Deconstructing Harry

Now That The Embargo Has Been Lifted…

If you needed any more reason to go out and purchase the May edition of Washingtonian Magazine, this nugget that Harry Jaffe uncovered, is alone worth the cover price of $3.95.

In painstaking (and at times heartbreaking) detail, Harry traces the events of the days immediately following Robert’s murder, as the shock of the tragedy was starting to set in.  Our idea of that timeline has never been precisely clear, and Harry put the disparate pieces together.

Two days after the murder, on Friday, August 4, 2006, the housemates, now defendants, Joe Price, Dylan Ward and Victor Zaborsky paid what could best be characterized as a condolence call in Oakton.

In Harry’s telling of the events, Kathy Wone spent a half hour alone with them in the basement and at one point asked them, “What happened?”

“They told her that they had a glass of water with Robert and gone to sleep, that they heard grunts, that an intruder had come into their house.

They gave her no details of how her husband might have died.”

Kathy Wone was later interviewed at her home for an hour by MPD Detective Brian Waid the following day, Saturday.  With Kathy during that interview was Robert’s longtime friend and roommate Jason Torchinsky, an attorney and former federal prosecutor.

The next day, on Sunday evening, while Jason was writing his eulogy for the upcoming Tuesday funeral, his cell phone rang.  It was Joe Price calling.

Quoting the Jaffe piece:

“Price’s lawyers had wanted to know what the detectives had asked when they visited with Kathy the day before.

In order to get that information, Kathy would have to waive her attorney-client privilege with Torchinsky.  Would he (Torchinsky) ask Kathy to let him share the conversation they’d had with the detectives?

“Let me think about it, Torchinsky replied.  He thought for less than a minute before the shock hit.  Why would Price want to know what Kathy had told the police?  Did he want to make sure their stories squared?

Torchinsky phoned a friend who was also a lawyer and explained the situation.  “Find her another lawyer,” the friend said.  “You’re too close and you don’t know where this is going.”

In the middle of the night, the same friend e-mailed: “Contact Covington.”

That call and email set off a chain of events that led to Covington and Burling becoming heavily involved, closing ranks around those who they considered to be family, the Wone family.

After emailing Robert Gage, (Robert’s boss of six years) who was in Italy at the time, Gage called Torchinsky from a train asking for  “an email explaining the entire situation and sequence leading up to Joe Price’s phone call.   Ten minutes later, Torchinsky got an email from Eric Holder.”

Which Joe Price called Torchinsky that night?  Joe the friend, the attorney, both?  That answer might be a clue as to why Price called.

On Wednesday, another new doc.  Listed is an expert witness who could seriously undercut the defense’s position.  The rub?  He’s working for them.

-posted by Craig

59 comments for “Deconstructing Harry

  1. BenFranklin
    04/27/2010 at 11:09 AM

    So the Widow Wone instantly surrounded herself with lawyers, very powerful lawyers. No wonder the defendants did the same.

    Jaffe revealed that Price & Zaborsky were not welcome at the annual Friday Sunset Ceremony at the Wren Building & Wone’s memorial service on campus.

    Certainly by October Price & Zaborsky figured out that Ward was the lone Lunesta® zombie “intruder” who was not fully awake when he suddenly, forcefully, & unexpectedly stabbed Wone who was lying alone in the dark guestroom. Three motiveless rapid jabs immobilized, mortally wounded, & silenced Wone.

    Ward went back to bed after his ambulatory nightmare and up to 20 minutes passed. The moans of drugged zombie Ward coming back to life after realizing what he had done and cleaning up his mess were the sounds that alerted Price & Zaborsky that something was happening downstairs. A dazed Ward points to the back door “is the back door open?”

    They actually believed for a time Ward’s theory that an intruder was responsible. It was an intruder of the Lunesta zombie kind who looked exactly like Ward.

