Eye Candy

Adult Novelties.  Wholesale To The Trade?

Last week was a busy one with regard to the Robert Wone murder case.  So you’ll forgive us if we’re only now sharing with you something we learned late last week – with a major assist from commenter “Bea”, who has truly been a busy little bee of late.  It’s great to have another set of arms and legs on the case.

Bea tips us that Joe Price has an entrepreneurial spirit we hadn’t known of:

EyeCandyDVDs.com web site home pageOh, the registrant of said website?  One Joseph Price, of Arent Fox.

Seems a “Joseph Price” first registered the website “www.eyecandydvds.com” through register.com on June 7, 2007.   Network Solutions notes the registration was updated as of October 15, 2007, and the registrant owns the rights to the url through June of 2010.   The IP provider is listed as “InternetNamesForBusiness” of Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.

Oh – which Joseph Price?

      joseph price
      1509 swann st
      washington, dc 20009
      Email: XXXXXXXXXX@arentfox.com
   Registrar Name....: REGISTER.COM, INC.
   Domain Name: eyecandydvds.com
      Created on..............: Thu, Jun 07, 2007
      Expires on..............: Mon, Jun 07, 2010
      Record last updated on..: Mon, Oct 15, 2007
   Administrative Contact:
      joseph price
      1509 swann st
      washington, dc 20009

We have removed sensitive information, such as email addresses and phone numbers.  However we have cross-referenced them, and in fact they are – were – Joseph Price’s correct contact data while he was at Arent, Fox.

Several questions emerge; first, the timing.  June 7  was more than ten months after the Robert Wone murder, less than a month after Dylan Ward’s birthday, two months before legal proceedings involving Phelps Collins III and Michael Price were dismissed, 17 months before the first indictment, and 19 months before Joe was let go as partner.   All this, and opening a new business by September 7?  Busy, indeed.  It was also right around the time of the birthday party at Halo for Dylan in May of 2007; was this a birthday present?

Second, the registration information is curiously public; almost brazen.  Joe used the 1509 Swann Street as the address but used his business email and phone number for administrative contacts (Swann Street may have been the most accurate billing address available. )  Moreover, he chose not to hide this from public view, as can easily be done when registering any web address.

Third, who exactly was to run this “Adult videos, novelties, magazines and candy” store?  Brother Michael certainly has extensive retail experience and this would keep him off the streets, but arguably Dylan might know a thing or two about the stock. 

Joe had already provided housing arrangements for brother Michael, so it’s not too far a leap to think he might try and help his brother set up a business operations.  And the September 7, 2007 launch date – at the Adams Morgan address provided?  For such a high-turnover bricks-and-mortar retail spot, the opening date seems a bit optimistic.

Anyone care to guess how long www.eyecandydvds.com will remain active?

– the Editors

140 comments for “Eye Candy

  1. PhilM
    04/27/2009 at 10:43 AM

    If you go to the eyecandydvds web site and choose “Contact Us” you get a form indicating that comments will be sent to “Michael” at info@eyecandydvds.com.

    • IKWDI
      04/27/2009 at 12:04 PM

      Great catch, Phil… apparently it was going to be a family enterprise (“family” to be defined to mean your partner, your BDSM master, your brother….)

  2. Anon. in Arlington
    04/27/2009 at 12:25 PM

    The more information that comes to light about Joe, the more we learn of displays of a dissociative pathology. Starting with the night of the murder, to being a pall bearer, to being social at the mourning reception…. The list goes on.

    It is amazing that someone who seemed to be so smart would do so many stupid things. Why would he register this site using the AF email account after his computer had been confiscated just a year prior? It seems far beyond arrogance of being a power partner at AF. It is as if he wants things found.

    He can disengage and function as if there was nothing wrong. Even if he had no part in the murder or clean-up, a rationally thinking person would understand that certain behaviors are inappropriate in light of what transpired. And it is not as if he could say, “oh, I will appear more innocent if I do “x, y, z” or continue to live my life as I “normally” would.

    That said, he had not idea of the great research efforts of Bea in this particular matter, the Editors on a daily basis, and many of the contributors to this site. GREAT JOB all!

    • Eddie
      04/27/2009 at 5:00 PM

      I guess if a person did do something that was wrong and they wanted to not get caught then they would go into some kind of hiding, stop living life in a way that was normal and try to do anything that they could to deflect attention from themselves. When a person that has nothing to be ashamed of or hide they don’t sit around trying to figure out ways to be not get caught at something.

      • Anon. in Arlington
        04/27/2009 at 5:10 PM

        Setting up an adult DVD store is hardly doing anything to deflect attention from ones self, especially in light of what the cops pulled out of 1509 Swann Street (in addition to the photos on the hard drive at Arent Fox, and the Alt.com profile). The residents did not need to know the autopsy report prior to know that anything they did in regard to sex would not be “under the radar” with what they knew was observed the weeks following the murder.

        I liken it to a person w/DUI and vehicular homicide applying for a liquor license for a bar.

        • N.M.
          04/27/2009 at 5:46 PM

          Of course, they might have been gambling that DC would miss the sexual aspect of the case. After all, the ME noted multiple needle marks, but did not do extensive toxicology tests, and may not have saved enough blood for all the further tests that may be needed.

          In fact, if it weren’t for the people who cared about Mr. Wone, starting with his widow, the DC police probably would have done even less work… if the victim were a sex worker, the trio would probably get away with just saying it was an accidental overdose, and not face charges at all, like a certain other murderer-at-large in DC.

          After all, even under the intense glare of the Chandra Levy case, the murder investigation was lazy and backwards, and the murderer practically had to confess to his cellmates before charges were brought.

          Good lord, in DC you don’t even have to commit the perfect crime to get away with murder; you can commit a mediocre, haphazard crime and still walk away a free man.

      • CDinDC
        04/27/2009 at 5:42 PM

        Eddie says: “When a person that has nothing to be ashamed of or hide they don’t sit around trying to figure out ways to be not get caught at something.”

        They should go into the cleaning business.

    • Ex Swann Dude
      04/27/2009 at 11:25 PM

      Great post Anon. However I keep having a problem with people referring to Joe “the intruder killed the guy in the office/guestroom” Price. He was a partner for a grand total of TWO MONTHS when the murder happened.

      As an associate he was making $250,000 to $300,000. When he made partner he probably took a a significant pay cut for the first couple of years. Hence his pay was cut from June ’06 until June ’08 (if not longer). He probably had few if any real billables after his indictment in Fall ’08 until he was unceremoniously dumped in January.

      Seriously, it’s not as if the dude won a multi-billion dollar judgement against Phillip-Morris …

  3. Nelly
    04/27/2009 at 12:28 PM

    Can Joe be ordered to submit to a psychological exam? What a nutcase. But, I suppose he needs to find a way to pay his legal bills, especially if he might lose his law license, and what a great way to get all their sex toys at wholesale!

    • IKWDI
      04/27/2009 at 12:47 PM

      Nelly, I hope they weren’t intending it as a consignment shop…

    • CDinDC
      04/27/2009 at 1:07 PM

      Maybe, if acquitted, he’ll become a SM porn star. Put his other talents to use.

      • Anon. in Arlington
        04/27/2009 at 1:35 PM

        An “extra” maybe…”star”?… NEVER

  4. CDinDC
    04/27/2009 at 1:04 PM

    Narcissistic Personality Disorder

    • Ex Swann Dude
      04/27/2009 at 11:27 PM

      In the extreme …

  5. CDinDC
    04/27/2009 at 1:06 PM

    Sounds like NPD, to me. Narcicisstic Personality Disorder.

  6. CDinDC
    04/27/2009 at 1:20 PM

    Hmm….a quick google gave me this link:


    Michael Price’s profile on a the website Okinawabrats.com.

    Nothing to mention on the profile, but was Joe and Michael’s father in the military? WEre they “military brats?”

  7. CDinDC
    04/27/2009 at 1:35 PM

    This article brings to mind something one of our posters brought up a few weeks ago……..the possibility of Robert’s assault being filmed. (Forgive me, I can’t remember who exactly brought it up, but I found it an intriguing theory.) This sheds new light on those comments.

    • N.M.
      04/27/2009 at 3:51 PM

      Hi, CD, that was me. I find it hard to believe they wouldn’t have memorialized the event for later use. And/or to trade with fellow travelers for equally horrific stuff, the way pedophiles swap materials. This is where my mind went too when I read the above post.

      But beyond that horrific possibility – pardon my ignorance – but why is setting up an online dvd etc. mail order (I guess?) business noteworthy? (I’m not trying to imply that its not noteworthy, rather, I’m feeling dense and need this one spelled out for me).

