Beyond the Horizon

The Brothers Price Sibling Rivalry

From the earliest days of civilization, beginning with Cain and Abel, sibling rivalry has been at the core of the human story.  Our own nation’s history is linked to warring brothers.  Recent examples include Jimmy and Billy Carter, Bill and Roger Clinton.  The same could be said of the Bush brothers, and the Kennedy clan.

Cain and Abel

Cain and Abel

So it’s no surprise that, at the center of the Wone tragedy, we find yet another iteration of brothers who stands at odds with each other.  We draw this conclusion from publicly available evidence as well as comments made on this site by people who know one or both of the Price brothers.

While the adversarial aspects of this relationship are most apparent, it is layered and complex.  We learned from court documents this week that when Michael Price charged his partner Louis Hinton with second degree assault, it was Joe Price who defended Louis against his brother’s charges.  Yet, at the same time Michael and Louis Hinton were living in an apartment owned by Joe Price.   Families have their secrets that don’t make sense to the outside world, and viewing the Price brothers’ relationship from public documents doesn’t make much sense.  Why would Joe get involved in his brother’s assault charge as the attorney who defended the assailant against his brother?

Just from looking at these facts, there appears to be very bad blood between these two brothers.  Why didn’t Joe just wash his hands of the assault charge and have nothing to do with the case?  Certainly Louis Hinton needed legal representation, but couldn’t he have found it elsewhere?  Was Joe Price the only lawyer available?  I don’t think so.  From the look of it, he wanted to make a point against his brother.  But why?  Court documents don’t reveal these motivations, they just reveal the facts.

Comments on this site have said Joe Price would never depend on his brother in any way, shape, or form.  These are people who have claimed intimate knowledge of their relationship.  Yet, for some reason, Joe also found it in his interest to keep his brother close to him, in some fashion, by providing a place for him to live.  He also provided Michael with a key to 1509 Swann Street, as well as the code for the burglar alarm.  Clearly this shows a level of trust that Joe had for Michael.

And what to make of the Michael Price and Phelps Collins burglary of Joe Price’s home at 1509 Swann Street?  Most people would think this an extremely antagonistic act between brothers, but if it helped prove that the home could be broken into, as the Defendants have claimed on the night of the murder, it could be seen as as act of sacrifice of one brother on behalf of the other.

In the weeks following the murder of Robert Wone it was clear that the events of August 2nd had an impact on Michael.  Louis Hinton would relay that Michael, a recovering addict, relapsed with crack cocaine in the one of his worst episodes ever.  Was Michael distraught over what happened to Robert that night?  Was Michael upset at the situation he found his brother in?  Was Michael trying to say something else entirely different with his self destructive behavior?

What ever the case, the Brothers Price relationship is as complex as a sibling relationship can be, and unraveling it may yield important answers to what happened on August 2, 2006.

— Posted by David

86 comments for “Beyond the Horizon

  1. Ex Swann Dude
    04/10/2009 at 10:10 AM

    FIRST!!!!

    • IKWDI
      04/10/2009 at 10:28 AM

      My understanding of many domestic abuse charges is that the victim oftentimes may not want to testify against the abuser and may often times take the abuser back. Isn’t it posible that Joe was not defending Louis to hurt Michael, but because Michael “loved” Louis and wanted to take him back and wanted to help Louis be acquitted on the charges?!?! If so, who better to call then your lawyer brother…

      As a former friend/acquaintance of Michael and Joe, this scenario seems much more likely.

      • Ex Swann Dude
        04/10/2009 at 10:29 AM

        AGREED!!!

        • CDinDC
          04/10/2009 at 10:37 AM

          Good point, IKWDI.

          Here’s my question though…..from the court documents it can be gleaned that Louis and Michael did not share a bedroom. Louis said he went into Michael’s bedroom to confront Michael. If they were truly in a loving relationship, don’t you think they would share a bedroom? Personally, if my partner falls asleep on the couch, I wake up in a bad mood.

          Seems like a strange dynamic.

          • IKWDI
            04/10/2009 at 10:39 AM

            Hadn’t focused on that fact… yes, very interesting fact… hmmm… does cast some doubt on my alternate interpretation now doesn’t it?