    Ed. note: Ben, Her name is Kathy Wone. Craig

    • Robert
      04/27/2010 at 1:00 PM

      BENFRANKLIN
      What you characterize as three “rapid jabs” from a stoned Ward, were of such a common depth and angle that the coroner described them as having been surgical in nature.

      Those stabbings killed a man who had eight needle marks on his body, showed no defensive wounds and had been asphyxiated along the way.

      Furthermore, the coroner stated that a victim so stabbed three times in the chest — including once in the heart — would have vocalized even had that victim been rendered helpless by a paralytic drug.

      Whoever may have been the perpetrator, he took the time and trouble to walk all the way around to the far side of the guest room and stand over a victim laying in a bed whom the perpetrator was confident would not hear the perpetrator as the perpetrator assumed an unusual position from which to stab the unsuspecting victim.

      I believe Ward the culinary butcher was more likely the knife wielder than Joseph the Eagle Scout and Joseph the more likely wielder than Victor the jealous “wife.”

      I think it highly unlikely that Michael the addict phlebotomist was the wielder or that Ward, Price and Zaborsky were all bonded in a knife wielding conspiracy of silence ceremony “Hollywood style.”

      Under the circimstances in this case, I do not believe that the wounds described were made by somebody who was not in control of his faculties.

      Had the crime indeed happened the way in which you suggest, one would be prompted to ask why Joseph and Victor would not have advised Dylan to confess to his unintentional killing of Robert.

      Attorney Joseph could have easily explained to his lover Dylan that in the criminal law there is a legal concept of mitigating circumstances due to diminshed capacity of the sort to which Dylan fell subject.

      And that furthermore, Dylan was in luck because he had not one but two witnesses in an innocent Victor and Joseph who would be only to happy to readily and willingly testify to the indubitable fact they found Dylan in such a state.

      If anybody was stoned out on drugs, it was most likely a blogger who has had a hallucination that the ingestion of a prescription medication led a stoned Dylan to stab a dazed Robert while Dylan was in a personalized state and Robert kept silent

      • BenFranklin
        04/27/2010 at 3:28 PM

        Robert,
        I don’t believe anything the junior assistant under-qualified unaccredited Medical Examiner opined.

        Everything she’s irresponsibly suggested is bullshit that spoke directly to the detectives’ hunches. She deserves the beating she will get at trial for her incompetence the damage & anguish she caused the Wone family & the defendants.

        I expect a diminished capacity manslaughter plea from Ward but not before the defendants’ lawyers beat down the crap & lies the cops & the government made up.

        What ever happened to severance motions?

        • CDinDC
          04/27/2010 at 4:44 PM

          I find it amusing that BF negates the credentials and experience of EVERYONE involved in the prosecution of this case, yet he expects everyone to lap up his theories. And he has certainly has no personal knowledge of these individuals (or he would have crowed that information loudly.)

          He has no proof that she was incompentent.

          We’re all entitled to an opinion, but he voices his as if his are the last word. “You’ll thank me later,” being his favorite comment. Being humble when voicing an opinion would certainly make any opinion more palatable.

    • BenFranklin
      04/27/2010 at 1:18 PM

      Craig,
      Ben never uses first names-no disrespect intended. The article was a really good read & wonderful tribute to Wone.

      • Bea
        04/27/2010 at 4:49 PM

        Both “Craig” and “Ben” are first names. Ben needs remedial English.

        • Clio
          04/27/2010 at 10:37 PM

          “The lights are going out all over Europe. We shall not see them lit again in our lifetime.”

          • Charl
            04/28/2010 at 4:08 PM

            Aptly put, Clio.
            Did you notice these words were said on Aug 3?
            Uncanning…

  2. Anon. in Arlington
    04/27/2010 at 11:11 AM

    Another great post that made me hold my breath as I read! Time to run out and buy the May issue.

  3. TT
    04/27/2010 at 11:14 AM

    B Franklin is tripping, again.

