Washington Whispers*

Who Knew What…

To follow up on recent comments to the nature of Joe and Dylan’s relationship, and as important, who knew what about the exact nature of it, we look again at language from the original affidavit and from an earlier post here.

“The Relationship” portion of the affidavit starts on page 10. “Several witnesses familiar with Price, Zaborsky and Ward…” is the only indication we have of those sources.  Those witnesses could in fact be from Joe Price’s orbit: His brother Michael, his partner Louis, housemate Sarah or for all we know, one of the defendants themselves.  Victor perhaps?  It’s certainly possible.

The document goes on to state the “personal, intimate relationship” that Joe and Victor had as domestic partners.  Then this:

“Ward had a bedroom of his own… and was in a personal, intimate relationship with Price… a dominant-submissive sexual relationship with Ward in the dominant role and Price in the submissive role, as related by witnesses and as captured in multiple photographs of Price recovered from his computer.”

Were there witnesses outside the orbit?  It’s entirely possible hook up partners of Joe’s were ID’d by forensics from his home and work computers, assuming that communications would’ve been captured either as email traffic or found on the buddy lists of his social networking / sex sites.

But getting back to an earlier comment from this week, what was known to be the extent of Joe and Dylan’s relationship among the roommates’ wider and more public social circle?

We go back to an oft-maligned March post that found us at a cocktail party with a number of guys who traveled in the threesome’s social (not sexual) circle, one in which we occasionally overlap with but don’t claim as our own.

Our observations were kept deliberately brief and ambiguous to maintain confidentiality with those we spoke to.  I offered this:

Craig: When asked about his first reaction to the murder, one guest said he was convinced an intruder broke into 1509 and killed Wone. Asked when his opinion began to change, he said it was an evolution over the years with his trust slowly eroding, and the October indictment papers sealed it.

This spoke to those who knew the defendants well and reflexively gave the defendants the benefit of the doubt.  Why the hell not?

Others at the party offered what became more of a composite picture of  Joe and Dylan:  While the S&M nature of the relationship wasn’t fully known, there were other signs that may have spoken to a more intimate nature.  To paraphrase:

That Joe Price has it all. Young, good looking, a great (and handsome) partner in Victor, an accomplished attorney pulling in big bucks,  a million dollar property on Swann, rental properties, a gay father, a high profile position in the community as an activist on behalf of our causes.  On top of all that, the lucky SOB (and maybe Victor too) has a cute blond boy(Dylan) to play with.

Income, a partner, security, position, boy toy.  Any gay man’s dream life, right?

But it appears very few knew the more private side of Joe and Dylan.

-Craig

*Apologies and/or a hat tip to Paul Bedard.

113 comments for “Washington Whispers*

  1. Bea
    05/01/2009 at 1:58 PM

    I think you’re right: few knew except those “involved” in the games, Michael, Louis, etc. I’ll bet Dylan was “their roommate” to most. I think to recent posts about the dynamics and psychological weight of that on Dylan and on Victor.

    And I keep thinking of the lesbian couple and the children, and I trembled when I read this excerpt in this context:

    Same-Sex Parent: ‘We’re Pretty Typical’
    http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Story?id=131670&page=2
    ***
    Father Figures
    Perhaps unlike some lesbian couples who use sperm from a fertility clinic, she says her son has a father figure. Alec’s biological father via artificial insemination is Joe Price, a gay man.

    “Through mutual friends, I met Kim and Catherine, and they were interested in having a baby,” Price says.

    Having a biological connection to their kids was important to Musheno and Alston, and they wanted to find the right father.

    “I preferred that it would be someone that we knew,” Musheno says, “because when you go to a sperm bank, you don’t really know what you’re getting.”

    Last month, Musheno became a mother again to another son, Carter. This time, Price’s partner, Victor Zaborsky, is the biological father.
    Price disagrees with those who say an arrangement like his could be bad for children.

    “I can’t see how having that many people loving one child, how he could ever turn out in anyway other than wonderful,” Price says.
    ***

    It galls me that these women and two children were so badly duped – no, Joe, it couldn’t be bad for the children. Talk about “not knowing what you’re getting”.

    Back in 2004, when this and the USA Today article ran, I wonder if Joe was still had himself in check. When did Dylan move into the Capitol Hill place?

    • SheKnowsSomething
      05/01/2009 at 2:59 PM

      Bea,

      I tend to think that Dylan entered the picture prior to 2003. When I met the “trouple”, as Sarah Morgan refers to them, they were already living on Swann Street and that was in late 2004 or early 2005.

      • Craig
        05/01/2009 at 3:43 PM

        Page 10 of the affidavit quotes Victor saying, “Dylan’s been with us for about four years.”
        He did live on Constitution Avenue with Joe and Victor as far as we can tell. How he entered the scene we do not know. -Craig

  2. Spike
    05/01/2009 at 2:04 PM

    I always find it interesting when people consider the leather/s+m scene so mysterious and hard to get a handle on. I write this as somebody who travelled in those circles a good deal in the late-’80s and early-’90s.

    Basically, it’s just theater. Dress up and role play. The pain aspect is just one small part of it and even then usually a part of sex play when both parties are aroused. Getting your butt spanked feels good when you’re turned on. It releases endorphins.

    Now sure there are definitely more hardcore players who push the envelope and their bodies in their s+m play. But one aspect that never changes is the fact that it is theater and role play.

    Most tops in consensual hardcore s+m relationships will admit that it’s the bottom who runs the show. The bottom sets the limits, has the safe words, basically is the traffic cop who gives the signals that tells the top how fast and in what direction to drive.

    That’s why bottoming is such a perfect position for people who are bosses and high achievers by day. They get the illusion of not being in control, of surrendering power to somebody else and pretending they aren’t running the show for once in their lives.

    Sometimes I think there’s too much confusion on this site about what the s+m stuff could possibly mean.

    • Bea
      05/01/2009 at 2:06 PM

      Very helpful.

    • CDinDC
      05/01/2009 at 2:21 PM

      Spike, with all due respect, your personal experiences with S&M cannot speak for everyone. You can look on the internet any day of the week and see EXTREME S&M. Extreme. Not a little butt-spanking. Not dressing up as a cop with a baton. Not playing pony with a butt plug that looks like a horse’s tail. Extreme, hard-core, beyond the limits of what most people could ever imagine S&M.

      How do you, I or anyone else on this board know how deeply into the S&M psyche Joe Price really went?? How do any of us know what fantasies Joe Price had about pain and torture. Not only his own, but someone else’s?

      For many people it IS theater. For many people it is not. And newspapers around the world give tale of the horrors these people bestow on others.

