Party Of The Second Part

Entre Nous

You’ve read our repeated pleas to help us grow the community of people interested in or close to this this case, in particular those with legal backgrounds, friends and colleagues of the principals,  Swann Street neighbors, journalists, pharmacology experts, and those in the BDSM community among others.  We’re happy to report that we are making slow but steady progress on those goals.

We do the bulk of our outreach online, on the phone and on the ground. Our dance cards don’t often fill up but this weekend we had a couple options; make a rare trip to a club or go to that crosstown get together.  As you know, we opted for the quieter evening.

We have proved to those we’ve talked with that our guarantees for their anonymity are exceeded only by our shared sense of utmost discretion. We’ve heard a number of stories over the past couple of months but have chosen to relate only a very few. This isn’t just a gossip site after all.

While some stories and anecdotes haven’t been appropriate to post on or their veracity is  questioned, others have – like hearing that these days Joe Price looks as if the case has been wearing on him while Victor Zaborsky has “never looked better.”  This has been double sourced.

We appreciate the leads and information and sincerely hope that the smart comments here as well as the unilateral outreach to us continues.  We’ll continue to beat the bushes as best we can and if you happen to see us at the Eagle, we’re buying.

We wish we could share more from this weekend’s affair but we gave our word.

If you were at a party also attended by people who knew the four housemates well, what would you have asked them?  We just might be asked back.

posted by Craig

31 comments for “Party Of The Second Part

  1. jackson
    03/18/2009 at 1:34 PM

    Take me next time. I’ll be your wingman. and I don’t own any A and F if that helps.

  2. CDinDC
    03/18/2009 at 6:15 PM

    Victory Zaborsky has a profile on Facebook. Isn’t that nice and normal.

    • Doug
      03/18/2009 at 6:40 PM

      So do I. And?
      Doug, an editor

      • CDinDC
        03/18/2009 at 11:17 PM

        And? You aren’t a defendant in an obstruction of justice trial, are you? You also probably have an email address on yahoo or the like….just like Joe Price. But I seem to recall Joe Price’s culuket email address up for fodder without criticism from the “editors.” Why the change of heart? Why now do you feel the need to temper the postings? In any event, if you’re trying to show that the editors are unbiased, it’s too late. You and Nancy Grace make no bones about your stance. Your sarcasm was completely unappreciated. Editor or not.

  3. 03/18/2009 at 7:22 PM

    ask the group about how someone who graduated summa cum laude (and is easy on the eyes) could end up such a loser? was it drugs, mental illness or other? what is the relationship between needham and dylan? pride or disgust or other? ask why victor tolerated garbage in her home, in her family? that should get the conversation started.

    • Michael
      03/18/2009 at 7:37 PM

      SDI – Your comments continue to be superficial and irrelevant. You have repeatedly commented on Dylan Ward’s looks, and portray him as a loser and other derogatory identities without basis in knowledge or fact. How about you come up with some thoughtful comments before you type on your keyboard?
      – Michael, editor

      • 03/18/2009 at 7:48 PM

        not sure that seeking information on drug use or mental health of one of the defendants is irrelevant or unthoughtful. i wouldn’t be surprised if either or both were one day offered as an explanation for this tragedy. i will lay off commenting on ms. ward’s goodlooking appearance moving forward.

      • IKWDI
        03/19/2009 at 10:02 AM

        Michael,

        Why so harsh?!?!?

    • Lance
      03/18/2009 at 8:38 PM

      SDI, it’s not just the comments on appearance. It’s the (disrespectful) “Ms.”; it’s calling him a “loser”; it’s calling him “garbage”. You don’t look like you want information; you look like you want to slander people, period, and I really wish you would stop.

  4. Nelly
    03/18/2009 at 8:39 PM

    You know, on this line of thought, I gotta admit that when my sister saw the pic of Dylan, she thought he was good-looking too. Shedidit has a very sarcastic and biting tone, but I enjoy reading her/his comments.