            • CDinDC
              04/10/2009 at 10:48 AM

              Well, if they WERE/ARE in a loving relationship, the only thing I can imagine is that they both were obnoxious sleepers. Need their sleeping space. Still a strange dynamic, but plausible.

              Are they still “together?”

          • Anon. in Arlington
            04/10/2009 at 10:54 AM

            I am not so sure separate bedrooms is a strong evaluative measure of a relationship. I have been happy partnered for 9 years and we each would love to have our own rooms. Light sleeper vs. heavy sleeper; snoring; reading before bed vs. lights out. Actually, an isolation tank would provide me with a better night sleep than the 10 mgs of Ambien I pop each night in order to share a bed with my loved one. Since we share a one-bedroom abode, there is no alternative. In addition, a coworker and his long-term partner have a house, have a strong relationship, and enjoy the comforts (and perhaps in my eyes, luxury) of separate bedrooms.

            Although it appears this relationship has a lot of issues, I am not sold on separate bedrooms as an indicator.

            • CDinDC
              04/10/2009 at 11:05 AM

              Hi Anon….right above your post I touched on that.

              BUUUT, do you and your partner beat each other up? THAT’s the main point here.

              I’m not really basing my evaluation of their relationship on their sleeping arrangments, I’m basing it on the fact that Louis assaulted Michael. Now COUPLE that with the fact that they have separate bedrooms, it makes me wonder if they were truly in a loving relationship (making Joe’s defense of Louis truly antagonistic of Michael).
              Combine the two and you create a scenario that doesn’t exactly sound like two people who love and respect each other.

              • Anon. in Arlington
                04/10/2009 at 11:51 AM

                CD: Our posts crossed. Nope – my partner and I do not hit each other, and neither would stand for it (beyond the occasional butt swats).

                Agreed that the physical altercation coupled with separate bedrooms, it does not depict a healthy relationship or household. I am less inclined to follow that Joe defended Louis to spite Michael, but that (following IKWDI’s thoughts) Louis and Michael needed affordable legal representation. Michael may have decided to press charges initially after the incident, but changed his mind later. Joe to the rescue.

                It is a big mess isn’t it (the relationships and case)? It just adds to life’s disappointments in trying to make sense out of things that do not make sense or rationalize the irrational. This has more plot twists than The Tudors (real history or Showtime’s version)!

                • IKWDI
                  04/10/2009 at 11:59 AM

                  Anon and CD:

                  As a busy DC lawyer who was working hard (or one would expect in order to succeed in a DC firm), probably 60-80+ hour weeks, I would think it odd for Joe to represent Louis just to spite his brother… unless he really had an axe to grind (or missing murder knife) with his brother… I can’t imagine he would have prioritized representing Louis to get back at his brother… and what for?

                  • Anon. in Arlington
                    04/10/2009 at 12:05 PM

                    So… more calculated than altruistic? Oh wait, we are talking about an attorney… sorry.

            • N.M.
              04/10/2009 at 1:39 PM

              Don’t overlook the possibility that poor writing skills are the culprit here. My hunch is that it was a shared bedroom.

          • David
            04/10/2009 at 11:09 AM

            CDinDC
            Don’t forget that Michael Price’s alibi on the evening of the murder is based on Louis Hinton’s diary which states that they were asleep TOGETHER in their apartment. The fact that they did not share bedrooms, why on the night of the murder did they suddenly decide to share the bedroom. Another curious fact.

            David, editor

            • CDinDC
              04/10/2009 at 11:23 AM

              That little fact could totally impeach Michael’s testimony.

            • IKWDI
              04/10/2009 at 11:24 AM

              very, VERY good point, David. Would love to understand more about their relationship…

              • CDinDC
                04/10/2009 at 11:33 AM

                So you have to wonder why the d.a. issued a search warrant to include Hinton’s diary. Perhaps they believe that Michael Price was present the night of the murder.

                • IKWDI
                  04/10/2009 at 11:42 AM

                  The problem with diaries for purposes of establishing alibis is that it generally cannot be established when a specific dated entry was made (such as an entry dated the night of the murder). It could always be written after the fact.

                  ALSO, WHO WRITES IN THEIR DIARY THAT THEY SLEPT LAST NIGHT IN THE SAME BED WITH THEIR PARTNER?!?!? UNLESS IT IS AN UNUSUAL OCCURRENCE OR OTHERWISE NOTEWORTHY (BECAUSE THEY HAD A PRIOR FIGHT OR ONE IS TRYING TO ESTABLISH AN ALIBI AFTER THE FACT).