      S&M CAN go beyond the realm you experienced. And may well have gone beyond that realm in the case of Robert Wone.

      • TK
        05/01/2009 at 3:28 PM

        I’m with you CDinDC, I think what Spike is talking about is some role-playing fun and dress-up (for instance I dated a Korean guy who wanted to be a captured Tal-shiar… if you don’t know what that is, just as well) as opposed to real pain… and cutting (shudder) and electrodes and stuff like that. That’s not a little spanking play or handcuffs; clearly there are a lot of levels of S&M. But Spike I appreciate the top/bottom insights; it makes a lot of sense in a way.

        • CDinDC
          05/01/2009 at 4:10 PM

          TK, I understand exactly what Spike is saying. In fact, I confirmed it in my first paragraph. There’s a lot of “play” in S&M.

          And I also understand his defense of the the whole scene, because S&M DOES get a very bad reputation when it comes to the handful of people out there that don’t know how to control themselves.

  3. CDinDC
    05/01/2009 at 2:24 PM

    A gay father??

    • Nelly
      05/01/2009 at 7:13 PM

      As in, Joe was a gay father.

  4. Spike
    05/01/2009 at 2:25 PM

    Glad you find it helpful, Bea. To me it would make perfect sense that somebody who seems to be a bit of a milquetoast like Dylan could be a top behind closed doors. It’s an agreed upon role with carefully arranged and staged scenarios with a willing an eager bottom.

    Which brings me to another commonly agreed upon truism in the s+m scene, which is that to be a truly good top you have to have been a truly good bottom first. In the old days of the ’60s and ’70s (he said with tongue a bit in cheek) there was really a sort of mentoring process in the leather community where people showed each other the ropes (literally and figuratively) in the s+m scene. You found out how things felt by feeling them. You learned how to give a bottom sensations and thrills by first experiencing those sensations and thrills by being “an apprentice” bottom first.

  5. 05/01/2009 at 2:57 PM

    And some drugs and psychotic conditions encourage bottoms to top, and tops to bottom. Go figure!

  6. Spike
    05/01/2009 at 3:26 PM

    Listen, I’m not making excuses. I’m just saying how much of s+m is showbiz and I am certainly not saying my experience is typical. That’s why I mentioned the people who push their bodies and the limits further. I also would like to counterbalance such things as when I have heard people describe somebody getting involved in something as simple and cathartic as a flogging scene as being “extreme” and “disgusting.” So I’m just throwing this stuff in to tease some of these issues out.

    I do maintain that there are all sorts of people attracted to all sorts of scenes for all sorts of reasons, including sociopaths and psychopaths in the s+m world.

    I don’t really agree with CD’s comment that “newspapers around the world give tale of the horrors these people bestow on others.” Psychopaths and sociopaths? Sure. But s+m scenesters? That’s an overstatement.

    Incidentally, I still think this was a sex scene (consensual or none) gone horribly wrong as a result of a drug overdose. Whoever killed Robert, in my opinion, did so thinking that he was already dead from a drug OD and didn’t want the taint of a drug OD in his house having an impact on his career. The semen in the ass and the stab wounds were meant to be a distraction from what really went wrong.

    • CDinDC
      05/01/2009 at 4:07 PM

      Geez, Spike. Relax…I’m not attacking the whole of the S&M scene. I’ve known people who participated in the scene and, yes, they are like anybody else. I’ve seen it with my own eyes. Clubs and private “dungeons”. And much of what you say is exactly right. It’s consensual, controlled play. It might hurt like the dickens for some people, but nobody is going out of bounds with anybody that doesn’t want it.

      I’m just saying that there are people that go beyond what you or anyone else has ever experienced, and yes, they call it S&M. You can look it up on the internet for yourself….men and women suspended by body parts. Hundreds of pins sticking out of their breasts, penises and testicles. A scrotum NAILED to a board. THIS is not your average S&M. This is EXTREME S&M.

      But whether consensual or not, torturing someone for pleasure is sadism. And it doesn’t mean there is a willing masocist. There ARE sadists that are sick and twisted.

      • Spike
        05/01/2009 at 4:23 PM

        I’m not unrelaxed CD. I guess it’s an instance of text on a screen not capturing emotions, of which mine are not especially heightened.

        Fact is, I’ve been around and experienced some of what you are writing about in your ALL CAPS and I find it good to actually have a definition of what you are meaning when you toss that phrase EXTREME S&M around.

        Because, you know, people do have a tendency to draw lines in the sand beyond which the behavior is criticized for being extreme and disgusting or what not. Usually it’s just to show that the behavior they engage in or enjoy has literally not crossed that line.

        I don’t think consensually engaging in any of the things you’ve listed is symbolic of anything other than enjoying extreme sex the way many people enjoy extreme sports like jumping off a mountain with nothing but a parachute and a snowboard attached to them. It may not be my scene, but when sex is involved it’s easy to label and dismiss or label and overstate it’s significance.

        I think it’s important for us to acknowledge that language can be loaded and one person’s definition of a phrase does not necessarily match up with another person’s use of it. Sometimes, people exploit this phenomenon like when newscasters sensationalistically talk about somebody being arrested for “sodomizing” a teenager when they’re actually talking about “blowing” said teenager. There are reasons, sometimes conscious, sometimes less so, for choosing inflammatory words and phrases.

        My point is the more we can be clear about what we’re talking about, and own up to our own biases and judgements inherent in these discussions, the clearer and perhaps more insightful the conversations can be.

        • CDinDC
          05/01/2009 at 4:30 PM

          not unrelaxed. Good. LOL We don’t want Spike unrelaxed!

          • Spike
            05/01/2009 at 4:37 PM

            True that, as the young people of today say.

  7. Anon. in Arlington
    05/01/2009 at 4:12 PM

    I am with Spike in that the murder was not premeditated, but the reaction of a freak-out that someone had induced an overdose. If the stabbing was premeditated, there were far more knives to be had in the city than the one from Dylan’s stash.

    Readers helped me to understand why someone with a culinary degree might keep a set of knives in their bedroom. Unless there are cutting play marks on any of the three, I have a strong feeling that cutting and knife play was not part of their routine, and that the knife set was just there for storage. By this point, SOMEONE would have come forward to indicate that they participated in consensual knife play with any of the players. Even if there is a code of silence (boy do I hate “don’t snitch”) it still seems that even in a world of cutting being a norm, the participants would see this is an extreme…almost similar to a circus animal having to be put down after it tastes blood for the first time. One would think that participants would look out for one another and warn against extremism. It also seems like a hefty leap from cutting to penetrating.

