It's Reality Show Clip Time

A Look Back For Our New Friends

For reasons we understand (a shout-out Wednesday from Camille Paglia) and for those we don’t, we know we’ve drawn large new audiences this week.   The surge started Monday and has continued.  Whatever the cause, we welcome all new readers…and welcome back our returning ones.

We thought a quick post this weekend looking back might help introduce those new readers to some of the questions this case has provoked – questions we’ve asked and tried to answer.  In other words: a clip show.  But a clip show with a purpose.  We’ve learned a lot these last several months – and want to share some of what we learned early on, but may have gone overlooked.

And as a reminder to all, the FAQ page with a newly added link to the Robert Wone Wiki page remains a great resource and tutorial on the case.  We thank those many authors for their hard work, diligence and commitment.

#1: “How is  Culuket a Window Into Joe Price?” (first posted Feb. 5)

With a little investigation on our part, and a lift from some posters, we learned that Joe Price had a sex profile online using the name “Culuket.”  Further, we learned that this was an online moniker Joe also used for more general email communication, and debated the real meaning of what that odd name  – culuket – actually meant.  In this post, David ties these threads together and offers a possible peek into one of the three Swann Street defendants:

“The fact that he used the Culuket name as his above board, public, regular e-mail address to chat about such mundane things as street repairs seems to show he wanted to bring his private life into his public life in a very clever, yet hidden way — as if he might be saying to himself, “If so-so only knew the real meaning of this word, they would be shocked.”  Was he was trying to pull the wool over people’s eyes? Did this allow himself a private laugh?”

The analysis created some certain disagreement among our posters, which is more than OK.  As we’ve said, this site is a clearinghouse for ideas, and your comments have frequently helped add shape to ideas.

#2:”Cold Case” (first posted March 12)

This item came from a simple question.  Craig wondered what the Metropolitan Police Department database said about the unsolved murder of Robert Wone.  The answer was as simple as it was startling: nothing.  At least according to this public list, maintained by the MPD, the Wone murder is not considered unsolved.

“We don’t know what it takes to make the cut, but it seems Wone handily meets the requirements: he is the victim of an unsolved murder.  We won’t even try to guess why there is such a glaring omission from this website.  Maybe the request is still being desked around.  But there are a thousand other questions we have for MPD officials long before we ever get around to quizzing them about their website administrators.”

As of this posting, the Wone case has still not made the list.

#3: “Dylan Ward and Children’s Literature – the Written Word” (first posted Feb. 26)

We’ve tried to get a better understanding of each of the three defendants in part by exploring their accomplishments.  While it’s often noted how quick Joe rose through the legal profession, Dylan Ward is clearly a man of many talents and abilities.  Georgetown School of Foreign Service, the Culinary Institute of America, and children’s author.  More than just author, but also graduate of Simmons College with a Masters in Children’s Literature.

In this post Michael takes a look at Dylan as author – and what his words may say about him – using a quote from him that was prominently featured on the Simmons website.  The quote has since been removed, but not before Michael got a screen-capture, and offered some thoughts:

“As mentioned in his background page, Dylan was a founder of a small children’s fiction publishing house and authored several young children’s books with titles like “Naughty Jack”, “Silly Sally”, “The Loneliest Tree in the World” and “Forget-Me-Not”. If one puts these titles into the context of Ward’s quote, how do texts create their readers… and …how do words and pictures ricochet to ironic effect?”

By the way, we’re still working on acquiring some of these books.  But if anyone there has one, please let us know!

#4: “An Alternate Hypothesis” (first posted Feb. 1)

From the start we editors and posters have wrestled with the nature of Joe, Victor and Dylan’s personal relationships.  As spelled out in the very first (and still occasionally shocking) affidavit to indict Dylan, the three did not share a three-way partnership.  Rather Joe and Victor shared a commited long-term – and very public – domestic partnership while Joe and Dylan shared an “…intimate, personal…” – and very private – sexual relationship based in some measure around bondage and S&M.

