Game Changer?

Underweird

Last Friday’s hour-long status hearing focused on pieces of evidence that still need to be tested or retested.

Twenty six of the original 270 items are all that remain in play; the government and defense appear close to settling these outstanding disputes.  Over the next week or so we’ll look at what’s at stake with the physical evidence and will upload the supporting documents including any that may have recently surfaced.

Cutaway of 1509 Swann Street

Cutaway of 1509 Swann Street

But first, a find from last week sparked chatter and raised eyebrows: MPD Officer Diane Durham’s statement written just a few hours after the murder.  Her report directly contradicts Joe Price’s statements from the original affidavit as to where he found Robert’s body – in her account, by Joe’s own admission, Robert was found on the patio and not the guest room.

This is no small discrepancy; it could call into question everything the then-witnesses, now defendants, have claimed about their involvement and actions.

Upon arrival, Officer Durham describes the surreal scene familiar to case watchers, “…white men dressed in white robes.”  She then offers a twist.

“One was dressed only in a pair of white speedo underwear.  One male was standing by the steps, the other was sitting in the chair, the male in the underwear did all the talking.”

Anyone want to guess which housemate was the talker?   Too easy, this one’s tougher: who “…busted out crying and placed his face in his hands?”

This doc raises a host of question not just about the defendants’ credibility but maybe Officer Durham’s as well.  Why didn’t this make it into the warrant?  Why keep it a secret?

The language is vague on crucial points: Durham says she left 1509 with the EMTs to escort Robert’s body to the hospital and other units were on the way,  advising the “underwear guy” that it would be a good idea to get some clothes on.

When exactly Durham arrived, left and who took over for her isn’t known.  Could she have  left the threesome unsupervised giving them time to conference?  Could that explain the radical shift in Price’s story?

This two-page document, with its second entirely redacted, may impact the trial or not.  Longtime contributor Themis is first to weigh in.  Hand written notes from MPD officers coming next.

For those who can’t do Scribd, the full doc is here

posted by Craig

172 comments for “Game Changer?

  1. Swann Street Dweller
    09/14/2009 at 9:26 AM

    I wonder why the 3rd District responded to this call since the 1500 block of Swann Street NW is just actually inside the 2nd District boundary. While the actual 3rd District police station is physically closer (16th and V) than the 2nd (just off Wisconsin near the Giant way up in northern Georgetown), I understand the 3rd District is quite strict about not dealing with anything outside of their jurisdiction. Anyway…..

  2. Mike
    09/14/2009 at 9:41 AM

    Unless I misread, the above document describes the FIRST statement made by the “witnesses” to a responding officer. Most of the language is extremely precise. Why on earth was it buried?

    Taken with the hours of mysteriously unrecorded questioning, the loss of the Blackberry records, and so much else, something is really starting to smell fishy. I’ve never been a conspiracy theorist, so someone talk me out of this?

    • AnnaZed
      09/14/2009 at 7:27 PM

      I don’t find anything wrong with this officer’s statements.

      I don’t quite get why would the blog authors question her credibility. She seems like a straight forward beat cop and in fact slightly more observant than some.

      • CDinDC
        09/14/2009 at 8:10 PM

        Indeed.

      • David
        09/14/2009 at 8:35 PM

        AnnaZed,

        I am not questioning Diane Durham’s credibility. The point I am making is the defense WILL not only question her credibility, but since they they are being paid a million dollars by Joe Price et all, they aim to obliterate her credibility. And if there are no credibility issues, they will manufacture a credibility issue. You can count on it. The inconsistency of this story calls into question the veracity of the defandant’s statements. Their very freedom could hang in the balance on veracity of this statement. The defense has no other choice but to pursue this strategy. This defense team is worth every dollar they are being paid. With that being said, it does not mean it will happen, but that will be their objective. But, please understand, I am not questioning her credibility.

        David, co-ed.

        David, co-ed

        • Bea
          09/14/2009 at 8:45 PM

          One could (not “should”) surmise that since the interrogating officers that night did not question the defendants on the substance of Officer Durham’s notes was that not even the MPD took her seriously. I have no idea if this is valid -possibly a case of not getting the info to the correct people in time – but the editors are right to suggest that it may not be a smoking gun. It would seem devastating to have Joe giving two very different accounts that night, but we as a readership have to weigh that the Affidavit didn’t even mention this as a basis for arrest – something is “up” with it. We just don’t know what.

          • CDinDC
            09/14/2009 at 10:13 PM

            Bea,

            SwannStreet mentioned earlier that there could be an issue with MPD territory. Officer Durham is 3rd District. She answered a call in the 2nd District.

            This could explain why this information was buried.

  3. Mike
    09/14/2009 at 9:41 AM

    Unless I misread, the above document describes the FIRST statement made by the “witnesses” to a responding officer. Most of the language is extremely precise. Why on earth was it buried?

    Taken with the hours of mysteriously unrecorded questioning, the loss of the Blackberry records, and so much else, something is really starting to smell fishy. I’ve never been a conspiracy theorist, so someone talk me out of this?

  4. Clio
    09/14/2009 at 10:54 AM

    White Speedo underwear? Why I am not surprised — I would have agreed with Diane: put some clothes on, please!

    • JackDempsey
      09/14/2009 at 4:14 PM

      I assume that by “white Speedo” underwear the officer is simply describing white bikini briefs–I don’t think Speedo makes men’s underwear, do they? (I can’t find it on their site.)

      • Clio
        09/14/2009 at 9:18 PM

        As “a proper lady,” I do not know if Speedo actually makes underwear for men, but this memorable description does exemplify Officer Durham’s attention to detail. One hopes for the officer’s sake, however, that Joe’s bikini briefs were more square than Brazilian cut!

  5. CDinDC
    09/14/2009 at 11:25 AM

    From the posting: “This doc raises a host of question not just about the defendants’ credibility but maybe Officer Durham’s as well. Why didn’t this make it into the warrant? Why keep it a secret?”

    1. I see no reason, again, that the credibility of this officer needs to be questioned. She has NO reason to fabricate anything. And the statement is very detailed. “The door was all by a 1/4 of an inch closed…” She even states she walked over to the kitchen with the male in white underwear to look at the door. She would have to be an out and out liar for this to be fabricated. Ridiculous. Completely ridiculous.

    2. As SwannStreet Dweller mentioned, maybe it didn’t make it in because of territorial behavior by the MPD. Officer Durham is with the 3rd district.

    From the posting: “The language is vague on crucial points: Durham says she left 1509 with the EMTs to escort Robert’s body to the hospital with other units were on the way, advising “underwear guy” that it would be a good idea to get some clothes on.”

    1. What’s vague about that??

    2. The CRUCIAL points are about the door, the kitchen, the defendants…..”it touched the door rim”….that’s detailed. The officer had to examine the door. This info is more crucial than what precisely she did when escorting the body to the hosital.

    From the posting: “When exactly Durham arrived, left and who took over for her isn’t known. Could she have left the threesome alone in the house unsupervised and may that possibility explain the radical shift in Price’s story?”

    1. Again, the defendants were “witnesses” when she was on the scene. If she left them “unsupervised,” they weren’t under arrest or even considered suspects in ANY crime at that point.

    2. “May that explain the radical shift?” The radical shift is because Joe Price et al are murdering liars.

    PS, you guys….Themis is a defense attorney. She presents things most often as to how a defense attorney will look at things. Good to know, but remember not tap into it to the point that all good reason flies out the door. For heaven sakes. Love ya, Craig, but think for yourself. Just because Themis says so, doesn’t mean it is so. That officer has crucial information to this case. Don’t discount it because Themis, the defense attorney, thinks it should be.

  6. Mike
    09/14/2009 at 11:35 AM

    I imagine the “radical shift” to be this: if Durham left the trouple alone in the apartment, Price may have had time to say, “Wait a minute, this story’s not going to hold up. You can tell she wasn’t buying it. We’ve got to come up with a more plausible lie, and we can just deny whatever she says in court. After all, she’s just a patrol officer.”

    • David
      09/14/2009 at 11:42 AM

      Mike,

      In order for Price to say that she lied, won’t he have to take the stand? I highly doubt that any of the three defendants will be taking the stand during the trial. My guess is their lawyers will try to impeach her credibility — find other police reports of hers that are riddled with errors, or something like that.

      David, co-ed.

      • CDinDC
        09/14/2009 at 11:54 AM

        David says: “My guess is their lawyers will try to impeach her credibility — find other police reports of hers that are riddled with errors, or something like that.”

        David, as Themis did say that, but until then, and only if they can prove she’s not credible, she’s credible.

        Even a good defense attorney will walk away from a losing agument. If you can’t prove she’s not credible you can’t prove it. Same for a murderer.

        It just saddens me that this post puts a bad spin on that officer when there is NO REASON at this point to believe she is uncredible. No reason.

        • David
          09/14/2009 at 12:16 PM

          CD,

          I did not mean to say that there are problems with her credibility, but because of the game changing nature of her statement, it is my firm belief that the defense won’t let it just stand. This defense team has proven they are going to go after every thread they can pull on, and on one this big, they can’t hope it just disappears.

          I agree with you that there is no reason to doubt her credibility, however, a million dollar defense will do everything in its power to create a credibility issue, not because they they have nothing else to do, but on this issue, they have to.

          David, co-ed.

          • CDinDC
            09/14/2009 at 12:54 PM

            David and Craig, this is th precise statement that raises my hackles: “This doc raises a host of question not just about the defendants’ credibility but maybe Officer Durham’s as well.”

            Why does her statement raise questions of credibility in your minds?

            You guys posted this article. Now tell me why in YOUR MINDS this raises questions about her credibility.

            That statement is as clear and precise as it can be.

            (And yes, it’s the defenses job to riddle everything with holes, but we aren’t in the courtroom yet.)

            • Craig
              09/14/2009 at 1:06 PM

              CD – The conspicuous absense tells me there could be problems with it.

              How could such a HUGE inconsistency like this NOT surface?

              My Spidey sense, far less attuned than Themis,’ says something wasn’t right about the statement or the officer or we would’ve seen this months ago.

              • CDinDC
                09/14/2009 at 1:40 PM

                I tend to lean toward SwannStreet on this. MPD issues. Not Officer Durham issues.