    • IKWDI
      03/19/2009 at 8:56 AM

      I also find the criticism of SDI misplaced. This is a blog after all… and you (the editors) are asking for “comments”. Lay off SDI, he/she can find her own voice… so can you…

      P.S. — I’ve noticed the editors of this site don’t seem to mind all the publicity they have gotten from this site. Noticeably the PR like some of the postings on this blog by the editors seem very self-focused… personally find it kind of annoying…

      • Anon. in Arlington
        03/19/2009 at 12:35 PM

        The editors contribute a lot of time writing, researching, and responding on this blog. Let them take all the credit and limelight they wish.
        I for one, am grateful for their contributions.

    • jackson
      03/19/2009 at 9:37 AM

      Count me as an SDI fan (most of the time) too. we can all lay off of the internal sniping and just deal with the fact that we have different backgrounds and opinions but share many common goals

      • CDinDC
        03/19/2009 at 9:41 AM

        well said, Jackson.

  5. CDinDC
    03/19/2009 at 9:02 AM

    There’s been a bit of a bruhaha over She Did It’s way of expressing herself. Some people don’t like it. That’s their right……but it’s no one’s right to suppress “her” way of conveying “her” opinions. And when the “editors” step in and contribute to the suppression, that’s when things have crossed the line. Editors, there a little thing called the First Amendment. Under that Amendment, She Did It, or anyone else on this blog, has the RIGHT to express themselves in any manner they choose, as long as they do not express it using hate speech or prejudicial language. Those opinions can be based on fact or merely heartfelt personal feelings. Personally, I believe the Defendants are guilty. If I were on their jury I’d convict them and sentence them to the fullest extent of the law. I also believe they are pathetic human beings. And, frankly, I think Dylan isn’t much on the looks radar. But that’s my opinion, and I’ve every right to it. Last night, Michael, “the editor”, stepped up to bat and told She Did It how to speak and express her opinion. I blanched when I read the comments: “How about you come up with some thoughtful comments before you type on your keyboard?” How about you just start editing our comments from behind the scenes? It’s all very well that you don’t like what she has to say, but you as an editor should realize that owning the bandwidth of this blog doesn’t give you the authority to suppress anyone else’s freedom of speech.

    Editors, I applaude you for bringing this important case to the forefront of many people minds. Robert Wone and his family deserves this. You have posted thought-provoking material and have allowed your participants free reign in expressing their thoughts and opinions. This is a fantastic forum and it continues to be informative and VERY relevant. But you are now “the press.” Your duties to this blog have changed. The blog is long yours. It is now “public.” You as the editor’s must preserve the freedom and rights that we own. Rights that have been taken, so tragically, from Robert Wone.

    I know, I know, I’ll probably get a firestorm (as SDI would put it) of critical comments from Lance and the like, but bring ‘em on. It’s your right.

    Editors, you are now “the press.” You need to live up to that. Big shoes to fill, but somehow, I know you’ll be able to do it. Look what you’ve done already.

    She Did It? Rock on.

    • CDinDC
      03/19/2009 at 9:05 AM

      Typo…The blog is no longer yours. (sheesh)

    • Lance
      03/19/2009 at 5:51 PM

      CD in DC writes:

      it’s no one’s right to suppress “her” way of conveying “her” opinions. And when the “editors” step in and contribute to the suppression, that’s when things have crossed the line. Editors, there a little thing called the First Amendment. Under that Amendment, She Did It, or anyone else on this blog, has the RIGHT to express themselves in any manner they choose, as long as they do not express it using hate speech or prejudicial language.

      […]

      …you as an editor should realize that owning the bandwidth of this blog doesn’t give you the authority to suppress anyone else’s freedom of speech.

      I’m afraid that’s pretty much wrong from beginning to end. First of all, I’ll note that what I’ve been objecting to, and calling for the editors to step in and end, isn’t speech I disagree with; it’s speech that I think is in fact “prejudicial”: things that, if they were printed in a newspaper, would be grounds for a libel suit, particularly the personal attacks.

      But the bottom line is that the right to “free speech” isn’t the right to say anything you want anywhere you want any time you want. The First Amendment guarantees that the government will not restrict your right to say things, especially in public spaces. But if you stand in the back of a movie theater and yell “I hate this movie!” while a movie is playing, you’re going to get evicted, and you can’t stand on First Amendment rights. If you write a letter to the editor of a newspaper and they don’t print it, you can’t claim that their censorship violates your First Amendment rights.

      She Did It has the right under the First Amendment to express her opinions. That doesn’t automatically give her the right to express them here; she can start her own blog, if she likes, or stand on a street corner in DC and express them to anyone who wants to stop and listen.

      (Incidentally, I’ve sent two separate emails to the editors at the email address Michael mentions above on this point–specifically, I’ve asked them to please make some sort of statement about what’s acceptable and what’s not, so that either SDI will know that her tone isn’t welcome here or else I will know that her tone is.)

      • Michael
        03/19/2009 at 7:30 PM

        Lance –

        Unfortunately we have not received those emails. Most likely you used the email address listed rather than the link. The email address has been removed and only a link to email us now appears. Please click on that link if you desire to send the editors an email.

        As for the tone and language used in the comments, we have opted to respond directly to the comments when we feel they cross the line. This may give the appearance of being arbitrary, but it is difficult to come up with an editorial standard that fits all topics and styles. Newsroom editors make on-the-fly decisions based on the content and importance of material when publishing, and that is the approach, at this time, we have elected to take. Overall, we have not called out offenders, except when the comments have repeatedly shown little or no relevance to the post, or have been downright offensive. Our desire is to keep the comments open as a forum and respect the diversity and appreciate the entertainment value and humor (which is highly subjective) represented in those comments, perhaps bringing some levity to this tragedy.

        – Michael, editor

  6. Nick
    03/19/2009 at 9:34 AM

    Oh please since this blog is about the law we may as well be clear that the first amendment applies only to the government; the editors can moderate comments as they see fit. That said, they shouldn’t be surprised they’re getting silly comments because they posted their link at Datalounge.

  7. CDinDC
    03/19/2009 at 9:55 AM

    Don’t you get it, Nick? The media is in the business of PROTECTING the 1st Amendment, not suppressing it. One of the basic principals of journalism is to protect the right of anonymous speech. And, the last I recall, the 1st Amendment was established BY the government FOR the people.

  8. SwannStObserver
    03/19/2009 at 10:26 AM

    I agree with most of what CD said, with the following important exceptions:

    “I applaud you for bringing this important case to the forefront of many people minds. Robert Wone and his family deserves this.”

    I don’t applaud this blog, because the last thing Wone’s family deserves is to read some tabloid mashup between QueerEye and CSI. It embarrasses me, but should moreso the editors, to envision Kathy Wone reading this blog.

    There have been a few posts about the case, granted, but the posts that gushed over 1509’s interior (misplaced praise, as I commented), praised the couple for buying a nice home, stated that the home was a positive reflection upon the couple (when the couple was really a triple), reported on the peer pleasure socio-economic mix at a party, and more, is all blather.

    Now, we have the editors hinting that the media avoided adequate coverage of the media, and in doing so directly echo anti-gay right-wing talking points about the murder of a young boy some years ago.

    The bitter icing on all this spongy cake is the too-cute headlines and subheds only lend to the cheap exploitative tabloid tenor of this blog.

    The purpose of this blog is to place a few guys at the center of cocktail chat, and to vent the editors’ shock and awe that a life that seemed so perfect, indeed one they would want as good self-conscious arrivistes, went to hell in one evening.

    There’s little in there the Wone family deserves.

    • Franky
      03/19/2009 at 10:57 AM

      I think this website can be interesting at times and is potentially helpful in solving the mystery. But I wholeheartedly agree that the editors’ comments on the party they attended were ridiculous, reflected poorly on them, and detracted from the stated purpose of this site.

  9. CDinDC
    03/19/2009 at 11:10 AM

    Swann, you may be right. ::sigh::

    In that vein, I’d like to point out something about this blog that I’ve noted for quite a while, that perhaps could be changed by the editors.

    At times, the participants in this blog have asked some thought provoking questions, but very often those questions go completely unrecognized by the editors or are sometimes lost due to a new topic. A topic thread that has garnered a lot of interest dies out because of the new postings and the subsequent comments.

    HOW can we introduce new topics to the blog and MAINTAIN those topics, in addition to those created by the editors?

    • Michael
      03/19/2009 at 12:42 PM

      New topics are best proposed by sending an email via the link on the Contact the Editors page. We maintain the anonymity of the request. Guest posts are welcomed, and may be submitted as well.

      – Michael, editor

      • IKWDI
        03/19/2009 at 5:05 PM

        I have spoken with some others and we are thinking that a possible solution would be a message boards section. This would allow people who want to explore a specfic issue to continue to do so. What does everyone think?

        • CDinDC
          03/19/2009 at 8:17 PM

          I like the option of exploring a specific issue. The daily topic (albeit interesting and thought provoking) shortens the lifespan of a “good thread.” People move on to the next topic the next day.

  10. 03/19/2009 at 8:23 PM

    oooops!!! looks and smells like i pooped the bed around here (again). first and foremost, a big hug to the many friends in head who have circled the wagons in support of free speech.

    i firmly believe that focusing on drug use and/or mental illness will lead to the answers as to what happened that night on swann street. not one person has spoken about either of these issues as they relate to mr. ward, despite my continuous questions and pleas otherwise. instead, my way of expression is being judged; as opposed to the probing and judging of a lifestyle of sex, drugs, college honors and perhaps conspriracy and murder? no, boys and girls, shame on those of you for trying to change the subject. let’s talk about “she did it” rather than asking ward’s friends where the missing knife from the bedroom is? should we talk about queens who use feminine pronouns or the fact that the defendants were all showered in clean robes when emt’s arrived? have the dear friends of the defendants on here asked the defendants these questions? if not, why not?

    i’ll turn the volume down for a spell; but until i get answers, you will see questions on ward’s character, drug use, health — answer these questions instead of blaming me!

    love to all. cheers.

    • Lance
      03/19/2009 at 9:29 PM

      OK, see, now that’s much better! To be honest, I wasn’t trying to change the subject; I couldn’t find the subject before. It was hard to find the points you raise among the references to “ms. ward’s tricks” or accusing me of being Ward’s father.

      Of course, I can’t actually answer any of these questions about Ward. Believe me, if I could tell you that Dylan Ward is in fact a psychopath, I would; it would make things much easier to understand. And if I could tell you that he’s the most well-balanced and gentle man I’d ever met, I would; it would balance out comments like CDinDC’s. But naturally, I can’t–I don’t know Ward, and I gather that no one here does.

      Indeed, the questions you ask are questions I’d like to hear answered, too. What I’ve tried to express, perhaps with varying degrees of success, is that until we have those answers, guessing isn’t productive. Once the criminal trial begins, we’ll presumably start to get those answers, and again, I’m eager to hear what they are. Unfortunately, until then, asking insistently–in any tone–isn’t really likely to get us answers.

      • CDinDC
        03/19/2009 at 10:29 PM

        Drop it, Lance. Okay?

  11. L.
    03/20/2009 at 10:03 AM

    Wone was drugged, sexually assualted and Ward accidentally killed him or Wone woke up.

    Price participated in the cover-up to save his career. He had just made partner at an important DC law firm 2 months prior to the incident.

    Case closed.

    • IKWDI
      03/20/2009 at 10:28 AM

      Sounds plausible… will be interesting to see what evidence gets presented at trial… certainly would appear to be motive for the cover up.

Comments are closed.