Lots of people have reached lots of different conclusions about this relationship and what role – if any – it may have played in the events of August 2nd, 2006.  One of the more eye-opening theories came from a friend of Doug’s who works as a therapist in San Francisco; a therapist who specializes in the BDSM community.  Quoting him:

“Ward is the alpha, dominant personality in the triad with Price and Zaborsky. He felt the right to “own” anyone who came into his domain, the house. In fact he felt compelled to dominate in order to maintain his position over the other two, who in fact held the greater social power through their wealth and prominence in the community. It was precisely this social power that the men, Price and Zaborsky, felt the need to surrender to someone else out of a deeply internalized sense of inadequacy and unworthiness that many gay men experience as a consequence of unresolved internalized self-loathing.”

Powerful stuff.  We again state that we don’t necessarily share his analysis, but it does come from an informed place of long experience.

58 comments for “It's Reality Show Clip Time

  1. Lance
    04/11/2009 at 7:04 PM

    I’m kind of floored, and a little saddened, that you’d point to #1 and #3 as a kind of “best of”, when I would point to them as a worst-of, rock-bottom part of the analysis on this site.

    For those just tuning in: you’ll see in my comments on those posts, if you read that far, that

    (1) I think the speculation on “Culuket” is far more fanciful than it is accurate, and I think that that post in particular errs in presenting the speculation as if it has more weight and more basis in reality than it actually does; and

    (2) I think the speculation on Dylan Ward’s work in children’s literature is practically numerological in its attempt to read meaning into titles, as well as bordering on the slanderous.

    Your mileage may vary. And to answer the question that “John Grisham” asked me in a comment elsewhere, i.e. why I continue to defend the three roommates: it’s not really my intent to defend them. It’s my intent to suggest that the prosecution of them carried out in the main posts and comments on this website is often ill-founded, based in leaps of logic and assumption and formed without all of the evidence. And, moreover, I continue to do it in the hopes that people like you, who come to this site for the first time and see the discussion so far, can be aware that there might be other sides to the story beyond the one presented by the editors and by a number of vocal commenters.

  2. Kenspeckled Souckar
    04/11/2009 at 9:02 PM

    I’ve just been reading this site and I had a question.
    Does anyone know if any of the three attended a church in the neighborhood or anywhere in the city?
    That would be interesting information.

  3. David
    04/11/2009 at 9:08 PM

    In the spirit of Easter, I propose that, in an act of divine intervention beyond comprehension, Wong was dispatched from a modern Sodom & Babylon seething with abomination. To borrow from Dylan, they’ve got some hungry creatures there who’d surely make a mess out of you. (Just Like Tom Thumb’s Blues, Highway 61 Revisited, August 1965)

  4. David
    04/11/2009 at 9:11 PM

    Three blind mice, see how they run!

  5. 04/12/2009 at 12:29 AM

    WTF is this jerk off post? Is there a Joe also emerging in your foursome?

    • Poirot
      04/12/2009 at 2:50 AM

      Actually Dylan has joined the staff and will be demonstrating his literary skills.

  6. N.M.
    04/12/2009 at 2:40 AM

    I have mixed feelings about the Camille Paglia thing. On the one hand, I think it was a good way to raise awareness of this case. On the other hand, Paglia has no idea what she’s talking about and leapt to the conclusion that fits her raggedy old script (everyone else is repressed and saddled with political correctness except her; she’s the only brave, honest, daring voice… etc etc).

    I don’t think “political correctness” is playing a role here. Rather, I think most men don’t want to think about male rape. They don’t find it intriguing or titillating. Women get raped. Men don’t. (Except in prison, of course, but that’s treated like a big joke).

    Unfortunately I think the “political correctness” narrative has the potential to be both negative and misleading. I can easily imagine it becoming “are gays intimidating reporters from covering this story” or “gay community refuses to condemn murder – has tolerance gone too far?” – you know, Glenn Beck / Bill O’Reilly / Keith Olbermann territory. You run the risk of attracting people whose interest is not is obtaining justice – rather, they’re looking for fresh material to smear all gay people, or all liberals, etc.