    And why use a weapon that could be traced so quickly? If it were premeditated, then why not throw away the three item (two knives and a fork) storage box which would be sure to raise an immediate red flag that something was missing or askew. A professional carving set outside of a protective box may appear odd, but it would not set the alarm off as much as the empty indentation left by the missing knife. This seems too big of an error for premeditation. Even if there was a consideration for moving the body to a different location, disposing of the box (be it wood, metal, or plastic) would removing at least one tie to 1509 Swann.

    In addition to this, I strongly suspect that Joe would have thought he could talk Robert out of any sexual assault charges that Robert may have brought against Dylan. (And I think Dylan acted alone but Joe had to help with the cleanup and intruder story creation. Victor, the poor thing, never deserved any of this.)

    • 05/01/2009 at 4:39 PM

      Anon, I think you failing to factor in on how some drugs likely caused the perps to be more proficient in some activities (e.g. rapid and immaculate organizing and cleaning) and completely oblivious to other details (e.g. remove Dylan’s entire knife set from the crime scene; ensure there is sufficient blood on the bed where you place Robert’s body, etc.).

      • Anon. in Arlington
        05/01/2009 at 4:43 PM

        But if they were hypersensitive to those things, then why did they not dispose of the box in some better manner than placing it back into Dylan’s room? Why this oversite? That is why I argue it was not premeditated.

        • 05/01/2009 at 4:50 PM

          That is, some drugs are known to heighten one’s focus/proficiency on some considerations, and render one oblivious to other matters.

        • CDinDC
          05/01/2009 at 5:16 PM

          Panic = sloppy.

  8. CDinDC
    05/01/2009 at 4:20 PM

    Anon says: “Readers helped me to understand why someone with a culinary degree might keep a set of knives in their bedroom.”

    A chefs cutlery is sacred. A paring knife can cost as much as $50-100. There are knifes that cost in the range of $200. A chef wouldn’t want their expensive cutlery to mingle in with the household stuff. Not to mention, professional cutlery could cut your finger to the bone, it’s so sharp.

    I remember reading the brand in the affidavit……not a super duper brand. But he may have really liked them, nonetheless.

    • Anon. in Arlington
      05/01/2009 at 4:30 PM

      But you must admit that no matter the cost of said set, you would want to distance yourself as far as possible from any connection to the weapon if it were premeditated….

      • CDinDC
        05/01/2009 at 4:31 PM

        indeed. they presumably got rid of the knife. why not the whole damn set?

        • Anon. in Arlington
          05/01/2009 at 4:45 PM

          I know exactly how some poster most likely will reply to that question:”trophy”. But I am not a fan of that theory.

          • 05/01/2009 at 8:48 PM

            i will reply time line. there was only so much time; anf do much to be done. it appears they were good – not perfect. panic = sloppy is the best explanation here. many details addressed; some went unattended.

            WE NEED THE INTERVIEW NOTES!!!!

        • KM
          05/01/2009 at 11:14 PM

          CD, I think they expected the planted kitchen knife to be accepted as the murder weapon. If they had thought it wouldn’t be; and that the house would be searched; and Dylan’s set to be found; and followed up by contacting the manufacturer to determine the missing knife’s dimensions – they would have tossed the whole box immediately.

          Does anyone know if Dylan has offered an explanation as to the whereabouts of the missing knife? Since culinary knives appear to be prized, he might more readily recall to whom he loaned it, or when he lost it.

          • CDinDC
            05/01/2009 at 11:19 PM

            Absolutely, KM….of course, they weren’t in tune enough (for whatever reasons) to realize the substitute knife was too long.

            • KM
              05/01/2009 at 11:45 PM

              And you know, CD, it wasn’t even necesssarily that the kitchen knife was too long. IIRC, if they just hadn’t smeared the blood to the top of the blade, which exceeded the depth of the wounds, they might have gotten away with it.

              They also made a mistake in getting fibers from the towel onto the knife, though. And in not planting fibers from the t-shirt Robert was wearing that the knife would have had to go through. Many mistakes.

              P.S. For all the ragging on the cops, I always thought the detective work they did on the knife was top rate.

  9. CDinDC
    05/01/2009 at 4:22 PM

    That just reminds me……..someone mentioned today that Robert’s wounds were very clean. Makes sense if Robert was stabbed with a piece of professional cutlery. Sharp as sharp can be.

  10. Anon. in Arlington
    05/01/2009 at 4:41 PM

    Sorry to be off topic from the post for today, but this is a statement from the affidavit (p. 10) is rich: “Price volunteered that the police might not fine the ‘real killer’s’ DNA on the knife because the ‘real killer’ might have been ‘wearing a glove.’”

    Interesting… he was telling the police how to do their job. (Please, no snide comments about or men in blue. Just think in the context in which Joe was offering this information.). Also – why was the killer wearing “a” glove and not “gloves”?

    And a question: Anyone recall who called Mrs. Wone to tell her to go to GW?

    • Anon. in Arlington
      05/01/2009 at 5:33 PM

      oops – typo – “find” not “fine the real killer’s DNA”

    • Craig
      05/01/2009 at 5:46 PM

      Right you are on the glove. Keep your powder dry on that because next week we’ll probably be picking apart Joe’s statements from the interrogation. –Craig

      • CDinDC
        05/01/2009 at 5:57 PM

        Another inconsistency you can look into is that under “Delayed Reporting”, Price and Zaborsky heard a series of grunts….then left their bedroom and went to the second floor…directly into the room Robert was in. “Price and Zaborsky also indicated that it was at that time that they saw Ward emerge from his second-floor bedroom for the first time.”

        In Zaborsky’s Statement, “he first saw Ward when Zaborsky “came down the second time when I was on the phone” with the 9-1-1 operator.”

        so which is it Victor? Did you see Dylan for the first time when you went to Robert the first time, or did you see Dylan for the first time when you came back down from calling 911??

        Wee bit of a discrepancy there.

        • Anon. in Arlington
          05/01/2009 at 6:05 PM

          And… did you find your guest room door open, or closed? Why did you assume it came from the guest room and not Dylan’s room? Did you think the grunts came from below your room or did the noise travel up the stairwell?

      • Lance
        05/02/2009 at 1:31 AM

        I bet there’s no point in my asking you not to, is there? I say that only because we don’t have Joe’s statements; we have short excerpts that amount to perhaps a minute and a half of speech, almost all of it without context, taken from hours of (presumably) recorded questioning. Moreover, we have those bits of Joe’s statements that the prosecution decided to pick out, and none of those bits that they wanted to gloss over.