      • CDinDC
        04/27/2009 at 4:22 PM

        Personally, I find the information incredible considering Joe Price is suspected of sexual assault. Why would you want to associate yourself with the flesh industry?? You would think he would want to distance himself from such things. He’s under a microscope. Not very wise behavior.

        But again, I think his behavior is purely narcissistic. Joe’s gonna do what Joe wants to do.

        • N.M.
          04/27/2009 at 5:32 PM

          Okay, I see what you mean. Thanks for the help.

          This seems consonant with keeping a stash of porn on his work computer. You’d think he’d want to keep some distance, but it was right there, practically out in the open were anyone to look for it.

          His sexuality saturated all aspects of his life. Far from being someone who compartmentalizes, he may be someone who had no interest in compartmentalization: his sexual world (something most people keep at least somewhat under wraps) permeated his work life, his family life, his community life (the culuket email address). It’s so integral to his identity that he’s made no effort to hide it. He couldn’t / wouldn’t keep the two worlds separate if his life – or freedom – depended on it.

          Narcissism – he’s at the center of his universe. Other people’s boundaries – workplace rules (porn on the computer), relationship preferences (Victor having to accept Dylan), interpersonal behavior (lack of decorum at hearing), keeping up appearances (the dvd business), and worst, personal autonomy (Robert) mean nothing to him. Its his world – the rest of us are just living, or dying, in it.

          What I can’t square is how this fits with him being a bottom. [In following this case, I’ve come to realize I know almost nothing about the real heavy-BDSM community.] “Topping from the bottom” may describe it, but doesn’t really explain it to me.

          • Lance
            04/27/2009 at 7:02 PM

            I’m not as convinced as y’all are that all this behavior indicates narcissism. For instance, I hate to assume anything about the dynamics of their relationship; and porn on the work computer is a different blurring of boundaries than, say, wearing a studded leather collar to work would be, insofar as it’s not actually obtrusive to anyone.

            But that aside, remind me what “lack of decorum at the hearing” you’re referring to?

            • N.M.
              04/27/2009 at 8:39 PM

              By “lack of decorum” I meant the rather social, almost congratulatory air of Joe mingling with his friends/supporters outside the courtroom at the hearing last week – while Mrs. Wone and friends were quite nearby. This is not something I observed myself; rather, it was described in one the posts by someone who attended the hearing.

              Just trying to take different things people have said to see if they fit into a narrative that makes sense.

              I disagree about the boundary issue regarding the work computer. I think IT departments generally monitor for this sort of thing, how, i don’t know. I’ve worked places where they’ve sniffed out employees using email and browsers ‘inappropriately.’ Its fireable – certainly more fireable than being discovered to have porn in, say, one’s locker room. I think its a combo of evidence the employee is loafing, misuse of company property, and possible sexual harassment (hostile work environment) lawsuit that gets them.

              Even though Price was high up on the food chain, its still a flagrant f-you to the firm’s rules. That said, I’m sure the firm would bend the rules to keep someone who was a good moneymaker for them, so it has that power-trippy element to it – I can do this and get away with it, while you lowly servants would be fired on the spot.

              To take a step back and try to imagine the mindset of someone who would do this – I think its either sheer addiction / compulsion / lack of impulse control, or its f-you and your rules, you can’t control me, I make my own rules thank you very much.

              Unless he was involved in some case to which his stash was relevant.

              • Spike
                04/27/2009 at 10:41 PM

                It’s not true that those rules are the same in every private company. I don’t think it’s wise to assume that what we may imagine on his computer was “fireable.”

                Also, I’m not sure compartmentalization and fragmentation of a person’s sex life is a good thing, in fact, I think it’s healthy to have it integrated.

                I don’t think these points are in and of themselves inherent indicators of something “bad.”

                The dead friend in the apartment is its own special category.

                • CDinDC
                  04/27/2009 at 11:05 PM

                  I have worked in law firms for a very long time. Not one firm I have been associated with has ever condoned pornographic material on their computers. The computers are the property of the firm and it is clearly stated in firm policies that the use of the computers is for business purposes only. Arent Fox would surely have a computer usage policy that would prohibit pornography. Not to mention, any civilized business, would adhere to sexual harrassment/ discrimination/ osha policies.

                  And workplaces that freely condone porn could set themselves up for a lawsuit involving “hostile work environment.”

                  Civilized workplaces do not condone pornography at work.

                  • Bea
                    04/27/2009 at 11:18 PM

                    Agreed. Law firm partner here. I’d bet money that Arent Fox has a policy against pornography on office-owned equipment. No one has a claim of privacy on office-owned computers. If there hadn’t been a murder, and Arent had found the porn, they may have given Joe a ‘pass’ and had a ‘little discussion’ – just because a policy has been violated doesn’t mean someone will be fired. The fact that he was the ‘star’ of that porn may have given them greater cause for concern as to his judgment (rightly so). My guess is that even if Joe wasn’t under indictment, if it (somehow) made the papers that he starred in S & M porn on his office computer, he’d have been ‘asked to leave.’

                    Lance – to be clear, OPINION not fact on the policy as I haven’t read the Arent Fox policy manual; FACT on the law that employees have no privacy protection on employer-owned computers.

                • Dupont Dweller
                  04/27/2009 at 11:22 PM

                  I’m not sure I agree with you, but I think your words, in a way, may be the best that have yet appeared on this site:

                  The dead friend in the apartment is its own special category.

                • Ex Swann Dude
                  04/27/2009 at 11:47 PM

                  It’s a law firm! Files can be subpoenaed. It is just another bit of evidence of Joe’s insanity …

              • Lance
                04/28/2009 at 1:54 AM

                I don’t think the “congratulatory air” should be taken quite so seriously. IIRC, “congratulatory” was the opinion of a non-disinterested observer. And thinking about my friends, if one of them were accused of this sort of thing, I’d be showing up for support at their trials as well. All in all, I’m willing to dismiss this “evidence” as something innocuous.

                Now, I am willing to believe that keeping porn on your work computer is evidence of some sort of psychological condition. How extreme, I’d be hesitant to guess; it could literally be “sex addiction”; it could be a kind of personal self-destruction. (Of course, the latter kind of entails “wanting to be caught”, which doesn’t jibe well with covering up a crime.)

                But I don’t know, I really don’t. I’m even less of a psychologist than I am a lawyer.

          • CDinDC
            04/27/2009 at 9:22 PM

            Great post, NM.

            A narcissist very often has a shameful self-image, so they over compensate by developing a narcissistic behavior. Masochism may be a way to punish the weaknesses.

  8. Eddie
    04/27/2009 at 1:59 PM

    To the four “Journalist” that run this site and the titillated participants that have had nothing to live for since Dynast and Dallas went off the air.

    A woman was gossiping with a friend about a man she hardly knew.

    (I know none of you have ever done this.)

    That night she had a dream.
    A great hand appeared over her and pointed down at her.
    She was immediately seized with an overwhelming sense of guilt.
    The next day she went to confession. She got the old parish priest, Father O’Rourke.
    She told him the whole thing.

    “Is gossiping a Sin?” she asked the old man. “ Was that the hand of God Almighty pointing a finger at me?” Should I be asking your absolution, Father? “ Tell me have I done something wrong?”

    “YES.” Father O’Rourke answered her.
    “YES, you ignorant, badly brought up female. “You have borne false witness against your neighbor. “You have played fast and loose with his reputation, and you should be heartily ashamed!”

    So the woman said she was sorry and asked for forgiveness.

    “Not So Fast,” says O’Rourke.
    “I want you to go home. Take a pillow up on your roof, cut it open with a knife, and return here to me.”

    So the women went home and took a pillow off of her bed, a knife from a drawer, went up the fire escape to her roof and stabbed the pillow. Then she went back to the old parish priest as instructed.

    “Did you gut the pillow with a knife?” he says.

    “Yes, Father.”

    “And what was the result?”

    “Feathers,” she said.

    “Feathers,” he repeated.

    “Feathers everywhere, Father.”

    “Now I want you to go back and gather up every last feather that flew out on the wind.”

    “Well,” she said. “it can’t be done I don’t know where they went. The wind took them all over.”

    “And That,” said Father O’Rourke, “IS GOSSIP!”

    • Anon. in Arlington
      04/27/2009 at 2:06 PM

      Ah – but we are following legal documentation, not gossip. We are analyzing the documents and creating THEORIES. There is a difference Eddie. Do you wish us to be quiet and let the murder and injustice disappear? It will not happen.

      • Eddie
        04/27/2009 at 3:25 PM

        This site is full of false statments. That I know to be lies.