                  • Michael
                    04/10/2009 at 11:49 AM

                    However, since it was an electronic diary (Hinton’s computers were seized), forensics would reveal edits and the dates of the edits made to a file.
                    Michael, editor

                    • IKWDI
                      04/10/2009 at 11:51 AM

                      You editors are full of good points today!!

                      But, I still wonder, who notes in their diary that they slept with their partner?!?!?! Seems like there had to be some reason to include it in the entry…

                    • Anon. in Arlington
                      04/10/2009 at 11:54 AM

                      Oh – they seized Hinton’s computers too? Has anyone weighed in on why the S. Service was on hand to crack open Joe’s computer?

                    • CDinDC
                      04/10/2009 at 11:58 AM

                      Ahh….an electronic diary….I had this vision of Hinton curled up in a sunny place with a little lockable diary and matching pen. LOL

                  • CDinDC
                    04/10/2009 at 11:56 AM

                    good point, IKWDI. Diaries are admissible evidence though, so it would be up to the defense attorneys to squash it as hearsay.

            • Craig
              04/10/2009 at 12:12 PM

              From an earlier comment… Do we think that condo they lived in having less than 700sf of space is actually a 2 bedroom? Those real estate records we posted don’t indicate that. I’m really curious now.

              -Craig, ed.

              • IKWDI
                04/10/2009 at 12:31 PM

                Does seem awfully small to be a 2 bedroom (unless you are in NYC).

                • Michael
                  04/10/2009 at 12:34 PM

                  That information was based on the condo sales reports. 8335 Grubb Road, Unit 202 is listed as a 2 bedroom, 1 bath.

                  Michael, editor

                  • Craig
                    04/10/2009 at 12:53 PM

                    You’re good Michael. You’re hired.

                    -Craig, ed

              • Nick
                04/10/2009 at 1:04 PM

                Maybe they had twin beds like Lucy and Ricky

                • CDinDC
                  04/10/2009 at 2:50 PM

                  Waaaaaaaah. Ohhh, Dylan.

      • N.M.
        04/10/2009 at 1:33 PM

        Really interesting point, IKWDI.

        • IKWDI
          04/10/2009 at 2:19 PM

          Thanks, N.M.

          What do you think?

          I can come up with two plausible theories behind the diary entry, as follows:

          1. The entry was a “real-time” entry, which would suggest that their sleeping in the same bed was an unusual occurrence. Thus, perhaps they were either not partners, but rather roommates with benefits, or perhaps they had reconnected after some period of emotional or physical distance… notably, nothing brings people together than moments of crisis…

          2. The entry was made after the fact to fabricate an alibi.

          Other explanations?

    • CDinDC
      04/10/2009 at 10:29 AM

      Maybe I can finally get Lady Marmalade out of my head. “hey Joe, you wanna give it a go??”

      Sweet relief.

      • Ex Swann Dude
        04/10/2009 at 10:29 AM

        NICE!!

  2. Ex Swann Dude
    04/10/2009 at 10:40 AM

    OK, help me folks! I’m becoming a bit too attached to the word “intruder”. I don’t believe there was one, at least not one from OUTSIDE the house.

    I’m just curious as to when they came up with that word. Was it a word Joe came up with as they were cleaning that night and trying to figure out what to tell the police? I don’t believe it was a word Dylan came up with in (what I believe to be) his drug-induced haze.

    If I were Victor (and I’m certainly glad I’m not), it is entirely possible that I might have referred to someone as being “the intruder” long before “the incident” ever happened …

    • Anon. in Arlington
      04/10/2009 at 11:03 AM

      Bravo ExSwann! I think both Victor and Robert pegged someone as an “intruder.”

  3. CDinDC
    04/10/2009 at 10:57 AM

    Yes, Dylan was a bit intrusive in their relationship, wasn’t he?

    How about using “interloper.”

    “Officer, I believe there was an interloper.”

    • Legal Beagle
      04/10/2009 at 11:03 AM

      Or from the bird world, one could think of the Cuckoo, which might fit him in other ways as well.

      • Ex Swann Dude
        04/10/2009 at 11:17 AM

        Did someone say “Culuket”?