    • Tallulah
      04/27/2010 at 6:33 PM

      Amen to that.

  4. CDinDC
    04/27/2010 at 12:14 PM

    “It was an intruder of the Lunesta zombie kind who looked exactly like Ward.”

    Aww, look. Ben’s trying to wax poetic.

  5. Bea
    04/27/2010 at 12:55 PM

    Forget Ben. The post is great stuff. Jason Torchinisky is writing his eulogy on Sunday night after accompanying Kathy Wone to be interviewed by MPD on Saturday and is interrupted by a call from Joe Price. Is it a ‘how are you holding up?’ call – or a ‘how is Kathy doing’ call? Nope – Joe wants to know if Jason will get Kathy to waive her atty-client privilege so Jason can tell Joe what the cops wanted to know.

    It’s very clear that Joe is worried about being arrested (or that Dylan is being arrested). Trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, even if I was innocent and had spent all night in the police station with cops trying to shake my story, would I be so self-absorbed the night before the funeral to call Kathy’s primary “caretaker” to ask that he ask her to waive her attorney-client privilege? In a nutshell: no way.

    You would think that Joe would be thinking of Robert, of Kathy’s plight, of the funeral the next day in which he was serving as pallbearer. Not Joe – he’s looking out for #1. The GALL of even asking is very telling.

    His mind is not on the death of his friend; his mind is on what the cops know.

    • TT
      04/27/2010 at 1:06 PM

      Makes one feel sick to their stomach.

    • CDinDC
      04/27/2010 at 1:08 PM

      More of Joe being Joe. Doesn’t surprise me a bit. Self-serving narcissist. Joe’s attempt at trying to outsmart someone that is honest and upright was nothing but moronic. Now it’s on record.

    • Lyn
      04/27/2010 at 4:31 PM

      I think someone touched on this a day or two ago, but reading the police interview transcripts of the three defendants, I definitely don’t get the feeling that any of them were overly sad about the fact that their friend had just been murdered (or as Price referred to Wone, “it” had been murdered).

      • Anon. in Arlington
        04/27/2010 at 4:53 PM

        There did seem like a disconnect. I was also taken aback by the number of times Joe said “You know…” in the interview… not the polished attorney I met in 1999. Dylan’s responses were much more smooth.

        • Bea
          04/27/2010 at 5:07 PM

          Hi Anon. Did you know him in a work capacity? Anything else you can share?

  6. Anonymous in DC
    04/27/2010 at 1:00 PM

    That is just chilling.

  7. Clio
    04/27/2010 at 10:25 PM

    Jaffe’s piece does raise the following questions:

    How well did Mr. Torchinsky know Mr. Price? Did he view Culuket’s self-absorption as just Joe being Joe, or as something much more sinister? Did the swift intervention of Covington’s lawyers ironically harden the defiance on the other side — further strengthening the axis of evil?

    • rk
      04/28/2010 at 2:31 AM

      Did the Covington intervention harden defiance? Not a chance. Once Joe, Dylan and Victor decided to put on a united front for the police interviews and stick to the “intruder” facts, there was no turning back.

  8. Robert
    04/28/2010 at 3:36 AM

    BENFRANKLIN
    I believe that the editors reported on and bloggers other than myself commented upon severance motions which were considered by defense attorneys who decided against them.

    I could concede that the coroner in question may not have been the best forensic scientist in the history of the American criminal justice system.

    But that’s a far cry from declaring her incompetent
    which I believe you have done for the self-serving purpose of elevating your theories from mere hypotheses to some sort of proven fact.

    Your seeming insistence that you are right in your minority opinions and the rest of us are wrong in our consensus views based upon some sort of inherent superiority on your part has been observed by other bloggers such as BEA, CLIO, DCINDC, TT and TALLULAH on this subsite of Who Murdered Robert Wone (WMRW) as well as many other bloggers on other subsites of WMRW.

