosexual, or a person of color attacks a disabled person)? Hate crime or not?

    Finally let’s say someone murders another person and this is established as a so-called “hate crime”. The perpetrator gets the death penalty. Will he get an extra lethal injection or higher voltage of electricity be cause he committed a “hate crime”?

    • Bea
      08/03/2009 at 2:18 AM

      Hi Randy,

      If you really want to know the answers to these questions, go do some reading. You’ll find it easily. If you’re here to antagonize and draw people off the topic of Robert Wone’s murder, then just find others to mess with. As I said before, we all recognize that the defendants here are gay and that the murdered man is straight – my guess is that the majority of people here are gay, and all are adamant that Robert’s murderer(s) be brought to justice. Can’t really your complaint being germane to anything in relation to this site.

      Best of luck to you.

      • Bea
        08/03/2009 at 2:19 AM

        correction: can’t really SEE your complaints being germane . . .

      • Randy
        08/04/2009 at 12:08 AM

        The truth of the matter is you can’t answer my questions because you don’t have an answer.

        It’s utterly absurd to say well if the attackers didn’t really hate the victim or the victim was not a member of a so-called protected class then its less of a crime.

        As far as the coverage of this case, the media are all so happy to show the best side of the gay community. They’ll show you pictures just like the one from USA Today, of smiles, sunshine and lollipops. However they don’t want to touch a story that shows a darker and sinister side. The one that poor Robert Wone (and others) encountered.

        • Bea
          08/04/2009 at 2:51 AM

          So, Randy, what’s your point? That Robert died because his murderers were gay? Of course his murder is a crime. Is the debate you want for us to digress into whether it’s less a crime because it wasn’t a “hate crime”? Are you just mad because “gays” get all the “privileges” of being named as a class covered in hate crime coverage? Read all those laws again before you come back to pick fights which are irrelevant to this board, and then go back to read the posts here to see if there are ANY gay people saying that because Robert was straight and (likely) killed by gay men that that’s “okay by them”. If you want to go be mean-spirited about your dislike of hate crime legislation or think that gays “get all the GOOD press” then you might find something on a FoxNews blog somewhere.

          • Robert
            08/04/2009 at 6:13 AM

            I agree with those who recognize that
            this would not qualify as a “hate crime”
            under most any such legislation.

            I have discussed in posts above and
            below my views on “hate crimes”
            legislation and media bias agains
            identifiable groups.

            In any case, I do not believe that my
            views against hate crimes laws should
            be censored on this site anymore than I
            think that my historical and historic
            campaigns against bias, prejudice and
            discrimination should be censored by
            established media outlets.

            If my guess is good: most of bloggers are like most people — including most
            Americans — in that you have not been
            actually poltically active in anti-war,
            civil rights, feminist, disability rights
            and LGBT movements (among others).

            None of the aforementioned may make
            me right about anything, but it sure
            does make me different from most.

            • WH
              08/04/2009 at 7:28 AM

              Robert, I’m not sure I am understanding you above when you say:
              “If my guess is good: most of bloggers are like most people — including most Americans — in that you have not been actually poltically active in anti-war, civil rights, feminist, disability rights and LGBT movements (among others). None of the aforementioned may make
              me right about anything, but it sure
              does make me different from most.”

              If I read you correctly, you are surmising that most of the posters on this site are “bloggers” and therefore unlikely to have done any of the things you mention, which you have done. I believe your assumption is incorrect–I don’t think most of us here are bloggers, but regular people with an interest in this case. I would be willing to bet that most of us ARE politically active, and some of us in ways that might surprise you.

              • Robert
                08/04/2009 at 9:15 AM

                Sorry, you did misunderstand me.
                I was not saying that most of the
                posters were bloggers who did
                not have “real lives.”

                Statisically impossible for many
                people alive or dead to have
                participated in the anti-Viet War
                Movement and the Black Civil
                Rights Movement and the
                Feminist Movement and the
                Disability Rights Movement and
                the LGBT Rights Movement dating back to the 1960’s.