  4. L.
    04/10/2009 at 8:01 PM

    Who is older – Michael or Joe?

    • SheKnowsSomething
      04/10/2009 at 8:13 PM

      I thought I’d heard Sarah say that Michael and Joe were twins.

      • L.
        04/10/2009 at 8:23 PM

        You know Sarah?

      • CDinDC
        04/10/2009 at 8:43 PM

        I just did a search….

        Joe (Joseph Ray Price) is listed as 38
        Michael (Michael Clay Price) is listed as 36

        looks like there are more siblings than just Michael, as well.

        • L.
          04/10/2009 at 8:48 PM

          Damn…thanks.

  5. L.
    04/10/2009 at 8:02 PM

    Can the editors do a post on Dylan Ward – his family, etc.

  6. Another WMer
    04/10/2009 at 10:02 PM

    I am new to this site. I found it via fishbowldc and became very interested b/c of my w&m connection. I have no relation or connection to anyone involved. My input is probably not worth much and potentially way off mark…

    What initially got my attention after reading all of the entries was “culuket”. I was interested to determine if the original post on the definition (via urbandictionary) was valid. I googled and found the typical info that has already been posted. But, also found something else interesting (which may have already been posted) – it seems that someone with a “culuket” sign-in had or has a profile/login for a site called buttmachineboys.com. Very S&M-ish. no other insight than that, but interesting.

    Then I changed the spelling a bit and googled “culluket”. Culluket apparently is a character in a “mythological” story, The Saga of Pliocene Exile.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saga_of_Pliocene_Exile And then a deeper search with “culluket” comes up with a lot more S&M type sites and disturbing profiles (and some w/ culluket@yahoo.com as their email addies). Again, interesting.

    No clue if this relates to this case or even helps in the mission to answer questions. But, I felt I needed to post in case it does help in some way.

    • Lance
      04/11/2009 at 3:39 AM

      Hey, WMer:

      I spent a lot of time trying to convince the editors that they were off-base in trying to guess about Culuket, to no avail. It is interesting to note that “Culluket” is a character in the Julian May series; a simple misspelling (or maybe a purposeful one, given that a couple in California may have already taken the two-l version) goes a long way to explaining how it may have been a perfectly innocent screen name.

      • David
        04/11/2009 at 12:13 PM

        Lance,

        While I appreciate your speculation here, under your own rules that we can not possibly know how “culuket” was derived, I find it extremely odd that you are willing to assign any weight to the new “Culluket” definition, which you seem to jump at rather quickly. I appreciated you thorough analysis of why we can not know where “culuket’ derives, yet when one name comes up that you find is “perfectly innocent” even though the commenter did say it had S&M connotations as well, you jumped. I find this very revealing about where your analysis is coming from.

        David, editor

        • L.
          04/11/2009 at 12:51 PM

          Lance is one of the three defendants or a close family member/friend.

          • 04/11/2009 at 10:32 PM

            No, Lance is a member of one of the defendant’s legal teams. He/she gets paid to blur, obscure, sidetrack, twist, warp, or throw into doubt anything posted here that might stick to his/her client. “Lance” is an amoral mercenary, in this regard, tasked to dampen growing popular outrage against the deeds of his/her client. Don’t worry about hurting Lance’s feelings. It’s just his/her job.

            • Lance
              04/11/2009 at 11:13 PM

              I cannot tell you how tired I am of these posts. Setting aside the rather ludicrous notion that the defendants’ lawyers care in the slightest what gets posted here, I have said, repeatedly, that I have zero connection to anyone involved in this case.

              The idea that anyone who posts something in favor of the defendants must have a personal or financial stake in their innocence is as unfair and wrongheaded as the idea that anyone who posts something against the defendants must have a personal stake in their guilt.

              • 04/11/2009 at 11:22 PM

                Of course the defendant’s lawyers care much more than the slightest what gets posted here. Watch how many times you and the defendant’s lawyers reference this site during the trials.

                • Lance
                  04/11/2009 at 11:43 PM

                  Oh, I look forward to it. Should we bet on just how many times that happens?

                  • 04/11/2009 at 11:58 PM

                    In the unlikely event I should loose this bet, to which of the four defendant’s law firms would I make my check out to?