    • BenFranklin
      04/28/2010 at 5:28 PM

      I see things entirely differently than many of the regular bloggers here. I don’t think the defendants are sociopaths but I also think they are not “fully responding” because of government misconduct & tainted casework.

      It is enough of a challenge to express a different view here. It’s impossible to persuade regulars who are so heavily invested in their view.

      I stand by my observations & hypotheses & contribute where I wish. I’m not here to please anyone-especially the regulars you mention, but we are all in this together until it’s over–which will be soon.

      • CDinDC
        04/28/2010 at 6:07 PM

        BF says: “but I also think they are not “fully responding” because of government misconduct & tainted casework.”

        That equates to obstruction of justice.

        Guilty as charged.

        It doesn’t matter if someone thinks the case is full of crap. It is their duty by law to respond “fully” and truthfully. The rest is up to their attorneys to prove the state is wrong.

        • BenFranklin
          04/28/2010 at 7:21 PM

          The defendants’ attorneys will fully respond and prevail in proving the government wrong. Connolly is unbeatable. Has he ever lost a case?

          The prosecution is still playing their “naughty” games. A sure fire way to lose or mistrial.

          • Bea
            04/28/2010 at 7:48 PM

            “With the lights out, it’s less dangerous
            Here we are now, entertain us.”

            • Charl
              04/28/2010 at 10:25 PM

              Don’t lie to me (JP, VZ, DW, SM, MP), where were you last night?

  9. 04/28/2010 at 7:03 AM

    This link has nothing to do with the Wone matter but is interesting (I think) and has everything to do with it for the following reason: a case of he said-she said, sex, circumstantial evidence and a defendant who is appears to be a sexual deviant, manipulative narcissist:
    http://www.adn.com/2010/04/27/1252872/mechele-linehan-back-in-court.html?pageNum=1&&&mi_pluck_action=page_nav#Comments_Container
    I’ve pretty much stopped visiting this blog because it appears to me there is little interest in objectively looking at the case but much interest in using it as an emotional release by friends of Wone with snarky homophobe comments (which are, the editors point out, simply innocent because many of those posters are gay….huh?) or in using it as to recite “facts” with lots of denial and bashing of opposing views.
    I want justice for Wone, but those with their heads in the sand are their own worst enemies. And I mean the prosecution. This case is a mess and is simply an attempt by the prosecution to force the hands of the defendants…which is contrary to what our legal system and justice system is for. I don’t like the defendants at all – if this blog is correct, they seem despicable, narrcisistic, sociopaths. This is, in essence, their motive: they are sociopaths. Okay, I get it. 90% of the interpretation of the “facts” on the blog are wrapped through this lens. Thus, the relevance of the above link: was the defendant convicted because she was a narcissistic stripper or because of the facts? The point: where the facts are weak, it is natural to compensate and to pile on the defendant’s character. And this means that the prosecution’s case is VERY weak.

    • CC Biggs
      04/28/2010 at 5:41 PM

      The prosecution’s case is not weak. The facts are massively, overwhelmingly bad for the defendants. The defendants know this, which is why they are desperately seeking to exclude evidence and create through expert testimony just enough reasonable doubt to avoid conviction.

      • CDinDC
        04/28/2010 at 6:08 PM

        Agree 100% CC

      • Craig
        04/28/2010 at 6:12 PM

        Tomorrow we’ll look at how more seeds of doubt might be planted by the defense team. Dr. Henry Lee’s star turn and role in the trial has become clearer.

        • CDinDC
          04/28/2010 at 6:54 PM

          yay!

    • Clio
      04/28/2010 at 9:20 PM

      Objectivity is a mirage, especially after most facts have become known. Even mutual friends of Robert and Joe could no longer remain partial to both.

      In the Jaffe piece, that Tara Ragone character in the Hershey Kisses costume saying that “she can no longer be Switzerland” needs to be in the next Tom Ford picture. And, that’s the point, Wentworth: how can one be a Switzerland with this Alpine mountain range of unfavorable and inconvenient truths?