    Also, I think you’re putting too much emphasis on the “culuket” screen name and the childrens’ books. It is clear that at least Ward and Price were deep into an s&m scene that fetishized rape, torture, and mutilation. I thank the poster who included a link to such imagery in one of his comments. Just seeing a handful of porn pics of the type of things Price and Ward are into is more than enough to explain their motivation. The only way it could get any clearer would be for both of them to walk around with sandwich boards that say “I get a sexual thrill out of the rape, torture, mutilation of helpless men.”

    • JusticeForRobert
      04/12/2009 at 4:06 AM

      Very well stated!

      • Ex Swann Dude
        04/12/2009 at 9:54 AM

        Excellent!

    • CDinDC
      04/12/2009 at 10:48 AM

      Ok, folks…I posted a limerick….1 lousy little limerick….and I have not lost sight of Robert Wone…I spend much more time researching the resources I have available to me and writing serious posts, than I do sharing light moments with the posters. The limericks appeared during a moment of levity shared by all, including one the editors….if you look back, he posted something about a squirrel. This seems to happens everytime “levity” ocurrs.

      So don’t you think, dwelling on the 3 or 4 limericks that were posted (in a matter of a couple of hours), takes away from focusing on Robert Wone, as well?

      And as far as the culuket email goes, it’s not the regular posters OR the editors that keeps dwelling on it….it’s Lance. Lance is bound and determined to convince the world that culuket means nothing. He brings it up every chance he gets.

      So, in the spirit of N.M.’s post….let’s drop it.

      Stoicly and staidly yours,
      CDinDC

    • L.
      04/12/2009 at 5:58 PM

      How do you know that Price and Ward get a sexual thrill out of rape and mutilation?

      Does S&M necessarily involve rape and mutilation fantasies?

      I think that one or more of the 3 men are guilty of murdered or negligent homicide and a cover up but the blog is starting to feel like a witch hunt and less like a forum for trying to piece together the events of that night.

      I think the circumstancial evidence ag. the 3 is strong – but what about our criminal justice system???

      Whenever anything bizarre like this happens it is usually a result of many different factors coming together at once in a deadly combination.

      • The Perfervid Inch
        04/12/2009 at 7:22 PM

        Since I was the one who started the limericking on this site I want to seize this opportunity provided by L’s strange comments to make something clear. I, as well, feel the time for humor may have passed. But the reason for humor when appropriate is to counter the infantile mock-seriousness of comments like L’s. Anything in life can be put through the easy machine of a reductio ad absurdam. Whether or not certain sexual proclivities necessitate a certain attitude is impossible to know given the variety of human beings. But this misses the very commonsense fact that an edgy sexual fantasy which involves some sort of violence, even if attenuated, is not an unreasonable link to violence. Not necessarily, but easily more so than “makin’ love” to Barry Manilow. My personal belief is that this confusion actually has little to do with sex. We live in a society
        that has entertainments which are little more than human cock-fighting. We have great need to believe that the many people (mostly men) that engage in these things are not necessarily made impossible for human society. We have need to to see the re-introduction of soldiers fighting brutal wars as easily re-introduceable into human society. So
        L. is just reflecting the vast immaturity of our society at this point which sees violence as
        an easily calibrated thing. It is not. The answer is not to pretend or simply hope that all sex can be delivered of its connection to other primitive instincts in the human person. It is to set the limits dictated by day-to-day reality.
        We can not assume the standards of a brutal society at this point and come out with a workable understanding of such complex issues. Nor can we just imagine that all considerations are only the ones of the legal system; because you can be sure a jury will consider other things as well in their deliberations. They always do. No one can tell if this blog will help with this case. But given
        the fact that the “system” already brought such inertia to the case, it doesn’t seem it can do any harm. Whether the tool used is levity,
        of broad discussion, the important thing is to get beyond the absurd “Judge for a Day” posture some are assuming here. We are the community, trying to have a discussion on something that amounts to a great assault on our own sense of integrity and sense of community well-being. Nothing more.

        • L.
          04/12/2009 at 7:44 PM

          Your comments are unimpressive. Work more on expressing yourself clearly.

          • The Perfervid Inch
            04/12/2009 at 8:01 PM

            That’s perfect, the one thing I left out about your attitude is school marm. With all the profundity related with shool-room protestations.