        • Lance
          04/11/2009 at 7:25 PM

          I’m not assigning weight per se; I’m saying that “goes a long way to explaining how it may have been a perfectly innocent screen name” (emphasis added). That is: I didn’t say “hey, look, this proves it was perfectly innocent”; I said “hey, look, this shows that there could well be an innocent explanation”.

          By no means do I think that WMer’s explanation is correct. What I’m saying is the following:

          The “culuket defined” post and posts following took the point of view that

          (a) “culuket” is “ass + ketamine”

          I suggested that a better analysis of the screen name might be:

          (a) “culuket” is “ass + ketamine”, or
          (b) it’s something else we don’t understand

          which was the best that I could offer. (I offered a wholly spurious etymology based on “cool Luke”, just to show that (b) was a possibility.) Now WMer is observing that an even better consideration is

          (a) “culuket” is “ass + ketamine”, or
          (b) it’s a variant/misspelling of the character “Culluket”, or
          (c) it’s something else we don’t understand

          It’s on that basis that I’m saying that WMer’s observation helps explain how it “may have been” an innocent screen name. If I’m “jumping at” the suggestion, it’s not because I’m jumping at it as being correct; it’s because I’m jumping at it as evidence supporting my claim that there are other possibilities.

      • David
        04/11/2009 at 12:28 PM

        Lance,

        What evidence do you have that Joe Price knew about Julian May? Are you aware of any books in his personal book collection that are from Julian May? Are you aware of any references to Julian May in Joe’s writing? All of these questions need to be answered before any specualation can occur that would allow for one to say that the name is “perfectly innocent.”

        David, editor

        • Lance
          04/11/2009 at 7:26 PM

          To reiterate what I just said in my above reply: no, of course I have positively no evidence of that sort. That’s why I never said that the name is perfectly innocent. I said that it might be.

          • Another WMer
            04/11/2009 at 9:04 PM

            You are both right in what I intended in my post:
            1. Demonstrate that the use of “culuket” could be something different than what is suggested by the Urban Dictionary thought process of meaning “anal” and ketamine & that i could be innocent reason for using ; and…
            2. Demonstrate that “culluket” and/or “culuket” could potentially have a deeper S&M meaning

            I am sorry if my post re-ignited any hard feelings, but just wanted to point out that each piece of this case (sadly) has so many unknowns.

            • Another WMer
              04/11/2009 at 9:05 PM

              i = it

  7. ex-AF
    04/10/2009 at 10:18 PM

    I am obssessed with this murder, and I hope and pray whoever is responsible is brought to justice. I have commented only once before. I worked at Arent Fox as a paralegal during this time & remember the firm-wide email message that was sent the day after Mr. Wone’s murder. If I remember, the message said that an overnight guest had been killed in Partner Joe Price’s Dupont area townhouse by an intruder and we were to asked to keep Joe in our prayers. I had little interaction with Price during my tenure at AF. I can’t forget one thing though – he had handed me his laptop to have firm software reinstalled after it had been in the hands of the police. In all honesty – and I know the evidence points towards him & his housemates, Joe was very polite and very much a gentleman during our brief interactions at the firm. He was far more patient than some attorneys. I can’t say that for others at AF, trust me on that. Attorneys and even other paralegals can be difficult and very rude at times, but Price was not. I am not in any trying to say, “Because he was a gent Price is innocent” but I also think innocent until proven guilty. However, last November’s affidavit chilled my bones. More than anything, I want justice for Mrs. Wone so she may have peace. I can’t begin to imagine the pain she has felt since her husband’s murder. I am not the most religous person, but I have prayed for her and her family. I know this post is offtopic for the thread’s subject matter, so please feel free to remove this and place it where you think most appropriate.

    • Nelly
      04/10/2009 at 11:31 PM

      Very interesting. Thanks for sharing. I heard from someone who worked with Joe there that he was a real a-hole entirely capable of what he is accused of. Well, of course, people can be a-holes sometimes and only with certain people. The rest of the time, someone who is skilled at giving off the semblance of being in control and doing well, like Joe, can seem kind and normal.

      That must’ve given you the chills after reading the arrest warrant and realizing you had touched Joe’s laptop with all the creepy stuff on it. Did you sanitize your hands too?