        You know that I’m all in favor of examining the evidence; but I fear that we’re not even going to be like the fabled blind man touching the trunk of the elephant and thinking it’s a rope, but rather a blind man who’s been handed a picture of an elephant drawn on dried elephant hide.

    • David
      05/01/2009 at 6:58 PM

      Anon in Arl.

      Joe called Mrs. Wone to tell her about the intruder, and to head to George Washington.

      David, ed.

  11. Anon. in Arlington
    05/01/2009 at 4:41 PM

    Sorry to be off topic from the post for today, but this is a statement from the affidavit (p. 10) is rich: “Price volunteered that the police might not fine the ‘real killer’s’ DNA on the knife because the ‘real killer’ might have been ‘wearing a glove.’”

    Interesting… he was telling the police how to do their job. (Please, no snide comments about or men in blue. Just think in the context in which Joe was offering this information.). Also – why was the killer wearing “a” glove and not “gloves”?

    And a question: Anyone recall who called Mrs. Wone to tell her to go to GW?

    • CDinDC
      05/01/2009 at 5:21 PM

      Sorry to be off-topic and reply (LOL), but since you brought it up…….

      something he also said was that they might find his fingerprints on the knife.

      Of course they will Joe. You would think a knife from a kitchen set would, of course, have his fingerprints on it. And Dylan’s. And Victor’s.

      So, maybe in his panic, he didn’t think of the obviousness ofhis fingerprints, and felt the need to cover his tracks.

      You blew it Joe.

    • Anon. in Arlington
      05/01/2009 at 5:33 PM

      oops – typo – “find” not “fine the real killer’s DNA”

    • Craig
      05/01/2009 at 5:46 PM

      Right you are on the glove. Keep your powder dry on that because next week we’ll probably be picking apart Joe’s statements from the interrogation. –Craig

      • CDinDC
        05/01/2009 at 5:57 PM

        Another inconsistency you can look into is that under “Delayed Reporting”, Price and Zaborsky heard a series of grunts….then left their bedroom and went to the second floor…directly into the room Robert was in. “Price and Zaborsky also indicated that it was at that time that they saw Ward emerge from his second-floor bedroom for the first time.”

        In Zaborsky’s Statement, “he first saw Ward when Zaborsky “came down the second time when I was on the phone” with the 9-1-1 operator.”

        so which is it Victor? Did you see Dylan for the first time when you went to Robert the first time, or did you see Dylan for the first time when you came back down from calling 911??

        Wee bit of a discrepancy there.

        • Anon. in Arlington
          05/01/2009 at 6:05 PM

          And… did you find your guest room door open, or closed? Why did you assume it came from the guest room and not Dylan’s room? Did you think the grunts came from below your room or did the noise travel up the stairwell?

      • Anon. in Arlington
        05/01/2009 at 6:19 PM

        oh – okay…sssshhhh 🙂 I will be good until then. That said, I just re-read Victor’s statement and it conflicts with him bouncing between the first and second floors. For now, let’s focus on what the “real” relationship was between J and D.

        Joe seemed very concerned about Dylan’s situation, but did he express concern about Victor? It is not reflected in the affidavit.

        Victor claimed that they were moving toward an “equal” three-way partnership (p. 11).

        It also notes that they had all been together for about four years (p. 10) bringing us to ca. 2002. So how soon did the 3-way relationship take off? Did sex start before or after Dylan moved in as a tenant at the Capital Hill residence? Who took the first test spin with Dylan – was that all equal to begin with but only a stronger bond developed between Joe and Dylan?

        Always more questions than answers.

        • Anon. in Arlington
          05/01/2009 at 6:20 PM

          Situation = the questioning taking place on 3 August.

      • Lance
        05/02/2009 at 1:31 AM

        I bet there’s no point in my asking you not to, is there? I say that only because we don’t have Joe’s statements; we have short excerpts that amount to perhaps a minute and a half of speech, almost all of it without context, taken from hours of (presumably) recorded questioning. Moreover, we have those bits of Joe’s statements that the prosecution decided to pick out, and none of those bits that they wanted to gloss over.

        You know that I’m all in favor of examining the evidence; but I fear that we’re not even going to be like the fabled blind man touching the trunk of the elephant and thinking it’s a rope, but rather a blind man who’s been handed a picture of an elephant drawn on dried elephant hide.

    • David
      05/01/2009 at 6:58 PM

      Anon in Arl.

      Joe called Mrs. Wone to tell her about the intruder, and to head to George Washington.

      David, ed.

      • Anon. in Arlington
        05/01/2009 at 8:48 PM

        Thanks David.

        And I assume this was done from Swann Street? All three had to stay on the scene and none were able to go to GW… correct?

        • Nelly
          05/01/2009 at 9:45 PM

          Yes. Since Victor had only asked for an ambulance (odd, as supposedly an ‘intruder’ had stabbed their friend), the police arrived after the EMTs did & interviewed the three in their home.

  12. Dupont Dweller
    05/01/2009 at 6:18 PM

    My sense of these three people was limited to certain feelings or impressions . I can honestly say that I would never have guessed the SM nature of their relationship. Unlike Guy and Lewis who used to live on 1500 S who used to introduce themselves at neighborhood parties thus: “Hi, this is Guy he’s my Master and I’m Lewis, I’m his slave.” (Lewis wore a chain with a little padlock too.) It is indicative of some of the improbabilities of that lifestyle, that those two actually won “Best Garden” in one of the local magazines (with pictures!) for the, reportedly, $50, ooo garden they put in. A lot of people were impressed, and rather nonchalant about their relationship. Many people joked that they bought the house because it had a carriage house in back which would be their “dungeon”. In fact I never heard any such reports and they were always very charming people. And the garden designer who put in their garden, wow! was he hot!

    PS I guess I did assume that Dylan was something of the boytoy, but not really because he always looked so sullen and disgruntled. Not the the perky boytoy stereotype at all..

    • 05/02/2009 at 8:13 AM

      must have been dylan’s struggles with his mental health; as documented by his “sub”, dylan suffered significatly from depression, and perhaps other mental illness?

    • CDinDC
      05/02/2009 at 10:56 AM

      Dylan seems like someone that could have been/be easily manipulated. A narcissistist dream.