            • L.
              04/12/2009 at 8:54 PM

              And your posts are pretentious and poorly written. Who are you trying to impress?

            • L.
              04/12/2009 at 8:56 PM

              Oh…..and…..school marm this [middle finger].

              • The Perfervid Inch
                04/12/2009 at 9:27 PM

                quod erat demonstrandum……pathetic.

                • L.
                  04/12/2009 at 9:31 PM

                  You have a bad attitude.

                  Do you have something meaningful to contribute to this thread?

      • CDinDC
        04/12/2009 at 7:33 PM

        Re L’s questions:

        –How do you know that Price and Ward get a sexual thrill out of rape and mutilation?–

        I think NM was being hypothetical.

        –Does S&M necessarily involve rape and mutilation fantasies? —

        No, but sometimes it does.

        –but what about our criminal justice system??? —

        What about it? This website does not supercede the judicial system. It is merely a means to get this case a little more in the public eye. The defs will get their day in court.

      • DC Sleuth
        04/12/2009 at 9:54 PM

        Didn’t the police seize materials about this very thing from Ward’s room? Doesn’t Price’s stated interest in various forms of torture = an interest in mutilation? And wouldn’t that mean that at least Ward derives sexual gratification from inflicting it?

        • CDinDC
          04/12/2009 at 10:15 PM

          re DCSleuth’s questions:

          –Didn’t the police seize materials about this very thing from Ward’s room? —

          “Erotic” books, magazines, dvds and postcards were seized from Ward’s room. The titles of the books were not revealed in the search warrant documentation.

          The search documents are on this website under Legal Documents.

          –Doesn’t Price’s stated interest in various forms of torture = an interest in mutilation?–

          No….the closest would be CBT and/or TT. No mutilation.

          The alt.com profile is on this site.

          –And wouldn’t that mean that at least Ward derives sexual gratification from inflicting it?–

          Robert Wone was not mutilated. Why is mutilation suddenly become a topic?

  7. WMgrad
    04/12/2009 at 2:39 PM

    As a person who tuned into this murder first two years ago, and then again only a couple of weeks ago, I have been surprised and shocked by some of the developments in the case. I sure hope the perpetrator(s) are prosecuted for first-degree murder! Lance’s comments in particular are interesting to me. First, why does he choose the name “Lance”–does that have some significance amount the Dupont Circle crowd, something intended to throw us off track? Second, why does Lance focus on Culuket so much? When I follow the advice of another poster and look into the name “Culluket,” spelled that way, it looks like it is the name of a sadistic torturer in a sci-fi series. Interesting … a good theme for trial, no? That series also has some weird stuff about intermingling human and alien DNA and whatnot, a topic of at least passing interest to Joe, I assume, given that I believe either he or Victor or both fathered children in vitro, I think. Third, why does Lance write about “intent,” in response to Mr. Grisham’s posts, as if to say the perpetrator(s) might not have had a first-degree intent to commit the murder, that it could have come up when the torture plans didn’t go as planned. As far as I know, if the intent to murder formed sometime after the torture began, that’s still good enough for first-degree murder as it is. Fourth, Lance’s writing style is unique and stands out, with the a)s and b)s and querulousness of a legal brief. Have a look at similarities between Lance’s style and the defendants’ style, and that of their legal teams. Fifth, it would not surprise me if the absolute narcissism and sociopathology of the murderer(s) led them to post here before trial. Sixth, why did Lance stop posting on the discussion of how credit card balances would reflect purchases of cameras, etc. Mr. Grisham’s great insight seems to have killed further discussion there! Seventh, why such a strong response from Lance about whether Joe’s attorneys care if the defendants post here. Uh, I would think the defendants’ counsel would direct the defendants not to make any such statements on the internet of any kind, given how subpoenas work, etc. Just some thoughts, and I can only hope that Robert’s family can find some peace in the end after the monster’s or monsters’ callous act of depraved first-degree murder is eventually brought to justice.

    • CreepWatch
      04/12/2009 at 2:59 PM

      Contempt of Court for his defense team?

    • Lance
      04/12/2009 at 4:31 PM

      Please stop.

      I’m here to discuss the details of the case, like everyone else. I’m not here to speculate on the personal lives of the commenters, and I wish people would stop speculating on mine.

      While I almost hate to dignify this comment with a response, I don’t want “WMgrad” thinking (s)he somehow scored a rhetorical victory over me. So to be perfectly clear:

      First, why does he choose the name “Lance”–does that have some significance amount the Dupont Circle crowd, something intended to throw us off track?

      As I’ve stated before: I chose the name “Lance” for the devious and twisted reason that it’s my name.

      Second, why does Lance focus on Culuket so much?

      Because it’s emblematic of the worst kind of speculation that happens on this site. Also: I don’t do it “so much”; I posted about it when the topic arose, and I don’t believe I’ve brought it up independently of that. I commented about it here because the editor who wrote this post brought it up–one might ask why he focuses on it so much.

      Third, why does Lance write about “intent,” in response to Mr. Grisham’s posts, as if to say the perpetrator(s) might not have had a first-degree intent to commit the murder, that it could have come up when the torture plans didn’t go as planned.

      Um…what? I used the word “intent” here in reference to myself. If you’re talking about this comment, I never used the word “intent” and I was speaking about Price’s psychological state in response to Grisham’s speculations about Price’s psychological state.

      Fourth, Lance’s writing style is unique and stands out, with the a)s and b)s and querulousness of a legal brief. Have a look at similarities between Lance’s style and the defendants’ style, and that of their legal teams.

      Seriously, stop. The editors, who know my email address, can confirm that I’m not a lawyer and have no connection to the legal teams or the defendants. (I’d like them to keep any actual details about my identity private, but they’re welcome to confirm that this kind of speculation is 100% wrong.)

      Sixth, why did Lance stop posting on the discussion of how credit card balances would reflect purchases of cameras, etc. Mr. Grisham’s great insight seems to have killed further discussion there!

      Because there was nothing else to say. For one thing, Grisham specifically said that their credit card records “might” reveal related purchases. That’s absolutely true. (Remember, I’m not here to defend, and I have no evidence; I can’t begin to say “No, there isn’t anything on their credit cards”.) It also might not. Honestly, I tend to agree that that information would be useful. But please note that there’s nothing damning in Grisham’s post, and you’re wrong to say that the balances “would” reflect those purchases. It’s true that they might; it’s not true that they necessarily would.

      Seventh, why such a strong response from Lance about whether Joe’s attorneys care if the defendants post here. Uh, I would think the defendants’ counsel would direct the defendants not to make any such statements on the internet of any kind, given how subpoenas work, etc.

      Well, exactly; you’ve answered your own question. It’s just plain ludicrous to think that the defendants, who aren’t making any kinds of public statements, would come here to do so.

      I can only hope that Robert’s family can find some peace in the end after the monster’s or monsters’ callous act of depraved first-degree murder is eventually brought to justice.

      See, and this I entirely agree with. (Well, except for the “first-degree” part; that certainly remains to be seen.) I happen to disagree with WMgrad’s belief that we already know the identity of those monsters, but I certainly agree that, whoever the monsters are, they should be brought to justice.

      • 04/15/2009 at 8:52 PM

        “Seriously, stop. The editors, who know my email address, can confirm that I’m not a lawyer and have no connection to the legal teams or the defendants. (I’d like them to keep any actual details about my identity private, but they’re welcome to confirm that this kind of speculation is 100% wrong.)” — Lance

        This should be easy enough. On Lance’s request, would the editors of this site either confirm or deny that Lance has “no connection to the legal teams or defendants.”

        A lot of us would like to know. Lance and all of us would like you to respond to his request.

        • Michael
          04/16/2009 at 12:58 AM

          Lively discussions are wonderful, but it would be nice if everyone attempted to suppress their urges to personally criticize and attack the other commenters.

          And for the record, Lance is not one of the defendants, nor an attorney. Now get back to analyzing and working towards helping solve this mystery.