                This is true if for no other reason
                that many Anti-War activists did
                not participate in the Civil Rights
                Movement, that many Civil Rts
                activists did not participate in (&
                even opposed) the Feminist Mvt
                and that many Feminists did not
                participate in (and even opposed)
                the Gay Rights Movement.

                This does not mean that there are
                not fifth generation Civil Rights
                activists, 4 generation Femnists
                or 3 generation LGBT activists.

                But as the Founders recognized,
                most people operate out of self-
                interest and this applies even to
                activists. Most participate in
                movements with which they
                specifically identify.

                For example: it is for this reason
                that Blacks and Latinos voted
                against Prop 8 in California; and
                why the LGBT community in
                general and LGBT Movement in
                particular are so rife w classism,
                racism, sexism, ablism biphobia
                and transgenderphobia.

                Of the less than one-half of 1% of the population who are active on behalf of their own civil rights, less than one-half of that less than one-half of 1% are active on behalf of the human rights of others.

                Sad but true, this says nothing about you. Admittedly, I don’t know you or your history.

                However, I do know the history of the Movement — both from my
                anecdotal experience to which I do NOT give much weight and historical evidence to which I do give much weight.

        • Robert
          08/04/2009 at 6:03 AM

          I believe that you will find most of your
          questions about hate crimes legislation as
          well as biased media coverage in several of
          my posts above and below this one.

          Read carefully. I think you will see that I
          agree with you that one individual’s life
          should not be valued over that of another
          whatever may be the justification therefore.

          However, it can be shown statistically that
          crimes against members of some groups
          are not given same coverage as crimes
          against other groups.

          If one is truly interested in these subjects,
          may I suggest that one contact Southern
          Poverty Law Center which monitors such
          matters as hate crimes and media coverage.

        • Robert
          09/13/2009 at 9:13 AM

          Are you now using my name, “Robert,” to conceal your anti-Gay agenda?

    • Robert
      08/04/2009 at 5:25 AM

      Let me see if I can “enlighten” you about “hate
      crimes” concept — laws differ from jurisdiction to
      jurisdiction. But please spare us the sarcasm.

      “Hate crimes” require intent on part of perp to
      commit law covered offense against another on
      account of other’s membership in a “designated
      category.” There is a distinction to be made
      between a “protected class” under in civil rights
      laws and “designated category” under hate laws.

      One of the difficulties in prosecuting such crimes
      is that they are so hard to prove. Most commonly
      evidence is based upon remarks spoken by perp
      at scene of the crime before commitment of act.
      Remarks subsequent are generally not relevant.

      It is on account of these difficulties as well as
      free speech concerns that prosecutors rather
      prosecute accused for acts not speech and
      prosecutions for hate are way down.

      Whether or not an individual has perpetrated a
      hate crime is dependent on the status of the
      victim not status of the perpetrator.

      Thus, in your example: irrelevant is whether
      perpetrator himself is or is not a member of a
      designated category under the given law.

      In most jurisdictions there is no longer a death
      penalty (for any offense) which has been found
      all but unconstitutional by state and fed courts.

      However, penalties for underlying acts may be
      enhanced on account of correlated conviction on
      hate crime. This why minorities support them.

      Personally, I oppose hate crimes legislation for several reasons: 1) after centuries of objection that White lives should not be valued more than Black ones, Christian lives should not be valued more than Jewish ones and men’s lives should not be valued more than those of women, hate crimes legislation turns around and values lives of heretofore prejudiced group members over those not members; 2) after LGBT base same sex marriage claims on Equal Protection Clause of Constitution, they support hate crimes laws which violate EPC; 3) as ACLU has pointed out hate crimes legislation threatens to jeopardize
      free speech; and 4) disproportionate impact.

      In 1963, three Civil Rights Workers — two Jews
      named Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner
      along with one Black named James Chaney were
      lynched by same Klansmen in Mississippi . Had
      Goodman and Schwerner been wealthy White
      Anglo-Saxon Protestants, potential penalty for
      killing Chaney would have been greater under
      current hate crimes laws in most jurisdictions.