      Indeed, “neutral” Switzerland during World War II was hardly neutral, giving aid and comfort to the original axis of evil. So, snarky comments? A few. Damning insights and arguments? Enough for a conviction.

      BTW, Jaffe is a revered name in my port city; editor Louis Jaffe won a Pulitzer in the late 1920s for his stand against lynching.

    • Carolina
      04/29/2010 at 8:08 PM

      I am afraid I agree as far as the homophobic remarks go. I cringe daily. It detracts from what I hope is an honest approach to evidence and not a schoolyard Us v. Them.

      As for the case being weak, I believe the case now before us is, in fact, quite weighty. There is far too much that occurred within the short period of time to be anything but a coverup.

      As for whom they were protecting, that is not what is at the table now.

      • Clio
        04/30/2010 at 8:59 PM

        Oh, please, Carolina, cringe begone!! The “snarky” comments are infused with an ironic appreciation of LGBT cultures and motifs of the twentieth, if not always the twenty-first, century. They celebrate LGBT culture in a confident manner, and they suggest an identity maturity, the same maturity that has allowed our Editors to critique one of our former “leaders” with wit and aplomb.

        I am glad, however, that you see the case against the trouple as “weighty.” Weighty as in Joe (now), Sarah (then), and Michael (always) combined? Yes! X,O Clio.

  10. Hoya Loya
    04/28/2010 at 8:28 AM

    Did Joe simply want to make sure his story squared with Kathy’s? Or was he worried about something more specific? Did he or one of the other two say something to Kathy in their basement meeting that they regretted and would not have wanted her to disclose to the detectives?

    • Bea
      04/28/2010 at 1:19 PM

      Good point. What else COULD she have said except what the defendants told her? Granted, Price ostensibly called to ask what the police ASKED of her to determine if the police believed the trio to be suspects. On the latter: duh. Who on earth would bother a freshly grieving widow to find out what questions the police asked – oh, yeah, a narcissist or a guilty party whose only concern is himself (to the point of forgetting basic courtesy). Check. Check.

  11. MotherOfInvention
    04/28/2010 at 2:59 PM

    What about what Hoe says in the email about the government’s theory that one of the trouple is responsible “not panning out”? Has the government ruled out the idea one of the trouple is responsible? I thought I read something to that effect last night, but now I can’t find it. Or does he just mean that the government has not been able to build enough of a case for a murder prosecution against one or more of them (yet)?

    • MotherOfInvention
      04/28/2010 at 2:59 PM

      oops, Joe not Hoe

      • Bea
        04/28/2010 at 3:27 PM

        Hi Mother. I like “Hoe” but that might confuse us all when discussing the many experts the defense has hired – though “ho” may be the preferred spelling.

        I believe Joe’s email was to a friend quite a long while ago in which he “argued” that there was a “catch-22” in which the trouple WANTED to tell all they knew but “couldn’t” for fear they’d be arrested (maybe that ‘one’ would be arrested – ambiguous wording). Then he goes on to complain that the Metro Police didn’t ever investigate the intruder theory, lamenting that “now the case against the trouple is not panning out” are trying to cover their mistakes.

        Something like that. It was in the prior post about the Washingtonian article.

  12. Fascinating
    04/29/2010 at 1:14 PM

    Enjoying the Washingtonian article right now.

    Kathy Wone’s words …. I hope someone is listening:

    “Confessing will be the hardest thing that you will ever do in your life. Our laws will impose severe consequences, but it will also be the most freeing thing that you can do for yourself. The secret like the one you are hiding from the world will only grow heavier with time.”

    • CDinDC
      04/29/2010 at 2:07 PM

      Maybe for you and me, Fascinating. But for someone that plunges a knife 3x into friend’s body probably doesn’t lose much sleep.

      • BenFranklin
        04/29/2010 at 4:33 PM

        You’re right he doesn’t–thanks to prescription Lunesta®.