  13. Dupont Dweller
    05/01/2009 at 6:18 PM

    My sense of these three people was limited to certain feelings or impressions . I can honestly say that I would never have guessed the SM nature of their relationship. Unlike Guy and Lewis who used to live on 1500 S who used to introduce themselves at neighborhood parties thus: “Hi, this is Guy he’s my Master and I’m Lewis, I’m his slave.” (Lewis wore a chain with a little padlock too.) It is indicative of some of the improbabilities of that lifestyle, that those two actually won “Best Garden” in one of the local magazines (with pictures!) for the, reportedly, $50, ooo garden they put in. A lot of people were impressed, and rather nonchalant about their relationship. Many people joked that they bought the house because it had a carriage house in back which would be their “dungeon”. In fact I never heard any such reports and they were always very charming people. And the garden designer who put in their garden, wow! was he hot!

    PS I guess I did assume that Dylan was something of the boytoy, but not really because he always looked so sullen and disgruntled. Not the the perky boytoy stereotype at all..

    • 05/02/2009 at 8:13 AM

      must have been dylan’s struggles with his mental health; as documented by his “sub”, dylan suffered significatly from depression, and perhaps other mental illness?

    • CDinDC
      05/02/2009 at 10:56 AM

      Dylan seems like someone that could have been/be easily manipulated. A narcissistist dream.

  14. Spike
    05/01/2009 at 6:51 PM

    This is my point, these things are not mutually exclusive or ineherently contradictory. Leather and dungeons, cotton shirt and $50K gardens. It’s all drag, it’s all theater. Sex games are not in and of themselves any sort of indicator about the nature of relationships any more than income and home values are indicators of one’s worth as a person.

    I think sometimes we get bogged down here with s&m means freaky and out of control when that might not be the case. Rape and murder however, inherently horrible.

  15. Spike
    05/01/2009 at 6:51 PM

    This is my point, these things are not mutually exclusive or ineherently contradictory. Leather and dungeons, cotton shirt and $50K gardens. It’s all drag, it’s all theater. Sex games are not in and of themselves any sort of indicator about the nature of relationships any more than income and home values are indicators of one’s worth as a person.

    I think sometimes we get bogged down here with s&m means freaky and out of control when that might not be the case. Rape and murder however, inherently horrible.

    • David
      05/01/2009 at 7:01 PM

      Well said, Spike, well said.

      David, ed.

      • CDinDC
        05/01/2009 at 9:48 PM

        It is in the legal documents that Robert Wone was possibily tortured. It seems like people are forgetting that when we speak of S&M. And the defendants are admitted S&M enthusiasts. It’s all very relevant.

        No one today has said that S&M is “freaky”…..in fact I’VE never said that at all.

        But I do believe there are people out there that go beyond where Spike has ever travelled.

        And Joe Price and/or Dylan Ward may be of this ilk.

        But if everyone wants to ignore that, then far be it from me to bring it up anymore.

    • Dupont Dweller
      05/01/2009 at 8:02 PM

      Just to buttress Spike’s point a bit. Lewis, of Guy and Lewis mentioned above, was very into Wagner. He was extremely knowledgeable about Wagner, and would travel around the country to see the Ring. Personally, I would consider having to sit through a Wagner opera real punishment!
      Though to emphasize, Lewis was very charming about it, and not pedantic.

    • Fascinating
      05/01/2009 at 8:10 PM

      I’m hearing you, Spike. It’s kind of a theme that I have been standing by since I started coming here — that it’s not exactly correct to assume that Dylan was the “freak” and a “perv” because he had S&M devices and explored that world. Sometimes it’s the “boring” people who have a freaky side.

      And not all S&M dudes are 100% S&M all the time. It’s like getting a craving for a rich dessert … “Hmm, I feel like getting a little freaky in bed tonight — electroejaculator anyone?”

      Now, we don’t know a lot of the “behind-the-scenes” details to Swann Street, so a few of us are spending some time imagining things — that might be right on, or might be way off.

      I don’t do drugs, but I’ve been to parties where they’re introduced to the play, and … it can get freaky. And people can break boundaries they may not have broken while sober. And the “theater” of the party can get quite dramatic.

      I often wonder if that’s what happened in 2006.

      Also: while we’re on the topic …

      I have been wondering lately how OPEN the relationship between the three was? For instance, with this Alt.com profile … were Joe and Dylan having *other* guys over for threesomes or foursomes? Are they “anonymous” hookups? Would any of them be called to testify?

      (Reveal: I’ve had hookups where I couldn’t tell you whose house I was in — although I *know* I’ve never been to Swann Street, LOL).

      I think that would be interesting to know. Were there other regular playmates that may be called during a trial to testify?

      • Miami Shores Maven
        05/02/2009 at 8:58 AM

        I’m surprised no one in this conversation has brought up all the many S&M vignettes featured on HBO Real Sex. It all seems rather innocuous and safe, just like Miami Shores itself where they bought their house. If we take HBO Real Sex as an indication of popular attitudes towards S&M, then it is rather inane, and I must add boring. But clearly in this case something went horribly wrong.

        • Lance
          05/02/2009 at 4:11 PM

          If we take HBO Real Sex as an indication, from what I’ve seen of it, sex is rather inane and boring….

    • CDinDC
      05/01/2009 at 9:36 PM

      Spike says: “bogged down……s&m means freaky”…….

      Spike, do you honestly think that’s what I’m saying?

  16. Lance
    05/02/2009 at 1:49 AM

    Thank you, Spike, for spelling out in even more detail much of what I’ve been trying to say for a while now: that someone’s interest in S&M is a fact about a hobby they engage in, not a fact about whether they’re inherently evil people.

    I know CDinDC doesn’t want us to forget that (apparently) something akin to “EXTREME” consensual S&M was done to Wone. And he has a point, up to a point. If Dylan were a grandmaster in chess and Wone had been choked to death with a bishop from a chess set, we’d want to look into it; not because chess players are inclined to murder, but only because something from Dylan’s private life would have been used in a murder. If Joe had a PhD in astrophysics and Wone had been bludgeoned with a telescope…you get the idea.

    But again, I think that point only goes so far, i.e. as far as “instruments from their hobby was (or, perhaps, ‘appears to have been’) used in the crime”. It’s very easy to confuse that with “the housemates engaged in violent fantasies and therefore would have enacted one on Robert”–that is, S&M enthusiasts (even the “EXTREME” ones) don’t habitually kill people with their equipment any more than chess enthusiasts do.

    It is, as I say, a line that’s easy to cross, and I think it’s gotten crossed here quite often (not necessarily by CDinDC). For instance, a few days ago Ex Swann Dude said:

    I call them human trash because they lived their lives like narcissistic, self-absorbed human trash long before the murder. The murder is just the end of a long road of intentional moral decline.

    I asked him what he was referring to, exactly. He hasn’t answered, for whatever reason, but allow me to speculate–since people so often ask me to do so. The major thing that we seem to know about Price, Ward, and Zaborsky independent of the murder is their interest in S&M. (We’ve also got a handful of other things like “sperm donor to a lesbian couple”, which I’m going to guess ESD doesn’t consider “moral decline”.) So since the primary fact we have to judge their characters is the interest in S&M, my speculation is that ESD was judging them to be “human filth” based on that fact. That’s what Spike is demonstrating to be false; if I’m right about my speculation, that would be the crossing of the line from CDinDC’s relevant point.

    • Spike
      05/02/2009 at 2:24 AM

      I also asked for an explanation that day of “intentional moral decline” line along with giving my own reasons for thinking that’s generally a contradiction in terms. I don’t recall one ever surfacing.

      I too am leery of “reports” that Wone might have been “tortured” for the exact same reasons I am so when the somebody in the media quotes a police report saying a man “sodomized” somebody when we don’t know if that means, “anally raped” or “performed oral sex upon.” Those ambiguous phrases are often chosen deliberately for the inflammatory images they bring to mind in the hopes of getting outraged responses toward the accused.

      Let me restate that ANYTHING that happened to Wone that was not consensual is flat out wrong, his murder evil through and through. I just don’t trust that the presence in the home of leather items and sex toys could have lead to the suggestion that Wone “may have been tortured.” Cops often become AWFULLY prissy when it comes to writing reports and including any details that might be salacious.

      CD, I wasn’t referring to you specifically. I think like in all communication, what’s interesting are the generative themes that surface over time and that clue us into the way we, as a group, are thinking. Specifically I was thinking of the “human filth” line as I began the discussion points.

    • CDinDC
      05/02/2009 at 10:53 AM

      Nice post, Lance.

      I only hope that all that read this realize I do NOT equate S&M with murderous violence. Quite the contrary.

      The S&M community I have been exposed to is probably the most responsible sexual community I’ve ever seen.

      Take the Black Rose organization, for instance. They spend more time teaching safe S&M practice as they do practicing it. There is a way to perform everything safely and they stress this at all times. They conduct seminars and “how to” sessions on everything from wax play, to bondage, to caning, to….you name it.

      And a dungeon master isn’t just a cute name of someone at their gatherings. He’s a monitor that intervenes upon learning of any unsafe behaviors.

      I respect this.

      I just believe there are people who go beyond and disrespect these limits. That’s all.

      • Delores Claiborne
        05/02/2009 at 12:41 PM

        All the people who are making bareback videos
        are a lot more murderous than those folks.

      • l.
        05/02/2009 at 12:46 PM

        How about people like Andrew Sullivan who used to go around parties bragging that he was barebacking everyone. That is worse than a lot of this stuff. That just proves straight media doesn’t care what goes on with the gay community because that silly queen is still making a fool of himself on TV all the time.

      • N.M.
        05/03/2009 at 2:49 AM

        I don’t understand where this line of discussion is going. If a person *advertises* that they enjoy torture, and someone is tortured and killed in that person’s house – these two things aren’t relevant? What does a person have to do – tattoo “I am a sexual sadist who gets off on watching helpless people suffer” on his own forehead? And what does any of this have to do with a nice, caring couple (whom I don’t know) who used to live on S?

        As for saying Robert wasn’t necessarily tortured – go back and read the affidavit. Multiple needle marks, restraints, partial suffocation, and forced ejaculation. That is torture. Unless, of course, you think Robert engaged in all this consensually – something for which there is not one shred of evidence, not one rumor, not one anecdote – nothing. There is nothing to suggest that this man had any interest in extreme practices. There’s not even a hint that he had any sexual interest in men, period.

        The notion that he consensually engaged in “extreme” sex that somehow “went wrong” is also belied by the reactions of the defendants. If you start out an evening enjoying consensual sex with a partner who is also a long time friend, and then you do something that accidentally kills your friend – or something you’re both doing kills him – I don’t care who you are or what drugs you are on, you freak out. Because you just accidentally killed your friend. While you were having sex. And if you come downstairs to find your husband has just accidentally killed his friend – ditto. You freak out. And even if, by some remote possibility, you manage to keep it together enough to concoct a cover story, get everyone on the same page, wash your friends body, stage his body, dispose of evidence, switch murder weapons, wash yourselves, etc, in a pretty small window of time – you will still be visibly shocked, upset, etc. when the ambulance arrives. Because what just happened is not what you thought would happen. It would be a shock.

        Instead, these guys were (relatively) calm. They knew what was happening and what would happen next. They knew where they were in the narrative. They were not panicking and freaking out the way one would over an accidental death (or, needless to say, the way you would if a stranger broke into your house and murdered your friend).

        So no – not consensual sex ‘gone awry.’ And if the sex was not consensual, then the needle marks, semen, suffocation contusions, were the result of rape.

        Honestly, this sort of talk mirrors so exactly what has been done to female rape victims for who knows how long – and what is still done to them today. If you are raped, you must have done something to put yourself in that position. Maybe you really wanted it. Maybe you agreed to have sex and things just went “awry.” Sure, even thought there’s not one shred of evidence that you ever participated in anything like this before in your life, how do we know your whole history isn’t a lie? Isn’t it just as possible this was consensual?

        Further, Spike, I am baffled by your comment about “sodomy.” Are you suggesting that anal rape is worse that forced oral sex, and therefore newscasters who use the term “sodomy” in place of “oral sex” are making a case out to be worse than it actually is (“sensationalizing” it)?

        By the way, CD, my comment is not directed specifically or only at you – I’m not saying you yourself said all of these things. I’m responding in a general way to several comments. Why the English language doesn’t have a word for the plural ‘you’ is something I’ll never understand.

        • Lance
          05/03/2009 at 5:30 AM

          I’m not going to try to cover everything NM has said (I hope no one thinks that means I’m picking and choosing!).

          If a person *advertises* that they enjoy torture, and someone is tortured and killed in that person’s house – these two things aren’t relevant?

          That’s pretty explicitly not what I said. If someone advertises that they enjoy chess, and someone is killed with a chess piece in that person’s house, those two things are relevant. To the same degree, the S&M is relevant in this case.

          But that statement, and the “I am a sexual sadist who gets off on watching helpless people suffer” comment, gloss over a central point about S&M enthusiasts: consensuality. A better way to put the above comment would be: “If a person *advertises* that they enjoy consensual torture, and someone is nonconsensually tortured and killed in that person’s house….” Yes, the sex lives of the defendants cannot be entirely ignored. But neither should they be taken as especially indicative of guilt.

          I’m not going to try to answer the rest of NM’s comment, except to say that I was not in any way implying that Wone consented to any sort of sexual activity. (If I were, though, I would hardly be the first one on this site to hypothesize that the murder was consensual-sex-gone-wrong.) My use of “apparently” and other similar hedges were in deference to Bernard Grimm, who last week was quoted as saying that the defense intended to question some of the autopsy findings, as well as criticizing the prosecution for sensationalizing the death with words like “torture”.

          Finally, since I’ve used the word “sensationalizing”, I should say something about the following, though I cannot speak for Spike…

          Further, Spike, I am baffled by your comment about “sodomy.” Are you suggesting that anal rape is worse that forced oral sex, and therefore newscasters who use the term “sodomy” in place of “oral sex” are making a case out to be worse than it actually is (”sensationalizing” it)?

          I think he meant–and if he didn’t, any agreement of mine with Spike should be taken to be agreement with the following understanding of his point–that the term “sodomy” covers both anal rape and consensual oral sex. Thus, when someone was arrested under a sodomy law (once upon a time), the media could report it as “sodomizing” regardless of what end of the spectrum the act fell into. (For comparison, see the “Paddleboro” case and how it was prosecuted.)

          His point, then, as I understand it, is that the media loves to use the strongest, most salacious term possible, regardless of whether it paints the most accurate picture in the minds of the viewers–and prosecuting attorneys know this and use it. So what I think he meant–and certainly what I meant in this case–is that the media’s and the prosecution’s use of the word “torture” should at this point still be taken with a grain of salt.

          • Spike
            05/03/2009 at 12:25 PM

            Yes Lance, that was the point I was trying to make. I know it’s completely out of the realm of most contemporary discussion to say this, but here goes. An adult forces anal sex on an underage teenager. The adult is arrested for rape and sodomy of a minor. A teenage altar boy (in a place where he has not reached legal age of consent) gets a blow job from a priest. He returns 47 times to receive 47 more blow jobs from a priest. The relationship is discovered and the priest is arrested for sodomy of a minor.

            Yes, I am suggesting there is a difference between those two experiences. I know that’s anathema.

            I also don’t want to be held up as a defender of a scene I travelled in until the early-’90s. I’m not. I’m just saying that so much of that scene is fantasy, theater and posturing that to take an element of fantasy and say that therefore means this was indicative of something much more nefarious is not ipso facto true.

            Also, I’m sorry I have to reiterate this again, but I never said I knew there to have been sexual consent on the part of Robert Wone. I’m just saying maybe there was and maybe there wasn’t. My thought is in either event something went way wrong.

            • CDinDC
              05/03/2009 at 1:37 PM

              Spike, you might need to come up with a better analogy……any way you look at the teenager analogy, anal/oral, consensual/non-consensual, it’s illegal and immoral. Period.

            • Kenspeckled Souckar
              05/03/2009 at 1:41 PM

              Spike, you are usually so thoughtful and not given to logical jumps. What happened with this post? Yuk. What in the world do altar boys have to do with this case? But using the parameters you have suggested, even there it does not make sense. Societal opprobrium has built against involving minors in sex for a simple reason. We have a much greater understanding of the psychological harm this can do to them.
              It is a complicated issue for sure. But we must distinguish between the anti-sex opprobrium of fundamentalists and the very real and valid consideration of psychological harm . The harm can clearly be seen by asking, apropos your
              example, why an altar boy would be going back to some lecherous old priest
              47 times in the first place? If we put it in the context of children his own age we can see that the answer can only have to do with some psychological pressure put on by the adult. In other words, what would be natural, and not given to the anti-sex rubric, is that such a young person would seek out another
              young person. But the lecherous priest
              uses both the power of his personal persuasion and the power of the anti-sex rubric to push the young person into a bizarre psychological space where
              he would consider having sex with some old lech in the first place.

              The relevance of all this for our case
              is to compare the possible psychological
              pressures. If we do that we see that there is almost no comparison. It is unlikely as hell that the SM enticements worked any magic on Robert Wone. There is no prior indication of it. If he were curious he would certainly have experimented in a much more anonymous environment than a housefull of friends. Certainly it also seems unlikely that an old college friend could exert a strong negative psychological pressure on Wone such that he would feel pressured into sex. I don’t think the anti-sex rubric would have had much force on Wone since he seems to have been a rather liberal guy. If not what would he be doing in a house with three gay guys in the first place?

              • Spike
                05/04/2009 at 12:43 AM

                KS, thanks for taking the time to respond.

                Funny, but I never said “lecherous old priest.” I never said “old priest.” You actually illustrated my point much better than I did with your response. You see how the mind fills in blanks, right? This is what I have been trying to say about the s+m and “extreme s+m” references all along. People use these words/phrases as if we all are in agreement with what they mean. When we’re not.

                Of course, I thought about making my example a 20 year old and his 17 year old boyfriend in a state where 18 is the age of consent. But I chose priest and altar boy as a construct that for many has just as strong a negative implication as “extreme s+m.”

                The short answer for why somebody goes back and gets his 47th blow job is: because it feels good.

                But if that priest, or that 20 year old boyfriend gets arrested for having sex with somebody before he reaches the age of consent, he can be charged with sodomy. So, you see, a phrase like “man arrested and charged with sodomy against a minor” calls to mind very different images than “college student arrested for blowing his high school aged boyfriend.”

                As long as we let our minds wander when we see phrases like “extreme s+m pornography” without clearly stating what that means, then we’re just a hop skip and a jump from to “intentional moral decline.”

                • CDinDC
                  05/04/2009 at 8:57 AM

                  Spike says: “Funny, but I never said “lecherous old priest.” I never said ‘old priest.'”

                  Funny, but I never said “extreme s+m pornography.”

              • Kenspeckled Souckar
                05/04/2009 at 11:17 AM

                Spike, as to the very specific issue of how the mind can fill in the blanks generally I agree with you. That accounts for why we have a judicial system structure the way it is –because people can make assumptions which are not true. But Spike, this kind of thinking in a general context is more problematic. It easily degenerates into a reductio ad absurdam, which I know is a pretty standard response but true.. The truth of this is seen in the simple fact that , per your example, the vast majority of
                priests committing such crimes are old by any measures compared to the children. Check out the statistics of SNAP. I think the idea that the kid is going back 47 times because he was enjoying it just wrong. You need to rethink. Having said that I do sort of agree that the cases of pairs quite close in age need to be treated differently, which is sort of your second point. But as I said , statistically, that has little to do with the priest cases.

                As to the SM matter I think you are right. Many others have been saying the same thing. It is not necessarily about this or that. It is theater for a lot of folks. Surely, being admixed with murder is far from most people’s
                involvement with it.

                • CDinDC
                  05/04/2009 at 11:36 AM

                  I have to chime in one last time on this and then I’m letting it go…..no one on this site, including me, has ever said that S&M is a PRETEXT for murder. Never ever.

                  This is absurd. The hyper-defense of S&M is a little ridiculous, in my opinion.

                  Hells bells, you can take the priesthood, for example, since Spike brought it up. Even those saintly creatures commit crime. Does one include or preclude the other? No.

                  Same with S&M, for pete’s sake.

        • CDinDC
          05/03/2009 at 11:13 AM

          Thanks NM.

          And at the risk of being lambasted again, one person cannot speak for the whole of a group. I said this once, and I’ll say it again, just because one person knows a group of people to be a certain way, doesn’t mean that ALL people in that group are THAT WAY (i.e, just because Spike has had the good fortune of associating himself with a group of fine, honorable S&M scenesters, as he calls them, it doesn’t mean that everyone in the group of S&M enthusiasts are fine and honorable.)

          You can take that point a spread it across any group of people. Gosh, I’ve had really good experiences with my stock broker. And because I’ve had good experience with MY stock broker, that makes all stock brokers fine and honorable?? Nooooo. It does not.

          S&M does not equate murder. No it doesn’t. But everybody knows there’s a bad apple in every bunch. And if anybody can refute that, please do so.

        • Mrs. Malaprops
          05/03/2009 at 11:23 AM

          That would be ya’ll.

  17. Bea
    05/02/2009 at 2:18 AM

    Lance, I’d really like to hear your thoughts on my post under “April Showers” (5:10 am). Though I suspect you think me a “line crosser” I am very curious as to your response. You were offline for a while with your real life, so I won’t belabor anything other than that particular post. Thanks.

  18. Bea
    05/02/2009 at 2:18 AM

    Lance, I’d really like to hear your thoughts on my post under “April Showers” (5:10 am). Though I suspect you think me a “line crosser” I am very curious as to your response. You were offline for a while with your real life, so I won’t belabor anything other than that particular post. Thanks.

  19. Anon. in Arlington
    05/02/2009 at 1:55 PM

    Back to the topic of yesterday’s posting: I woke up with a courious thought (well, it was one of many on a Saturday morning). Was Dylan living in the 2nd floor bedroom because he was intimately involved with Joe, or was it that he could not afford the going rental rate for the basement level apartment held by Sarah? How soon did Sarah move in after they moved into Swann?

    Americans tend to accumulate material “stuff” during their lifetime. Someone in their 30’s would have, among a professional cutlery set; photo albums; furniture (used in the basement apartment on Capital Hill); great books; drafts of books published and those in the works; the stupid notes from undergrad, grad, and massage therapy school that we just know we cannot part with because we will need them some day; etc. So how and why did Dylan cram all of his life into that very small room? Why not take the front room that appears larger? How often was the front room used as a “guest room” and office?

    I would not go so far as to think he was living there rent free. Someone reported that they had witnessed cleaning staff entering and exiting the house on a regular basis, so it appears Dylan was not cleaning (i.e. houseboy) to help cover rent.

    Just afternoon ponderings.

  20. Anon. in Arlington
    05/02/2009 at 1:55 PM

    Back to the topic of yesterday’s posting: I woke up with a courious thought (well, it was one of many on a Saturday morning). Was Dylan living in the 2nd floor bedroom because he was intimately involved with Joe, or was it that he could not afford the going rental rate for the basement level apartment held by Sarah? How soon did Sarah move in after they moved into Swann?

    Americans tend to accumulate material “stuff” during their lifetime. Someone in their 30’s would have, among a professional cutlery set; photo albums; furniture (used in the basement apartment on Capital Hill); great books; drafts of books published and those in the works; the stupid notes from undergrad, grad, and massage therapy school that we just know we cannot part with because we will need them some day; etc. So how and why did Dylan cram all of his life into that very small room? Why not take the front room that appears larger? How often was the front room used as a “guest room” and office?

    I would not go so far as to think he was living there rent free. Someone reported that they had witnessed cleaning staff entering and exiting the house on a regular basis, so it appears Dylan was not cleaning (i.e. houseboy) to help cover rent.

    Just afternoon ponderings.

  21. Anonymous
    05/02/2009 at 2:08 PM

    Dylan is and was employed. I wouldn’t think that he would be unable to pay rent. He worked for a direct mail firm after EV I think. If they considered themselves a “family” I think sticking Dylan in the basement would have a weird feel to it. Given all of the S&M equipment and related books, etc. in a very small room, it sounds like he wasn’t particularly into keeping other stuff.

    I am still mystified that they rented out the basement at all. Anyone have any info on that? What does Sarah do for a living?

    • Anon. in Arlington
      05/02/2009 at 3:31 PM

      Anonymous: please note that I said “he could not afford the going rental rate for the basement level apartment.” There is a difference between affording a $600 room rental vs $1,200 basement apartment.

    • Corcoran Cutlet
      05/02/2009 at 4:23 PM

      To say the obvious, most people rent because they need the money. Also, having a paying tenant in there, makes people think it is desirable if they try to sell it. Still, it seems strange they rented. Some people just like having a lot of people around.

      • Dupont Dweller
        05/03/2009 at 11:56 PM

        Maybe they rented so that they would have someone to watch the house when they traveled.

  22. Anonymous
    05/02/2009 at 2:08 PM

    Dylan is and was employed. I wouldn’t think that he would be unable to pay rent. He worked for a direct mail firm after EV I think. If they considered themselves a “family” I think sticking Dylan in the basement would have a weird feel to it. Given all of the S&M equipment and related books, etc. in a very small room, it sounds like he wasn’t particularly into keeping other stuff.

    I am still mystified that they rented out the basement at all. Anyone have any info on that? What does Sarah do for a living?

    • Anon. in Arlington
      05/02/2009 at 3:31 PM

      Anonymous: please note that I said “he could not afford the going rental rate for the basement level apartment.” There is a difference between affording a $600 room rental vs $1,200 basement apartment.

    • Corcoran Cutlet
      05/02/2009 at 4:23 PM

      To say the obvious, most people rent because they need the money. Also, having a paying tenant in there, makes people think it is desirable if they try to sell it. Still, it seems strange they rented. Some people just like having a lot of people around.

      • Dupont Dweller
        05/03/2009 at 11:56 PM

        Maybe they rented so that they would have someone to watch the house when they traveled.

Comments are closed.