        • Anon. in Arlington
          04/27/2009 at 3:35 PM

          Enlighten us then please Eddie.

        • N.M.
          04/27/2009 at 3:52 PM

          Bingo. I think we’ve flushed one out of the bushes.

        • Michael
          04/27/2009 at 4:01 PM

          The editors welcome you to discuss the alleged “false statements” with us and the readers of this web site. You may do so anonymously. Most of the information presented is from the public record. If you can prove the public record to be incorrect, we will incorporate that information into our posts.

          You may contact the editors directly at murdered@live.com.

          – Michael, editor

    • CDinDC
      04/27/2009 at 2:17 PM

      Umm…whatever. Where was I?

    • Fascinating
      04/27/2009 at 2:24 PM

      I wasn’t all that crazy about the movie, DOUBT. This was one of the big monologues from it, right?

    • CDinDC
      04/27/2009 at 2:38 PM

      Have you heard the one about the priest and the frog? So much better than that joke.

      :::driving off in my little teeny clown car:::

      • N.M.
        04/27/2009 at 5:36 PM

        “YES, you ignorant, badly brought up female.”


        Solid gold. I’m definitely stealing that line.

        • CDinDC
          04/27/2009 at 7:34 PM

          I feel like the name Jane should be in that line somewhere.

          That line IS a keeper, isn’t it?

      • Leo and Lance
        04/27/2009 at 5:52 PM

        I just left a comment on your other comment, then I saw this one. Is that like the priest and the gerbil kind of thing? By the way about priest stuff. You know Lena Lett, David Lett studied to be a priest and even went to Rome to study at the Vatican or something. Actually I think it was like the Vatican’s North American College University. That must embarrassing for the Catholics here in town. The guy they sent to Rome is doing drag and calling it his Ministry. Maybe the real priests should do the opposite, call their Ministry drag. I think he still performs at Perry’s.

    • Kenspeckled Souckar
      04/27/2009 at 7:36 PM

      What’s funny about Eddie’s comments is that priests and ministers have always been some of the biggest sources of gossip. They always seem
      to know everybody else’s business. They always
      seem surprised when they themselves get caught and other people talk about them. But more to the point, Eddie avoids the most important distinction in gossip. Some people are willing to traffic in any wrong idea or pure fiction about others. Smart people only speak about what they know to be true, and have a high standard about it. I don’t call that gossip, I call it intelligence. Since priests and conservative ministers always have exaggerated judgmental things to say about gays, they are by definition trafficking in in pure rumors about others. So Eddie’s story is ridiculous.

    • 04/27/2009 at 8:46 PM


      let’s cut the gossip crap. where is dylan’s missing knife? answer this innocent question, then you have carte blanche to trash the editors and guests of this blog. or i am writing to dylan?

    • Ex Swann Dude
      04/27/2009 at 11:53 PM

      Interesting. I’m so sorry I missed the status hearing. I’d like to have seen firsthand (for a brief moment) the base level of scum that would consider this human trash as friends.

      • Lance
        04/28/2009 at 1:56 AM

        Oh for [censored]’s sake. Would you people cut it the hell out with the personal insults?

  9. SwannStObserver
    04/27/2009 at 2:09 PM

    Wow…a DVD store…upstairs from the visible street level.

    When are we going to learn about Joe’s fax machine sales and repair shop? Or how about a postage stamp vending machine business? I could go on. Clearly this rebuts the earliest assumptions about Joe’s brain power. Yeah yeah, legal cases blah blah.

    Intelligence and wisdom are two very different things. These boys will trip up sooner or later.

  10. CDinDC
    04/27/2009 at 2:22 PM

    I looked at google maps (the street view) and the building looks boarded up on the street level.

    Eds, think you can get a pic of the building?

    I mentioned a few weeks ago that I saw Joe in Adams Morgan (middle of January). I was in the window of the New Orleans Cafe , which is directly across from 2409 18th Street. Funny I saw him right there.

  11. Fascinating
    04/27/2009 at 2:59 PM

    I think this is interesting info that Bea discovered.

    More weird timing: The website was registered 8 months after Joe Price’s brother, Michael, robbed the Swann Street house.


    I wonder if there is an email trail between Price and Wone about the plans to spend the night? I would love to see those emails. Hopefully they weren’t on the phantom Blackberry.

    • Anon. in Arlington
      04/27/2009 at 3:07 PM

      I believe these were captured on the Arent Fox computer from which Joe was writing.

  12. Leo and Lance
    04/27/2009 at 4:15 PM

    One person who might know something in town is the drag queen Lena Lett, David Lett, who used to run that video store, and also made porno movies from his company Bulldog Videos with a lot of local guys in them. I looked him up and he is still around and doing drag and calling it his Ministry LOL LOL ROFLMAO.

    • CDinDC
      04/27/2009 at 4:42 PM

      Was Joe and/or Dylan any of the local guys?

      • Leo and Lance
        04/27/2009 at 5:44 PM

        I think Lena Lett was producing those movies
        around 2002. I never actually saw one. But I heard about them and the local connection. I asked somebody about them and he just told me that you could see some guys you would see from the ‘hood.

  13. CDinDC
    04/27/2009 at 4:40 PM

    One last thing……I think this clearly shows Joe has a sex addiction.

  14. Bea
    04/27/2009 at 5:46 PM

    I think, too, that it does show Joe thinks himself above the law and/or too smart to get caught at anything. With all the heat of the investigation, murder AND sexual assault, THEN he decides it’s a good time to open an online and brick and mortar adult video store? I was stunned when I found it that he used the Swann street address but his Arent email – as was pointed out by the editors, it’s simple to make all this information “private”. Is it a Gary-Condit-try-to-catch-me thing? Narcissistic Personality Disorder sounds right – and a definite playing with fire approach to life. Even without the murder investigation, what partner at a button down firm like Arent would want this as public information? Why not put it in Michael’s name if it was “for him”? My guess on the ‘why not’ is simple: control.

  15. N.M.
    04/27/2009 at 6:00 PM

    I agree too, per my comment above – http://whomurderedrobertwone.com/2009/04/27/eye-candy/#comment-2791

    but how does all this controlling behavior fit with his being a bottom? Unlike the cliche CEO-who-sees -dominatrix, Price wasn’t leading a secret double life – his sexual identity and practices saturated his entire life. (Like I said above, “topping from the bottom” describes but doesn’t really explain it, to me anyway). Are we sure he’s a bottom?

    • Fascinating
      04/27/2009 at 6:33 PM

      Just an armchair psychologist here … but I’ve met a few bottoms in my sexual travels who — by day — are controlling queens, and — in bed — want to be in the bottom, “passive” position. Perhaps, such a controlling person enjoys playing the sexual “role” of a submissive bottom, who must submit to being the recipient of a controlling dominant top. Maybe as punishment? Or maybe just because it’s the only place where such a control-freak can be out of control and “used” instead of spending all his energy using & controlling others.

      5 cents please.

      • N.M.
        04/27/2009 at 6:44 PM

        Good lord, the things you can learn in the wikipedias.


        “A top filling the dominant role is not necessarily a dominant, and vice versa, and a bottom is not necessarily submissive. At one end of the continuum is a submissive who enjoys taking orders from a dominant but does not receive any physical stimulation. At the other is a bottom who enjoys the intense physical and psychological stimulation but does not submit to the person delivering them.

        “The top may sometimes even be the partner who is following instructions, i.e., they top when, and in the manner, requested by the bottom. A person who applies sensation or control to a bottom, but does so to the bottom’s explicit instruction is a service top.

        “Contrast this with the pure dominant, who might give orders to a submissive, or otherwise employ physical or psychological techniques of control, but might instruct the submissive to perform the act on them…..

        “It should be noted that for bottoms who are not submissive, the bottom is most often the partner who is giving instructions—the top typically tops when, and in the manner, requested by the bottom.”

        That answered my question. I guess Dylan is a “service top.”

        That’s as much as my brain can handle in one day. I’m going to go dunk my head in a bucket now, or something.

