Put Up Or Shut Up


Defense Team Ratchets up the Pressure on the Government

Ahead of tomorrow’s 2:00pm status we expected more paper to fly. 

We were not disappointed. 

gavelThe defense team has unleashed one of their toughest demands, that AUSA Glenn Kirschner address, with proof, that Robert Wone was injected, incapacitated, sexually assaulted and tortured. 


They want the Government to show what they have to back up this “alleged uncharged criminal conduct” or back off.

In a motion filed today, the defense team for the Swann Street roommates are asking Judge Frederick Weisberg to schedule an evidentiary hearing to consider the validity of the Government’s charges of injection, sexual assault and torture.

Mike Scarcella of the Legal Times offers this:

Lawyers for Price, Zaborsky and Ward filed court papers this week saying that the government attorneys should be forbidden to say anything about torture and sexual abuse. A motion to exclude uncharged criminal conduct was filed Nov. 2 in D.C. Superior Court.

The defense lawyers—including Thomas Connolly, Bernie Grimm and David Schertler—say the alleged uncharged criminal conduct is inadmissible. The lawyers have asked for a hearing on the motion.

The government has not responded.

Included in the defense team’s motions are two exhibits:  (A) The original Ward affidavit that lays out the Government’s theories and (B) the transcript of the December 19, 2008 status hearing that finds Kirschner going into detail about the accusations:

“…  (Wone) was tortured, was incapacitated, was sexually suffocated, was sexually abused, had eight needle puncture marks on his body, was — there was an ejaculation that occurred….  

…there was indeed, an electrocution unit in Mr. Ward’s bedroom that can produce electric ejaculation…   He (Wone) was then allowed to lie there, dying, and digesting his own blood for a considerable period of time, according to the experts.”

It’s long been debated whether or not Judge Weisberg will allow the Government to bring these charges to the trial. 

The defense team is now pushing back hard, trying to force the issue and have Weisberg schedule a stand-alone hearing on this matter quickly.


84 Responses to “ Put Up Or Shut Up ”

  1. Friend of Rob on 11/05/2009 at 9:11 PM

    It is a testament to how civilized we are as a society that nobody has even tried to beat the shit out of Joe and his minions.

    Every time I read nonsense like this pleading, it seems like Rob and his family and friends are being victimized all over again. If I were to pass Joe on the street, I don’t know if I could resist the urge to punch him in his pompous face. I wouldn’t be surprised if Joe hasn’t convinced himself that he’s really not responsible for any of this.

    • Nelly on 11/06/2009 at 6:21 PM

      Friend, I share the same sentiments. If I had a terminal illness, I might be tempted to stalk and do unmentionable things to the trouple … what would I have to lose, gonna die anyway! But, I have a moral compass, alas.

    • Bea on 11/06/2009 at 7:06 PM

      I’ll bet that not only has Joe convinced himself that he’s not really responsible but too that he’s been victimized himself.

      • Clio on 11/08/2009 at 3:38 PM

        Joe as masochistic martyr? Of course — who else but a professional “victim” would hire the vaudeville headliner of Dr. Henry Lee? Mr. Price may be, though, “victimized” in the end by Victor/Vicki, who may finally see herself as the real victim of his deceit.

        Perhaps prompted by Aunt Marcia, Victor did apparently arrive “stag” and sat next to the cypher “Dillion”, rather than his/her chubby hubby, after all.

        The entourage or “gaggle” of supporters leaving out the servants’ entrance is the most troubling to me, nonetheless. I just hope that I never meet any of these supporters in the ladies’ room at Moultrie: in the highly unlikely event of such encounters, weaves and furs would probably be flying!

        • Clio on 11/08/2009 at 10:20 PM

          One historical footnote: American history is full of trials for the falsely accused — from the Salem witch trials of 1692 through the travails of Carl and Anne Braden in 1950s Kentucky and far beyond.

          One especially “American tragedy” for the falsely accused was that of the Scottsboro Boys, African American youth in Jim Crow Alabama accused of rape by two white teen-aged girls in the early 1930s. One girl — Ruby Bates — recanted her story, but the other one stuck to her lines for years afterward even after it was revealed that they made no sense at all. The Scottsboro Boys then remained in jail because of customary prejudice and official incompetence.

          This infamous liar’s (the other girl’s) name: Victoria Price!

          That semantic coincidence above is an omen that this trial is NO witchhunt: there was no need for a hunt, anyway, since all three witches were at home in this instance.

  2. Friend of Rob on 11/05/2009 at 9:11 PM

    It is a testament to how civilized we are as a society that nobody has even tried to beat the shit out of Joe and his minions.

    Every time I read nonsense like this pleading, it seems like Rob and his family and friends are being victimized all over again. If I were to pass Joe on the street, I don’t know if I could resist the urge to punch him in his pompous face. I wouldn’t be surprised if Joe hasn’t convinced himself that he’s really not responsible for any of this.

  3. […] ‘uncharged conduct.’ Status hearing this afternoon. See also WMRW?, of […]

  4. BMCJD on 11/06/2009 at 10:53 AM

    By this reasoning, the murder itself is also “alleged uncharged criminal conduct.” Bernie, should the government therefore be precluded from mentioning that Wone is dead?

    • CDinDC on 11/06/2009 at 1:46 PM


  5. Hoya Loya on 11/06/2009 at 11:46 AM

    I think this is overreaching, an obvious attempt to keep out all of the damning circumstantial evidence like that discussed in the “Countdown” post.

