Defendants Waive Right to Jury Trial – Update: Wednesday, 5:38pm
It was a thin courtroom that gathered at 3:45pm this afternoon. No family, no friends; just attorneys and media.
Ward counsel David Schertler rose with the defendant’s request to waive their right to trial by jury; AUSA Glenn Kirschner offered no objection.
Judge Leibovitz began by asking if this decision was “…tied to the article in the paper today…” referring to Keith Alexander’s piece on the front section of the Washington Post’s Metro section. “No, it’s not,” answered Schertler, referring instead to “…a variety of other factors.” Factors such as the over-all media coverage and attention, asked the judge? Schertler paused, and fumfered for a moment until Leibovitz came to his aid. Paraphrasing here, she asked if it was tied so closely to today’s article that time and robust voir dire couldn’t help? “It’s based on broader considerations,” he answered.
As only a defendant can request such a waiver, all three defendants rose and were sworn in. Judge Leibovitz asked nearly the same questions of each of the three in turn…in order, Victor Zaborsky, Dylan Ward and Joe Price.
Were they aware this was their right? Were they aware of the charges? Were they aware the judge would become both finder of fact and law? Did they know they couldn’t reverse this choice? Were they coerced? Did they receive satisfactory counsel? “Absolutely,” volunteered Price in his turn. Was this related to the ruling on motion to sever? (“No” they all answered.) Was this related to media coverage? No. And then, had they taken any medication? (“No.”) “Including prescription medication?” she asked. No. Wine? Only Joe and Dylan – a glass with last night’s dinner.
Having found all three reached their decisions “…knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily…” and with no outstanding objection, she granted their requests. More after the jump.
Zaborsky counsel Thomas Connolly was the only one to speak during the process. “We’ve been discussing this for a year,” he offered. “The story put into focus some of the issues…it was a factor, but not critical.” It should also be noted that Judge Leibovitz offered her opinion of the Post piece, saying it was factual and not inflammatory.
So from here, the judge and both sets of counsel agreed that a number of the outstanding motions – to exclude Deedrick and Spaulding, EMT testimony/speculation, and the outstanding ruling on statements – can be dealt with at trial.
At that seemed to be that. Until Price counsel Bernie Grimm rose to speak, “…reluctantly…” he said.
Grimm reported that on Monday the defense had receive new documents: a new report from the FBI regarding DNA and the bloody knife, and a stack of documents regarding Deedrick and Spaulding’s methodologies. “Most of this stuff I don’t understand,” he offered, continuing “…I need to know what’s coming.”
“You’re not suggesting they (the prosecution) not give it to you…” queried the bench. “No…this isn’t a standard homicide case,” he replied, saying as he walked back to the table that at some point he was “…gonna ask for a line in the sand…”
It was all business before a crowd of attorneys and journalists. Opening statements begin Monday at 9:30.
Flash posted at 4:35pmET:
Judge Lynn Leibovitz has ruled that the trial of United States v. Joe Price, Dylan Ward and Victor Zaborsky will be a bench trial.
Each defendant spoke at the 30 minute procedural hearing. First Zaborsky, then Ward and finally Price.
The trial will kick off this Monday, May 17 at 930amET.
Leibovitz asked each of the defendants the same questions:
Do you know what this means?
Are you reaching this decision of your own accord?
Do you understand that voir dire would’ve weeded people out? Do you understand you cannot go back on this decision (no recall)?
Have you been threatened or cajoled into making this decision?
She asked each if they had taken any medication in the last 48 hours. No said all three. Any alcohol? Zaborsky no, Ward and Price, wine with dinner last night.
Speaking for the government was AUSA Glenn Kirschner. He did not oppose the move.
Holy Crap!
I think it is pretty obvious as to why they would choose a bench trial. You are dealing with three guys who are gay and in an untraditional sexual relationship. They must have feared that a dc jury would not be able to get past those facts alone. Given that being gay is often less accepted in minority communities (e.g., disproportionate outcry by predominately african-american churches against gay marriage in DC), they probably think the judge could be more fair.
Holy Crap is right!
Is is standard for a judge to ask a defendant whether they consumed medication or alcohol withing 48 hours?