        What is the most important information I should know about LUNESTA?

        After taking LUNESTA, you may get up out of bed while not being fully awake and do an activity that you do not know you are doing. The next morning, you may not remember that you did anything during the night. You have a higher chance for doing these activities if you drink alcohol or take other medicines that make you sleepy with LUNESTA.

        Reported activities include:
        • driving a car (“sleep-driving”)
        • making and eating food
        • talking on the phone
        • having sex
        • sleep-walking

        Lunesta® is a registered trademark of Sepracor, Inc.

        • David
          04/29/2010 at 4:42 PM

          Ben,

          The one gaping hole in your theory is that nowhere on the literature of Ambien or Lunesta does it say that the people under the influence of these sleeping medications will become violent. The murder of Robert Wone was a violent act. These people may eat, sleep, drive their cars, which all activities that they do in their regular day to day routine while taking the medications, but nowhere does it document that people become violent.

          David

          • 04/29/2010 at 6:37 PM

            I’ve found quite a few references to violent behavior, although rare, when Lunesta is taken by itself–let alone in combination with alcohol & Lexapro which is another drug that makes you sleepy. Ward had wine and Lexapro, and it was a blistering hot day so dehydration may have concentrated blood levels of all these.

            “You have a higher chance for doing these activities if you drink alcohol or take other medicines that make you sleepy with LUNESTA.”

            The act resulted in a fatal stabbing but I don’t think it was intentionally, purposely violent. I think it is more correctly called “bizarre” behavior by the medical literature. And Lunesta works fast-15 minutes or less–so it works within the timeline we know.

            http://doublecheckmd.com/EffectsDetail.do?dname=Lunesta&sid=64025&eid=2127

            http://www.newsinferno.com/archives/3036

            • Bea
              04/29/2010 at 8:09 PM

              I know I’ll regret actually responding to you, Ben, because you seem to have no ability to consider actual facts, but I’ll try. The second link you provide makes no mention of violent behavior, as the Eds. pointed out – sleep-driving, a woman painting her door, but nothing suggesting the inclination to violence.

              Use of the first link was something you executed quite well by giving the reader the page which suggests that aggressive/violent behavior may be associate with Lunesta. But you’re a tricky one, Ben, and a bit transparent, because if one actually looks at the “side effects” individually, the site states:

              “Aggressive/violent behavior – in animal studies but not necessarily shown in humans.”

              Every other possible symptom or side effect related specifically to humans – as with your phantom photos of “buff” Dylan, you really have no shame. Perhaps veracity and dignity are not valued at W&M after all.

              Or maybe a neighborhood DOG got hold of DYLAN’S LUNESTA and went on a killing spree!

              FYI, the pix from the last hearings show him as pencil-necked as ever.

              • MotherOfInvention
                04/29/2010 at 8:40 PM

                Hi Bea,

                I don’t agree with BenFranklin, not at all, but what do you think about what he says below about the Lexapro (not the Lunesta) being the source of the violence? So I guess the idea would be that the Lunesta made Dylan sleepwalk and the Lexapro made him simultaneously violent? Heh, sounds pretty ludicrous when I spell it out like that.

                • Bea
                  04/29/2010 at 10:02 PM

                  Hi Mother,

                  Lexapro is a garden variety antidepressant. The psychiatric community prescribe it fairly routinely these days as it is among the newer antidepressants.

                  In an attempt to be fair, I did some web research on Lexapro and violence – it appears that in the few cases in which the defendant in a crime used as defense that they were ‘made crazy’ by Lexapro, it seems that most just started taking it or had suddenly stopped taking it (one has to go off antidepressants over time – taper). I didn’t see whether the defense was ‘accepted’ in any of these cases – don’t forget that it doesn’t take any real substance for one to try to claim a particular defense. Dan White used the Twinkie defense (too much junk food and too little sleep) to get manslaughter for killing Harvey Milk and George Moscone.