    The charge is conspiracy – that the trouple altered the crime scene and obstructed justice. Testimony and evidence concerning the state in which Robert was found and the probable cause and manner of death must be allowed to establish that there was something to cover up.

    And the one thing that is certain is that this was not a death by natural causes. There may not be proof of paralytics, nor of torture, but certainly there is evidence consistent with sexual assault and devices discovered on the property that could explain the method used, as well as evidence of suffocation, a lack of defensive wounds and digesting of blood. It doesn’t need to be stated or implied that the trouple were responsible, only that they messed with the evidence.

    The prosecution may need to tone down the indictment accordingly, but I don’t see every element being thrown out. Proof comes at trial, not pre-trial. Maybe this motion will force the prosecution to show some new evidence, not necessarily a bad thing if it exists – it might cause at least one of the three to rethink things. And, if it can’t establish certain elements, it shouldn’t present them, to preserve greater charges that might be better substantiated later on and prevent possible prejudice to the civil case.

    To turn this on its head, while the defense does not have the burden of proving anything, how does it expect to present the intruder theory when there is absolutely no evidence to support same? There will be the statements by “Ma’am” in the 911 tape and references by the EMTs and investigators when they recount statements by the trouple, but certainly the three don’t intend to testify?

    And if there was an intruder, is the jury supposed to believe he cleaned up too? Remember, doubt has to be reasonable.

    • Anonymous Friend on 11/06/2009 at 8:39 PM

      I think you hit the critical distinction … the prosecution can’t present this conduct as acts the defendants committed without proof (although it can be circumstantial, of course). But it must be able to introduce evidence of the facts of the scene, manner of death, etc., especially to the extent this evidence is inconsistent with the defendants’ statements/actions – right? Crim attorneys … we need you!

  6. Former Crackho on 11/06/2009 at 12:11 PM

    Well, couldn’t Robert have inserted his own semen in his rectum before he stabbed himself three times? Ridiculous.

  7. Former Crackho on 11/06/2009 at 1:49 PM

    Was that electro-ejaculator thingy found in Dylan’s room tested for DNA?

  8. BenFranklin on 11/07/2009 at 1:32 PM

    I’ve changed my mind for now. I don’t think the evidence will show paralytic drugs or electro-torture was involved. After more carefully reading the documents, a TENS unit in the house does not mean it was used that night by anyone.

    I don’t buy any of the Swann Street residents as the murdering type. They’re all smart, successful, with everything to lose, and it was a school night! They are easy scapegoats for our collective grief and anger because they’re so kinky and unconventional with difficult-to-love family values.

    Has anyone considered that a 5th person invited or hired by Rob or the hosts may have been in the house that night? Hair and fingerprint evidence may support this scenario.

    After consensual safe sex or masturbation to orgasm with person 5, Rob dresses, lies on the bed, puts in his mouthguard and waits in the dark for #5 to shower and leave. He closes his eyes and is smothered and stabbed execution-style and lies dying as the killer exists through the front door, causing the security chime to sound.

    If the hosts were aware of person 5, could a possible cover-up be for hiding the identity of this person?

    If the hosts were not aware of person 5, were they hiding a friend’s fatal infidelity from the surviving wife and family?

    Could a cleanup be about keeping the house tidy and residents reputation undamaged?

    Rob’s need for a mouthguard at night suggests a man under stress, burdened by frustration and anger, possibly at home or at work. Uncomfortable in his skin.

    I don’t believe in saints or monsters. I know friends of Rob will howl with indignity and outrage and protest about how happy the marriage was and ask me to go elsewhere to speculate. I keep person 5 gender-neutral to avoid homosexual/bi-curious denials. All of the players in this tragedy may have something to hide. Still trying to make sense of it.


    • galoon on 11/07/2009 at 1:52 PM

      Snake oil salesmen rejoice in the knowledge that easy marks like you still exist.

    • Bea on 11/07/2009 at 2:30 PM

      Ben, I was willing to contemplate your theory until. . . “Could a cleanup be about keeping the house tidy and residents reputation undamaged?”. . . and then I had a good laugh.

      Hey, someone stabbed our friend and he’s bleeding – you go call 911 and I’ll grab the Spic-N-Span.

      • Michael on 11/07/2009 at 6:18 PM

        @BenFranklin –

        You say “Rob’s need for a mouthguard at night suggests a man under stress, burdened by frustration and anger, possibly at home or at work. Uncomfortable in his skin.”

        That is a very far reaching statement. I for one have worn mouthguards intermittently at night since I was a child. Yes, I tend to grind my teeth, more under stress, but it is no indication of frustration, anger, or not being comfortable in my own skin.

        It defies logic that an intruder or 5th person would bother to clean up the mess a stabbing would create, which leaves the clean-up work and knowledge of who murdered Robert with none other than the 3 residents of the house.

        – Michael, co-editor

        • BenFranklin on 11/09/2009 at 4:38 PM

          Hi Michael,
          It’s not a far reach. This is from the Mayo Clinic staff listed as the number one risk factor:

          “These factors increase your risk of bruxism:

          * Stress. Increased anxiety or stress can lead to teeth grinding. So can anger and frustration.”

          If P5 was a like the Cragislist Killer, someone let into the house through the front door by Rob after the others went to bed, the residents would not necessarily know the killer.

          • Bea on 11/09/2009 at 5:00 PM

            Married to a teeth grinder, and having been one in the past, I can assure you that it suggests primarily that one grinds teeth during sleep.

            But if this is a line of thinking you want to pursue, what of Dylan’s medication for depression and his scrip for ‘sleep disorder’. That, and the dogs sniffed out other drugs AND the cops found ecstacy. Want to compare that to an over-the-counter teeth grinding prevention device?

            • BenFranklin on 11/09/2009 at 5:44 PM

              Hi Bea,

              I stopped grinding my teeth when I cut back on the coffee and switched to a less stressful job.

              The drugged-addled masseur and/or a P5 are possibilities. The other drugs/syringes, the knife, and the bloody evidence could have walked out the front door with P5 before 911.


    • Craig on 11/07/2009 at 6:37 PM

      Ben – I appreciate you stress testing novel theories, but I see some weak points with a person 5 scenario.

      If P5 were known to the trouple, why would they possibly risk everything to cover up for him/her? If that was the case, the only thing that could explain them holding together was if P5 was very close, a member of the family – a blood relative or someone in very, very close orbit.

      As bad as the news would’ve been for the Wone family, I still can’t see the threesome staying mum for 3+ years with this secret, not while their lives and future hang in the balance.

      The only thing I can see to support a known P5 is the fact that the trouple has done nothing publicly to find the murderer. That could mean they are protecting both Robert’s ‘secret’ and a ‘friend’ who savagely murdered him. That’s a lot of ifs and is only negative evidence I guess.

      If P5 was unknown, how could they NOT have known about someone besides them and Robert in the house? How could they not have heard anything in that “sardine can” of a townhouse?

      P5 doesn’t fit the DNA evidence as we know it. If it was P5 who assaulted Robert, Bernie Grimm and David Schertler would not have spent an hour pleading for the tech’s bench notes, a needle in a haystack, yesterday. P5’s DNA traces, hair and fingerprints would’ve been pretty obvious at the scene, obvious enough even for the MPD evidence techs to stumble across them I’d imagine.

      P5 also does nothing to explain what we’re told were the three surgical stab wounds and no defensive wounds on Robert.

      Wouldn’t P5 have left prints on the knife? Would he/she have gone to the trouble of going to the kitchen, retrieving the weapon, and donning a glove?

      P5 does nothing to explain the clean up either. What would’ve been the point for the Swannsters to clean up and/or stage the murder scene in either P5 scenario?

      Lastly, again as we know it, does P5 mesh with the characterization of the trouple’s demeanor when the first responders arrived, distant and disconnected?

      Maybe P5 fits with Zaborsky’s alleged 9-1-1 call ‘script: “There’s been an intruder evidently…”
      Those words still sound like he/they were covering for someone, themselves or another.

      Happy hunting. Keep at it.

    • CDinDC on 11/08/2009 at 12:49 AM

      Ben Franklin says: “He closes his eyes and is smothered and stabbed execution-style and lies dying as the killer exists through the front door.”

      1) there was NO appreciable blood in the guestroom.

      2) there was no fiber evidence indicating Robert was stabbed where he was laying.

      Both of these points indicate that Robert was stabbed elsewhere and cleaned afterwards.

      Forensic analysis indicated no fiber transfer (or shedding) was found. (Fibers from clothing, etc will very often shed onto a victim. Especially stabbing victims, as stabbing is a violent action which can cause fiber transfer more easily.)

    • AnnaZed on 11/08/2009 at 2:24 PM

      Ah Ben, Ben, Ben … curiously I am finding your words something of a comfort because, really, in all seriousness; is that all you’ve got?

      You speculate that the defendants seem nice (even though they don’t particularly seem all that nice to me) and that the defendants are risking years in prison and already enduring the loss of their lives as they knew them to cover up Robert’s infidelity. All I can say to that is ::snerk::! I mean… good lord, this is not Victorian England, that’s just ridiculous.

      Your convoluted, and in its particulars so improbable as to be absurd, conjectured scenario with the presence and actions of a guilty fifth party is simply the elves fiction with some tatty (not to mention tacky) bits added. I’m not impressed much as the police were not impressed by this story, and I doubt that a jury will be either.

      I do like that you tried re-tooling your consensual sex fantasy to define it as safe sex after the roars of outrage that you encountered when you conjectured that Robert would have been willing to place his wife’s health at risk in pursuit of sexual pleasure outside of his marriage. Presumably a jury would also be skeptical that a person like Robert would engage in sex that would place her in harms way. That’s a nice touch, but it still seems that you don’t comprehend the fundamental and demonstrable reason why those who knew Robert insist that behaving in that way (safe sex practices or not) would be inconsistent with his personality ~ it is because to do so would be dishonest. Maybe you don’t understand that a world peopled with persons who are honest is not a world of saints but a real world that exists right outside of you door and that that is the world that Robert lived in.

      As for the notion that the defendants altered and cleaned a crime scene and washed and moved poor Robert apparently while he was expiring causing the blood in his chest cavity to migrate; that is truly appalling nasty behavior, disgusting behavior, and in no way indicative of some sort of reasonable tidiness but of debauched and criminal self-interest. I will give you that their motivations were to keep their own reputations “undamaged.” That much is obvious.

      Your dime novel psychological portrait of Robert based on his use of a mouth guard whilst sleeping as being a man somehow “uncomfortable in his skin” is is just too dumb to bother with. Bernie should know that mouth guards are so common that the odds of a jury member employing one himself (or herself) are considerable. In addition to being essentially execrable nonsense that this dog simply won’t hunt.

      • AnnaZed on 11/08/2009 at 2:35 PM

        My kingdom for an edit function: “…outside of youR door” and “In addition to being essentially execrable nonsense that dog simply won’t hunt.” would make more sense. Probably there are other gross errors, sorry.

        • Clio on 11/08/2009 at 3:18 PM

          Ben, darling, one can see why the British did not believe your BS when you were lobbying their Parliament: your 5th person narrative is even more ridiculous than Ma’am’s intruder theory.

          To think that Robert was having an affair with Miss Morgan or the younger Mr. Price (the obvious choices of a 5th person) is beyond the pale of credibility. To think that Robert was having an affair period is equally unhelpful, given the evidence and his documented character.

          Rather, a 5th person for the conspiracy to cover up is still possible, given the “burglary” starring Brother Michael and/or the disappearance act of Sister Sarah. Indeed, the farcical subplot of the “burglary” does need to be revisited, Editors — perhaps, in an upcoming segment?

          • Craig on 11/08/2009 at 4:40 PM

            Clio – We made a trip to the Superior Court clerk’s office to get the case files and documents for the burglary (which occurred just over a year ago), but they were not available on the database.

            We’ll try again to pull them.

            I can’t imagine they are sealed docs. If they are, that would be kind odd, right?

            • AnnaZed on 11/08/2009 at 5:02 PM

              Oh yes Craig, that would be some very interesting reading.

              I continue to be pinged by the government’s two iterations (maybe there are more, but I noticed two) of the accusation that the defendants concealed from Mrs. Wone that Joe’s brother Michael had keys to Swann St. Why the emphasis on that I keep wondering?

              I am vexed when trying to tease out the motivations for this sham burglary though I am (let’s say) strongly suspicious that it was linked to Robert’s murder in some significant way. I also simply don’t understand the fizzling and non-resolution of this as a legal matter. What exactly happened there, and why?

              I too would welcome a lengthy post on this topic.

          • BenFranklin on 11/09/2009 at 2:07 PM

            Thanks to all for the well considered responses to the P5 theory. It does have some holes (the WHERE is still unclear, I agree) in it but it could result in reasonable doubt in a murder case.

            In the 18th Century widows often outlived their husbands. Then as now, widows often find out things about their husbands in their diaries and letters that they did not know about them during their lives. I can think of several famous men whose widows’ burned their personal letters and papers to preserve their late husbands reputations and to obscure partnership agreements to benefit their own inheritance. I can name some from history if you wish.

            It seems that today’s equivalent of personal letters and papers–the victim’s Blackberry–could reveal the answer to many of the “character” questions we have here about Rob, a possible P5, and the chain of events, but it was “lost” by the widow.


            • Craig on 11/09/2009 at 2:44 PM

              Ben – The United States Secret Service failed to image the BlackBerry. It was turned back over to RFA to be placed back into service, then ‘lost’ by them. Theories are one thing, but facts remain facts.

            • Bea on 11/09/2009 at 3:24 PM

              Ben, you really should spend some time reading (start with the affidavit). While I still smile at the thought that the trouple started cleaning around Robert’s dead body the moment they “found” him “because they like a clean house”, this post too suggests that you’re going far and wide to try to find logic that blame lies elsewhere – as in Kathy Wone having “deleted” Robert’s Blackberry – which, Craig straightened out for you.

              After you read the affidavit, I’d be curious to hear what other theories you want to ‘try on’. Much as I think we here could use some other points of view, logic and reason have to play a part – that and the facts have to match, as Craig noted.

              • BenFranklin on 11/09/2009 at 3:57 PM

                The last person to successfully use the Blackberry was the widow. We will never know what state it was in when it left her hands.

                Just trying on theories! That’s what we’re here for right?


                • CDinDC on 11/09/2009 at 4:13 PM

                  Oh Ben.

                • David on 11/09/2009 at 4:31 PM


                  Where are you finding the information that Kathy Wone was the last person to successfully use the blackberry? In no public information does it ever state that Kathy Wone had access to the blackberry.

                  As Craig said, it was returned to Robert’s place of employment, not to Kathy Wone. From the Washington Post on June 2, Paul Duggan writes, “By the time investigators realized that the data had not been replicated, the BlackBerry had been given back to Radio Free Asia and “recycled.””

                  If you have additional information that it was returned to Kathy, we would be all hears, put as of right now there is absolutley no public information to support your theory that the blackberry returned to Kathy Wone.

                  David, co-ed.

                  • BenFranklin on 11/09/2009 at 4:42 PM

                    I read it on this site that she got it among personal effect from MPD so she could get contact information to send death notifications. Let me try to find it…

                    • Bea on 11/09/2009 at 5:03 PM

                      Once you find it – I do recall something about how she turned it back in to Radio Free Asia after the authorities had it (but failed to image it) – let’s go back to your theory that the trouple started cleaning the scene after they found their bleeding friend so their house wouldn’t be untidy (for when the cops arrived?). Remember too that Joe is a lawyer and knows one must not spoil the evidence in the scene (and that anyone else with a brain knows the same thing no matter the profession).

                    • BenFranklin on 11/09/2009 at 6:53 PM

                      It really is a twenty million dollar question.

                      Bea, can you please help me find it? I read the same thing you did about the widow getting access to the blackberry for the purpose of getting his contacts’ information which she did.

                      I don’t think there is any doubt the residents cleaned up and arranged Rob’s body. Only they know what horrific condition/position it was found in. By all accounts Joe & Victor loved Rob & Kathy, too.

                      end of thread

                    • CDinDC on 11/09/2009 at 10:15 PM

                      May 8, 2009…9:31 AM
                      BlackBerry Black Hole

                      “At Kathy Wone’s request, the MPD then asked for the BlackBerry to be returned, and Kathy says she then later returned it to Radio Free Asia. (RFA has yet to comment on the matter.)”

                    • CDinDC on 11/09/2009 at 10:17 PM

                      Here’s another quote from May 8, 2009…9:31 AM
                      BlackBerry Black Hole

                      “‘Specifically Kirschner told the court in a filing:

                      “After it was believed to be imaged, the BlackBerry was retrieved from the U.S. Secret Service and returned to Mr. Wone’s widow…'”

  9. JusticeForRobert on 11/07/2009 at 2:36 PM

    Ben asks : “Has anyone considered that a 5th person invited or hired by Rob or the hosts may have been in the house that night?”

    Yes, I have considered that and have yet to rule it out.

    “If the hosts were aware of person 5, could a possible cover-up be for hiding the identity of this person? ”

    Certainly it is possible.

    “If the hosts were not aware of person 5, were they hiding a friend’s fatal infidelity from the surviving wife and family?”

    At this point with what they are facing, I would say no. In fact, when the indictments were issued if all they were doing was trying to protect infidelity, it is my opinion that they would be squealing like little pigs to a slaughterhouse.

    “Could a cleanup be about keeping the house tidy and residents reputation undamaged? ”

    Sure it could. It could also be about covering up a murder.

    “Rob’s need for a mouth guard at night suggests a man under stress, burdened by frustration and anger, possibly at home or at work. Uncomfortable in his skin.”

    While Robert may have experienced stress, frustration and anger in his life, I have yet to meet one person who has not. Not everyone I know wears a mouth guard despite how much stress, frustration and anger they experience at home or at work. In fact the few people I know who do wear one, usually at the advice of their Dentist, wear it to protect their teeth from grinding at night, something that we do not control even when we are happy.

    “I don’t believe in saints or monsters. I know friends of Rob will howl with indignity and outrage and protest about how happy the marriage was and ask me to go elsewhere to speculate. I keep person 5 gender-neutral to avoid homosexual/bi-curious denials. All of the players in this tragedy may have something to hide. Still trying to make sense of it.”

    There is nothing indignant or outrageous about pursuing the truth. I do not believe that Robert was a saint. I do believe, based on evidence that exists, that Robert was a good man. Evidence also speaks for the defendants lifestyles, not their sexuality, their lifestyle.

  10. CDinDC on 11/08/2009 at 12:41 AM

    If there had been a FOURTH person involved in Robert’s murder (I do not include Robert in that equation), that 4th person would be in prison right now. There’s no way Joe, Dylan AND Victor would sell their souls for that person. Just no way.

  11. CDinDC on 11/08/2009 at 5:43 PM

    Please everyone, saying a 5th person intimates that Robert was “involved” in his own death. There are 3 defendants, and if another person was involved in Robert’s death, that would be the 4th person.

    • JusticeForRobert on 11/09/2009 at 5:29 AM

      CD: Any reference to a 5th person in my posts, only refers to the number of persons in the house, not to the number of persons involved in Robert’s murder. For those involved directly and indirectly, that number could be larger.

  12. JusticeForRobert on 11/09/2009 at 5:41 AM

    Craig wrote: ” If P5 were known to the trouple, why would they possibly risk everything to cover up for him/her? If that was the case, the only thing that could explain them holding together was if P5 was very close, a member of the family – a blood relative or someone in very, very close orbit.”

    Yes, someone who was “like” a brother to them.

    Michael wrote: “It defies logic that an intruder or 5th person would bother to clean up the mess a stabbing would create, which leaves the clean-up work and knowledge of who murdered Robert with none other than the 3 residents of the house.”

    Yes, it is far more logical that this person would exit the house and take evidence with him. Could someone “like” a brother to the three have “intruded” on their evening unexpectedly?

  13. Clio on 11/09/2009 at 7:53 AM

    I find it intriguing that Michael Price was at Moultrie, taking Friday off from his many odd jobs. Was he wearing a matching grey flannel suit?

    Who then was the older, grey-haired man running to the parking garage with the trouple? Was that Aunt Marcia’s new beaux?

  14. AnnaZed on 11/09/2009 at 7:07 PM

    BenFranklin – November 9, 2009 at 6:53 PM – “It really is a twenty million dollar question.”

    It what sense it this a twenty million dollar question or even a relevant question at all?

    The police had the blackberry, they screwed up royally (or the Secret Service did) and failed to image the device. If Mrs. Wone subsequently had possession of it, so what?

    Ben adds: “I don’t think there is any doubt the residents cleaned up and arranged Rob’s body.”

    So, something we can all agree on, how refreshing.

    Ben continues: “Only they know what horrific condition/position it was found in.”

    This too I would agree with and hasten to point out that they have done nothing but lie about that from the very beginning; several lies, several versions of lies and several iterations of lies. In addition: I for one would question “found” as an operative verb and consider that all evidence points to “put” in its stead.

    Ben says this also: “By all accounts Joe & Victor loved Rob & Kathy, too.”

    Who’s accounts? where? If so, I would consider that they have an extremely unconventional approach to expressing that love (to say the least).

    • BenFranklin on 11/09/2009 at 7:31 PM


      The widow’s only response has been to file a civil claim.

      Did the widow or did the Secret Service scramble the device? The widow appears to be the last person to be able to get any information from it.

      Lies have been told, perhaps by everyone.

      Loved is past tense. We’re all here for the same reason. Anger and frustration is normal when things don’t make sense.


      • annazed on 11/09/2009 at 7:49 PM

        Mrs. Wone’s response was to continue to believe the lies that even you acknowledge that Joe told her about Robert’s death for some time and to invite Joe to be a part of Robert’s funeral service where he acted as a pall-bearer and had the unmitigated gall to look her in the face and lie to her some more.

        What the fuck difference does it make if she took the phone numbers of Roberts friends and business contacts off of his blackberry days or even weeks after someone murdered him? What is this sue of the word “scrambled” supposed to imply?

        I’m back to my previous response: is that all you’ve got?

  15. annazed on 11/09/2009 at 7:50 PM

    make that “USE of the word”

  16. Bea on 11/09/2009 at 9:03 PM

    Ben, if you think the residents cleaned up and arranged Robert’s body, are you suggesting brother Michael killed Robert? I am assuming that you’d agree the residents wouldn’t “assist” unless they wanted to help the murderer(s), which makes me question your bald statement that they ‘loved’ Robert & Kathy Wone. And to have all three defendants “help” the murderer(s) but not be part of the murder? Doesn’t pass the smell test to me.

    It wouldn’t take the high probability of doing 30 years in the slammer for me to incriminate my roommate/bf’s lowlife brother for murdering “someone I loved”.

    To paint the defendants in the light most favorable to them, I’d say that he/they were very high and “accidentally” put Robert in a coma and mistakenly thought he was dead – and then decided to end all doubt by deliberately stabbing him to death. If they’d put him in a coma (even if he had died) by accident and called 911, then I could understand it – not condone, of course – but stabbing the man three times in order to cover their asses and let him die is beyond comprehension. Frankly, if Michael Price (or Sarah, for that matter) caused Robert to wrongly appear to be dead and the others were ‘sleeping’ as they claimed, then they’d be drug-free enough to say “CALL 911” and hope Robert lived (for many reasons). A decent human being does NOT stand idly by while others kill a man. And, no, a decent human being does not actively lie to protect a murderer.

    • BenFranklin on 11/10/2009 at 12:03 AM

      Hi Bea,

      With a lot of help here I am thinking through the P5 (fifth person) scenario which might be an unknown Craigslist killer or someone else in the orbit.

      The massage therapy session turned tragic has some merit–but it could also have a P5 component.

      I don’t think the homeowners would participate in whatever happened before the stabbing. Smart guys with day jobs on a weeknight? Not likely.

      Would they hunker-down into a damage-control bunker and embellish or fabricate an intruder story? Probably.

      Right now I’m thinking the killer(s) walked in and out the front door and may or may not be known to the homeowners.


      • AnnaZed on 11/10/2009 at 12:37 AM

        Why on earth would anyone (even an unbalanced narcissist like Joe ~ or rather particularly an unbalanced narcissist like Joe) alter a crime scene to protect a sport fuck from Craig’s List?

        That’s absurd.

        Now you’ve dialed your fantasy back to “massage therapy”? Good lord, how does “massage” turn so tragic that involves multiple injections, attempted suffocation and stab wounds?

        That’s ridiculous.

        Gee I wish that Joe and Dylan had gotten that memo about no murdering on school nights; then none of this would have happened. What on earth are you talking about? These guys are well know drug abusers. There are no school nights in that world. maybe for Victor, and on that (given his actions since the crime) I will only give him a “maybe.”

        What “probably” are you talking about? Under your supposition an invited guest unknown to them murders Robert and they take a half an hour (at least) to move, clean and pose Robert (That last bit always makes me throw-up in my mouth a bit, how vile is that action. Can YOU imagine doing such a thing? I can’t.) to do some sort of damage control to what (what??), someone’s sexual reputation?

        That’s farcical.

        If the situation weren’t so tragic the picture you paint would be comic not to mention colossally stupid.

        Well thanks for sharing what you are “thinking,” if one could call it that. The scenario you describe is just stupid. No one would believe that or even be brought to an inkling of reasonable doubt based on conjecture about that. If the whole situation weren’t so tragic and hurtful to Mrs. Wone and to Robert’s friends I would laugh.

        • SheKnowsSomething on 11/10/2009 at 2:16 PM


          Are you a former or current intimate of the trouple? I would imagine that it would be only amongst that circle of folk (former or current intimates) that the trouple might be widely known (or whatever generalized term you used) to be abuser of drugs. What other information about the trouple might you be hiding? Your Vesuvial ranting here now and that dust-up you had with Themis recently is suspect.

          • AnnaZed on 11/10/2009 at 2:21 PM

            Heavens no, I live in California.

            It is here on this site where I acquired the notion that Joe and Dylan (at least) were conspicuous consumers of street drugs.

            I appologize to all if I have been Vesuvial.

            • CDinDC on 11/10/2009 at 2:59 PM

              AZ, the authorities brought up JP’s drug use in court. And from what I can remember, the defense was a bit steamed about it. Not to mention the “hounds” hit on drug residue in two places in the house. So, their “alleged” drug use has basis.

      • Craig on 11/10/2009 at 12:41 AM

        Ben – You’re describing a hit. An assasination. Extremely remote. As unlikely as the theory that Robert committed suicide. Look elsewhere.

        • Nelly on 11/10/2009 at 1:37 AM

          Good god, every couple of months some “newbie” comes on this website stirring up far-fetched scenarios, and then we have to rehash the case and educate the person all over again. Or is Ben another screen name being used by the same obtuse-acting persons who have posted earlier? I wish people new to this site would bother reading more of the old posts & news articles before stirring the pot with more wacky theories that have been discussed ages ago.

          • SheKnowsSomething on 11/10/2009 at 2:17 PM

            Take it easy, dear. You were new here also once before.

            • Clio on 11/10/2009 at 3:34 PM

              I agree with Nelly, but, touche, SKS.

              As Harold said in the movie “Boys in the Band” over forty years ago, “is that the pot calling the kettle beige?” Why beige? It was the avant garde color of the kitchen cookwear of urban sophisticates and limosine liberals at the end of the Great Society.

      • CDinDC on 11/10/2009 at 9:53 AM

        Ben Franklin says: “I don’t think the homeowners would participate in whatever happened before the stabbing. Smart guys with day jobs on a weeknight? Not likely.”

        Ben, that is a pathetic and elitist comment. So, do you think only uneducated bums commit crime?

        Go away. You’re starting to annoy me.

        • SheKnowsSomething on 11/10/2009 at 1:51 PM


          Do I need to smack you down again for being completely bitchy to other posters?!

          • CDinDC on 11/10/2009 at 2:54 PM

            Is the pot calling the kettle black, SKS?

            • CDinDC on 11/10/2009 at 3:19 PM

              By the say SKS….any word from our favorite roomie?

              (PS…your little “smack down” comment made me laugh, so my retort was in good humor. Doesn’t always translate well online, so I thought I’d clarify.)

        • CDinDC on 11/10/2009 at 3:09 PM

          Ben, please in the future before you express that one group of people are capable or incapable of doing or not doing something, please think about it before you hit “submit comment.” Those kinds of remarks are completely discriminatory.

          You can’t express categorically that “smart guys” don’t commit crime.

  17. BenFranklin on 11/09/2009 at 9:05 PM

    Lies may have been told to spare painful & ugly details. Could there be anything more painful and ugly than we already know? Maybe! And then more lies to cover lies. Then the civil suit shuts down civility.

    The Blackberry was scrambled, unreadable. Did the widow find something on it that was too terrible to bear? Did the SS scramble it to avoid some international issue? Incompetence? We may never know.


    • John Grisham on 11/09/2009 at 11:31 PM

      And Ben, all of the evidence thus far shows that YOU were indeed the intruder. Are you going to deny this now once finally confronted?

      • BenFranklin on 11/10/2009 at 12:31 AM

        JG-I do feel a little like I intruded on some people with their minds made up but I’m not hearing any credible motives.

        • AnnaZed on 11/10/2009 at 12:46 AM

          The motive for a sex crime by any person against any other person is sexual assault. It happens to women and girls every hour of every single day. The motive for murder in this case is the attempted concealment of a sexual assault. Another thing that happens to women and girls with such regularity that it hardly makes a blip on the news.

          This in no way makes light of how heinous Robert’s murder is, just giving you some perspective.

          So called “nice” people, professional people, people who have friends, people who have nice mothers, people who have nice houses, people who wear nice clothes, people who have good educations, people who have no apparent reason to do such a thing commit sexual assaults all the time. Do you think it’s only bogeymen from Craig’s list who assault people? What planet are you on?

          • BenFranklin on 11/10/2009 at 12:21 PM


            Thank you for your concise statement of initial and subsequent motives.

            The psycho-sexual dynamics of these motives may be difficult for me to ever understand–even though I share an undergraduate experience with Wone and Price–I can’t see this ever happening on my planet.


            • annazed on 11/10/2009 at 1:03 PM

              I sympathize with you there Ben. This type of assault seems inconceivable, yet it occurs.

              • Bea on 11/10/2009 at 3:18 PM

                Don’t forget, too, that the ‘bogeyman’ from Craigslist of recent fame was a second year medical student at Boston University and was engaged to be married to another med student (I believe). Getting into med school isn’t easy (by a stretch) and I’m sure he had no priors yet is now charged with one murder and several robberies/assaults.

    • Perplexed on 11/21/2009 at 10:03 PM

      BF: I have to say, you seem incredibly incensed by the civil suit initiated – you’ve mentioned it a couple of times completely out of context. To the point where your comments are coming across as strangely attacking on the next known victim – Kathy. And yet I am still trying to figure out the connection to the murder.

      It’s also interesting that you are unable to seemingly begin from an unbiased perspective, but instead start from a defense stance of the trouple. And finally you are obsessed over whether RW had “secrets” – as though even if he did, they would be remotely relevant to the murder.

      Maybe it’s a case of being too close to the defendants – maybe it’s a case of being unable to understand something from perspective/experience other than your own. In either case, your postings are more telling than you probably imagined they would be.

  18. annazed on 11/09/2009 at 9:26 PM

    This is almost becoming amusing.

    Can we surmise that Team Trouple is reduced (already) to attempting to play a passive aggressive “lies may have been told” card?

    Yes, well … um … yes, lies have been told, and you know what (?); Joe and Victor and Dylan told them.

    As a trail balloon the notion that these three men have significantly altered a crime scene, destroyed and removed evidence of a crime, lied about every significant aspect of the crime (to paraphrase Mary McCarthy I would say that every single word these men utter is a lie, including “and” and “the”), lost their privileged lifestyle and risked prison to cover up someone’s naughty secret that resided on a work Blackberry is just ridiculous. I don’t believe it, the police didn’t believe it, government doesn’t believe it and a jury won’t in a million years believe it.

    I reiterate: is that all you’ve got?

  19. AnnaZed on 11/09/2009 at 9:35 PM

    Ben asserts: “Then the civil suit shuts down civility.”

    No, it was the choice of Joe and Victor and Dylan to lie about the circumstances of Roberts death (not to mention their probably murdering him) that commenced the decent into incivility of discourse between Mrs. Wone and the men that she thought were Robert’s friends. I know that you think you are being witty, but actually you are simply being obtuse.

    • Clio on 11/10/2009 at 12:07 AM

      Right on, AZ. The loss of civility actually began, though, with a lame glass of water in an especially sterile kitchen. Civility is a component of hospitality: neither were shown to Robert by the male residents of 1509 Swann that night, who, a little later, instead may have hosed off his lifeless body in the same manner that they would have done to a used car.

  20. CDinDC on 11/09/2009 at 10:24 PM

    Even IF Robert were on the downlow, what the hell does it matter????

    Robert was murdered. m-u-r-d-e-r-e-d

    Even IF Robert were on the downlow, the defendants would be NO LESS culpable for his death.

    Ben, you slip around. What if were having sex with an old college chum and his wife came in and stabbed you to death. Would that make what she did to you okay?

    • BenFranklin on 11/10/2009 at 12:19 AM

      Of course it’s not OK! And the murder is what’s relevant, but our psyche’s need a motive. I hope the investigators with the facts and evidence know things we don’t know here. I’m simply trying to fit pieces together. Thinking out loud.


  21. JusticeForRobert on 11/09/2009 at 10:51 PM

    I don’t buy for a minute that Kathy Wone has anything to hide. It has been Kathy that has diligently fought for so long to seek the truth about what happened to her husband. If I were a wife, who had found out that my husband was unfaithful to me, be it with a man or another woman, I would not be seeking to have his life and death put on trial, be it civil or otherwise. Kathy is well aware of the accusations that have been launched against her husband for simply having been in the home of three gay men, let alone having been murdered and assaulted in their home. So Ben, you actually believe that a woman who loved her husband and has done everything in her power to honor him and his memory, would want his life and his death put on display in public for everyone to see if she had a remote doubt as to his fidelity? Would it have not been far easier for everyone involved to simply let this all go where it may if there was an inkling of any wrongdoing on Robert’s part?

    • BenFranklin on 11/10/2009 at 12:26 AM

      JFR-We’re all looking for motives. Is there a motive that makes sense to you?

      • JusticeForRobert on 11/10/2009 at 12:10 PM

        As far as a motive is concerned, no motive to kill an innocent man would ever make sense to me. Your question raises a very important issue to this case. Does a motive have to make sense? Based upon evidence, facts, actions of the defendant’s and the lack of the defendant’s actions is some instances, one could easily conclude that the only person’s that these crimes made sense to were the person’s involved at the time in which they took place. I understand that it may be difficult for some to grasp that what happened to Robert, could happen to any one of us, in truth it could. You never know what anyone is capable of, regardless of their upbringing, profession, demeanor, social status, social class or their achievements.

        • BenFranklin on 11/10/2009 at 4:21 PM

          JFR-I guess it’s the disconnect between motive and logic that makes this an evidence case.


          • JusticeForRobert on 11/10/2009 at 5:05 PM

            Yes, both motive and logic are in the minds of the beholders. Evidence, some of which has been lost, will play a very important role in justice with this case. I do not doubt that some justice will be delivered, perhaps the most important will be poetic justice.

            • CDinDC on 11/10/2009 at 8:53 PM

              Fortunately, motive does not have to be proven in a court of law.

    • AnnaZed on 11/10/2009 at 12:52 AM

      Hear hear.

      • AnnaZed on 11/10/2009 at 12:53 AM

        Yike, that “hear, hear” was to justice for Robert’s post.

Leave a Reply

Purpose of this Site

On August 2nd, 2006, Washington attorney Robert E. Wone was murdered at 1509 Swann Street. Over two years passed before any criminal charges were filed - and then only conspiracy, obstruction of justice and crime scene tampering charges were brought against the Swann Street housemates, all present in the home on the night of the murder: Joe Price, Dylan Ward and Victor Zaborsky.

On May 17, 2010, a DC Superior Court trial got underway and all three defendants were all acquitted in that bench trial on those pending charges.

Nearly four years later, very little seems clear about what happened that night and who murdered Robert Wone. A cloud of suspicion remains over the Swann Street defendants who have denied any involvement in the murder of their friend or in the alleged cover up.

Judge Lynn Leibovitz found a moral certainty in their collective guilt, but not evidentiary certainty. Civil proceedings in a wrongful death suit filed by Robert's family is the next chapter in this tragic story.

We continue to work together seeking answers to the mystery of Robert Wone's murder and in finding justice for his memory and legacy.