        • Michael
          04/28/2009 at 2:17 AM

          In some circles, it is known as the “bossy bottom”, and not very popular with true dominant tops. LOL

          – Michael, editor

      • Lisper Doll
        04/28/2009 at 11:50 AM

        Lucy, er Fascinating, that was very good and worth five cents at least. I just want to put another layer on it. The bottom status as it has evolved in gay sexual culture is much more complex and therefore in a strange way more authoritative than the top. Think of it this way. The top has to keep it hard, perform, be rough. but not too rough. I know that the SM business adds yet another layer to that, but let’s deal with basics first. The bottom by contrast gets to be the judge of the proceedings so to speak. He wants it hard, but not too hard. Of course the guy should be big, but not too big. Are you getting the princess and the pea level to all this. Watch a lot of mainstream gay porn movies and you will see this in action. Another way to say this is that the top has to calibrate a lot, the bottom does not. Which leads me to the conclusion that
        the top role as it has evolved in gay sex culture has an element of pure work in it, and not fun.
        By the way, despite the constant propaganda for our over-sexualized culture, I think straight men feel similarly but can’t admit it.
        The connection with this case is that the SM
        perspective is in a way an attempt to break out of this day-spa mentality towards sex. But of course it can’t. What seems missing from sex
        nowadays is an element of play or fun. That is because play or fun can only exist when people feel really safe. In this sense the SM business is only a threat to general sexual culture in its ambiguity about the main problem: that is lack of limits, even creative limits if you like, that are natural to sex wherever it happens unless it is artificially taken out by weird beliefs. Sadly, sexual culture gay and straight has accepted the shade or shadow cast by fundamentalist doctrine as real. The sexual
        world is taken for, or assumed to be one where respect or limits are not natural and must be imposed. These are imposed either by the day-spa mentality (you will do it just right
        or I’ll complain to the management) or artificially rejected a la S&M (your limits will be broken through). From this perspective we can see that the day-spa mentality and the SM
        one are beholden to the same assumption. That assumption is that sex, sex outside heterosexual marriage, is per se a world of unnatural limits. Thus limits
        must be introduced (day-spa) or ceremoniously or ritualistically rejected (SM).
        In such an atmosphere most of the fun goes out of sex. People like the defendants probably started off finding that their SM transgressions produced some enjoyment. But eventually the fundamentalist assumptions of it all limited the enjoyment. So it had to be pushed farther. It was pushed by a rage, which in the end was criminal, but in inception was more akin to those sweet 16 party girls on MTV who doesn’t get the car she wants. In a way, the best way to summarize this is with the joke I saw in a gay comics once. It showed a good-looking leather guy (already a stretch I know) talking to friend about another guy who had left in a huff. The friend asked why the other left. The leather guy responded: “He asked me to degrade him and say something really humiliating to him, and be real nasty. So I said you look fat in that outfit.”

        • Anon. in Arlington
          04/28/2009 at 11:58 AM

          Ha! Funny joke to end an intense post. Thanks for both.

  16. Bea
    04/27/2009 at 6:11 PM

    Whoops, Gary Hart, not Condit. Got my congressional scandals mixed up. Love ‘topping from the bottom’.

  17. Bea
    04/27/2009 at 6:45 PM

    Thanks to CD and NM, I checked out Michael Price’s posts on OkinawaBrats.com. They weren’t that revealing but it’s certainly our boy (“my older brother Joe”) and I’m guessing military brats:

    Michael Price
    Starting Member

    2 Posts Posted – 12/21/2007 : 23:29:54 Show Profile Email Poster Reply with Quote My family lived in Oki from 78-81 our house number was 1518. We were right across from Habu Hill. I remember the skating ring, the rock piles near the baseball fields and the lock-ins at the youth center. My older brother Joe and I were involved with the scouts on base and off. Does anyone remember the little village that you could sneak into from the opening in the fence that never stayed fixed? Some of the names that I remember are Otis Pete, the Shivertakers, Scott and Nathan, Quann, The Atkins, Randy Burger,& Kevin Stewart. We had a Soccer Team called the Jaugars. Does anyone remember collecting the slap cards, HB pencils, and pencil cases? This sure brings back memories of a simpler time. I remember collecting cans for cash, climbing the trees catching bugs and lizards. There was always something to explore. I hope all is well and that this trip down memory lane brings happy memories. Thanks for creating this site.

    Michael Price

    Go to Top of Page
    Michael Price
    Starting Member

    I had Ms. Lamela as a teacher the last part of our stay there. She and I didn’t get along to well. I must admit I was a hell raiser and probably caused a few disagreements with some folks on this site. To anyone that remembers me, if I did any thing to upset you when we were kids. I apologize. Please don’t e-mail me with invites to Dr. Phil.LOL I was there from Second to Fourth Grades. 78-81

    • N.M.
      04/27/2009 at 6:51 PM

      “I remember…. the lock-ins at the youth center.”


      “I remember… catching bugs and lizards.”

      And then….. never mind. [shudders]

      • Lance
        04/27/2009 at 6:58 PM

        A “lock-in” is a sleepover in a youth center or the like. A casual Google turns up, e.g., this story on an Air Force website about a lock-in in Okinawa. Nothing that unusual, I’d think.

        (Also, I’d object to the latter half of the post–c’mon, didn’t we all spend time outdoors catching bugs and lizards as children?–but I suspect there’s no point.)

        • N.M.
          04/27/2009 at 7:15 PM

          You’re right, Lance, I was just being fresh. I myself have caught a few lizards in my day, though never bugs. You’ve got to draw the line somewhere.

          [As for googling “lock in” – I’ve already found my day’s quota of disturbing info on the internets, no way was I touching that one.]

    • Anon. in Arlington
      04/27/2009 at 7:03 PM

      “This sure brings back memories of a simpler time.” Good God Michael – you could contol life and keep in simple… not break into Joe’s house and have as much drama as you have had!

  18. Lance
    04/27/2009 at 6:46 PM

    Just to throw out there a possibly more innocent explanation: perhaps the business was 100% Michael’s, but Michael didn’t know anything about the Web, and asked his brother to register the domain name for him. Joe himself wasn’t in any way involved with the business except insofar as he was doing a favor for his brother, and thus had nothing to hide.

    Now, I’d agree that in these circumstances, it probably still would have been wiser for Joe to say, “Look, Michael, I’d love to help you out, but I kind of need to keep a lower profile than that these days.” (Though of course, as has been noted, this was a year after the murder, and over a year before charges were brought, so perhaps Joe felt that the investigation had moved on.) So wiser, yes, but if it was just a favor to his brother, it doesn’t raise things to nearly the same level of narcissism and stupidity as has been postulated so far.

    • David
      04/27/2009 at 7:16 PM


      I think you may have hit on something here — Joe opening Eye Candy as a FAVOR to Michael. Sure there is familial obligation of the more successful brother helping out the lesser successful sibling, which certainly could have been the case. But, the favor may have also been a quid pro quo between brothers. Maybe Michael helped Joe in some way, and this is how Michael wanted the favor returned. Joe knowing he was under suspicion but also thinking the case wasn’t going forward felt that opening an adult video store wasn’t going to compromise him. If that is the case, what favor would Micheal be calling his chits on? That’s the question.

      David, co-editor

      • N.M.
        04/27/2009 at 7:23 PM

        I’ve always suspected the robbery was a sort of favor – like “hey, Mike, all that gear (tvs, stereo, etc) is just sitting there, we can’t use it so we’ve bought replacement everything, – so if you want anything, go ahead and get it, its yours.” Now I wonder if this wasn’t quid pro quo.

      • Fascinating
        04/27/2009 at 7:24 PM

        I was thinking along these lines, too. The domain was registered to Joe. But remember — just a few months earlier, Michael robbed his own brother’s house. In 12-step programs that would be called a “bottom” — LOL, *not* like the sexual bottom we were discussing in other threads. I would guess that the robbery was b/c Michael was in a bad place with his drug use — which he admitted to the police. So … it’s possible, since Joe seemed to care for Michael (and enable him?), that Joe was helping Michael start up this business. It was before Joe was fired from Arent Fox (didn’t somebody say that?), so it’s not like Joe was looking for work. I am tending to believe that Joe was helping out his brother.

        HOWEVER …. I agree that it’s not the best judgment, considering the “legal problems” surrounding Swann Street and what happened there in 2006.

        • CDinDC
          04/27/2009 at 7:45 PM

          I’ve always believed the break-in was a set-up. And setting up a video store/internet site would be a pretty nice quid pro quo.

          Joe would have had to finance the whole shabang. Can’t see Michael coming up with 10’s of thousands of dollars to open up a brick and mortar, as well as stocking an internet business. This stuff isn’t free.

          • Lance
            04/27/2009 at 8:06 PM

            Joe would have had to finance the whole shabang.

            Or Michael had another partner in the business, or was hoping he could get a business loan (which fell through, hence the site never opening), or…well, or several other possibilities. So this statement, too, is an interpretation, not an actual fact of the matter.

            • CDinDC
              04/27/2009 at 8:10 PM

              I prefer to call them opinions.

