At yesterday’s status hearing, Fascinating, one of the site’s frequent commenters who attended, noted that Victor’s Zaborsky lawyer, Thomas Connolly, spoke up against referring to the defendants as “they.” This color comment highlights a developing theme as the case goes forward — will the three Swann Street residents hang together as tightly as they have during the investigation, and indictments when the case heads to trial. We certainly don’t know the answer to that question, but in light of Fascinating’s comment from yesterday, I also noticed another tea leaf, if you will, about how united the defendants remain.
In the government’s response to the defendant’s joint motion to compel discovery, the government writes under the fifth point, “Finally, we understand that counsel for defendants Ward and Price have already met with and discussed the expert medical opinions of Dr. Goslinoski, who conducted the autopsy on Mr. Wone.” Missing is Victor Zaborsky’s lawyer, Thomas Connolly.
His absence could be as innocuous as being unavailable because of a previous engagement, “Hey guys, my kid has a baseball game at that time. Can you handle that?” or the defense team is trying to keep legal costs down so they can better allocate their resources on expert witnesses or the such. It could also be that the government has inaccurate information, and Connelly has interviewed Dr. Goslinoski. But, if his absence isn’t for a harmless reason, does this speak to how the defense is approaching the trial and how well the defandants are holding together?
If Connolly didn’t find it important enough to personally question the medical examiner about the condition of Robert Wone’s body, critical to proving the defendant’s case that he was not sexually assaulted and suffocated, which helps support the intruder theory, then does Connolly’s absence show that his client, Victor Zaborsky, has no or less of reason to argue about the condition of body? And if so, does this point to his knowledge about Victor’s involvement in only covering up the crime, not in actually committing it?
There are a lot of “ifs” in this post, but in light of Fascinating’s comment yesterday, and the continuing discussion and speculation on this site that Zaborsky was not involved in the crime of murder itself, I thought this bit of information was curious, at the least.