      The above result would have been all the more ironic because the KKK hates White Civil Rights Workers even more than Black CRW. Therefore, one could argue penalty for murder of Goodman & Schwerner should have been greater than that for Chaney! But that was not and is not option under hate crimes laws or any other legislation.

      Similarly: when there is a “Queer bashing” in
      which Straight ally defends Gay friend to greater
      detriment of Straight, I would argue that penalty
      for Straight assault should be greater than that
      for equal or lesser assault upon Gay person.

      After all: Gay person is being bashed due to his
      being a sexual minority, from which the Straight
      person could immunize himself, but chooses
      instead to unnecessarily endanger his health or
      well-being on acct of a known or unknown Gay.

      Furthermore, we can prove whether person is bio
      Black or female. It is not so easy to do so with
      Jew or LGBT (there is no blood test for these).

      To those who say that nobody would claim or
      pretend to be a minority, that is not necessarily
      so. Victims have been known to identify as
      member of designated category when he or she
      believes that a higher penalty can be extracted.

      • Randy
        08/06/2009 at 1:49 AM

        Thank you very much for your lengthy, thorough reply and explanations.

        I totally agree it is unfair that some lives (mainly those of straight white males) should be valued less than others. What ever happened to “All men are created equal”?

        Your last paragraph is very true. The accuser could play the part of an invisible minority and claim victim status just so the accused would get a harsher penalty. Heck even if I was the victim of a crime, if I knew the perpetrator would get a harsher sentence, I’d probably say I was gay and the thug uttered a sexual orientation slur. How would anyone I was lying?

        I feel that “hate crime” laws will lead to “hate speech” laws. Europe is a perfect example. You can be sentenced to prison for “hate speech” even if you speak the truth. Look at what’s happening to Geert Wilders.

        • Robert
          08/06/2009 at 10:35 AM

          I agree with you about the plight of Geert
          Wilders, but I am not sure that this is the
          proper forum for that discussion.

          In any case, I do not believe that any
          country — including so-called Western
          democracies such as the Netherlands —
          have as strong free speech protections as
          are embodied in the US Constitution.

          Lucky for us; unfortunate for most of the
          rest of the world. But even here, most
          people defend the speech they like and are
          not equally protective of speech they don’t.

          • CDinDC
            08/06/2009 at 10:53 AM

            Robert says: “But even here, most
            people defend the speech they like and are not equally protective of speech they don’t.”

            No truer words spoken.

  15. WH
    08/04/2009 at 3:32 AM

    Actually, if I understand it correctly (and I’m no attorney), in hate crimes law the protected class is not “gays” but “sexual orientation,” and not “blacks,” but “race”. Therefore the hate crimes law can be applied to any hate-motivated crime against a minority or majority member, as long as the motive for the crime was bias against the group.

    Let’s assume, for sake of argument, that Randy is a straight, white male. If he were walking down the street, holding hands with his girlfriend, minding his own business, when he is suddenly and randomly attacked by a group of lesbian womyn of color screaming “Die you albino breeder!” then he would also be a victim of a hate crime.

    This being the case, I am not sure why Randy is upset. If he is against hate crimes legislation in general, then he should just say so and be done with it, rather than try to connect hate crimes to this unrelated case. I’m sure he can find a sympathetic audience for his views at many, many other blogs.

    • Robert
      08/04/2009 at 5:53 AM

      You are incorrect on several grounds. In accord
      with your invitation, I have stated above my
      objections to hate crimes legislation.

      And I do so as one who was: Civil Rights Activist
      before 1963 March; Feminist before NOW;
      disability activist before DIA or NAMI.

      Was also present at Stonewall where participated
      in rallies, protests & demonstrations which have
      since become to be called: “The 3 Days of Rage.”
      I won’t bore you with all the details of my more
      than 40 years of campaigns for rights of LGBT.

      Suffice to say: there cannot be too may people
      who share my history not just at one civil rights
      movement in particular but at all human rights
      movements in general. This does not make me
      right or Left about anything. But it does mean
      that unlike most, I know wherefrom I speak.