              • CDinDC
                04/27/2009 at 8:12 PM

                And, Lance, why must you always jump on my comments? There are a lot of people on this site that opine just like me.

                • Lance
                  04/27/2009 at 8:36 PM

                  As Buffy might put it: feel persecuted much?

                  I “jump on” a lot of comments. I mean, the comment I posted that all of these are replies to was a response to a lot of comments above; I just happened not to single them out. Note, too, that this is the first comment of yours I replied to in this post, whereas I’d twice called out N.M. on statements I found dubious.

                  At any rate, “opinion” or “interpretation”–the point is that, contrary to the form of the sentence “Joe would have had to do X”, it’s not actually an established fact. (Perhaps I “jump on” your comments because you’re more likely than others to post possibilities as if they’re facts? I don’t know.)

                  • CDinDC
                    04/27/2009 at 8:41 PM

                    The “fact police.”

                    • Lance
                      04/27/2009 at 8:46 PM

                      Mmmm, my word, yes. Terrible of me to hope this murder can be solved based on facts rather than guesswork, speculation, and rumor.

                  • N.M.
                    04/27/2009 at 9:11 PM

                    I don’t mind, Lance; I’m pretty hard-headed. But I think it might make things easier if I could give you a blanket assurance that I’m pretty conscious of what’s hypothesis and what is verifiable fact. If I may, I believe CD is also.

                    Though I do think there are some things that are truly common sense – like, knowing one could easily dispose of the murder weapon in the alley behind Swann in any number of ways, without having to do a dry run oneself, or that a DC cop would rather swallow tacks than muck around in that big drain back there looking for a little knife.

                    I do, however, put A LOT of weight on the information in the affidavit, particularly the statements of the EMTs; by contrast I believe you’ve said you’re more skeptical of the contents of the affadavit.

                    I also apply certain beliefs – like, for example, that more often not people communicate to you directly what makes them tick (consciously or unconsciously). Also, I reject what I think is an artificial line some people draw between behavior in a person’s ‘sex life’ and other areas of a person’s life – the old “just because he gets off by [crushing gerbils] doesn’t mean he’s a bad guy” thing. Yes, yes it does make you a bad guy.

                    Its good to challenge assumptions, but maybe you could trust us a bit more to recognize when we’re reminding ourselves of facts and when we’re trying out conjecture to see if certain pieces fit together.

                    • N.M.
                      04/27/2009 at 9:12 PM

                      That should be, “more often *than* not.”


                    • CDinDC
                      04/27/2009 at 9:32 PM

                      What NM said. 🙂

                    • Ex Swann Dude
                      04/28/2009 at 12:22 AM

                      Ditto what N.M said …

                      And for chrissakes, Joe must certainly be broke or close to it. The legal fees here are prolly running well over $30,000/$40,000 per month. He didn’t earn the kind of money to have that just sitting around.

                      Let’s get real here.

                    • Bea
                      04/28/2009 at 12:51 AM

                      NM rocks. Lance, do you not see the absurdity of claiming others are wildly ‘opining’ or ‘interpreting’ facts when you propose that perhaps Michael Price might have been in the process of getting a bank loan or had an investor/partner other than his brother? A bank loan – really? As pointed out above, a few months after being charged with burglary and no known employment?

                      David’s comment resonates, though – Joe may have been returning a favor for his brother (like for trying to burglarize Swann in the spring of 2007; though he bungled it, maybe the payback was for NOT telling the authorities that Joe requested the burglary?).

                      I go back to timeline (facts, not speculation). Very odd considering about a year before Michael burglarized Swann (April 2006), Joe defended Louis Hinton against charges that he beat up Michael (and paid bail, and put him up, as reported on this site) – why the complete turnaround in that year?

                      Maybe Michael found sobriety and/or Jesus after the burglary, and Joe was just being a good bro to the troubled Michael, but it seems fishy (the bank loan still makes me smile). And Lance, no way did Joe think the Wone murder investigators had “moved on”. That is a pretty out there interpretation.

          • N.M.
            04/27/2009 at 8:19 PM

            Is there some way in which being the proprietor, or brother-of-proprietor, of a business like eyecandy would be advantageous to Joe in terms of his sexual activity? Certainly he had enough money to purchase whatever materials he wanted; no need for free samples or whatever. Would eyecandy have changed his status in some way – given him the inside track on something – that he didn’t have as a consumer, rather than purveyor/consumer, of his favorite “stuff”? Access to certain conventions, or maybe access to talent or producers? Did he intend to get involved on the production side himself, and this would be his means of distribution?

            In other words, I’m wondering if we’ve got it backwards – rather than Joe doing a favor for Michael – perhaps Joe was interested in setting up the business for his own reasons, and Michael was just going to be the front man, the ‘face,’ the guy who would mind the till during office hours?

            • CDinDC
              04/27/2009 at 8:31 PM

              NM, I think that’s as good as a theory as the quid pro quo theory.

              I have to wonder how the development of this retail/internet business idea may have intermingled with Dylan moving to Florida to live in a house owned by Joe.

              Did they all have plans to relocate to Florida? Michael could “mind the till” as NM, says. The others could concentrate on a behind the scene’s internet aspect.

              I wonder if they filed any paperwork with the Department of Consumer Affairs. A business would have to be properly licensed, etc.

            • Lance
              04/27/2009 at 8:39 PM

              I don’t know. It’s certainly a possibility. On the other hand, given what’s been said so far about Joe’s and Michael’s respective personalities, the fact that the business never went anywhere seems more Michael than it does Joe, doesn’t it? That is, if it were something Joe wanted to have happen because he was getting something out of it, he seems like the sort who would make it happen one way or another, rather than just letting it slide. Whereas Michael seems more the sort to have a Great Business Idea That Can’t Fail, and not follow through.

              It really is like reading tea leaves, isn’t it.

              • N.M.
                04/27/2009 at 9:38 PM

                I was thinking that the business idea made more sense for Dylan than for Michael. An internet business might suit his (apparently) reticent personality. And I had to chuckle when I wrote that Michael could ‘mind the till’ – that would be a particularly bad idea.

                Unless — making money wasn’t the point of the business at all. Could the idea have been to have a somewhat compact storefront, with a room or rooms in back that would operate as a very private club?

                If that were the case, Michael as the public face of the business would make more sense, with Joe pulling the strings behind the scenes. I know nothing about Michael but I’d wager he’d make a better club manager (of sorts) than storekeeper. And he’d be a better club guy than Dylan.

                If this were the case it wouldn’t matter if the storefront was on the first or second floor, visible or invisible. The business would just have to — have enough presence to front the rental of the space, be the apparent reason why guys would be going in and out, launder some cash, provide whatever supplies patrons would need (captive audience!), and provide cover for selling illicit materials under the counter.

                Its the old – “we spend enough time and money at this bar, we should just open our own place- then we can be the ones charging *other* people for drinks” thing.

                I don’t know how one could verify this. I wonder if they had gotten as far as planning to renovate the space? If so, I think they’d need to file blueprints / plans with the city in order to get their permits.

            • The Perfervid Inch
              04/27/2009 at 11:32 PM

              I met Chad Knight as a customer at Washington Video Sales on S Street around 1993, signing videos. Does that count as a perk of ownership for the owners of a video store, for the owners to chat him up about the porn biz? He was definitely cute in person. I think the answer for bossy bottom Joe is that life wasn’t working out the way he wanted , and he thought being an impresario would be fun.

      • Lance
        04/27/2009 at 7:35 PM

        Yeah…as you suggest and as Fascinating also seems to offer, it could go either way (also not in the sexual sense!). It could be a trading of favors; or it could be just helping out your brother. I mean, for instance, when my brother was engaged and wanted to put up a bare-bones site with wedding information, I did that for him, simply because I know more about HTML than he does and not because he was doing anything for me in exchange. The help here might be more involved; or it might be nothing more than simply registering the name.

        Which means, alas, we once again have a basic ambiguous fact, which we can read into or not as we like.

  19. CDinDC
    04/27/2009 at 7:52 PM

    I see the relationship as a topping from the bottom situation. Dylan held little control in the relationship. Sleeping in the extra bedroom. Joe and Victor snug in the master bedroom each evening. I think anyone that was truly into domination, wouldn’t put up with a scenario like that.

    Dylan strikes me as meek. I posted a while back that it strikes me that people have come forward and speak of Joe’s controlling personality. But no one has come forward to speak of Dylan. Was Dylan a “shy flower” as I asked before. He’s spent significant time in various learning institutions. Georgetown, culinary school, massage school. You’d think SOMEONE could offer something in the way of a “testimonial” about him. But……nada. Was Dylan corrupted by Joe?