        • Craig
          09/14/2009 at 12:40 PM

          CD – No spin was intended, but I can’t get past Durham’s absence in the charging docs.

          Was it an oversight or screw up like we’ve seen many times or did it just plain smell bad?

          If this statement and her testimony surface at the hearing, I can honestly say as a three-time DC jury member (once for Murder 1) that MPD docs and testimony do carry significant weight in a jury room.

          • Doug
            09/14/2009 at 12:55 PM

            Important to note also, I believe, that much of Officer Durham’s statement on page two is redacted…although reading between the lines from Friday’s status hearing the defense may this week be allowed to view ‘in camera’ those notes and the other redacted notes of Investigator Brian Waid.
            -Doug, co-editor

          • CDinDC
            09/14/2009 at 12:58 PM

            Craig says: “No spin was intended, but I can’t get past Durham’s absence in the charging docs.”

            Look into what SwannStreet said. Makes sense to me. It’s not exactly an unknown fact that jurisictions infight and get territorial over “juicy” cases.

            Could be a nice post topic. How do jurisdictions transfer information between themselves?

            But I still don’t think you should take THAT and let it shine unfavorably on Officer Durham.

            I have to totally disagree with where you guys are going with this one. Straight to the defense team.

            • Bea
              09/14/2009 at 2:32 PM

              I’m on the fence. If the DA knows that Durham has credibility issues, they may have discounted her statement. Just because it wasn’t in the charging documents doesn’t mean that it won’t still be useful, though it does seem like something to lead with (i.e., the defendants changed stories within the first hour). Flummoxed on the ‘why not use it’ but hoping that there’s a strategic reason. I agree with CD that there could well be major value in her statement if she holds up on the stand, and if it was cop turf wars which buried it (and wasn’t available to the interrogators – what HAY they could have made of it!) then it’s just another shame-on-you to MPD.

              Critically speaking, however, it doesn’t seem that the defense could use it to their power – wouldn’t call Durham to the stand, for example, if the DA doesn’t as nothing good can come of it. If the DA does use it, then they’ve decided she passes the vetting test.

              It would be an odd thing to get wrong, that they’d found Robert outside after hearing a scream. If after she left, Joe and Dylan became more coherent and realized there was no blood trail, that could have been the time for the ‘story exchange’.

        • David
          09/14/2009 at 4:27 PM

          CD,

          You are correct — at this point, there is no reason to think that she is uncredible — which I why I believe the Defense will create, or better yet, manufacture a reason as to why she is not credible. Remember Mark Furman, when he suddenly became a racist? I imagine if they can’t find any legitimate reason to impeach her, they will manufacture a false reason — she hates gays because once she was overheard saying an anti-gay slur — something ridiculous like that.

          David, co-ed.

      • Perplexed
        09/14/2009 at 4:32 PM

        Excellent point!!! Although isn’t the questioning of JP then limited to what has already been raised? (Although I can see that being brutally analyzed to find a way to probe further using JP’s testimony)….can a lawyer answer this pls?

        • Perplexed
          09/14/2009 at 4:36 PM

          I meant to the Defense not wanting to put JP on the stand to refute Durham’s stmt.

  7. Clio
    09/14/2009 at 12:56 PM

    In Durham’s narrative, Victor would be my guess in reference to the seated, crying guy. The more than half-naked talker had to be Joe, of course. The lurker in the background would then be Dyl.

    • NYer
      09/14/2009 at 1:11 PM

      According to the affidavit, Victor was the one on the steps, and Dyl was sobbing. That’s what makes this detail rather remarkable. Most characterizations of Dyl up until this point have made him out to seem rather cold and calculating.

      • NYer
        09/14/2009 at 1:15 PM

        Actually, I meant to add and to specify above that the affidavit makes no mention of Dyl crying- in contrast, it describes him looking at the medic who arrived on the scene, and just walking past the medic without a word.

        • CDinDC
          09/14/2009 at 1:42 PM

          I’ve always believed Dylan to be weak and manipulatiable. Joe directs him to do everything.

          • CDinDC
            09/14/2009 at 1:43 PM

            It all makes perfect sense to me. Dylan, directed into doing things his heart tells him not to, breaks down. Victor distances himself from the situation, probably like he’s always done.

            • Bea
              09/14/2009 at 2:25 PM

              I’m not sure that it’s clear who was crying since we’re not matching timelines – unless I’m missing something. My gut reaction is that Victor was the one in tears and that Dylan was still too high to access emotions.

              • des
                09/14/2009 at 2:46 PM

                regarding timeline, it would be interesting to listen to the 911 call again (my computer at the moment doesn’t have speakers) to hear it with the thought that maybe their story at that moment was in fact that they found robert on the patio. it might not shed any light but i think it would be interesting to see. (unfortunately i’ll have to wait until i get home very late this evening!)

                • NYer
                  09/14/2009 at 3:00 PM

                  I didn’t think of that before, good point. I’ve never listened to the 911 call, not wanted to be inundated with screams, I preferred reading the WaPo articles. But now I can’t wait to get home myself. (Having no speakers at work is really for the best, though.)

                • CDinDC
                  09/14/2009 at 3:03 PM

                  des, as I recall, they heard gutteral noises and found Robert in the guestroom. Victor said “I’m afraid to go downstairs.”

                  • CDinDC
                    09/14/2009 at 3:24 PM

                    This brings to question how much Joe had communicated with Victor prior to the 911 call.

                    Many people have questioned whether they had a story AT ALL at the time of the 911 call.

                    the new statement by Officer Dunham solidifies in MY mind that Joe et al DID NOT have their story straight. Victor spoke “out of school”, Joe didn’t know what Victor had said because Victor was out of the room during much of his conversation with 911. Joe gave his version of the events to the first officer (Durham) and then HAD to change the story to match up with what Victor intimated on the phone.

                    Sooo…..maybe now that this original statement is out, Victor will see that he’s sleeping with a murderer.

                    • CDinDC
                      09/14/2009 at 3:25 PM

                      It also leads me to believe that Victor did NOT help with the clean up.

                    • CDinDC
                      09/14/2009 at 4:25 PM

                      Also, regarding the comparison of the 911 call and 1st statement, Victor was found on the front steps. Joe (the one doing the talking), walked into the kitchen with Officer Durham. They examined the door together and Joe gave his statement at the backdoor that Robert was found at the patio door bleeding. (Victor was NOT in the room during this statement.) The officer and Joe then “walked back into the livingroom area.”

                    • Bea
                      09/14/2009 at 4:39 PM

                      Is it possible that Victor heard the hub-bub, spoke only a few sentences to Joe, and immediately went to call 911 without “permission”? That would explain the major screw-ups and really awful “story” snafu(s).

                  • Doug
                    09/14/2009 at 3:26 PM

                    Good catch. Here’s the relevant post: http://wp.me/pqKD9-17t
                    Listening again to the call, Victor clearly says “I’m upstairs and he’s downstairs…” which could be the second or first floor. Later, instructed to go downstairs and apply pressure to Robert’s wound, Victor is overheard giving instructions to someone, later asking “…is he breathing?” He does not answer this question, telling the other person (later referenced as “my partner”) at one point “…don’t touch, don’t touch…”
                    Even later, as CDinDC says, the 911 operator tells Victor to go to the door. After confessing he’s “…scared to go downstairs…” he says clearly that they’re on the second floor.
                    -Doug, co-editor

                    • des
                      09/15/2009 at 9:04 AM

                      i finally got a chance to listen to the 911 tape again but didn’t have any big revelations.
                      the only thing i noticed was that at one point victor says that he’s looking out the window and doesn’t see the ambulance yet. and right after, that it has arrived and ‘i’m going downstairs.’ it doesn’t seem like it takes him a long time to then come down the stairs (ie maybe it was just one flight of stairs) so does that mean that he was looking out the window of the guest bedroom where robert was? he was also presumably talking to joe during the call so i suppose he was in the room.
                      i’m not sure that this really means anything tremendously significant. but i think that room is very small and it would freak me out to know i was standing so close to a dead body, whether i knew the person or not.
                      maybe he truly didn’t know what was going on at that point.
                      i guess i’m just trying to get a hold on anything “real” that was happening since we pretty much can’t believe what the defendants are saying.
                      i don’t know, maybe it means nothing.

  8. Craig
    09/14/2009 at 1:17 PM

    NYer – I’m assuming Officer Durham meant the staircase to the second floor of the house. We do know that Zaborsky greeted the EMTs on the outdoor steps, but that was prior to her arrival.

  9. NYer
    09/14/2009 at 1:26 PM

    I must be confused becuase when I saw the word “steps,” I was thinking of the outside steps Vic was the aff. reported him standing on, and that meant Dyl in Durham’s statement had to be the one sitting and crying.
    So then- is it Vic who was sitting and crying in the statement? Or Dyl? There’s no way to tell from the document alone. I would imagine Vic was crying, based on my own knowledge of the case, but you never know.

    • Doug
      09/14/2009 at 2:36 PM

      Later this week we also will reveal Inspector Brian Waid’s handwritten notes – also redacted – that seem to more clearly identify just who was crying.
      -Doug, co-editor

      • NYer
        09/14/2009 at 3:04 PM

        Thanks Doug. Just curious, how are you accessing these court papers? Through the court website? If so, why are these papers just now becoming available?

  10. CuriousInVa
    09/14/2009 at 1:30 PM

    I just like that Durham keeps referring to him as “underwear guy”. I would have guessed him more for a boxer type guy though….

    • Clio
      09/14/2009 at 2:14 PM

      Given Joe’s weight and age, then and especially now, boxers would have been more appropriate.

      Was Victor also freshly showered? I guess that he showered after his business trip but before his scream and curtain call.

      • Bea
        09/14/2009 at 5:01 PM

        I too wonder if “they” all appeared to be freshly showered was a generalization or if, indeed, it looked as though Victor too had recently showered. With the 911 call discussion above, including CD’s posts, I am wondering more and more if Victor just heard what Joe wanted him to hear/know, and on his own accord walked upstairs to call 911. His 911 call makes reference to things Joe would’ve told him, and he’s not seen Robert’s body until he’s on the line (the way his voice goes vacuous when he says for the first time he’s been stabbed in the chest). He screws up the line about the knife leaving with the ‘intruder’ and claims (true or not) to have some fear about going downstairs. If he’s awakened in the middle of the clean-up and story prep and calls 911, that would certainly explain the screwed up theories in light of the ‘clean up’.

        Having been the one to “get Joe in trouble” by making the 911 call, could Victor then feel obligated to back the team? Has Joe silenced him by saying that if he/Dylan are convicted, that he’ll then tell the whole story, but given that Robert can’t be brought back, that nothing good can come of them telling the whole sordid tale (one that was just a cluster-f of things having gone wrong and never intended)? Oh, Victor.

  11. CDinDC
    09/14/2009 at 5:29 PM

    Bea says:
    “Is it possible that Victor heard the hub-bub, spoke only a few sentences to Joe, and immediately went to call 911 without “permission”? That would explain the major screw-ups and really awful “story” snafu(s).”

    Good point, Bea. My only problem with that is that Victor claims Joe was in bed with him. The same story is used except Robert is downstairs. Someone screamed and “we” ran downstairs. Then Joe says “we” carried him upstairs. If all is the same except Robert’s location in the story, Victor would be the other person.

    If Victor TRULY didn’t know what was going on, do you think Joe would have made up a flagrant lie that could possibly intimate that Victor helped carry Robert upstairs? It seems to me that if Victor were truly sleeping upstairs when the murder took place, Joe would want to continue to keep Victor in the dark for Joe’s own sake and not involved Victor (“we”) in the “story.”

    If the “we” were Joe and Dylan, then Joe’s story of carrying Robert upstairs would have been impossible if Victor was being truthful about Joe sleeping in bed with him. Supposedly Joe and Victor happened on Robert in the guestroom. Not downstairs.

    So, the long and short of it is, Victor seems to be more complicit in this than originally thought.

    • Bea
      09/14/2009 at 6:19 PM

      I don’t know. Say, as we imagined, that Joe and Dylan did whatever to Robert either on the first floor or second floor. Robert was murdered and the duo cleaned up and began their storyline. Victor awakens (knowing it’s a “Dylan” bed night) after hearing unusual sounds and ventures a quick look, sees something is terribly wrong. Joe says he’ll explain everything soon but has to deal with a bleeding Robert, that it seems like some intruder stabbed him with their kitchen knife and fled, but intimates that Dylan may be involved somehow, or even intimates that he could “look bad” in “whatever” happened to Robert. Victor decides to get an ambulance and calls 911. Perhaps Joe meant for Victor to call 911 SOON but not YET, and Victor is figuring it out on the phone as things don’t add up. Just a hypothesis.

      • Bea
        09/14/2009 at 6:20 PM

        Oh, and one of the first things Joe tells Victor is that things are pretty strange and “no matter what, say I was in bed with you.” That part Victor will take seriously and not screw up.

        • Perplexed
          09/14/2009 at 11:59 PM

          I think a lot of what VZ told them was coordinated in advance. I have a feeling all the stories kept changing through the night – this is just another example of a changing story – and the only possibility I can imagine is that he had not actually seen RW, but was told things and told what to do/say.

  12. Themis
    09/14/2009 at 9:16 PM

    I make no bones about being a defense attorney. But, where are Durham’s contemporaneous notes? If Joe said that they found Robert outside the door bleeding, why not tape off the area? Did she note seeing any blood? Did she ask where the blood went to? Would she even think about leaving the trouple alone knowing that there’s a crime scene to be preserved? While Durham may have been from out of district, was Brown? Moreover, this looks like the transcript of a recorded interview. Where’s the audio? How was Durham interviewed? Was she led? Fed info? Did she testify at the grand jury? By the time she arrived, EMT’s were already loading the ambulance, yet she decided to go with them. How much time could she have had to speak to anyone or make any observations?

    Based upon the information available, which isn’t much, I’d love to get her on the stand. And the trouple’s respective attorneys are sooooo much better than I. In fact, I think they probably know something that makes them suspicious or they wouldn’t have attached the statement to their motion for in camera review or they would have filed it under seal. They knew that the media would get hold of the Durham statement if it was publicly filed. They are neither naive or dumb in that regard.

    If you don’t think cops lie, google Dupage Seven or look at the police misconduct page on the Innocence Project’s website.

    It will be telling if the government decides not to call her.

    • CDinDC
      09/14/2009 at 10:22 PM

      themis says: “Based upon the information available, which isn’t much, I’d love to get her on the stand. ”

      Oh, really Themis? You’d “love to get her on the stand?”

      Sounds like you’d like to see this case fail.

      Why don’t you use you defense knowledge to HELP this case. Not defeat it. I truly question your purpose here, Themis. Especially after THAT remark.

      You’re a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

    • des
      09/15/2009 at 8:33 AM

      themis,
      so the reason you think her statement sounds fishy is because essentially it is so brief?
      from your post, i gather that normally there would be a more detailed report of what she saw, who she left at the scene, whether or not she taped off the area, etc. etc. and normally, police take notes and those would have been attached to the statement or something like that?
      is that the case?
      (my profession is the farthest thing from law enforcement/law so i am just trying to understand your point of view/area of expertise. because to me the statement seems normal enough but i of course have no idea what a police statement in a murder investigation “normally” looks like.) thanks.

  13. Themis
    09/14/2009 at 10:36 PM

    Your claws are showing CD.

    I simply believe that convictions should be obtained fairly, and Durham’s statement smells like 3 day old fish to me. Though it may have escaped your mind, I have also made statements about problems with the defense, and there are many.

    But when the government cheats everyone loses. The prosecutor’s (and officer’s) job is not to obtain a conviction at all costs but to see that justice is done. And the crucible cross-examination has been deemed by the Supreme Court as the best method ever devised for eliciting the truth, something we all should seek.

    • CDinDC
      09/14/2009 at 10:53 PM

      I wasn’t trying to hide them, Themis.

      Again, perhaps it has escaped your mind that this isn’t a courtroom. Justice will be appropriately served elsewhere.

      The defense attorneys don’t need help. The prosecution needs it, unfortunately. But you’d rather poke holes in everything you can. You have a negative approach. Instead of saying “I’d love to get her on the stand,” (which shows your true colors) why don’t you say “here’s what the prosecution needs to do with this information.” But you don’t. You approach it as a defense attorney for the defense.

      And the government is not cheating. They are struggling to piece together a case with the shitty evidence the MPD gave them. The MPD has failed over and over and the prosecution of this case will suffer for it.

      Those bastards may walk free and you’ll probably be delighted.

      I am not fooled by you. You aren’t here for Robert Wone. You are here for yourself.

      • Themis
        09/14/2009 at 11:05 PM

        We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

        I have shared tips for the prosecution, such as checking for whose fingerprints were on the lightswitch and lamp in the guest room, reviewing crime scene pics to determine if there was residue of the supposed web caught Joe’s eye, to stating that one of the best thing’s the prosecution can do is ask to take the jury to Swann St. at the relevant time of night. I did it when I was in DC, and I think it is devastating to the defense in many ways. And I was saying 3 days ago, before anyone got very enthused about the idea, that the US Attorney’s Office needs to give this case to someone with the time to work on it and the authority to make strategic decisions. And then give that AUSA a stable second chair.

        Kathy Wone doesn’t need to go through a second trial because the original convictions are reversed on appeal. She’s already suffered enough heartbreak to last more than a lifetime.

        As for me, I have nothing to gain by stating my opinion. It’s an opinion, nothing more. And Team Trouple is not going to learn anything new from me. I do my best for my clients, but I am not one of DC’s top attorneys.

        • AnnaZed
          09/14/2009 at 11:46 PM

          My my, this is tiresome.

          I still see absolutely nothing about officer Durham’s statement that “smells like 3 day old fish,” absolutely nothing. She’s a beat cop, not a detective and her observations are almost refreshing in their literal candor and street colloquial style. I think that her statement was made at her own District Station, hours after the fact of her encounter with Joe and company at the end of her shift. I think that the witnesses cum suspects were being interrogated elsewhere (at the other District Station House) by another team and that her statement never made it to the officers doing the interrogation because no one considered its significance. I don’t think it’s any more complicated than that.

          I certainly don’t need a lecture and instructions on what I should and should not be Googling to know that sometimes police officers lie, that sometimes they are mistaken and that sometimes they are good sources of information. Everyone knows these things. I can’t see even the smallest iota of motivation for her to have lied and I think that posting paragraph long screeds about police mendacity is counter-productive and (more significantly) not even pertinent to the information that we have before us. Most incidences of police officers lying occur when they have their own interests at heart not when they are called to a crime scene and have very brief interaction with the entire process. This woman has not a single reason to lie. Her relationship to the case itself is almost tangential. She arrived there in the course of her duties that night, she made her observations and she left with the medics. Casting aspersions on her integrity on this blog on the basis of completely unfounded speculation is irresponsible at best, childish and attention seeking at worst.

          I think she’s a goldmine. I say bless providence (if you believe in such things) that her little insignificant statement has surfaced at all. I see nothing that would compel me to do anything but take her statement at face value. Why did we not dissect the statements of the other responders? Remember the medic who was so suspicious of Joe and alarmed by his weird behavior that he moved on the other side of the bed to place distance between Joe and himself? What about him? Does his statement stink to high heaven too?

          As for giving the DA credit for having some superior knowledge that lead him to exclude her observations previously; nothing (I mean nothing) that the DA’s office has done so far has given me any indication that they have much of a strategy at all, let alone omnipotent visions of how best to pursue this prosecution. I think Mrs. Wone and Robert himself are being very poorly served by the government (I’m looking at you Glenn Kirshner); so whether or not they used this piece of information or even noticed it between self congratulatory nostalgic sports banquets means nothing as to its value from where I’m sitting.

          • Themis
            09/15/2009 at 12:00 AM

            Shouting and ad hominem do not substitute for reason. Ask Aristotle.

            Neither of us has enough information to understand her motivation for doing anything. I simply find serious issues with the circumstances under which her statement was taken. Notice I said taken. Why didn’t she write her own report.

            Finally, I am tired of posters suggesting I have something to gain by my posts. Every time I post something with which people disagree, they want to attack my motives. I’m a public defender for god’s sake. I have more clients than I can handle. I could have made a lucrative living going into private practice, but chose public service. (Though it is something I usually don’t bring up, I graduated from an Ivy league law school and clerked at the federal district court and appellate court levels).

            Four years out of law school, I took a 60% pay cut so I could complete a fellowship on defending capital trial cases. No one knows my name. I don’t speak to the press. So what gives? If you’ve got some specifics as to how I benefit, please cough them up.

            • AnnaZed
              09/15/2009 at 12:14 AM

              I don’t see anyone shouting on this blog, not at you at any rate. As for “ad hominem” do you mean an ad hominem attack against yourself or an ad hominem argument against your logic? Ad hominem arguments are not in and of themselves logical fallacies, actually, but never mind that. I’m not sure what you are trying to say. Just saying “ad hominem” in a sentence doesn’t even mean anything. You see, being an adjective it needs a noun to make sense in a sentence, or don’t they teach that in the Ivy League anymore?.

              As for your daily updates about your resume; I for one could do without those.

              • Themis
                09/15/2009 at 12:33 AM

                Ahh, forgive me for not being specific. Ad hominem attacks against my motives. Which I noticed that you didn’t address. What exactly is my self-interest in posting? Again, please cough it up. Because, again, as far as I can see, the most I receive in turn is invective as to my motives.

                As for a shout down, I recognize one when I see it. But that doesn’t mean that I have to fold in the face of it. And I won’t. I’m not “Lance.” So please just put me on ignore, along with CD and a host of others who are doing the same.

                I’ll do the same.

                • AnnaZed
                  09/15/2009 at 12:47 AM

                  I think you may have me confused with CD, who did make direct reference to what he or she thinks your motives might be and also did pretty much make an ad hominem attack on your motivations for posting here.

                  As for what your interest in posting might be; I can not say that I have given it any thought.

                  • Themis
                    09/15/2009 at 1:15 AM

                    Maybe in my childish state I misunderstood, but I thought you stated, “Casting aspersions on her integrity on this blog on the basis of completely unfounded speculation is irresponsible at best, childish and attention seeking at worst.” Thus, my motives are either childish or attention seeking.”

                    All I ask for is an explanation of what makes my comments one and/or the other.

                    I haven’t a penny to gain or a rep to enhance, and the responses to my posts hardly feed my ego–in fact, the opposite.

                    • AnnaZed
                      09/15/2009 at 2:02 AM

                      “Thus, my motives are either childish or attention seeking.”

                      Ah that, well actually if you parse that sentence correctly you will apprehend that what I actually posited was not that it was a matter of your posts appearing to be either childish or attention seeking but rather that your several iterations of unfounded criticism of Lt. Durham were either irresponsible or childish and attention seeking. That’s the way that the “either/or” construct and the conjunction “and” work in English you see. There is a difference.

                      So it would appear that I gave your intentions a modicum of thought after all. I think on reflection that I can stand by that remark though as being merely an extemporaneous utterance of the obvious. I would further suggest that drawing additional attention to that observation is not advancing your argument by much.

                      If you don’t like being lectured about Latin and English usage in your posts then I suggest that you never again even dream in your sleep about attempting to toss Aristotle at me or anyone else during the course of an online discussion.

                    • John Grisham
                      09/15/2009 at 8:04 PM

                      Ah . . . young lawyers in love!

            • Perplexed
              09/15/2009 at 12:14 AM

              I agree on the point that if we disagree with what someone says, it’s a lot more productive to simply state the disagreement and posit why one disagrees and possibly present an alternative.

              It’s as though we all forget we’re working towards the same goal, and unless someone is absolutely positive that there is an infiltrator, it becomes a huge turnoff having to read some of these posts that seem like personal attacks in nature in an effort to try to gather as much new information as possible to incorporate into a working theory.

              Now I’m sure I’m going to get zinged for this reasonable request – ’nuff said!

              • Themis
                09/15/2009 at 4:58 AM

                AnnaZed,

                Again, just how am I childish for legitimately questioning the circumstances under which Durham’s statement was taken on the contents thereof? You can belittle my understanding of Latin or English grammar till the sun ceases to shine, you still don’t get to the meat of the issue: my supposedly nefarious, self-serving, or stupid motives. Just come out and say it sister. If your answer is that Durham’s statement should be accepted without question, just come out and say it sister. If I am benefitting from posting anonymously on this blog, explain how. If my logic doesn’t hold up, punch holes through it without falling back on the canard that cops are to be believed until shown be beyond doubt that they are to be disbelieved.

                I, too, can play the emotional joker card. Have you ever met an innocent person who came within a week of execution due to police misconduct? The punchline is obvious and need not be be stated.

                To paraphrase, “There are none so blind as he who would not see.”

                Again, put me on ignore, and I’ll do the same.

                • CDinDC
                  09/15/2009 at 9:30 AM

                  Oh, good lord. No one is going to be executed in this case, Themis. The melodrama.

                  You are a dyed in the wool defense attorney. Drop that hat and sit at the other table for a while. Use your knowledge and intelligence to HELP this case. Not hender it.

                  And saying things like “I’d love to get her on the stand” shows you have self-interests in this case.

                  The purpose of this website is to help find justice for Robert Wone.

                  • David
                    09/15/2009 at 1:18 PM

                    CD,

                    I think Themis saying she would love to get Durham on the stand could be very good from the prosecution perspective. She could answer honestly about what Joe told her that evening. I didn’t take it that Durham testifying would be a negative for the prosecution. If she didn’t rope off the scene, and made mistakes along those lines, I don’t think it impeaches what Joe Price told her. It just means she didn’t do everything that an investigative cop would do.

                    David, co-ed

                    • Themis
                      09/15/2009 at 1:33 PM

                      David,

                      You are a true mediator/moderator. Your work and the work of the other editors makes this a truly sui generis and useful website.

                      But I accept criticism even if I don’t agree with it. And I know that you and the other editors don’t agree with all or any of my views. Though I hope I have been candid with my opinions, others , including the our wonderful editors, disagree. C’est la vie.

                      You and the other editors, Steven, Craig, Doug, deserve kudos for making this happen and hopefully compelling the proper resolution to this horrific crime.

                    • CDinDC
                      09/15/2009 at 1:39 PM

                      Themis says: “Based upon the information available, which isn’t much, I’d love to get her on the stand. And the trouple’s respective attorneys are sooooo much better than I….”

                      David, love ya, it’s very kind of you to defend Themis, but I don’t agree with you. Themis had her defense attorney hat pulled down firmly over her ears. The first 5 questions of the 1st paragraph of her post were CLEARLY critical of the officer. And in a moment befitting Colonel Jessup, she slipped up and went squarely into defense mode……in more ways than one.

                      “And the trouple’s respective attorneys are sooooo much better than I….” Which means, the trouple’s attorneys would do a better job of handling her on the stand.

                      Sorry for the firestorm (nod to SDI), but she needs to redirect her energy.

                • AnnaZed
                  09/15/2009 at 12:46 PM

                  Oh, I “get” what you are trying to say. What you are asking me to do is accept an argumentum ad verecundiam from you. Your overwhelming need to (ad nauseum) inform us of your qualifications is all of the proof anyone needs of that. I have no intention of doing that, and I have said what I think the value of Lt. Durham’s statement to be.

                  I have no interest in debating this or anything else with you. My observation that your numberless posts about yourself are self-aggrandizing (a public behavior that I always find to be indicative of lack of maturity) is a thing so obvious that it hardly bears mentioning. I would be at a loss as to why you persist in drawing attention to yourself in this way (including today’s didactic lesson in constabulary note taking and narrative form resume update) were it not obvious that your actions simply prove my point.

                  Oh, and being the middle child between two brothers I am pretty sure that you are not my sister though proof of this is as elusive as proof of another person’s professional credentials on the internet, wouldn’t you agree?

                  Before you ask what my own qualifications are; I am a bicycle salesman.

                  • Themis
                    09/15/2009 at 1:01 PM

                    And my dad is an industrial electrician (self-taught) without a GED who makes more money than I. My mother did piece work in a garment factory and worked as a secretary/admin assistant.

                    As I have stated ad nauseum, I am not in the major leagues when it comes to criminal defense. Yet you still refuse to answer: what do I have to gain by my comments?

                    This is the last I will state on this issue as you obviously refuse to truly engage.

                    • AnnaZed
                      09/15/2009 at 1:20 PM

                      What people who are attention seeking “gain” by being seeking attention is attention, obviously.

                    • Craig
                      09/15/2009 at 1:24 PM

                      I for one am interested in knowing what the many commenters bring to the table in terms of career and experience, be they attorneys, bike salesmen, ex crack addicts or what have you.

                      We’ve got a very diverse bunch of smart and motivated contributors here and I hope it continues to grow.

      • Bea
        09/14/2009 at 11:17 PM

        CD, don’t kill the messenger. I don’t think Themis “wants” the defendants to walk – from day one she’s said that she is a public defender but she’s shared many posts about the “logic” issue problem with the defendant’s story. I think her point is that it does none of us any good to hang our hats on Officer Durham’s statement if it isn’t going to hold up in court. I do wonder why it wasn’t in the Affidavit – my guess is that it’s because the DA isn’t putting much stock in it. Why? I don’t know. I’d love nothing more than for Joe to have tripped up that night, and I hope that is the case. If not, and Durham is misquoted, or misheard, then I don’t want her testimony to be why the jury leans toward the trouple. Juries are weird. If the DA doesn’t put her on, then there’s a reason.

        • CDinDC
          09/15/2009 at 9:40 AM

          Bea, noted.

          But she’s a defense attorney and it shows. You can’t change a leopard’s spots.

          And like I said above, when she says things like “I’d love to get her on the stand” she’s showing her inability to separate her work from this website. Otherwise, she may as well work for the defense.

          • Fascinating
            09/15/2009 at 2:17 PM

            I appreciate Themis’s contributions and I understand what he is saying. I think trying to convince Themis to change his mind and not think like a defense attorney is a pointless argument, though CD.

            I like what both of you are saying.

            And I “get” the point being made about the testimony. I, too — knowing hardly anything about the ‘system’ found it odd that the document above was a “Q & A” in which she was “interviewed”.

            The other thing that I find strange is that the medics that arrived first made a point to mention how odd the scene of the crime was (i.e. the three Swann Street guys in white robes and their behavior), whereas Durham’s statements don’t address this at all.

            And I also wonder — if things really were “weird” — why did she leave? Sounds like the medics had more of a “sixth sense” about the crime scene being weird than the police officer.

            • Doug
              09/15/2009 at 2:29 PM

              As to Durham’s statement – and this is obviously a matter of interpretation until/if she ever takes the stand – I read her as touching on the oddness.
              While a factual observation that “underwear guy” did all the talking, that could also be read as unusual in itself. A friend murdered, and only one of three has anything to say? Also while no doubt just a short-hand reference to keep them all straight, her use of “underwear man” and suggestion to put on clothes also, in my mind, hints at strange behavior. Perhaps she was just being kind, but perhaps she felt it odd to have to suggest to someone to, for heaven’s sakes, put some pants on – odd enough to make a specific note of it in her statement.
              As to why she left, perhaps that is in the redacted second page?
              -Doug, co-editor

              • CDinDC
                09/15/2009 at 2:43 PM

                Doug, I found Joe’s absence of pants a bit odd myself. The EMT’s were on scene. He could have excused himself for five seconds and and grabbed a robe, towel, pants to cover up. (And as for the female officer, I’m sure she was bit put off/uncomfortable with the unclothed man.)

                Perhaps Joe was putting on a scene to show he had been in bed. Or, perhaps he wanted to show how sparkly clean he was. (No robe to conceal possible blood evidence.) Let it all hang out, so to speak. A subconscience effort to convince the police he had nothing to hide?

                But her statement is a stark comparison to the EMTs statement. Dylan said nothing in the hallway upstairs, but he began to boohoo downstairs. What came over him? Guilt?

            • CDinDC
              09/15/2009 at 2:32 PM

              Fascinating, I’m certainly not trying to get Themis to change her mind about anything. I just want her to focus her defense skill energies in a more positive way. Many of the greatest prosecutors used to be defense attorneys. And vice versa. Think outside the box.

              Her talents are appreciated and valuable. Not only for this site, but for the system, which she vehemently defends.

              • Fascinating
                09/15/2009 at 2:54 PM

                I hear ya, CD.

                Just wanted to say I enjoy everyone’s thoughts here.

      • SheKnowsSomething
        09/14/2009 at 11:38 PM

        Ya know … I’m no big fan of the MPD for a variety of reasons, but lets cut them a little slack on this case. The Price Club is charged with tampering with evidence, because they … wait for it … TAMPERED WITH THE EVIDENCE!!! This isn’t a shitty case because of something the cops did or didn’t do … it’s a shitty case because of something the perps did. Am I wrong here?

        • Perplexed
          09/15/2009 at 12:07 AM

          Um here’s a probable reason. Maybe the DA isn’t much better as the MPD, and that’s why it wasn’t in the Affidavit. They thought they had enough with the other’s – or – they’re not pursuing murder, which is what that statement would be most applicable to and they feel that her statements about being told it was an intruder, her checking into it, etc. might actually bolster the defense’s claim tht there was an intruder “see that’s what Joe told the first officer arriving”….just a thought….and I think it’s very very probable the DA is just as careless as the MPD and didn’t see the other angle…..

          • SheKnowsSomething
            09/15/2009 at 12:32 AM

            All of us barracks lawyers need to remeber that the US Attorneys Office (we don’t have a DA in DC) and the MPD are on the side of right here, and that it takes a a lot of effort to try and out-bad-guy the bad guys, especially when the bad guys are trying their damnedest to try and not get caught. So, lets let the case develop and be presented before a jury before leveling lots of charges about this or that official being incompetent of this or that action being neglected. I know this must run counter to a lot our nature, but it might help us all to pipe down a little bit and just watch as the point people do their work. That may make for silence on this blog … … but that’s not an all together bad thing …

  14. Themis
    09/14/2009 at 11:48 PM

    Only to the extent that what the MPD did or didn’t do affects the prosecution’s ability to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, which is its burden. A lot of people say that this isn’t a courtroom, and it’s not. But what is presented in the courtroom very much affects the jury’s deliberations. I think Robert’s loved ones are very interested in getting a solid conviction, not just airy fairy hypotheses about what happened. Thus, what the government can and cannot prove due to sloppy police work, the rules of evidence, etc., are very important.

    • SheKnowsSomething
      09/15/2009 at 12:02 AM

      I understand all of that, Themis, but it is not sloppy police work that has put evidence beyond the reach of the government … it’s the work of a slickster lawyer and his two stooges who did what? All together now … TAMPERED WITH THE EVIDENCE!!!

  15. Themis
    09/15/2009 at 12:42 AM

    Bea and Perplexed,

    Although I do not take your comments as support for me, I appreciate your sentiments. And with that I will leave the personal behind to concentrate on the important work that this site is really dedicated to-working toward truth and justice.

    • Mike
      09/15/2009 at 7:33 AM

      Themis,

      I appreciate a lot of the work you’ve done on this blog. It’s great to have a professional perspective like yours. I was just wondering, are you familiar with the procedures a patrol cop goes through after responding to a crime scene? I think a lot of the above friction stems from the fact that you haven’t been clear about this. What is it about Durham’s statement that seems fishy to you? She possibly didn’t take her own notes, okay. But she’s just a beat cop, arriving to provide help or protection, not an investigator. Given all of the available evidence, she just seems like an honest person who was out of her depth.

      I think AnnaZed is right, and the statement was taken down, as the document says, at the Violent Crimes Unit in District 3 and became part of their particular bureaucracy. One arm out of touch with the other; what’s so unusual about that?

      If you actually know what you’re talking about here, can you please show us?

  16. CDinDC
    09/15/2009 at 9:46 AM

    des brought up the 911 call yesterday. Bea and myself began an interesting dialogue regarding the new statement in relation to the 911 call.

    Would anyone like to contribute to that?

    Scoll above for the post. AnnaZed? Perplexed? Mike? SDI? SKS? I’d like to hear your take.

    • Mike
      09/15/2009 at 7:33 PM

      CD,

      I just listened to the 911 call a few times. Some things stuck out – Victor says, early on, “My partner TOLD me to go upstairs and call 911.” So Victor ostensibly had been on the second floor, with Robert and Joe, and was now acting on explicit instruction from Joe. Yet he says Robert was stabbed “I think in the stomach.” Most of the wounds, and the ones you would think would be the bloodiest and the most noticable, were well above the stomach. Was Victor being kept away from the scene?

      Victor says, at least twice, that he and Joe heard their friend’s screams, then the door chime, and “we ran downstairs.” He says, “I didn’t hear the door open until our friend screamed.” Is this meant to agree with the story about Robert struggling to get back inside after being stabbed on the patio? Otherwise, if the door was opened by an (obviously fleeing) intruder, why is Victor so afraid to go downstairs later?

      Since Victor doesn’t say during this call where Robert was found, what he means by “downstairs” becomes of vital importance in light of Durham’s statement. Later Victor says “I’m afraid to go downstairs” and the dispatcher asks him something like, “Is the person who’s downstairs the person who was assaulted?” and Victor, suddenly calm and almost defensive, says, “No, we’re on the second floor.” Hearing that was always a weird moment for me. The dispatcher has become confused because Victor kept using “downstairs” to mean where he and Joe ran to find Robert. It may be just an accident – both lower floors are downstairs from the Master Bedroom – but I also wonder if “downstairs” was a word urgently pushed upon Victor by you-know-who. Maybe that’s why he constantly uses it instead of “the second floor” or “the guest room.”

      At one point you can hear Victor say (to Joe?), “No, don’t touch, don’t touch (something)” in what sounds like a very furtive, controlled voice compared to his “official” timbre on the phone. Weird thing to say to someone who is ministering to a wounded friend under desperate circumstances. Always sounded to me like he was giving cagey clean-up advice.

      Victor keeps saying in a firm, insistent voice, “We have no idea who did it.” An odd thing to fixate on at a time of life-or-death emergency.

  17. Themis
    09/15/2009 at 9:52 AM

    Des and Mike,

    I know that being self-referential will get me crucified by some, but in answer to your questions:

    Some 20 years ago, I worked as a campus police officer in a state that commissioned such officers. As a student, I held a limited commission. That entitled me to make arrests on campus or within a one mile radius of campus, as long as I was on duty. I was entitled, in fact required, to carry a .38, nightstick (now it’s an asp), pepper spray, etc. Even when I was walking my beat on foot, which was often, I was also required to carry a notepad and pen(cil). If I talked to someone about anything substantive or made observations about questionable activity, I was required to take notes. Before my shift was over, I had put the information in my notes into an “incident” report, the sooner, the better. It was a demanding job. In my case, too demanding for me to do while going to school full-time, and I eventually resigned.

    Since working as defense attorney, I have seen many PD files. I have never seen a case where one of the first responding cops didn’t file his/her own report and take contemporaneous notes. I’ve never, ever seen a police report where a patrol cop/first responder was interviewed by aAnd I’ve had cases in podunk southern towns that still proudly claim ties to the KKK.

    I guess what would make the situation seem less “fishy” is seeing the policy and procedures manual for the MPD. Maybe they do things differently, and for a reason.

    But it’s worth noting that first responders have unique opportunities to note details of the crime scene as it initially appeared to authorities, to nail down initial stories, to take preventative measures to secure a crime scene, etc. From my observations of the rear of the residence at around the time everyone went to bed, there is a clear view into the kitchen. There would be a clear view onto the patio as well. Why no observations?

    Anybody who reports on a crime scene or interviews witnesses needs the following: digital camera, disposable camera, digital video recorder, digital voice recorder, tape measure, markers, baggies, and gloves. And cops need to have crime tape. Obviously, cops who aren’t detectives or crime scene techs shouldn’t be manipulating the scene or collecting evidence absence an emergency (outdoor crime scene and thunderstorm). But they can and should document everything they see and secure the premises, IMHO.

    That is not to say that I think that the trouple is not in trouble with or without the report. Having seen the residence on close to the same day of the year and the same time of night, I think the defendants’ have real problems. Taking a jury out to see the area at/around the time of the crime accrues to the benefit of the prosecution. There are also issues regarding evidence inside the residence.

    But you know, I am a defense attorney who only owns black cats (aside from a siamese no one else could handle). That makes me a bitch and a witch.

    • des
      09/15/2009 at 10:48 AM

      thanks for the clarification. actually, it makes a lot of sense and seems obvious that the first cop/s on the scene would have stuck around and taken notes, pictures, etc.
      do you or does anyone else know what other cops were on the scene at that point? or was it just the emts – who quickly left – and this one policewoman? that does seem odd to me. geez, i hope the mpd are not that incompetent.

      • des
        09/15/2009 at 12:12 PM

        “This two-page document, with its second entirely redacted…”

        so themis, do you (or anyone else) have any opinion as to why a second page would be “entirely redacted”?
        thanks again for your input.

  18. Clio
    09/15/2009 at 12:01 PM

    LOL! Here is an electronic bouquet to my fellow goddess, Themis, even though I may agree on the facts (if not always the over-the-top language) regarding Officer Durham with fellow citizen pundits, AnnaZed and CD. There are many bitches and witches (of all genders and sexualities) on Team Wone: that’s a good thing, as Martha used to say. Let’s hope that, in the long run, this sympathetic sisterhood will outweigh (not literally, of course!) the sapphic support for Team Price.

    • CDinDC
      09/15/2009 at 12:28 PM

      Ahh, Clio. You make me smile.

  19. CDinDC
    09/15/2009 at 1:47 PM

    Craig says: “I for one am interested in knowing what the many commenters bring to the table in terms of career and experience, be they attorneys, bike salesmen, ex crack addicts or what have you.

    We’ve got a very diverse bunch of smart and motivated contributors here and I hope it continues to grow.”

    Here, here, Craig.

    The one thing we are ALL qualified to do here is think.

  20. Doug
    09/15/2009 at 2:15 PM

    Every family has its disagreements; this one is no different. And like a family, all are still welcomed back.
    And here’s something to focus the energies: whoever you believe, whatever your theory, there is still a murderer somewhere among us.
    -Doug, co-editor

    • Clio
      09/15/2009 at 3:32 PM

      Huzzah, Doug!

      I do wish, however, that a certain polyamorous family in McLean Hamlet, Virginia, is having its own disagreements about what is truth and what are lies; it is too bad that we cannot get those inevitable spats on tape, (if not for the trial, then for the National Archives, of course.)

      • Craig
        09/15/2009 at 4:22 PM

        Another day in the sandbox….

        If the goal of this site is to examine and stress test every possible scenario, theory and anticipated strategy, then Themis’ contributions here have been invaluable.

        And maybe Team Kirschner can use the assist; Themis is war gaming his opponents’ strategy and tactics. For free.

        • CDinDC
          09/15/2009 at 4:44 PM

          That’s all fine and good, Craig, but don’t you question this?

          “It impedes the search for the truth (other than that believed by certain posters).”

          You know as well as I do, that the majority the people on this website believe that the 3defs are “responsible” for Robert’s death. There was no intruder. The death under their roof was caused by them in some manner. Whether directly or whether by negligence. They caused it.

          What other “truth” could there be?

          This website is not specifically devoted to fair trials , due process or any other constitutional rights. That’s not the question here. This website is devoted to finding justice for Robert Wone. Not the defendants. The 3ds will get their fair trial, and we certainly have no power to hamper that.

          Unfortunately, she gets fixated by the process. She’s so interested in the cheese she forgets about the hole.

          • Themis
            09/15/2009 at 5:08 PM

            CD,

            You have flipped out. No one vouches for me, not even the editors.

            I have always understood this site to be dedicated to obtaining justice for Robert. In some cases, that means shooting down implausible prosecution theories.

            If I could identify and prosecute the persons who attacked one of the editors, whose privacy I respect, I would. But I would do it in manner that defied appellate review if at all possible. Not just because I respect that editor but because no victim should endure multiple trials.

            ’nuff said.

            • CDinDC
              09/15/2009 at 5:17 PM

              “You have flipped out. No one vouches for me, not even the editors.”

              I was asking Craig’s opinion of your comment. That is not vouching.

              And respecting privacy is not what you just did. Shame on you.

              Over and out. I am bored with you and this.

              My apologies to the group for enduring this tripe.

          • Craig
            09/15/2009 at 5:35 PM

            CD – I’ve got 15 years of C-SPAN in my pedigree so I’m all about process, all the time. I can’t get enough.

            Me and my three pals come into this with zero legal or criminal defense background. We’re lucky that we can be schooled on the finer points of evidence, prosecution and defense by such a passionate and accomplished readership that includes Themis and yourself.

            As we’ve seen, law enforcement processes have been found lacking and we’ve shouted those many failures from the rooftops. We’ve found numerous holes in the defendants’ stories and have pilloried them mercilessly for that as well. That’s our job.

            At the trial, as part of the defense process, I expect we’ll see the Four Horsemen ripping the bark off the likes of Officer Durham and Dr. Goslinoski. That’s their job.

            Fairness dictates we cry bullshit on both sides and the process dictates that a jury decides guilt or innocence.

            And lastly, quoting: “You know as well as I do, that the majority the people on this website believe that the 3defs are “responsible” for Robert’s death.”

            Perhaps so but I can guarantee you that although maybe not a majority, nearly every one of the housemates’ supporters we saw in court last Friday read this site daily as well. We welcome their opinions too and I wish a few more of them had the stones to either comment or reach out to us.

            I’d love nothing more than for them to join in this very challenging and illuminating process.

            • CDinDC
              09/15/2009 at 5:45 PM

              Very well said, Craig. I echo your sentiments.

              • Clio
                09/15/2009 at 6:02 PM

                Accordingly, Aunt Marcia, don’t be shy!

  21. Themis
    09/15/2009 at 2:38 PM

    This blog is not about me. It’s about justice for Robert, which presumably means a fair trial.

    Rather than take the eye off of hte prize so to speak, I will refrain from commenting on this blog unless attacked. If anyone wants to reach me, they can do so through the editors.

    I had hoped that this blog could be a gathering place for diverse ideas. It appears that there is a “tea party” that would like to use this space to their exclusive advantage. Too bad. It impedes the search for the truth (other than that believed by certain posters). Robert deserves to have the truth adjudicated in front of jury of his peers, not hijacked by those with an agenda.

    Again, c’est la vie. But it is unfornunate that Robert’s family has to suffer as a result.

    • CDinDC
      09/15/2009 at 3:05 PM

      Like I said, Themis, some of the best prosecutors have been defense attorneys, but you don’t want to play like that. Too bad for you. Maybe you can’t think outside the box.

      Themis says: “It impedes the search for the truth (other than that believed by certain posters).” I think what “certain posters” believe is what 99% of us on this website believe. That the defendants are responsible for Robert’s death. Themis, it’s statements like the above that make me question your motives here.

      And I’m happy to admit I have an agenda. To jail the 3ds.

      • Themis
        09/15/2009 at 3:35 PM

        Oh, come on, CD,

        Your partner is a former assistnt AG for VA or MD. Ane you’re probably a Nancy Grace aficionado (who just happened to be sanctioned for prosecutorial misconduct ) . . . You don’t have a bias? Pleeeeeeeeze.

        I at least proclaim mine.

        As I said before, I will remain silent unless attacked. If you don’t want to hear from me, don’t refer to me. Simple as that.

        A proud B/Witch

        • CDinDC
          09/15/2009 at 3:44 PM

          Themis, it would behove you to read throughly.

          CD said: “And I’m happy to admit I have an agenda. To jail the 3ds.”

          If that’s not a bias, I don’t know what is.

          Read, read, read. 😀

          Not MD or VA, by the way.

          • CDinVA
            09/15/2009 at 8:23 PM

            In VA? No, that would be me.

          • CDinMD
            09/15/2009 at 8:24 PM

            And for Maryland, that would be me!

            • Perplexed
              09/15/2009 at 10:38 PM

              Like I have said a thousand times before. This kind of discussion (and I’m using that term generously) is nonsense. Honestly, some of you sound and act as though you have never graduated from Sandbox 101. No one should be cheering someone no longer wanting to post or put their analysis to good use on this site – particularly if the poster is feeling bludgeoned any time they present something that is not in sync with someone else or if they just generally disagree on a point (possibly even misspell a word or say something not completely grammatically correct – b/c we all know some of us go back through our post and edit it many times before we actually hit post to make sure we say as we intend to say it – leaving lots of room for those kinds of errors).

              I honestly have felt many times like not coming back, also, simply by the way disagreements are posited as attacks. It’s not a matter of being a chicken or a wimp, just honestly have enough crap of my own to deal with w/o having to deal with that, too. Maybe the replies are not intended to be sent that way, but the way they’re sent, there are not too many alternative explanations. And if it is intended to be sent that way – then who died and left people who revel in that kind of dysfunctionalism boss.

              Diversity is one of the most powerful tools we have. We should be embracing it, not trying to make it homogeneous. Since when does one person have all the answers? Or know how something is “supposed to be done” or that “the correct theory can only be figured out using certain rigid guidelines.” Everything is a Work in Progress right now, and there are a lot of bright analytical minds on this site.

              If you believe in this kind of banter, you are not only doing yourself a disservice, but you are also doing the Wone family a disservice.

              • CDinDC
                09/15/2009 at 11:24 PM

                Perplexed, my apologies for airing dirty laundry on the site, but in order to thoroughly understand where either Themis, AnnaZed or I are coming from you have to read every post. It wasn’t just a silly bitch fight. Personally, I have true issues on how things were being presented.

                Diversity, as you say, is a wonderful component to this site, but, in my opinion, when things become antithetical to the purpose of this website, I MUST speak out.

                So to all that were bothered by today’s postings, my apologies. But I WILL NOT sit back and watch the hard work of all concerned be eaten away by self-interest.

    • David
      09/15/2009 at 3:52 PM

      Themis,

      I consider you a very valuable player in our discussions, and our Web site will only suffer from your absence. The evening we spent checking out 1509 Swann was a thrilling experience for this very amature sleuth. I learned more than expected too.

      I truly believe that we benefit from the defense perspective. As anyone in debate will tell you, the best way to hone one’s arguements is to argue the other side.

      Don’t go far because we need you to help us see it through to the end.

      David, co-ed.

    • Clio
      09/15/2009 at 4:36 PM

      Themis, the imagery of us as “a tea party” was a little below the belt, but I partially understand your frustration and I always appreciate your comments, whether they be dry Latinate legalisms, quaint Southern colloquialisms, or practical beauty secrets.

      Yet if we are a “tea party,” then at least one of us may not be able to wait to be the first one to yell “You lie!” at Mr. Price in the courtroom next May. Unfortunately, however, none of us will never get the chance to do that spontaneous (if necessary) gesture of incivility because he will never take the stand — upon the sage and expensive advice of Mr. Grimm.

      • David
        09/15/2009 at 4:52 PM

        Oh, dear Clio, a quilty verdict on obstruction of justice, tampering of evidence and conspiracy is certainly the criminal equivalent of “You Lie!”

        David, co-ed

        • CDinDC
          09/15/2009 at 5:00 PM

          Best line of the day, David.

          Well, that and “don’t even dream in your sleep….” LOL

        • Clio
          09/15/2009 at 5:02 PM

          Touche, dear Co-Editor. XO, Clio.

  22. CDinDC
    09/15/2009 at 3:45 PM

    One more day at WMRW.com.

    How many more to go, eds?

    • Craig
      09/15/2009 at 4:01 PM

      Last Thursday the 10th marked the eight month mark until the trial begins. It’s been a fast four fast months since Judge Weisberg gave us that date. May 10 will be here before we know it.

      • des
        09/15/2009 at 5:17 PM

        editors,
        could you please make another post to this website soon so that we can move on from this back and forth?
        i’m going to have to get a spiritual cleansing soon just from reading all of the hate.
        🙂

        • Doug
          09/15/2009 at 5:29 PM

          New post coming tomorrow – new details from Detective Brian Waid’s handwritten notes of his investigation.
          And by the way, I’m saddened by the loss of any one of this community. We are too few in number as it is.

          • CDinDC
            09/15/2009 at 5:32 PM

            Oh, Doug…she’ll be back.

        • Themis
          09/15/2009 at 5:35 PM

          No need. Peace and love, but I am out of here. This is Robert’s spot, not mine.

          • rose
            09/15/2009 at 11:10 PM

            Oh, Themis – I hope you’ll come back. I think your opinion is valuable, and just because others’ thirst for a guilty verdict makes them unwilling to see the importance of public defenders and defense attorneys in general doesn’t mean that is true of all of us. :/

            I think the majority of us suspect the 3 Swann Street residents of being guilty of -at least- what they are charged with and probably murder – but I think it’s important to remember that justice is only served by fair trials, and a robust defense is part of a fair trial.

            Regardless of all that, your point of view is valued and the only one of its kind – so I hope you won’t leave.

            • Craig
              09/15/2009 at 11:49 PM

              Rose – I concur wholeheartedly.

              Themis’ experience doing criminal defense has been a welcome and needed check against occasional overzealousness.

              • CDinDC
                09/16/2009 at 9:05 AM

                Craig, would you consider my views on this website overzealous?

                • CDinDC
                  09/16/2009 at 9:26 AM

                  Craig, others,

                  I can’t help but feel the “overzealous” comment, was directed at me.

                  Here’s MY resume. I happen to be the kind of person that acts. I don’t sit back idly and watch. I have a grievance, I air it. I see wrong, I step up. I am the person that will stand up at city council. I am the person that will say “hey, don’t do that.” I am the person that finds the owner of the dog in the closed car. I’m the person that keeps an eye on the child standing alone in the bookstore until the wayward parent appears, then I dress them down. I am the person that sticks their neck out when other sit on their hands because it “not their business.”

                  I don’t sit back on my laurels and let the world go by and then complain when it doesn’t go my way.

                  Do I take this website personally? Yes, I do. I’ve spent countless hours here from the website’s inception. I posted under “anonymous” until the editors asked me to create a screen name. I’m the mysterious person that first brought up ketamine. I gave you that definition for culuket that drove Lance wild. I’ve thought inside and outside of the box for months on end. I’ve researched and combed the internet for information on everything from autopsy procedures to function of the duodenum. Do I drop by once in a blue moon and then criticize someone for their postings when they haven’t contributed squat, BUT criticism? No. Every day I log on, read every post, and contribute.

                  But if that is overzealous, then perhaps it is I that should step away from the WMRW.com.

                  • CDinDC
                    09/16/2009 at 9:29 AM

                    PS…I’m female. Yes, another sistah.

                  • Craig
                    09/16/2009 at 10:00 AM

                    CD – The overzealousness I had in mind was that of myself and my colleagues.

                    Now, can we all just settle down and refrain from any more personality-driven commentary?

                    Everyone here contributes something of value including you, and as Doug said yesterday, our numbers are relatively small and we cannot afford to lose a single motivated or dedicated reader.

                    Let’s continue our maniacal devotion to the goals and go catch the bad guy(s)!

                    • NYer
                      09/16/2009 at 10:17 AM

                      Out of curiosity, how many people read/post to this site? Does wordpress enable users to track this information?

                    • Craig
                      09/16/2009 at 4:29 PM

                      NYer – We are privy to the data but hold it close to our vests. We have what could be considered an elite audience from government agencies, professional service firms, media outlets and academia in addition to the rank and file (for lack of a better word) of case watchers.

                      Readers across the country and around the world. The overall numbers seem small when compared to general interest websites, but depending on the wind, daily traffic can bounce between the thousands and tens of thousands.

                      We’re closing in on a half million hits since February on 200 posts that generated over 6,000 comments, not counting yesterday’s flurry/fury.

                      But we still depend on readers both new and old to constantly share this site by word-of-mouth. Tell two friends. -Craig

                    • NYer
                      10/09/2009 at 4:36 PM

                      Thanks for this Craig. If the traffic is indeed comprised of thousands of original hits, it would be interesting to calculate what the chances are that any given DC resident has NOT been to this site. (DC poulation is reported to be just under 600,000.)
                      A practical question for legal eagles here. I presume that during jury selection for the trial, defense will ask prospective jurors if they have viewed this site- so will it be a particularly difficult process selecting a jury, taking the above into consideration and the fact that most people in DC probably have read something on this case? Could we actually see something like in the OJ case- a removal of the case from its current jurisdiction?

                    • Craig
                      10/09/2009 at 5:23 PM

                      NYer – We have a few repeat visitors. (You know who you are). And we’re thankful for them.

                      During my three stints on jury duty in DC I’ve been asked about what I’d heard about the given case, but the questions never went into much detail. Then again, none of those cases were publicized much.

                      Also, I’ve heard change of venue for DC trials is pretty rare.

            • AnnaZed
              09/16/2009 at 1:05 AM

              I wouldn’t lose any sleep over that if I were you Rose. She’s not going anywhere.

              Just for the record, I have no disdain for public defenders or defense attorneys as a class of persons, as potential contributors to this blog or as actual contributors to this blog ~ quite the contrary, and I am absolutely certain that nothing that I have posted on this blog stated or implied that I do.

          • Ski
            09/16/2009 at 12:43 AM

            Uhhh . . . I just threw up in my mouth a little.

        • Clio
          09/15/2009 at 6:19 PM

          Amen, sister des.

  23. CuriousInVa
    09/15/2009 at 8:31 PM

    Yes, please let’s move on! The sniping is getting old.

    • Clio
      09/15/2009 at 11:06 PM

      Moving on … I reread the Durham account several times, and there are two instances of (possibly) revealing ambiguity with the second one (possibly) showing Joe’s unraveling/testing of story lines. First, according to the above statement, the officer is greeted by white men in white robes, but then she notes that one is wearing only the white Speedo underwear. At the end, she then tells “underwear guy” to put on a robe or some clothes. So, only Victor and Dylan in their robes greeted the officer at first?

      Second, and much more importantly, the fifth sentence says: “… we were burgalized [sic.], the person came through the patio door, see the door is still open.” Underwear guy does not explicitly identify “the person” as the victim here; burglarized and “the person” so close together could have been Joe alluding to the nascent intruder theory. But then by sentence #9, as Officer Durham turned on the light to look around, Joe specified that the victim was indeed the one who had come through the patio door. Did the official story have the entering person go from being an intruder to being the victim, and then back again? Maybe.

      • Perplexed
        09/16/2009 at 11:14 AM

        Wow, this is incredibly interesting. I’m going to take some time this weekend going back over all of the factual evidence that is posted under the docs to try to piece this together to hopefully get a sense of what the three may have been thinking/attempting from when they first spoke to when they were formally interviewed……

      • korat
        10/14/2009 at 1:34 PM

        Ok, everyone. I am a little new to this site, having only checked it out after seeing the “who murdered robert wone” writing on the street. Sorry if anything I post as been said before.

        I do not have a legal background, but I must say that there are some aspects of officer Durham’s statement that puzzled me. First and foremost, why the defendants saw it fit to transport an obviously severely injured man – up a flight of stairs, no less? Again, I can only speak for myself, but if I saw a friend of mine lying on the ground with stab wounds, carrying him up a flight of stairs across the second floor and then laying him in a bed would be the furthest thing from my mind. My point is that if I were a police officer, and someone fed me that story, I would be IMMEDIATELY suspicious. There is nothing in her statement about a trail of blood leading upstairs, either. Therefore, I doubt I would have left these men alone.

        Furthermore, underwear guy said “we were burglarized”, yet as soon as Officer Durham turned the lights on to check what had been disturbed, he switched gears, saying that the victim came in through the patio door. Apparently, underwear guy quickly realized that there needs to be missing items in order for a burglary to have taken place, hence the change.

        Finally, I find it hard to believe that someone could see their friend dying on the ground, yet the first thing they tell the police is “we were burglarized.”

        At the very least, I question Officer Durham’s judgment.

        • CDinDC
          10/14/2009 at 2:31 PM

          korat says: “Therefore, I doubt I would have left these men alone.”

          Officer Durham was not the only officer on the scene. There were two other officers with her. One was in the dining room and another walked into the kitchen with her.

          Yes, she left to go to the hospital, but the other officers didn’t go with her.

          Officer Durham didn’t leave the defendants alone.

          • Doug
            10/14/2009 at 2:59 PM

            CD, I just re-read the Durham statement. My understanding is that she arrived as the two EMTs (the first on the scene) were taking Robert to the hospital. I don’t find a reference to others present, and read her comment at the end – to get some pants on as other officers would be arriving – as her leaving the housemates momentarily alone. What am I missing?
            -Doug, co-editor

            • CDinDC
              10/14/2009 at 4:31 PM

              Hi Doug…..on September 16, 2009, the “Isn’t he our friend?” posting, highlighted Detective Waid’s Handwritten Notes. It is from these notes, primarily, I base my comments.

              It can be glean from these notes that other officers were there during the time Durham was on the scene. Namely, Hampton. If you refer to Page 3 of Det. Waid’s notes, it says: “Int. Hampton re 1509 Swann St, NW (new line) 1st on scene Durham (new line) not there yet.” This sounds to me Hampton was first on scene. Not Durham. I can see where the “hard return” at “not there yet” could lead one to believe Durham was first on the scene, when it appears that Hampton was first to arrive.

              Also on Page 4 of Waid’s notes (which is part of the Hampton interview), Hampton is talking to Joe when “Durham came in.”

              From Page 4 of those notes (which, again, is part of the Hampton interview): “Durham came in. Durham & Joe & Hampton went to the back door. Hampton in dining room. While there Joe called victim’s wife……..” So, as you can see, other officer’s were certainly present while Durham was at the scene.

              Then, it can be assumed that Durham left.

              From Durham’s Statement: “I told underwear guy I was going to leave and go to thehospital with his friend. I advised him to put on a robe or clothes because other units would be coming to investigate the scene.” (Other units….not other officers.)

              I hope this helps to understand where my information came from.

              • CDinDC
                10/14/2009 at 4:55 PM

                Also, Sgt. Roach was at the scene. He “spoke to w/m at door. Wit was crying.”

                When Durham arrived, the defendants were inside the house. She was “met by the white men dressed in white robes” and, of course, Joe was still parading in his panties.

        • Doug
          10/14/2009 at 2:54 PM

          Hello Korat, and glad you found us. All questions are welcome.
          You raise interesting points. Another area of question for us is why this statement, so at odds with all others, lay buried until it was unearthed in September.
          You may be interested in listening to the 9-1-1 call from Victor on scene…that doesn’t match, either.
          -Doug, co-editor

  24. John Grisham
    10/03/2009 at 11:31 AM

    It is easy to understand why Joe’s story changed that evening. It wasn’t his story. It was Victor’s. Joe was initially having a difficult time remembering what Victor said would be the final version of their story.

    • AnnaZed
      10/03/2009 at 12:45 PM

      That’s very interesting John. I too have begun to drift from my own thinking that Victor was just a pawn in this conspiracy. It certainly goes to why he has continued to hold the line and not break free from the other two. Maybe Victor, as the only not drug impaired resident (if that is even the case) was the one to direct the action.

      • John Grisham
        10/03/2009 at 1:04 PM

        Precisely. The person who calls 911 didn’t have time to memorize the lines his drugged up housemate had just hastily prepared. No, the person who calls 911 is the same person who is writing the script. That seems so obvious. Even more so, because that’s what Victor did everyday for a living.

        • Craig
          10/03/2009 at 2:49 PM

          This is an interesting theory – that Victor may have directed the cover up?

          Hmmm… And he holds the line because when it comes to the pending charges, he’s on equal footing with the other too, and not less culpable?

          He fed Price and Ward the talking points on the spider, open back door, broken shower, hot room, etc.? All the while placing himslf asleep in the timeline?

          It would seem that if he was not involved in the murder, he still has some wiggle room to cut a deal with Kirschner, no? He could serve time, but would have a softer landing than the other two… assuming of course that he knows what actually happened to Robert and he in turn flips.

          I repeat, hmmmm…

          • Unknown Soldier
            10/03/2009 at 3:09 PM

            Those of us who remember C&C Music Factory know that there are many things “that make you go hmmm.” Some enjoyable (hmmmer, anyone); others not.

            Victor’s value as a witness diminishes daily unless he can corroborate his testimony with independent evidence.Why? The longer he waits to capitulate, the more he looks like a whore. Even more so than some other characters in this unsavory narrative. That’s especially true if physical evidence shows him to be more involved than most suppose.

          • John Grisham
            10/03/2009 at 3:30 PM

            Victor scripting the Intruder story is MUCH MORE LIKELY than the following sequence of events:

            • Victor stumbles upon a murder in his house, freaks out and screams loudly.
            • Joe comes up with a new plan and story.
            • Joe tells the recently-screaming Victor exactly what to say to 911.
            • Joe dispatches Victor alone up to their 3rd floor bedroom to call the authorities – out of earshot of Joe – trusting that the previously-started Victor is all calm now and will remember his lines.

      • John Grisham
        10/04/2009 at 7:30 PM

        Among the Thee Piggies, Victor is not going to be the one to squeal. He is the architect of their entire cover up. All of the overwrought “Please Victor, come to your senses” pleading on this site is in vain. A more fruitful line of enquiry would investigate what Sarah and Louis have been up to recently.

        • Bea
          10/04/2009 at 10:17 PM

          I respect your opinion, John, but continue to disagree – as to Victor being the architect of the cover up. As for Victor ‘squealing’ I hold out hope but suspect he’s too much under Joe’s control.

          • cdindc
            10/05/2009 at 9:36 AM

            They probably have a joint bank account.

            • Bea
              10/05/2009 at 1:03 PM

              Indeed.

  25. Max
    10/05/2009 at 11:45 AM

    There was a little bit similar case here in Finland also 3 years ago, which just now was solved: Woman called to 112 (our 911) and said that an intruder was in their house who attacked her and her husband and was currently fighting with the husband in the other room. She was stabbed and pegged for help. When the police arrived, they found the husband dead with multiple stabbing wounds in his body. The glass in the back door was broken so it looked like that was where the intruder came from.
    The wife gave detailed suscription of the intruder and there was a huge manhunt for the perpetrator, but the police wasn’t able to find the man. For almost three years the investigation went nowhere and people started to think that the case will never be solved.
    Then, two weeks ago, it was informed that the police has arrested the wife and couple of days later she confessed murdering her husband.

    Anyway, point is that usually the most obvious explanation in the murder case is the most probable one.

  26. Clio
    10/09/2009 at 5:00 PM

    NYer, I am not a legal eagle, but I would love to see the case tried in my country, Virginia — its judges and juries would be far less sympathetic to any criminal defendant, let alone these killer clowns.

    I would also guess, unfortunately, that most Washingtonians have not visited this site, and that a majority in the federal capital do not know anything about the case. So, because of the spotty media coverage, DC will probably be where the trial will take place, regardless of the expected defense motions to change venue.

    • CDinDC
      10/09/2009 at 5:09 PM

      Clio, it amazes me that John Mohammed (the DC sniper, for those unfamiliar) will be executed in just days. It’s been a mere 7 years since he and John Malvo terrorized our neighborhoods.

      Had this case been in any other state, John Mohammed would continue to languish in prison for years while his many appeals processed.

      Just a supporting example of how Virginia has a no-tolerance stance.

      • Clio
        10/10/2009 at 10:49 AM

        The Commonwealth certainly has a “no-tolerance stance” when it comes to serious crimes but, unfortunately, a long-time resident of the Old Dominion has tolerated and harbored the trouple.

        I do wonder how Aunt Marcia’s neighbors and friends are reacting to her strange guests — have they invited 7900 Ariel Way to any barbeques or dinner parties lately? Will they allow their children and grandchildren to go trick-or-treating at that haunted house? Are Joe and Victor’s kids frequent visitors to McLean?

        For Team Price, I suspect that the elephants continue and will continue to be in the proverbial rooms through May, and it’s business as usual, as if nothing ever happened. Next year, though: denial denied!

        • CDinDC
          10/10/2009 at 11:57 AM

          Aunt Marcia will probably dress as Cleopatra this Halloween.

          • Clio
            10/10/2009 at 12:53 PM

            Queen of De Nile! It took me a while to get the joke (being an historian), but LOL!

            Alternatively, she could, though, dress as Hades, and the trouple could then be Hades’ three-headed hound/monster, Cerberus. Just a thought.

            • CDinDC
              10/10/2009 at 3:27 PM

              LOL!! Love it, Clio.

              • NYer
                10/12/2009 at 9:58 AM

                CD- I’ve been reading this site for several weeks now and have seen two monikers arise with some regularity: “Aunt Marcia” and “Miss Piggy.” Who is being referred to with these, and what is the etymology?

                • Craig
                  10/12/2009 at 10:31 AM

                  NYer – “Aunt Marcia” is Victor’s aunt in McLean, VA who’s home the threesome are now living in.

                  • Clio
                    10/12/2009 at 12:19 PM

                    NYer, Miss Piggy could be a joking reference to Sarah Morgan, although, since we still have never seen a picture of the basement tenant, that weighty allusion cannot be confirmed at this time. More accurately, the moniker could be an appropriate synonym for Culuket, given his/her remarkable increase in girth since the murder.

                    • AnnaZed
                      10/12/2009 at 12:25 PM

                      Now, calling Joe “Miss Piggy” wouldn’t even be called being rude in my book.

                • AnnaZed
                  10/12/2009 at 12:09 PM

                  In a sophomoric attempt to be rude and hurtful in describing Sarah Morgan, the former tenant and friend of the accused men, much is made of her weight and what is judged to be her lack of attractiveness. Calling her “Miss Piggy” is the least of the many insults that are routinely thrown at her on this site.

                  I don’t know this woman and know nothing about her. Many posts ago I asked way it was thought to be somehow ok to keep going on and on about this person’s weight, but never got an answer.

                  As to relevance to the case; I can’t help but think that the MPD has thoroughly vetted her alibi yet theories of her involvement are fielded routinely here. It was be that with the many police screw-ups so far there is a lack of confidence on this site in their ability to account for the movements of all the players that night; so Ms. Morgan is considered fair game.

  27. AnnaZed
    03/04/2010 at 6:42 PM

    Don’t click on Theola’s name (maybe the mods can pull this); that’s a trojan spam.

    • CDinDC
      03/04/2010 at 6:47 PM

      I’m hoping the eds will prohibit website links associated with names (like the above.) It’s always a sex site and now trojans. Geez. It’s getting hazardous to post here! LOL

Comments are closed.