      • ex-AF
        04/11/2009 at 12:09 AM

        I had temporary possession of Price’s laptop before handing it to our lit. support people. This was in 09/06 – two years and a couple of months prior to the affidavit we have all come to know. Please remember this is pretty serious stuff, though, bien sur, it is quite easy to become hooked with all the sensationalist aspects of this case. All that is missing is Dominck Dunne. I wish the Metropolitan Police had done a better job on this case. Did they not have sufficient evidence to have charged these three with the case? Price himself thought he was going to be charged, based on what I read in the affidavit. I want justice.

        • Nelly
          04/11/2009 at 12:21 AM

          He has been charged, with obstruction of justice, but may get away with murder. I think it took so long because they cleaned up the crime scene and planted the fake knife. It’s hard to piece it all together when blood spatters aren’t right there on the wall, actual murder weapon is missing, and no one is telling the truth. As a police detective with 28 yrs. of homicide experience said on tonight’s Forensic Files, “Intruders never clean up the crime scene. In my 28 years of experience, not one intruder has cleaned up a crime scene.”

          • Legal Beagle
            04/11/2009 at 11:43 AM

            Well yes. But there is a simpler logic as to why they have not been charged with murder. Since there is nothing but circumstantial evidence the actual number becomes important. If there had only been one person in the house there is no doubt he would have been long ago been charged and convicted of murder. But since there were three there was difficulty in showing which one or combination of the three committed the crime. I think Price was clever enough to know this is the way the law worked, even in a worst case scenario for him. Let me say that on the charge of obstruction there is not a logical impediment to their guilt, thus no reasonable doubt.

            • CDinDC
              04/11/2009 at 3:19 PM

              Ding ding ding. Legal Beagle wins the prize!! They have plenty of evidence that it was an inside job. They just don’t know who to pin it on. Without a murder weapon to lift prints from that may show the knife being handled in a certain way by a certain person (of course their prints will be on the knife….but there may be prints that are in a position to indicate the knife was handled in a certain manner), they can’t pin it on anyone.

              At this point, obstruction/conspiracy will get them jail time and off the streets.

              The prosecutors have to be very careful to not intimate during trial that anyone in the house murdered Robert Wone. If they do, double jeopardy could prevent them from trying that individual.

              • Legal Beagle
                04/11/2009 at 6:21 PM

                Thank you for the prize. Actually it goes to Legal Beagle’s partner. He’s the Legal part, I’m the Beagle. By the way he’s been saying this since the very beginning. I didn’t believe it then, and believed the police would be able to overcome that evidentiary obstacle. He had his own logic, which has proved right, and plus he said of the police: “I don’t have confidence in their sleuthing abilities.”

    • Michael
      04/11/2009 at 12:51 AM

      Thank you for coming forward. First hand experiences and information outside of what is presented in the court documents is welcomed.

      Michael, editor

      • Nick
        04/12/2009 at 1:25 AM

        So a couple of weeks ago I met an AF partner who told me he had a theory about what happened. But we got interrupted and I was never able to follow up. I’m no good at this, am I?

        • Ex Swann Dude
          04/12/2009 at 3:32 AM

          YOU SUCK DUDE … and not in a good way!

  8. 04/10/2009 at 10:32 PM

    Joe was once again in provider/caretaker mode with his brother, but those provisions didn’t come without strings attached. I’m sure that Joe told his friends that he’d never trust his junkie brother with anything important. Very likely, this made him seem like an even nicer guy to them, that he’d do so much for his ne’er-do-well bro.

    What did Joe get, apart from that, and apart from the fact that his brother probably knew things about him that nobody else did? One thing he might have gotten was someone who would be willing to perform drug transactions for him and to take the fall if he got caught. But it may be that his generosity towards his brother (and this is purely speculative) was in part motivated by a need to keep his brother happy. That is to say, Michael would be the repository of a lot of information about Joe, maybe some of it unflattering or downright dangerous. Maybe, in short, there was something else in Joe’s past that Michael knew about that made him reach for the pipe when he heard the news.

    I think it’s most likely that the burglary was orchestrated by Joe to prop up the idea that there was someone who broke in. On the other hand, Michael may have had the idea that he’d help his brother’s alibi along and get some cash into the bargain that would be replaced by the homeowner’s policy. Or maybe Joe had some immediate need for cash that formed a multiple motivation for the burglary.