                  In short – it’s a ridiculous claim by someone grasping at straws to avoid looking at the facts (my opinion).

                  • Bea
                    04/29/2010 at 10:05 PM

                    Whoops – the Twinkie defense in the 70s marked the end of the acceptance of most such defenses. Rarely does even ‘battered woman syndrome’ even work any more. A man who answered questions for many hours and never complained about feeling strange is not a man “under the influence” of prescription medication he’s been on for a while.

            • Nora
              04/30/2010 at 7:08 AM

              For group discussion: at what point did it dawn on everyone that Ben Franklin was disingenuous? I think I lagged a bit, because I didn’t catch on until he started demanding that the police “investigate Robert Wone’s masturbation practices.” From that point on it was clear that Ben wasn’t here to help.

        • Doug
          04/29/2010 at 4:48 PM

          Ben;
          At risk of repeating David’s comment – which I back – I would like to know from you: what source can you offer of Lunesta prompting violent behavior? We would prefer peer-reviewed documents (more which will come tomorrow) but will review what you offer.
          Doug, co-editor

          • 04/29/2010 at 5:26 PM

            Confusion, agitation, irritability, aggressiveness, panic attacks & impulsivity ARE commonly associated with Lexapro® which Ward was also taking! The Lunesta® is the sedative hypnotic that worked so tragically in combination with the Lexapro + Wellbutrin. Dehydration following exercise + a third of a bottle of wine, plus these prescription drugs caused the perfect storm of tragedy.

            Hope any analysis (including peer review) includes all of these factors. Looking forward to it.

            • CDinDC
              04/29/2010 at 8:11 PM

              OMG….we get Ben. Please stop repeating yourself.

            • SSD
              04/29/2010 at 10:14 PM

              Did’nt they only drink water that night? Where did 1/3rd a bottle of wine come from?

              • MotherOfInvention
                04/30/2010 at 1:58 AM

                See Vincent’s statement to the police. They shared a bottle of wine at dinner.

        • BadShoes
          04/29/2010 at 10:19 PM

          The attraction of a drug theory is that it addresses the vexing question of motive. The first gaping hole in this theory, as David points out, is the absence of substantial evidence that there is any drug that causes motiveless violence.

          The other gaping hole in a drug theory is that it doesn’t fit the available evidence. The crime against Robert Wone has the following elements:

          a) Mr. Wone was first incapacitated, as shown by the puncture marks and the nature of the knife wounds;

          b) Mr. Wone was then assaulted as shown by the semen evidence;

          c) Mr. Wone was then stabbed three times;

          d) the crime scene was sanitized and Mr. Wone’s body was washed, dressed, and placed on top of the neatly made bed in the guest room.

          The drug theory fails to explain how, why, where, when, or by whom Mr. Wone was incapacitated or assaulted.

          It doesn’t explain why it was deemed essential to clean up the crime scene and Mr. Wone’s body. If Mr. Wone had been simply stabbed in his bed while asleep, the physical evidence would have been more consistent with the intruder theory, and hence the cover-up could have been much less elaborate.

          • John Grisham
            04/29/2010 at 11:05 PM

            Hum . . . could it be that some other drugs Dylan was on are known to produce these additional side affects? I mean, marijuana is known to facilitate cleaning. Maybe some other drugs evoke needle play, anal insemination and … oh never mind.

            • plumskiter
              04/30/2010 at 9:46 AM

              you mean if i started smoking dope my house would get clean? awesome.

  13. Robert
    05/10/2010 at 12:27 AM

    BENFRANKLIN
    This is probably a waste of time, but here goes. I have medication
    resistant depression and thus at one time or another have been on most medications developed to date for the alleviation thereof and in innumberable combinations.

    I am also subject to the dehydration which you describe in your comment. The dehydration in question makes one weak and nauseous. Not strong and aggressive.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *