If Victor was asleep, how did he know Robert’s arrival time?
A nagging question has been how did Victor Zaborsky know that Robert arrived at 10:30 pm, when he stated that he was asleep when Robert arrived at 1509?
Simple logic says that one can’t know when a person arrives and be asleep at the same time. You can do one or the other, but you can’t do both.
This sleeping thing is also odd because one sleeping man (Zaborsky) was able to know when a person arrives yet another sleeping man (Ward) was unable to hear a man being murdered down the hall. Which is it at this house?
Let’s look at the affidavit and their statements. At the top of page 8 it reads:
“According to statements given to the police on August 3, 2006, by Price, Zaborsky and Ward, Mr. Wone arrived at the Swann Street residence about 10:30 p.m. on August 2.”
So here Zaborsky is clearly included as stating he knows when Robert arrived at Swann Street. Yet, further down the page in the section of Zaborsky’s statement, it reads:
“According to Zaborsky, he came home early from a business trip and learned that Mr. Wone would be spending the night at their home. He indicated that he did not see Mr. Wone when he arrived as he was already in bed at the time.”
How was it possible that Zaborsky could have known when Robert arrived?
To illustrate, there are two truthful statements that Zaborsky might have given when asked about Robert’s arrival. He could have responded:
MPD: When did Robert arrive at your home?
VZ: I don’t know exactly. I was asleep when he arrived.
Or he could have said this:
VZ: I don’t know but my partner Joe told me that Robert arrived at 10:30 pm.
MPD: So you don’t know first hand when Robert arrived?
VZ: No, I was asleep.
MPD: So you got your information from your partner.
You can see where that would go…
Why is this significant? First, in order for a sleeping man to know when someone arrived, he had to be told. If he was told by someone, and did not reveal who told him, then this omission matters to the police because it appears as if he knew the information first hand. Second, if he was told, this means at least two of the defendants discussed events with each other before speaking with the police.
This also allows the defendants to get their story straight, and having three consistent stories would be critical to any defense.
–posted by David