    We do know from the court docs that in the wake of Michael’s bust–was he stealing the car for cash, for revenge, some combination?–Joe petitioned the court for permission to communicate with his brother, stating that the prohibition amounted to a hardship. Apparently, prosecutors at that time didn’t want the two to be able to co-ordinate information.

    In the event, both Louis and Michael had something against one another. I don’t know the timeline well enough yet, but let’s say that Louis is charged for smacking Michael. Michael’s charged for burglary and for auto theft. Joe says, I can pull some strings and get both of you out of these charges, but you both have to play along. Louis, I’m going to defend you against my brother, which will impeach his character. Michael, I’m going to delay and pull strings so that you get off on the burglary and auto theft charges. You both owe me.

    The fact that Michael called the cops over his fight with Louis suggests to me that he’s not really the violent type. Lots of guesswork here.

  9. 04/10/2009 at 11:08 PM

    BTW editors, nice photo selection. Did you find that on Joe’s Arent Fox office computer?

  10. jack Dempsey
    04/11/2009 at 2:15 PM

    The 2 bdrm stuff doesn’t seem so remarkable. But the question that occupies me in this case–whether or not in relation to Joe & Michael is this: What scenario can include & explain such durable complicity, if it is that, among JP, VZ, & DW?

    • Ex Swann Dude
      04/11/2009 at 2:47 PM

      Mutual assured destruction

    • CDinDC
      04/11/2009 at 3:32 PM

      There are any number of scenarios. Many of which have been touched on over and over on this site. the question is soooooo broad. Drugs. Financial interests. Psychological dependence. Love? Control. Lack of Control. It goes on and on.

      Give us one of your scenarios.

      • 04/11/2009 at 7:54 PM

        CD — all of the above!

        can anyone explain why victor put up with any of this garbage?

    • Ex Swann Dude
      04/11/2009 at 3:35 PM

      To maintain and continue the purse-swap?

  11. Blastfrompast
    04/13/2009 at 12:51 AM

    The idea of sibling rivalry here is ridiculous; they are not rivals nor do they have anything to be competitive about. This is the classic Bill Clinton/Roger Clinton relationship. These brothers experienced a very very tough childhood. The older brother was bestowed with all the gifts: brains, ambition, talent. He feels a parental responsibility for his younger brother. Mom was out of the picture way back and older brother always had to take care of the younger one. See, e.g. “In Her Shoes” or, more recently, “Sunshine Cleaning.”

    • CDinDC
      04/13/2009 at 8:05 AM

      Interesting opinion to throw into the mix.

    • Corcoran Cutlet
      04/13/2009 at 11:39 AM

      That makes sense to me.

  12. Nick
    04/13/2009 at 9:37 AM

    It looks like there is another Price sibling:

    http://www.thefreelibrary.com/A+CAUSE+TO+RIDE+AIDS+FIGHTERS+WILL+PEDAL+FROM+BAY+AREA+TO+DODGER…-a0117434662

    • Corcoran Cutlet
      04/13/2009 at 11:42 AM

      Significant find.

      • Nelly
        04/13/2009 at 4:26 PM

        Interesting. Has she too been draining all her savings from working for a cruise line to help with her rich brother’s legal defense?

        • Lance
          04/13/2009 at 4:48 PM

          I know no one cares, but I’d like to object to the loaded tone of the question (“draining”, “all her savings”, “her rich brother”). Also, for that matter, to its relevance (if the answer is “yes”, does that tell us anything at all about the guilt or innocence of Joseph Price? Or are we just looking to make judgments on his character?).

          • CDinDC
            04/13/2009 at 5:20 PM

            Overruled. Sorry, couldn’t resist.

            • Ex Swann Dude
              04/13/2009 at 5:24 PM

              Hehe …

            • Lance
              04/13/2009 at 5:42 PM

              Oh, good, overrule all my objections, that’ll give me grounds for a mistrial. Er, a misblog. A mis…oh well.

              • Frankie
                04/14/2009 at 10:41 AM

                I’ve noted before that a few people here post comments amounting to nothing more than character judgments (pertaining even to those tangentially involved, if at all), which shed little, if any, insight into what may have happened on the night in question.

              • CDinDC
                04/14/2009 at 10:52 AM

                “misblog.” I like that! LOL

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *