The Story of "O"

Where is Square One?

You’ve likely been there before.  Trying to explain this case to a friend, you rattle off its evidentiary twists and legal turns.  Their reaction: bewilderment.

Who you calling a dummy?You can hardly blame them.  The Robert Wone case is head-spinning even for those well versed in the law.

So imagine the difficulty the four of us – complete legal neophytes – had when we began this project.  We’re still in the hunt for that elusive book: “Criminal Prosecution and Defense for Dummies.”

Until we find it we’ll lean on courtroom sharpies, online and off, to help us navigate the paperwork, procedures and process.

A week ago we met with one such sharpie; someone who’s worked both prosecution and defense.  “O” was relatively new to the case but had a good handle on the major points.  And guess what?  His head was spinning, too.

To help us all focus we posed one simple question: since this is a conspiracy case and not a murder trial, how does Glenn Kirschner prosecute?  Where does he start?

“O’s” answer wasn’t so simple or clear cut.  But it gets to the heart of what we’ve seen in the recent status hearings; namely what the prosecution is left with at the conclusion of the discovery process.

It’s clear Judge Frederick Weisberg is giving neither side a free ride and will make the Government work to back up its theory, detailed in the original warrant, of paralytic drugs and sexual assault.   AUSA Kirschner at the December 2008 status hearing:

“…Kirschner said subsequent investigation determined that Price had either possessed or distributed crystal methamphetamine, cocaine and ecstasy.”

“We have an innocent victim here” who was tortured and suffocated, Kirschner said.  “He was allowed to lie there dying for a period of time.”

It’s clear where Kirschner is headed, but will Judge Weisberg allow it?   The soundings from the September status hearing says maybe not.

Because Medical Examiner Lois Goslinowski saved only 4cc’s of Robert’s blood – and as far as we can tell, did not pull tissue samples from the puncture wound sites – there isn’t left much to test.  The defense team seems more than happy to let the Government consume all the remaining blood, confident that no paralytic agents will surface.  Does that take incapacitation off the table?

Beyond discovery issues, Bernie Grimm has indicated they will go after Goslinowski too; her autopsy report faces an assault of its own.  If Kirschner loses the rape and torture arguments, as well as the paralytic agents, what’s left?

According to “O,” plenty… or plenty enough.  He sketched out one strategy:  Kirschner opens not with how Robert was murdered, but how he was found and the condition of his body.

He tees up the first responders on how they believed Robert was showered, redressed and placed into bed.  He goes after the conflicting statements given by the defendants to police and the many incongruities from their interrogations.  Then comes the physical evidence that also refutes their stories.   Thus Kirschner is able to establish a pattern of  lying, speaking directly to the obstruction and tampering charges.

The Hall of Famer then tries to prove that for their cover-up to work, the defendants must have worked in concert – ergo conspiracy.

Sounds simple enough.  Even to a dummy layman.

-posted by Craig

25 comments for “The Story of "O"

  1. CDinDC
    09/28/2009 at 10:20 AM

    Wasn’t it Kirschner that said “the lack of evidence is evidence itself?”

    It’s been said that the lack of blood would be a result of stabbing after death. But it seems that the defense wouldn’t want to argue the theory because the prosecution would then have a field day with the “how did he die” question. There’s no evidence of “natural” death. No heart failure. No aneurysms. No natural medical anomolies were found at Robert’s autopsy. So, if the lack of blood were as a result of stabbing after death, then the death would have been UNnatural. Drugging, suffocation (and there’s evidence of that), etc.

    Perhaps Joe et al should have read “Murder for Dummies”. Maybe there’s a chapter on what NOT to clean up.

    • David
      09/28/2009 at 10:46 AM

      CD,

      It was Patrick Martin at the last status hearing when he made the point that the lack of evidence is evidence itself.

      However, Judge Weisberg did not cotton to that argument one bit. He said that the prosecution was going to have to bring more direct evidence about Robert being injected with a paralytic agents than just puncture wounds.

      David, co-ed.

      • CDinDC
        09/28/2009 at 1:31 PM

        David says: ” He sketched out one strategy: Kirschner opens not with how Robert was murdered, but how he was found and the condition of his body.”

        Actually, my post had less to do with injections, puncture wounds or paralytic agents and more to do with “how he was found and the condition of his body”….the absence of evidence….blood.

  2. Clio
    09/28/2009 at 12:01 PM

    Would that lack of evidence argument also extend to the missing “stuff” — the knife, the bloody towels, the play mats, etc. — incriminating materials that were either thrown in the trash, or given to an emissary of whatever gender to dispose of later? In other words, this “stuff” should have been at the crime scene or nearby, but it was never recovered because of the intentional acts of this conspiracy.

    • Bea
      09/28/2009 at 1:28 PM

      Clio, I think this goes before the jury (or how I would play it) as follows:

      X testified that Z pints of blood would have spilled out of Mr. Wone’s body yet 2 cc’s were found on the sheet in the form of a wiped knife. So not only did the defendants claim not to hear an intruder murder their friend just 15 feet away from Def. Ward’s room, nor did they hear the intruder leave. But what must the intruder have been carrying?
      A knife – but he left a ‘fake one’;
      Cleaning supplies – presumably a mop, bucket, and some bloody rags;
      The blood-soaked sheets and bedding – which causes one to ask did he bring in a fresh set or did he know where the linen was kept?;
      Mr. Wone’s bloody clothing – if he was wearing any – but if he wasn’t, how was it that Def. Ward heard him leave the shower and latch his bedroom door?

      Yet the mop didn’t leave droplets down the stairs? Perhaps the bloody rags and clothing were in the bucket, but surely the bedding didn’t fit (Def. Ward would have heard Mr. Wone being attacked in the shower since he had a clear recollection of the very small sound of a door latching). Bucket in one hand, and was the knife in there too? Perhaps the intruder brought a garbage bag to put the bedding/towels in, and another to tie around the mop so it didn’t “leak” on the long stairwell descent. So, bucket in one hand, garbage bag and mop in the other – a cumbersome load for an unknown intruder in an unfamiliar house – yet he never drops anything, never bumps into anything, is never heard. Imagine yourself walking through an unfamiliar house, tired and moving fast, and yet a lamp isn’t knocked over, the knife never falls out of the bucket, and no drops of blood or watery blood trail you out?

      And now let’s talk about poor Mr. Wone having been selected – isolated out – and murdered as he slept in the office/guest room. . .

      • CDinDC
        09/28/2009 at 1:37 PM

        The fact that we (website/general public) don’t know of blood evidence elsewhere in house certainly doesn’t mean there wasn’t any…..I would imagine results of forensic studies of the portions of the house they carried out will give a better indication of what exactly happened that night. We haven’t seen ALL evidence yet.

        • David
          09/28/2009 at 1:46 PM

          CD,

          Didn’t the misapplication of the Ashley’s Reagent by the MPD, which would have proven the blood traces found throughout the house, remove any chance that it could be entered as evidence in the trial?

          David, co-ed.

          • Bea
            09/28/2009 at 2:18 PM

            I suspect that will be determined in a Motion war yet to be played out.

            • CDinDC
              09/29/2009 at 11:33 AM

              It’s never been said exactly how the reagent was misused. There are various reagents for various surfaces (porous/non-pourous/glass/plaster/wood, etc.). Perhaps the reagent was misused in some instances and properly used in others. Who knows. At least I’m a bit of an optimist on this point. It ain’t over until it’s over.

              Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water, folks.

              Until an expert witness is on the stand and testifying that the reagent application wasn’t a TOTAL wash, then let’s find something positive in it.

  3. Perplexed
    09/28/2009 at 2:36 PM

    I agree with Bea that this is probably not settled, and we also do not know if it will rule out the use of “all” blood evidence or just some blood evidence in particular or in certain rooms/areas……

  4. Clio
    09/28/2009 at 7:37 PM

    Here are some (dumb) legal questions from a non-lawyer: When Kirschner establishes the pattern of lying, would he also eventually go to the Jekyll and Hyde personae of at least two of the three defendants? The spiritual, shy dilettante in the drawing room possessing an extensive erotica collection in his own boudoir, including the film Manwhore in DVD? The civil rights hero in LGBT Virginia (possibly) using drugs and (probably) having alt.com partners in the District?

    Or, would the prosecution only go there, if the defense asserted that their clients were inherently incapable of committing obstruction of justice (or murder) because of their alleged integrity, education, and public service. In other words, if the Four Horsemen present the sweet and charming things that City Paper’s Jule Banville knew, then can the prosecution counter with their own documented incongruities –beyond that fateful evening and its immediate aftermath. But, if Bernie and company stay silent on character, then does that prevent the prosecution from coming forward with contextual, rather than direct, incongruities?

    • Mike
      09/28/2009 at 7:51 PM

      Jule Banville, if you are reading this. I once knew a woman who had met Ted Bundy. She said he was nice, charming, and funny.

      Just sayin’….

      • Nelly
        09/29/2009 at 7:52 AM

        I dunno, I’m not too down on that Jule Banville person, because many people were also bamboozled by Joe and Victor’s seemingly nice and normal demeanors. Do you think Robert would have gone over there to spend the night if he didn’t think they were his friends? At the funeral, Joe was a pallbearer. People didn’t think he was guilty at first and wanted to feel sorry for him. Murderers/criminals aren’t evil 100% of the time, and there’s a first time for everything. E.g, Jeffrey Dahmer seemed normal to a lot of people. He played tennis in HS, was in the military, and was working at a candy factory. The cops let him off the hook and left the bloody, drugged Laotian boy with him because Dahmer was so “charming” and good at putting on a show of normalcy. So I would only be pissed at Ms. Banville if, after all the news that has been revealed, she were donating to the trio’s defense fund and showing up to support them at the court hearings. Like that razor scooter woman who sorta looks like Kathy Griffin.

        • Craig
          09/29/2009 at 1:13 PM

          Nelly – This topic came up a few nights ago, RE: Price as pallbearer.

          It’s uncomfortable to talk about but I still can’t help but wonder that if news stories about crime scene tampering surfaced earlier than Aug. 14, would Price have been welcome in that church?

          Tampering was suspected only a few days after Robert’s murder. Maybe just two, maybe immediately.

        • Mike
          09/30/2009 at 7:51 AM

          By the time her piece was written, most of the most damning evidence regarding the clean-up had been common knowledge for some time – except to City Paper readers. Banville doesn’t talk about that; just about the defendants’ “true acts of kindness.” And we’re all quite aware that “no one has been found guilty of a crime”; no need to condescend.

          She also writes of Kathy Wone, “…in no way do I begrudge the way she’s conducted herself in an effort to find out what happened to her husband.”

          I would assume not….

          • CDinDC
            09/30/2009 at 9:18 AM

            “She also writes of Kathy Wone, “…in no way do I begrudge the way she’s conducted herself in an effort to find out what happened to her husband.”

            This reminds me of the time someone busted my chops for saying “I’m not judging you.” LOL I can’t remember the exact wording or who said it, but to sum it up, the poster said when statements like that are made usually the opposite is true.

            So, if the above lesson holds true, Jule Banville is defending her true feelings about Kathy Wone.

            Sad.

            • Mike
              09/30/2009 at 12:25 PM

              Yeah, it’s like she’s “apologizing” for the natural responses of a bereaved widow. Banville is protesting too much when no one begged the question.

              The subtext is that Kathy’s suspicions are a symptom of grief derangement rather than COMMON SENSE.

              • 10/01/2009 at 1:10 AM

                Oh, ok, now I see how Banville’s comments could be viewed as condescending or like a back-handed “I understand you” message. I went back to re-read Ms. Banville’s comments in the City Paper blog. “It’s a difficult read for anyone, but I especially worry about Robert’s wife. Kathy Wone clearly lost the love of her life and, amazingly, was able to stand in front of a packed church in August 2006 and give a eulogy that was touching and funny and heart-breaking. I often wonder what I would do if faced with a situation like hers; in no way do I begrudge the way she’s conducted herself in an effort to find out what happened to her husband. I truly hope some day she does find out. And I would caution that no one at this point has been found guilty of a crime.”

                Jule Banville stopped working for the City Paper this summer and is now listed as an adjunct journalism professor at the Univ. of Montana. I hope she doesn’t teach students that it is ok for an editor of a paper to make personal remarks about the characters of criminally accused persons.

                • CDinDC
                  10/01/2009 at 1:41 PM

                  Here, here, Nelly.

    • Bea
      09/28/2009 at 8:42 PM

      It’s a complicated answer to a complicated question – while the prosecution (who goes first) cannot put on evidence for the sole purpose of showing ‘bad character’ of the defendants, nor can they even in the rebuttal unless the defendants have ‘opened the door’ during their case, there are still ways some of these facts may be deemed ‘relevant’. For example, if the judge DOES allow the puncture wound/drugged theory to come in, then all the drug use evidence will be allowed. I suspect that Dylan’s “toy chest” evidence will come in as a result of the finding of Mr. Wone’s sperm in his anus (but not his hands). One thing you can bet on is that the defense attorneys will be arguing tooth-and-nail against every savory detail being allowed.

      • Craig
        09/29/2009 at 9:20 AM

        Bea – RE: the items listed on the search warrants? The sex toys and the drugs?

        How can those warrants be seen as prejudicial? Shouldn’t they be introduced at face value – a snapshot of what was in the house when a man was butchered there. Sounds inbounds to me.

        Is every police document up in the air? What about the autopsy?

        • Bea
          09/29/2009 at 1:55 PM

          Just because it’s on a search warrant doesn’t mean it’s coming in as ‘evidence’. It has to be seen as ‘relevant’ to a particular element of the crime. Just like prior bad acts -even convictions of similar crimes – aren’t allowed in because they are deemed too ‘prejudicial’. Judges weight whether the importance of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect or vice versa. I’m not saying most of this stuff isn’t coming in – certainly the autopsy comes in – but there will be battles and the defense lawyers will be doing handstands trying to suppress everything which makes their clients look, well, guilty. Again, this is true in EVERY criminal trial – and it doesn’t mean the defense will win, especially not as to every piece of evidence.

          • Craig
            09/29/2009 at 2:45 PM

            Gotcha – Probative v. prejudicial.

            I’m slowly getting the hang of this. I think.

            • Clio
              09/29/2009 at 3:11 PM

              Accordingly, the jury may then be spared from a screening of Manwhore: it’s so 2001, anyway!

  5. corgivet
    09/29/2009 at 9:26 PM

    Is exhuming Robert’s body of little benefit?

Comments are closed.

The Story of "O"

Where is Square One?

You’ve likely been there before.  Trying to explain this case to a friend, you rattle off its evidentiary twists and legal turns.  Their reaction: bewilderment.

Who you calling a dummy?You can hardly blame them.  The Robert Wone case is head-spinning even for those well versed in the law.

So imagine the difficulty the four of us – complete legal neophytes – had when we began this project.  We’re still in the hunt for that elusive book: “Criminal Prosecution and Defense for Dummies.”

Until we find it we’ll lean on courtroom sharpies, online and off, to help us navigate the paperwork, procedures and process.

A week ago we met with one such sharpie; someone who’s worked both prosecution and defense.  “O” was relatively new to the case but had a good handle on the major points.  And guess what?  His head was spinning, too.

To help us all focus we posed one simple question: since this is a conspiracy case and not a murder trial, how does Glenn Kirschner prosecute?  Where does he start?