    • N.M.
      04/27/2009 at 8:23 PM

      Indeed. “Service top” seems like the perfect term for him.

      Must have been quite lonely.

  20. CDinDC
    04/27/2009 at 8:14 PM

    Looks like the owners of 2409 18th St, NW aren’t waiting around the grand opening of Eye Candy. The building is currently on Vantage Commercial Realty’s website.


    • Craig
      04/27/2009 at 9:36 PM

      great find. solid work. thanks.

  21. Bea
    04/27/2009 at 10:21 PM

    I couldn’t find an incorporation or LLC filing – doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, but if someone wanted to check, there might be a business license and/or tax license with the Department of Revenue. I’m not in DC so if it’s not online, I’m no help.

    Lance, when setting up your brother’s wedding website, I’m guessing you listed him as owner of the domain – but did you set yourself up as the administrative contact? Joe is listed as both the owner and the admin contact. As he does intellectual property for a living, he would be well versed in listing the real owner as the owner and himself as the admin contact, as that kind of thing happens regularly. It’s the same as filing trademark applications (a staple of IP law) – listing the “owner” is a critical element as it will be considered “void” if the incorrect name is listed and it can’t be changed after filing (unless it’s legally “assigned”). This stuff is burned into any trademark lawyer’s brain, so the idea that he might have inadvertently listed himself as owner is next to impossible.

    I would love to see the business license from Revenue if they got that far. All interesting posts about what the business might “really” be. The fact that they posted an address says that this was much more than a passing fancy – any fool can start an ‘online’ business, so why go to the trouble of announcing an opening at a storefront (and in a reasonably expensive neighborhood – not just some Mailboxes Etc.).

    Like many said, it is a big F U to Arent Fox to be doing this stuff. As a partner, he has to disclose financial interests in businesses annually for malpractice insurance purposes – did he expect to simply lie (Joe? Never!) or did he intend to list it as a sick thrill?

    So many questions . . .

  22. Lance
    04/28/2009 at 2:37 AM

    The thread I started above, that N.M. and DC were replying to, has gotten too far indented to allow for easy replying, so let me try to clarify some of what I meant down here.

    When N.M. says:

    But I think it might make things easier if I could give you a blanket assurance that I’m pretty conscious of what’s hypothesis and what is verifiable fact. If I may, I believe CD is also.

    All right. Yes, that’s fair. I do recognize that y’all can distinguish fact from hypothesis. I do also worry that it’s not always clear which is which in comments–sometimes the riffs on hypotheses seem to get taken up as if they’ve been established as true merely because they’re plausible, or compatible with the facts.

    To answer a few particulars, then…

    I do, however, put A LOT of weight on the information in the affidavit, particularly the statements of the EMTs; by contrast I believe you’ve said you’re more skeptical of the contents of the affadavit.

    Well, for one thing, we don’t have the actual statements of the EMTs; we have the prosecution’s report on the statements of the EMTs, and as has been established, it’s the prosecution’s task to spin the evidence in a particular direction. And in general, I think that the affidavit is one side’s take on what happened. Suppose that, instead of the police affidavit for Ward’s arrest, the primary account we had was a defense motion for dismissal. In that case, we’d have a very different description of all the same events; would you accept those at face value?

    I reject what I think is an artificial line some people draw between behavior in a person’s ’sex life’ and other areas of a person’s life – the old “just because he gets off by [crushing gerbils] doesn’t mean he’s a bad guy” thing. Yes, yes it does make you a bad guy.

    Do you mind if I remove the straw man here? No one said that crushing gerbils doesn’t make you a bad guy. Indeed, no one has been crushing gerbils. What I have said, and continue to say, is the following: just because someone gets off by [any given consensual sex act in which no one is harmed against their consent] doesn’t mean he’s a bad guy”. Harming gerbils: not OK. Whipping people who want to be whipped: perfectly fine. Do I, personally, want to be cut/whipped/etc.? Not really, no; but then again, there are a lot of things that people do privately that I have no personal desire to do.

    And not to be too blunt about it, but I’m really, really surprised and disappointed to see the gay community say things like that. (I don’t actually know whether N.M. in particular is gay; but again, just as a general community thing.) There’s no shortage of people who would replace “crushing gerbils” in N.M.’s statement with “having gay sex”. Look, murder is wrong; crushing gerbils is wrong; rape is wrong; nonconsensual activities of any sort are wrong. But gay sex, het sex, sex while tied up, or for pity’s sake sex while wearing a latex body suit and a Richard Nixon mask while “Achy Breaky Heart” is playing on a continuous loop–none of these things infringe on anyone else, and doing them doesn’t make you a bad person. (Well, maybe listening to “Achy Breaky Heart” at all makes you a bad person. But anyway.)

    I do certain consensual things with my wife (that are none of your business); doing them with someone unwilling would make me a bad person. Which is why I don’t. Doing things to Robert Wone, if he was unwilling, would make someone a bad person; but the fact that Joe, Dylan, and Vincent did these things to each other, when willing, (a) doesn’t make them bad people and (b) doesn’t mean that they would do them to unwilling people.

    Bea suggested:

    Michael Price might have been in the process of getting a bank loan or had an investor/partner other than his brother? A bank loan – really? As pointed out above, a few months after being charged with burglary and no known employment?

    I didn’t say he might have been. I said he might have been hoping to. I know that’s unreasonable; Joe might well have known that’s unreasonable. But if a friend of mine who I knew had no chance of getting a loan came to me and said, “Look I wanna get a business going, I’m gonna get a loan, for real, do me a favor and set up a website”–I would say, “Hey, sure, I’m glad to help you out however I can” and set up the website, knowing full well it wouldn’t go anywhere. (Actually, I’ve done something similar to that.) My point, again, is that Joe might have been doing his brother a favor, without actually putting any money into the “business” or expecting it to actually happen.

    • N.M.
      04/28/2009 at 12:43 PM

      Lance – did NOT mean to imply anything about you with the hypothetical example (gerbil) thing. In fact, I almost added “(not *you* specifically, Lance)” but thought it sounded too cheeky. I certainly was not trying to insinuate that would are on the other side of the dynamic I tried to illustrate. (Rather, I work in the repro and sexual health and rights field; the line between being appropriately and inappropriately judgmental is a persistent topic in my world – regardless of gay, straight, etc).

      As you say, there are plenty of people who gleefully slide down the slippery slope of equating gay sex with bestiality, etc. Plus there’s the Falwell anti- straight porn crowd. Its understandable to me why some people (gay, straight, omnisexual, what have you) take a reactive stance and treat all sexual behavior, without exception, as exempt from any and all moral judgment, and assume that if behavior is depicted in the context of pornography, it is necessarily consensual and thus ethically sound, and something one should be supportive of. I think this is a big mistake.

      I realize I’m being enormously general here, and I’m definitely not trying to imply anything about you personally – just letting you know a few of my personal assumptions so you’ll understand the context of my comments.

  23. 04/28/2009 at 2:45 AM

    “At thirty, Ward seemed to have all the right qualifications: A regular at Gold’s, The Sling, and The Hole in the Wall … The needle went into (his) scrotom … Yet the traffic for AnalBizz.com kept growing…. the video of (the Asian) had become a huge hit in cubicle culture, the internet explorations of people bored at work … ” (p. 281-287).

    “Freaky, huh? Ward whispered. “Fucked up ….?”

    For more information, contact http://www.somalit.com

    • 04/28/2009 at 2:55 AM

      Or perhaps, lots of other gay guys in their 30’s named “Ward” get off sticking needles into Asians, while being video taped on “AnalBizz”-like porn sites.

      • Lance
        04/28/2009 at 5:18 AM

        Why not give us the full context, John? Apparently, from skimming the book, “the Asian” is a sadist who’d brutally raped the main character, and it was that character–not Ward–who posted the video of the Asian being humiliated on the web. Are you trying to tell us that Robert Wone was secretly a sadist? That he’d raped one of the three roommates and this was revenge? What are you trying to tell us, anyway?

      • 04/28/2009 at 1:42 PM

        From “SoMa,” 2007, by Kemble Scott, a “pen name of a successful and influential journalist.”

        With office computers filled with porn, alt.com profile listing “participating in erotic photography,” digital and video cameras missing from the crime screen, plans to open an adult video store, etc. I believe there is a lot about the perp’s lives still circulating BDSM photo underground, even so far as to inspire a writer like “Kemble Scott” for a character or two. It would certainly be interesting to hear from “Kemble” how he was inspired to include a character named Ward in his final climactic BDSM scene inflicting pain on a young Asian male.