          Cheers,
          Michael, editor

          • 04/16/2009 at 9:29 AM

            And for the record, not being “one of the defendants, nor an attorney” does not negate that he “has a connection to the legal teams or defendants.”

    • L.
      04/12/2009 at 6:02 PM

      WMgrad,

      I think it is pretty clear that Lance is one of the three defendants or a very close friend/relative or legal counsel.

      • Lance
        04/12/2009 at 6:55 PM

        For god’s sake, stop.

      • CDinDC
        04/12/2009 at 7:09 PM

        Let’s hope Lance is the defendants’ counsel. I’ll leave it at that.

        • Lance
          04/12/2009 at 7:11 PM

          For. The Love. Of. All. That. Is. Holy. Cut. It. Out.

  8. CDinDC
    04/12/2009 at 4:07 PM

    The 3 stooges should be tried jointly for 1st degree murder a la the Menendez Brothers.

    The MBs killed their parents, altered the crime scene, denied their involvement, created false alibis, alleged the mafia did it, and then eventually confessed because they knew their gooses were cooked.

    The 3 stooges killed Robert Wone, altered the crime scene (cleaned), denied involvement, created false alibies (sleeping), alleged an intruder did it……try them jointly and maybe they will fess up.

    There is enough evidence to show it was an inside job.

    If you can’t pin it on one person, try them jointly. Maybe after a solid obstruction of justice/conspiracy conviction is on the books, they will slap them with a murder charge.

  9. WMgrad
    04/12/2009 at 4:53 PM

    “The editors, who know my email address, can confirm that I’m not a lawyer and have no connection to the legal teams or the defendants.”

    Ok, Lance. I’ll take you at your word.

    “I happen to disagree with WMgrad’s belief that we already know the identity of those monsters, but I certainly agree that, whoever the monsters are, they should be brought to justice.”

    I don’t think I articulated that belief, exactly. But tell me, why do you think it remains to be seen who the murderer(s) are?

    • Lance
      04/12/2009 at 5:05 PM

      Because we don’t have all the evidence. Because there hasn’t been a trial.

      Or: let me put forth a variant on an argument I’ve posted elsewhere here. Given all of the evidence we’ve seen in the affidavits and other documents from the prosecution, it’s obvious to me that the three roommates have to be guilty. So why do I think they’re not (necessarily)? Because I can’t imagine any reason for the prosecution not to have brought murder charges, and brought them much sooner, if the evidence really is this clear-cut. So given the fact that the prosecutors haven’t brought charges any sooner than this, and given that they still don’t think a murder charge is sustainable, it seems to me that the case isn’t as open-and-shut as it looks to us from the evidence we’ve seen.

      • L.
        04/12/2009 at 6:05 PM

        Could a conviction or plea on Obstruction be used by the prosecutors in a later murder trial ?

        • CDinDC
          04/12/2009 at 7:07 PM

          The defendants could be tried for murder as long as there is no double jeopardy issue.

      • David
        04/12/2009 at 7:33 PM

        Lance,

        With much of circumstantial evidence pointing towards the Defandants, I suspect one of the reasons the prosecution did not bring charges sooner was they decided to wait them out until one of them sung. When none of them did, they then moved towards putting a squeeze, first on Dylan with the obstruction charge, then all three of the them with the superseding indictments. To me it looks like it was a waiting game.

        David, editor

        • CDinDC
          04/12/2009 at 7:34 PM

          And murder has no statute of limitations.

  10. WMgrad
    04/12/2009 at 5:24 PM

    OK, so big questions to you are: why did the prosecution wait so long to bring charges, and why don’t those charges include something like “murder”? Because of this, you think there must be something more that we don’t know about that would tend to weaken the case for murder. Is that a fair summary?

    Well, I agree that two years is an awfully long time to wait to do anything. But wouldn’t relevant testimony and discovery in the obstruction trial be admissible in a future trial for murder?

    Why wait? you might be asking. Why not do it all at once, if the case is so good.

    Well, I do think this approach provides prosecutors an opportunity to make darn sure they get it right before putting on a murder trial. It’s kind of like they get to perfect everything before bringing a murder charge, I guess. That has got to be appealing to the prosecution–knowing all this stuff through discovery from the first trial, and seeing the defendants’ responses and habits before the murder trial actually takes place.