25 comments for “The Story of "O"

  1. CDinDC
    09/28/2009 at 10:20 AM

    Wasn’t it Kirschner that said “the lack of evidence is evidence itself?”

    It’s been said that the lack of blood would be a result of stabbing after death. But it seems that the defense wouldn’t want to argue the theory because the prosecution would then have a field day with the “how did he die” question. There’s no evidence of “natural” death. No heart failure. No aneurysms. No natural medical anomolies were found at Robert’s autopsy. So, if the lack of blood were as a result of stabbing after death, then the death would have been UNnatural. Drugging, suffocation (and there’s evidence of that), etc.

    Perhaps Joe et al should have read “Murder for Dummies”. Maybe there’s a chapter on what NOT to clean up.

    • David
      09/28/2009 at 10:46 AM

      CD,

      It was Patrick Martin at the last status hearing when he made the point that the lack of evidence is evidence itself.

      However, Judge Weisberg did not cotton to that argument one bit. He said that the prosecution was going to have to bring more direct evidence about Robert being injected with a paralytic agents than just puncture wounds.

      David, co-ed.

      • CDinDC
        09/28/2009 at 1:31 PM

        David says: ” He sketched out one strategy: Kirschner opens not with how Robert was murdered, but how he was found and the condition of his body.”

        Actually, my post had less to do with injections, puncture wounds or paralytic agents and more to do with “how he was found and the condition of his body”….the absence of evidence….blood.

  2. Clio
    09/28/2009 at 12:01 PM

    Would that lack of evidence argument also extend to the missing “stuff” — the knife, the bloody towels, the play mats, etc. — incriminating materials that were either thrown in the trash, or given to an emissary of whatever gender to dispose of later? In other words, this “stuff” should have been at the crime scene or nearby, but it was never recovered because of the intentional acts of this conspiracy.

    • Bea
      09/28/2009 at 1:28 PM

      Clio, I think this goes before the jury (or how I would play it) as follows:

      X testified that Z pints of blood would have spilled out of Mr. Wone’s body yet 2 cc’s were found on the sheet in the form of a wiped knife. So not only did the defendants claim not to hear an intruder murder their friend just 15 feet away from Def. Ward’s room, nor did they hear the intruder leave. But what must the intruder have been carrying?
      A knife – but he left a ‘fake one’;
      Cleaning supplies – presumably a mop, bucket, and some bloody rags;
      The blood-soaked sheets and bedding – which causes one to ask did he bring in a fresh set or did he know where the linen was kept?;
      Mr. Wone’s bloody clothing – if he was wearing any – but if he wasn’t, how was it that Def. Ward heard him leave the shower and latch his bedroom door?

      Yet the mop didn’t leave droplets down the stairs? Perhaps the bloody rags and clothing were in the bucket, but surely the bedding didn’t fit (Def. Ward would have heard Mr. Wone being attacked in the shower since he had a clear recollection of the very small sound of a door latching). Bucket in one hand, and was the knife in there too? Perhaps the intruder brought a garbage bag to put the bedding/towels in, and another to tie around the mop so it didn’t “leak” on the long stairwell descent. So, bucket in one hand, garbage bag and mop in the other – a cumbersome load for an unknown intruder in an unfamiliar house – yet he never drops anything, never bumps into anything, is never heard. Imagine yourself walking through an unfamiliar house, tired and moving fast, and yet a lamp isn’t knocked over, the knife never falls out of the bucket, and no drops of blood or watery blood trail you out?

      And now let’s talk about poor Mr. Wone having been selected – isolated out – and murdered as he slept in the office/guest room. . .

      • CDinDC
        09/28/2009 at 1:37 PM

        The fact that we (website/general public) don’t know of blood evidence elsewhere in house certainly doesn’t mean there wasn’t any…..I would imagine results of forensic studies of the portions of the house they carried out will give a better indication of what exactly happened that night. We haven’t seen ALL evidence yet.

        • David
          09/28/2009 at 1:46 PM

          CD,

          Didn’t the misapplication of the Ashley’s Reagent by the MPD, which would have proven the blood traces found throughout the house, remove any chance that it could be entered as evidence in the trial?

          David, co-ed.

          • Bea
            09/28/2009 at 2:18 PM

            I suspect that will be determined in a Motion war yet to be played out.

            • CDinDC
              09/29/2009 at 11:33 AM

              It’s never been said exactly how the reagent was misused. There are various reagents for various surfaces (porous/non-pourous/glass/plaster/wood, etc.). Perhaps the reagent was misused in some instances and properly used in others. Who knows. At least I’m a bit of an optimist on this point. It ain’t over until it’s over.

              Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water, folks.

              Until an expert witness is on the stand and testifying that the reagent application wasn’t a TOTAL wash, then let’s find something positive in it.

  3. Perplexed
    09/28/2009 at 2:36 PM

    I agree with Bea that this is probably not settled, and we also do not know if it will rule out the use of “all” blood evidence or just some blood evidence in particular or in certain rooms/areas……

  4. Clio
    09/28/2009 at 7:37 PM

    Here are some (dumb) legal questions from a non-lawyer: When Kirschner establishes the pattern of lying, would he also eventually go to the Jekyll and Hyde personae of at least two of the three defendants? The spiritual, shy dilettante in the drawing room possessing an extensive erotica collection in his own boudoir, including the film Manwhore in DVD? The civil rights hero in LGBT Virginia (possibly) using drugs and (probably) having alt.com partners in the District?

    Or, would the prosecution only go there, if the defense asserted that their clients were inherently incapable of committing obstruction of justice (or murder) because of their alleged integrity, education, and public service. In other words, if the Four Horsemen present the sweet and charming things that City Paper’s Jule Banville knew, then can the prosecution counter with their own documented incongruities –beyond that fateful evening and its immediate aftermath. But, if Bernie and company stay silent on character, then does that prevent the prosecution from coming forward with contextual, rather than direct, incongruities?

    • Mike
      09/28/2009 at 7:51 PM

      Jule Banville, if you are reading this. I once knew a woman who had met Ted Bundy. She said he was nice, charming, and funny.

      Just sayin’….

      • Nelly
        09/29/2009 at 7:52 AM

        I dunno, I’m not too down on that Jule Banville person, because many people were also bamboozled by Joe and Victor’s seemingly nice and normal demeanors. Do you think Robert would have gone over there to spend the night if he didn’t think they were his friends? At the funeral, Joe was a pallbearer. People didn’t think he was guilty at first and wanted to feel sorry for him. Murderers/criminals aren’t evil 100% of the time, and there’s a first time for everything. E.g, Jeffrey Dahmer seemed normal to a lot of people. He played tennis in HS, was in the military, and was working at a candy factory. The cops let him off the hook and left the bloody, drugged Laotian boy with him because Dahmer was so “charming” and good at putting on a show of normalcy. So I would only be pissed at Ms. Banville if, after all the news that has been revealed, she were donating to the trio’s defense fund and showing up to support them at the court hearings. Like that razor scooter woman who sorta looks like Kathy Griffin.

        • Craig
          09/29/2009 at 1:13 PM

          Nelly – This topic came up a few nights ago, RE: Price as pallbearer.

          It’s uncomfortable to talk about but I still can’t help but wonder that if news stories about crime scene tampering surfaced earlier than Aug. 14, would Price have been welcome in that church?

          Tampering was suspected only a few days after Robert’s murder. Maybe just two, maybe immediately.

        • Mike
          09/30/2009 at 7:51 AM

          By the time her piece was written, most of the most damning evidence regarding the clean-up had been common knowledge for some time – except to City Paper readers. Banville doesn’t talk about that; just about the defendants’ “true acts of kindness.” And we’re all quite aware that “no one has been found guilty of a crime”; no need to condescend.

          She also writes of Kathy Wone, “…in no way do I begrudge the way she’s conducted herself in an effort to find out what happened to her husband.”

          I would assume not….

          • CDinDC
            09/30/2009 at 9:18 AM

            “She also writes of Kathy Wone, “…in no way do I begrudge the way she’s conducted herself in an effort to find out what happened to her husband.”

            This reminds me of the time someone busted my chops for saying “I’m not judging you.” LOL I can’t remember the exact wording or who said it, but to sum it up, the poster said when statements like that are made usually the opposite is true.

            So, if the above lesson holds true, Jule Banville is defending her true feelings about Kathy Wone.

            Sad.

            • Mike
              09/30/2009 at 12:25 PM

              Yeah, it’s like she’s “apologizing” for the natural responses of a bereaved widow. Banville is protesting too much when no one begged the question.

              The subtext is that Kathy’s suspicions are a symptom of grief derangement rather than COMMON SENSE.

              • 10/01/2009 at 1:10 AM

                Oh, ok, now I see how Banville’s comments could be viewed as condescending or like a back-handed “I understand you” message. I went back to re-read Ms. Banville’s comments in the City Paper blog. “It’s a difficult read for anyone, but I especially worry about Robert’s wife. Kathy Wone clearly lost the love of her life and, amazingly, was able to stand in front of a packed church in August 2006 and give a eulogy that was touching and funny and heart-breaking. I often wonder what I would do if faced with a situation like hers; in no way do I begrudge the way she’s conducted herself in an effort to find out what happened to her husband. I truly hope some day she does find out. And I would caution that no one at this point has been found guilty of a crime.”

                Jule Banville stopped working for the City Paper this summer and is now listed as an adjunct journalism professor at the Univ. of Montana. I hope she doesn’t teach students that it is ok for an editor of a paper to make personal remarks about the characters of criminally accused persons.

                • CDinDC
                  10/01/2009 at 1:41 PM

                  Here, here, Nelly.

    • Bea
      09/28/2009 at 8:42 PM

      It’s a complicated answer to a complicated question – while the prosecution (who goes first) cannot put on evidence for the sole purpose of showing ‘bad character’ of the defendants, nor can they even in the rebuttal unless the defendants have ‘opened the door’ during their case, there are still ways some of these facts may be deemed ‘relevant’. For example, if the judge DOES allow the puncture wound/drugged theory to come in, then all the drug use evidence will be allowed. I suspect that Dylan’s “toy chest” evidence will come in as a result of the finding of Mr. Wone’s sperm in his anus (but not his hands). One thing you can bet on is that the defense attorneys will be arguing tooth-and-nail against every savory detail being allowed.

      • Craig
        09/29/2009 at 9:20 AM

        Bea – RE: the items listed on the search warrants? The sex toys and the drugs?

        How can those warrants be seen as prejudicial? Shouldn’t they be introduced at face value – a snapshot of what was in the house when a man was butchered there. Sounds inbounds to me.

        Is every police document up in the air? What about the autopsy?

        • Bea
          09/29/2009 at 1:55 PM

          Just because it’s on a search warrant doesn’t mean it’s coming in as ‘evidence’. It has to be seen as ‘relevant’ to a particular element of the crime. Just like prior bad acts -even convictions of similar crimes – aren’t allowed in because they are deemed too ‘prejudicial’. Judges weight whether the importance of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect or vice versa. I’m not saying most of this stuff isn’t coming in – certainly the autopsy comes in – but there will be battles and the defense lawyers will be doing handstands trying to suppress everything which makes their clients look, well, guilty. Again, this is true in EVERY criminal trial – and it doesn’t mean the defense will win, especially not as to every piece of evidence.

          • Craig
            09/29/2009 at 2:45 PM

            Gotcha – Probative v. prejudicial.

            I’m slowly getting the hang of this. I think.

            • Clio
              09/29/2009 at 3:11 PM

              Accordingly, the jury may then be spared from a screening of Manwhore: it’s so 2001, anyway!

  5. corgivet
    09/29/2009 at 9:26 PM

    Is exhuming Robert’s body of little benefit?

Comments are closed.