      First, it does not matter what is identity of perp.
      If self-hating Gay commits covered act against
      another Gay, that could qualify under any hate
      crimes legislation. But only if law specifies sex
      orientation as “designated category,” which most
      such legislation — state and federal — does not.

      Second, reality is that Blacks are rarely prosecuted
      for “hate crimes” against Whites, Jews are rarely
      prosecuted for “hate crimes” against Christians,
      women are rarely prosecuted for “hate crimes”
      against men and Gays are rarely prosecuted
      for “hate crimes” against Straights.

      That legislation in question may provide for the
      contrary does not change fact that enforcement
      of such laws have led to what civil rights and
      liberties lawyers like myself refer to
      as “disproportionate impact.”

      When laws favored White lives over Black lives,
      Christian lives over Jewish lives and men’s lives
      over those of women, there were protests by the
      affected groups. But now they as well as Gays
      want their lives to be legally or effectively valued
      over lives of other not members of “the club.”

      “Disproportionate impact” of laws against various
      minorities have historically led and commonly
      lead to cries of: DISCRIMINATION!

      • WH
        08/04/2009 at 7:14 AM

        Robert, thanks for your thoughts. I am not sure from your post which parts of my statement were incorrect. Disproportionate enforcement does not negate what I stated above, which is that hate crimes legislation names categories such as “race” and “sexual orientation”, rather than specific characteristics such as “gay” or “white.” You are correct that in many places, sexual orientation is not covered. I did not intend to suggest that it universally is covered in my general argument above. Let’s agree to disagree on whether hate crimes legislation is a good or bad idea, since I’m sure we agree that is not the purpose of this forum.

  16. Robert
    08/04/2009 at 8:56 AM

    The other point made had to do with the fact that
    it is only the identity of perpetrator that is relevant
    and thus the perpetrator himself may be a member
    of a “hate crime” law designaited category.

    However, I agree with you that the issue of “hate
    crimes” legislation is not the subject of this forum.

    For one, I believe in the right of reasonable people
    to disagree. Thus, I respect your viewpoints.

    • WH
      08/04/2009 at 10:22 AM

      Thanks Robert. I appreciate your reply. I did not mean to imply that the identity of a perp as a member of a protected class matters in deciding what is and what is not a hate crime. I was making the example to demonstrate that the victim does NOT have to be a minority for hate crimes statutes to apply.

      • Robert
        08/04/2009 at 10:47 AM

        Understood. Thanks for the clarification.

        While you are quite correct in stating under
        hate crimes legislation the victim does not
        HAVE to be member of a so-called minority
        group (i.e. women are in the majority), the
        statutes were not designed or developed to
        protect those NOT in the minority and have
        rarely if ever done SO.

        Please know: I am a human rights activist
        who believes in maximum protection for
        minorities. I just think that “hate crimes”
        laws are: 1) contrary to history of protest by minority groups; 2) an ill advised way to achieve the objective; 3) violation of the
        Equal Protection Clause of Constitution.

        But we agreed not to debate the issue in this
        forum and I respect that determination.

  17. Bea
    08/04/2009 at 1:39 PM

    Robert and Randy,
    I hope you both realize that federal hate crime legislation does not currently include sexual orientation as a protected class. The current statutes permit federal prosecution committed on the basis of a person’s race, color, religion, or nation origin when engaging in a federally protected activity, 18 U.S.C. § 245. Yes, it will likely one day be amended to include sexual orientation and other classes (legislation pending), and some states have like laws which do protect orientation.

    As for the comments that one/both of you are “the most activist-oriented” people on this site, well, bully for you in giving yourself these self-granted crowns. Yes, I am very angry at your assumptions and your desire to take the pulpit to preach to the rest of us.

    Don’t like hate crime laws? Okay. I understand the points you make. But it’s not very germane to this site.

    Don’t think the rest of us “do as much as you do” as activists? Pretty cocky assumption, and you seem to be using it as a cloak to say “my opinion wins”. My sense of it: get over yourself.