    • L.
      04/12/2009 at 6:06 PM

      Would that be admissible?

    • CDinDC
      04/16/2009 at 10:33 AM

      Don’t forget double jeopardy. You cannot try a defendant twice for the same crime on the same set of facts. The prosecution has to be very careful in this respect.

  11. L.
    04/12/2009 at 6:07 PM

    Are the Prosecutors required to bring both charges together or forfeit a murder charge given the strong factual connection b/t the two?

    • CDinDC
      04/12/2009 at 7:14 PM

      They don’t have to “forfeit” a murder charge to bring obstruction charges. Again, as long as they avoid double jeopardy issues, they can press murder charges later on. In fact, getting a conviction on obstruction may bolster a murder charge. But during the obstruction trial, they MUST side step the issue of murder. Basically, no on in the house murdered anyone. They just cleaned up a murder scene.

      And then…..Joe Price, et al., you’re under arrest for the murder of Robert Wone. Try them jointly. They don’t have to have individual trials. It’s clear as the noise Joe Price’s face that the crime was an inside job.

      I mentioned the Menendez brothers trial in an earlier post. It’s no different.

  12. CDinDC
    04/12/2009 at 7:23 PM

    May I suggest to all that we not spend time discussing Lance anymore? Whether or not he’s defendants’ counsel, makes no difference. In fact, if defendants’ counsel IS posting on this board, as well as any of the defendants, their comments could be used against them in court as evidence. Truly.

    Discussing Lance is detracting from the mission of this website, which is to have dialogue about the murder of Robert Wone.

    And, besides, it’s kinda boring. So, no offense to my fellow posters, but can we not give him anymore attention??

  13. CDinDC
    04/12/2009 at 8:12 PM

    Would anyone like to discuss the Iliad? Oh, I’m sorry, I forgot this website is about Robert Wone.

    There’s always tomorrow.

    • Kenspeckled Souckar
      04/12/2009 at 8:21 PM

      I prefer Finnegan’s Wake or Ulysses.

      • Kenspeckled Souckar
        04/12/2009 at 8:28 PM

        I’m gonna ask again. Does anyone know where they went to church? Queens like this always go to church, no matter how strange they are.

        • Lance
          04/12/2009 at 8:32 PM

          I don’t have an answer, but I’m curious to know why you’re asking. Just for information, or do you think an answer will be relevant to the case?

          • Kenspeckled Souckar
            04/12/2009 at 8:48 PM

            People yak a lot at church. And what kind of church they pick tells a lot too.

            • Kenspeckled Souckar
              04/12/2009 at 8:52 PM

              By the way, Lance. I don’t think you are who they say your are. Anyone who says, “please stop” is a different sort of person.

          • L.
            04/12/2009 at 9:35 PM

            Lance,

            You must have your own idea about what happened.

            Could you state your theory and then back it up, as well as possible, point-by-point.

            You seem to be on the defensive and that is why many people here think you are a party/close to a party to what happened.

            Lay it out for us as best you can.

            • Lance
              04/12/2009 at 9:56 PM

              I’ve explained, repeatedly, the many reasons that I do not have a theory.

              • Jon G.
                04/27/2010 at 1:08 AM

                Your lack of intelligence and that you fathered, raised and harbored a criminal, if I recall.

  14. L.
    04/12/2009 at 9:39 PM

    I would like to propose an idea to the Editors and posters here – that we have an in person sleuthing party/get together.

    Role playing, reenactments, etc. – for real.

    • L.
      04/12/2009 at 9:47 PM

      Oh…..except Perverid Inch is not invited.

  15. Ex Swann Dude
    04/12/2009 at 9:56 PM

    I was just going to suggest the same idea!!

  16. Ben Doots
    04/26/2010 at 9:46 PM

    This is really easy to figure out. I just read about this and anyone with analytical thinking can figure it out. Dylan killed Wone without a doubt, and TOLD the other 2 this is what we will do. The other two probably figured they would be next if they did not do what he said. Simple.

Comments are closed.