        • N.M.
          04/28/2009 at 2:11 PM

          Perhaps searching photos / video depicting the “tubing” fetish would yield results? Seems like it would be possible to do this to a recumbent subject.

          I really suspect we’re going to find that extreme porn culture plays a more than incidental role in this case.

          I’d be real money the investigators haven’t pursued these angles at all. Truly hope I’m wrong about that.

          • 04/29/2009 at 12:29 AM

            Perhaps Kemble Scott, aka Scott James, might have more of a stomach for such BDSM web porn research than you or I. Certainly, if he ever took claim to the $25,000 reward, his current and future book royalties would sky rocket.

            • Lance
              04/29/2009 at 12:36 AM

              You actually believe that Scott knows something about this case, don’t you. Have you written him to ask?

              • 04/29/2009 at 12:46 AM

                “Honestly. Editors, much as I’d love to preserve my scintillating writing in this and the previous comment for all the ages, please, feel free to delete all the stuff Grisham and I have posted since 2:45. It’s 100% irrelevant, off-topic, and…and I don’t even know what else.”

                A plea to delete your posts on this. Then you continue to post. Can the two of you Lances please get a room?!

                • Lance
                  04/29/2009 at 3:24 AM

                  You’re like a car crash, Grisham. I want you cleaned up and removed, but in the meantime, I can’t look away.

                  Why aren’t you actually answering the questions about what you posted? Such as: do you really think that this novel from San Francisco has some bearing on this case? Do you think that Robert Wone raped men, like the Asian in the book? Why did you post this?

    • Lance
      04/28/2009 at 3:04 AM

      Wait, I’m sorry. Are you the same John Grisham who just posted to say:

      It benefits many parties…to now raise lots of irrelevant silly little questions. Rather than to focus on vastly more important, situations and evidence.

      and also

      I wish you had shared your limerick with us. It likely would have been more insightful than much of the preceding discussion on this thread has been.


      So the person who’s objecting to all that petty, irrelevant discussion about, say, the Blackberry and its phone messages is now posting a few paragraphs from an erotica novel, written and set on the other side of the country, because it happens to have (a) a character named Ward and (b) an Asian?

      Way to keep on topic and informative, there.

  24. 04/28/2009 at 3:09 AM

    Wow Lance!! You really reacted so fast to quotations from … and did I even mention (where they were from) … an erotic novel?!

  25. 04/28/2009 at 3:10 AM

    And the other side of the country???

  26. 04/28/2009 at 3:18 AM

    For more information, contact http://www.somalit.com

    But likely, unfortunately, no longer.

  27. Lance
    04/28/2009 at 5:09 AM

    Um. Yes. I reacted “so fast”; you may note that I’d just posted something six minutes earlier, after all, so I was still reading the site. And yes, you gave us the link, which made it clear that it’s (a) an erotic novel and (b) set in, and written in, San Francisco, which, if I’m not mistaken, is pretty much the other side of the country from Washington, D.C. It’s hard to get more other-side-of-the-country without going to Alaska, in fact.

    Honestly. Editors, much as I’d love to preserve my scintillating writing in this and the previous comment for all the ages, please, feel free to delete all the stuff Grisham and I have posted since 2:45. It’s 100% irrelevant, off-topic, and…and I don’t even know what else.

  28. Bea
    04/28/2009 at 5:14 AM

    Lance, you pick and choose and take things out of context but for what purpose? You referenced my posts yet ignored the big picture (as you do with many other posters).

    As for mincing words about whether you said Michael was trying to get a bank loan or “hoping” to – implicit in your comment is that Michael presumed a bank loan was a viable option, and that he had any options other than going to his well-to-do brother (who’d taken care of the domain).

    You “conclude” that Joe’s establishing the domain MUST be the equivalent of the website you created for your brother’s wedding. Yet you ignored my question of whether it was “owned” by him or whether you were only the “admin contact”. I explained the “thinking” of IP lawyers and ownership, but you ignored that. Too, there is an obvious difference between setting up an online wedding gift registry and starting a porn business.

    I agree with you that consenting adults should be free to engage in whatever acts they wish, but you write circles around the underlying and glaring distinction: Mr. Wone did not consent to being stabbed to death.

    As for you being “really, really surprised and disappointed that the gay community could say things like that,” I didn’t realize that we, the gay community, could make collectively “say” anything.

    Are you (and your wife) speaking for the “straight community” in proclaiming surprise and disappointment?

    Me, I am able to speak only for myself, and it’s my opinion that you’re trying to obfuscate, interrupt and derail discussions. I realize that much of what is written is speculation, to some degree, but my impression is that most here are looking for new perspectives to gain insight as to Robert Wone’s murder. If you don’t want to read posts which include speculation, or seem inconsistent with your own viewpoint, then don’t read them.

    • Lance
      04/28/2009 at 5:50 AM

      OK, let me take this piece by piece, so that it’s clear that I’m not picking and choosing.

      As for mincing words about whether you said Michael was trying to get a bank loan or “hoping” to – implicit in your comment is that Michael presumed a bank loan was a viable option, and that he had any options other than going to his well-to-do brother (who’d taken care of the domain).

      You’re missing the point. My entire point was that Joe wasn’t necessarily bankrolling, or planning to bankroll, this business. I was saying that Michael might have even thought, or hoped, that Joe would, but that this doesn’t mean that Joe intended to have any stake whatsoever in the business, which was what CDinDC was suggesting. I’m wholly granting that Michael would (from what I’ve gathered about him) have been deluded to think he could get financing from a bank, or even perhaps from another business partner; and at the same time, he may well have had that delusion. But regardless of any of that, my original point was, and still is, that CDinDC’s claim that “Joe would have had to finance the whole shabang” is…well, let’s go with “opinion”.

      You “conclude” that Joe’s establishing the domain MUST be the equivalent of the website you created for your brother’s wedding.

      Wow. No. That’s pretty specifically not what I said. If you read my post, what I said was “It could be a trading of favors, or it could be just helping out your brother….The help here might be more involved; or it might be nothing more than simply registering the name.” In other words: twice, I very explicitly said “this is a possibility, not a necessity”; and twice, I very explicitly said “you’re right that it might have been something more than doing a favor”. That’s pretty much exactly the opposite of what you claim I said.

      What I did in that comment, as I’ve tried to do consistently, is to acknowledge that there are multiple interpretations of the facts, and not just my own.

      Yet you ignored my question of whether it was “owned” by him or whether you were only the “admin contact”. I explained the “thinking” of IP lawyers and ownership, but you ignored that. Too, there is an obvious difference between setting up an online wedding gift registry and starting a porn business.

      Yes, I suppose I did ignore that. It’s because I didn’t have anything in particular to say to it, in part because you were working from a misunderstanding of what I said, perhaps because what I said wasn’t clear. I didn’t actually register a domain for him; I helped him “set it up” only in the sense of writing the HTML and uploading it to the URL he already had set up. (Honestly, I don’t even recall at this point if it was “lancesbrotherswedding.com” or just “geocities.com/~lancesbrotherswedding”.) In truth, I know nothing whatsoever about IP and trademark law, so again, I didn’t really have anything useful to contribute there.

      I agree with you that consenting adults should be free to engage in whatever acts they wish, but you write circles around the underlying and glaring distinction: Mr. Wone did not consent to being stabbed to death.

      Right. And if they crossed that line, they should be punished to the full extent of the law. If I “wrote circles around” that fact, it’s because that wasn’t the fact under discussion. The fact under discussion was very specifically N.M.’s claims that engaging in certain consensual sex acts on its own makes you a bad person. N.M. expressed the idea that we could categorize people as “bad guys” solely on the basis of their consensual sexual behavior, and so I was writing about that, not about stabbing someone to death.

      As for you being “really, really surprised and disappointed that the gay community could say things like that,” I didn’t realize that we, the gay community, could make collectively “say” anything.

      Are you (and your wife) speaking for the “straight community” in proclaiming surprise and disappointment?

      Yes, absolutely we are.

      No, I mean, of course I’m not. I’m not even speaking for my wife, who rolls her eyes when I try to talk to her about the site because she finds the murder too disturbing.

      And I’ll apologize for attributing something to “the gay community”. What I was reacting to was any number of posts from a variety of people–if you like, I can go through the archives and collect links to them–who expressed the same sentiment as N.M., namely that, given the things these people engaged in consensually behind closed doors, they’re disgusting human trash. “Gay community” was too generalized a term for that, and I’ll retract it. What I meant, I suppose, was “the community on this blog, with its ties to the gay community”.

      Me, I am able to speak only for myself, and it’s my opinion that you’re trying to obfuscate, interrupt and derail discussions. I realize that much of what is written is speculation, to some degree, but my impression is that most here are looking for new perspectives to gain insight as to Robert Wone’s murder. If you don’t want to read posts which include speculation, or seem inconsistent with your own viewpoint, then don’t read them.

      I’m sorry you feel that way. It’s my opinion that I’m trying to clarify discussions and keep them on track when they threaten to derail into slander and wild speculation. I’m also not certain that I agree that people here are looking for “new perspectives”; with apologies to CDinDC, I’ll refer to a comment (see also his followup comment), in which he said “Considering I truly think they are guilty, uhhhh, yeah, I am looking for reasons to prove them guilty”. That’s not really looking for a new perspective; that’s looking for confirmation of an existing perspective. And again, apologies for singling out CDinDC on this; he simply put into words what seems to me to be a general feeling here.

      If nothing else, I very much thought that what I was doing, by discussing alternative ways to consider the evidence, was providing new perspectives. I’m sorry to hear that you aren’t interested in the perspectives I provide.

      • anon
        04/28/2009 at 8:32 AM

        Lance, I think your intentions are good. But dude, take your meds.

        • IKWDI
          04/28/2009 at 9:29 AM

          As much as Lance drives me crazy at times, I do appreciate his counterpoint on this blog. I do hope we don’t scare him away. His input is valuable.

          • CDinDC
            04/28/2009 at 9:44 AM

            I agree….when he posts something that has substance, it’s a thoughtful and relevant. I enjoy his input, but not the harping and badgering.

          • anon
            04/28/2009 at 10:32 AM


        • Dupont Dweller
          04/28/2009 at 9:36 AM


          I think you are missing the point about human trash. They are trash because, and only because they treated others like trash.
          In fact, to the extent that they trashed a life.

  29. CDinDC
    04/28/2009 at 9:41 AM

    Personally, I think way too much time is spent on hashing out opinions from fact from speculation from whatever Lance likes to jump on, which is usually not a response to the content of the post, but how the post was phrased. It diverts attention away from our original posts and the content of those posts gets lost in this mess. This is a website devoted to the DISCUSSION of a criminal case, not a english composition website.

    When Lance contributes thoughtful posts about the crux of the matter that’s great; but when he starts nit-picking the use of coulda woulda shoulda, well…………..I wish we all had that old AOL function “ignore.”

    So why don’t we all just ignore those moments and not digress to………this.

    :::pressing my ignore button…again:::

  30. Bea
    04/28/2009 at 12:44 PM

    All good ideas.

    Lance, I too like your insight and think the counterpoint is important. I get frustrated by the double standard that other posters are “speculating” when your comments (necessarily) employ the same techniques. I “get” that you love mini-arguments about trivia (erotic novels, word parsing) and I’ll follow the advice to try to ignore that stuff. Just consider trying not to get under others’ skin for sport.

    Not speaking for the gay community. 🙂

  31. Jack
    04/29/2009 at 1:24 AM

    Good grief, Eddie–My mother, who had quite a didactic streak, used to sit at night in my brother’s and my room, smoking a cigarette and telling us the story about the feathers falling from the pillow…

    One of the many values of this website has to do with the fact that people bring forth everything for scrutiny, and, with that I mind, I appreciate this information that “Bea,” a good sleuth, has brought forth. But all the speculating about the deep character of Joe Price, so useful in some places, seems to me to suggest only that one is so hungry for facts–what happened that night?– that one chews away at every little fact that comes along, even those that (like this one) highly speculative and not exceptionally illuminating.

    That said: This website does a great job.

  32. CDinDC
    04/29/2009 at 9:24 PM

    I happened to walk by 2409 18th this evening……in addition to the building looking a wee bit seedy (it’s 18th street in adams morgan, for heavens sake), there is a clothing boutique on “first” floor (above street level). The lower level has a defunct music store. The upper level has a rental sign in it. With an active license, that smut shop could still open!

  33. John Grisham
    06/28/2010 at 3:02 AM

    Concerning Eyecandy, the “registrant owns the rights to the url through June of 2010.”

    Has it been renewed?

    • John Grisham
      06/28/2010 at 3:16 AM

      Or has Jerry N. Clark renewed it already, under a different name?

    • susan
      10/10/2010 at 11:24 AM

      It looks like it has been renewed! On the domain tools page this is what is listed. I didn’t post the link here since the eds didn’t want the phone #, etc. listed. But the page still affiliates JP with AF.

      Domain Name: eyecandydvds.com
      Created on…………..: 2007-06-07
      Expires on…………..: 2011-06-07

      • Craig
        10/10/2010 at 1:50 PM

        Susan: Send the link along. It’s for the renewal?

        • susan
          10/10/2010 at 5:35 PM

          Hi Craig,

          This is what I was looking at:

          • AnnaZed
            10/10/2010 at 6:05 PM

            Astonishing, cheeky wouldn’t you say to renew that (?), and still with the @arentfax box?

            • susan
              10/10/2010 at 6:24 PM

              It’s odd since it still lists Swann Street. I wonder how the process works for extending domain ownership. I also wonder if anything is at that address now–the 18th Street address.

              • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                10/10/2010 at 6:45 PM

                I posted above (04/09) that a boutique was on the first floor, a defunct music store in the lower level, and a “for lease” sign was on the second floor. Google maps shows the boutique and “for lease” sign still there. However, google search of the address shows a nightclub called “Queen’s Crown” in the space.

                • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                  10/10/2010 at 6:51 PM

                  The building is also listed for sale by Long & Foster.

                  • susan
                    10/10/2010 at 8:33 PM

                    Thanks for that info., CD.

                    I think they would have/would have problems having a store like that on 18th St.

                    There’s already enough trouble there with kids at the bars on the weekends, etc. With a store like that, I could foresee some problems.

                    • Cara
                      10/11/2010 at 1:30 AM

                      I was at Club Heaven/Hell a few weeks ago on a warm night: you couldn’t walk on 18th St. for the humanity.
                      Anybody remember “The Original Fetish?”

            • Clio
              11/13/2011 at 3:37 PM

              Any news on this update? Have they given up on their entrepreneurial ambitions in reference to art films, if only in the District?

              This retreat might be a remarkable show of good judgment on behalf of the Brothers Price. Would even an online, retail porn biz fail today, given the ubiquity of amateur operators in that line of work?

              • Bea
                11/15/2011 at 6:45 PM

                Apparently Joe is no longer the owner. Not only has the page changed, the domain owner directory now shows (instead of Joseph Price on Swann St):

                Registrar Name….: Register.com
                Registrar Whois…: whois.register.com
                Registrar Homepage: http://www.register.com

                Domain Name: eyecandydvds.com
                Created on…………..: 2007-06-07
                Expires on…………..: 2012-06-07

                Administrative Contact:
                Domain Discreet
                ATTN: eyecandydvds.com
                Rua Dr. Brito Camara, n 20, 1
                Funchal, Madeira 9000-039
                Phone: 1-902-7495331
                Email: 913a7f320a1612334772e1c342a51ad1@domaindiscreet.com

                Technical Contact:
                Domain Discreet
                ATTN: eyecandydvds.com
                Rua Dr. Brito Camara, n 20, 1
                Funchal, Madeira 9000-039
                Phone: 1-902-7495331

                It would seem that he’s got more time to run such a business these days . . .

                • AnnaZed
                  11/15/2011 at 7:06 PM

                  I think that means that he sold the domain and the domain name to someone, someone in Portugal.

                  • Bea
                    11/16/2011 at 12:27 PM

                    Could be. Also possible that he simply failed to timely renew and the domain went to the next in line (application-wise) as there are services available for picking up expired domains. Not that the new company seems to be using it. Methinks Joe should elaborate on the family brand – say, PureEnergyPorn.com?

                    • CDinDC
                      11/16/2011 at 2:46 PM

                      Bea, do tell about the pureenergy info. I’m at work. Can’t look it up!

                    • Bea
                      11/16/2011 at 5:28 PM

                      CD, I’ve missed you! I was only being snide in relation to Dylan’s new massage parlor in Miami – do web search for “Dylan Ward” and “miami” “massage.” His creepy face will be staring back at you.

                    • Gloria
                      11/18/2011 at 12:35 PM

                      Hmmm, why no reply option for the following two posts? Replying to Bea re finding Dylan’s website: it’s http://www.pure-energy-massage.com

  34. 10/10/2010 at 2:55 AM

    I understand that but where does it take us?

    Earth first! (We’ll strip-mine the other planets later). 🙂

Comments are closed.