    • NYer
      08/04/2009 at 1:58 PM

      Please note recent development:
      “This latest bill, the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act, expanded the list of hate crimes …to include those targeted because of their gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.”

      • Bea
        08/04/2009 at 2:39 PM

        Yes – and I do hope it goes through. . .

        • Robert
          08/04/2009 at 7:32 PM

          Thank you for posting this information.

    • Randy
      08/06/2009 at 1:17 AM

      Whew, I got so many responses to my last post the size of my inbox is almost as large as Al Gore’s carbon footprint!

      Well, if your gonna include “race, color, religion” and “likely one day be amended to include sexual orientation”, then also include obesity, and overall appearance (ugliness). Certainly if this were the case many gay poster boys would be guilty of discrimination and hatred of these poor unfortunates.

      As far as your anger, It makes me angry when even if someone reasonably disagrees against the liberal agenda, they are automatically and unfairly labeled a “homophobic, racist, hatemonger, intolerant, bigoted, right wing fanatic, etc” (Personally I’m not any of these.) You all talk about about gays being unfairly stereotyped but you’re no better.

      • Bea
        08/06/2009 at 2:46 AM

        Er, Randy, my “anger” was specifically directed to your grandstanding about your dislike of hate crime laws. Specifically, I said “Don’t like hate crime laws? Okay. I understand the points you make. But it’s not very germane to this site.”

        No one but you has mentioned “the liberal agenda” or labeling you or anyone else, “homophobic, racist, hatemonger, intolerant, bigoted, right wing fanatic, etc.” Maybe you’re in an argument with someone not on this site?

        When you say “you all talk about gays being unfairly stereotyped but you’re no better” I have no idea what this refers to. Does your reference to “you all” mean gay people?

        Who here is commenting that they are “being unfairly stereotyped”? I am gay and I speak only for myself. I have no idea if you are gay or not (although now I assume that you are straight) but my recollection is that the individual who also posts about his strong dislike of hate crime laws, Robert, is gay. (Sorry, Robert, if my recollection is incorrect). Again, what this has to do with anything escapes me.

        I’ll repeat: none of this is germane to this site. “We gays” here on the site are universally appalled by the murder of Robert Wone (who I believe to be a straight man), and the reason for expending “our” energies here is to try to find justice for him. “Our” assumptions that Robert’s murderer(s) are very likely gay (namely one or more of the Swann Street residents) does not matter a whit – “we” want nothing more for him/them to be convicted of murder and pay for his/their crimes.

        Again, maybe you should find a site where the subject is a debate on hate crime legislation.

        • CDinDC
          08/06/2009 at 7:44 AM

          This is the kind of poster I like to ignore. Let them post, post post. Eventually, no one will respond and they will go away.

          The silly thing is that hate crimes protect everyone. Including Randy.

  18. Robert
    08/04/2009 at 1:53 PM

    First, I stated repeatedly in my posts that neither
    the current federal hate crimes statute nor many
    existing state hate crimes statutes include sexual
    orientation as a designated category.
    Second, I agreed with those that hate crimes issue
    should not be debated on this site and ceased.
    Third, I apologize if I offended you or anybody else
    with what you may regard as my presumptions.
    Fourth, I have stated repeatedly that nothing about my qualifications — legal, activist or otherwise — makes me right about anything with respect to this case or anything else!
    My sense of it: get over your insecurities.

    • CDinDC
      08/04/2009 at 2:16 PM

      Robert says: “I have stated repeatedly that nothing about my qualifications — legal, activist or otherwise — makes me right about anything with respect to this case or anything else!”

      Well, refrain from stating your qualifications ad nauseum if they don’t make you right about anything. You’d think this was a job resume posting site, for heaven sakes.

    • Bea
      08/04/2009 at 2:40 PM

      All insecurities have disappeared, thanks!

  19. Susan
    07/28/2010 at 10:43 PM

    Is that D. Ward’s bedroom that has the picture that says something about “Spy for the Devil” in French?

Comments are closed.