Not unusual — judge is just trying to prevent an appeal issue. The defendants might later claim that they didn’t voluntarily waive their rights because they didn’t realize what they were doing.
yes, absolutely standard. to preclude a later claim that they did not make a knowing and voluntary decision to give up their right to a jury trial.
Can we assume now that Dylan is off his meds or that like Sarah’s car those meds never existed in the first place?
I guess this mean the trial will move along a little more expeditiously.
Will observers be allowed into the courtroom during a bench trial??
CD: if anything, there may be a few more seats in the courtroom for the public. -Doug, co-editor
Great! How has the AC been working in Room 310? Has everyone recovered from last week’s sauna?
This only makes sense if one or more of the defendants is going to try and cut a deal. Keep in mind that Leibovitz is a former Federal prosecutor, appointed by W, who headed the homicide team in the U.S. Attorney’s office. Not somebody that they want deciding their fate.
38 years is a long time to spend in prison, and somebody is about to crack. This will be an interesting few days.
I disagree that this means one of them is cutting a deal, though that is obviously a possibility. I also disagree with the idea that the judge’s appointment or former role as prosecutor would somehow trump the evidence at trial. That’s like saying that Connoley couldn’t be a good defense attorney because he once served as a prosecutor.
I do agree that today’s decision is interesting. Hold on to your hats and glasses!
Interesting indeed!
Hmmm. Well, so much for my assumption that this was a stalling tactic. What’s the mood in the courtroom like?
I was in the court room today along with my co-editor Doug Johnson. All the defendants were calm, even Joe, who has been known to get agitated. It is a tough call to say whether the calm is result of quiet confidence or resignation. They were too controlled to show much emotion either way.
Somebody is coming to Jesus, and not in the sense that the MPD homophobic detective meant; somebody is about to plead.
But who? Would Dylan roll on the other two? Or Victor on Joe & Dyl? Would all three implicate Michael or another third party?
Or will they try to say it was all an accident? I would hope that whatever the plea, it would not besmirch Robert in any way and represent justice of some sort.
I’m not quite ready to jump to any conclusions just yet.
Couldn’t they all theoretically plead guilty to the charges but still claim they didn’t know who the murdered was? They found the scene and cleaned in a panic or something. If so that would be so frustrating. It seems like they are taking a huge risk. But if they asked for a bench trial together, it sure seems like they are still united, so it doesn’t seem like one might turn on the others. Maybe they could turn in Michael, but if Robert were sexually assaulted, Michael could not have done it alone. For one thing he’d (I assume) have to go to Dylan’s room to get the ‘gear.’ And if one or more of them helped, and Michael killed Robert, wouldn’t that be accessory to murder?
My head is spinning.
Maybe I’m hoping for too much but really want to know exactly what happened that night.
They could do that, but then the DC police would be certain that they (or someone they know and are protecting) were the killers. Would not be a smart move.
I think Dylan is about to preempt Joe in throwing him under the bus (as Joe started doing to Dylan from his very first interactions with the police at Swann St. and his characterizations of Dylan from the start). Frankly, I hope that Dylan’s father did read some of what was posted on this site (most particularly Joe’s positioning of his son to take the fall if Joe’s various legal strategies don’t pan out, which they haven’t because they were absurd). I hope that Ward pater familias has drawn a line in the sand even if it means, “sorry son, you will have to do some time for your part in this but I can’t allow you to take the fall for a murder committed by someone else.”
I think that Dylan will implicate Joe and possibly Michael and that Dylan will plead to tampering, obstruction and conspiracy. I doubt that Dylan has much to say that would implicate Victor in the actual murder of Robert, in any case ~ Ma’am ~ it’s your move.
+10
Off-the-wall idea:
Maybe Mr. Price is determined to testify. Attorneys naturally think this is a bad idea, but eventually decide if it’s gonna happen, there will be less collateral damage in a bench trial.
Someone asked the question earlier-Is Judge Leibovitz going to be the judge for this bench trial?
Yes, Judge Liebowitz will be the trial judge.
> Judge Liebowitz will be the trial judge.
Hm. This means that all those motions to exclude evidence from being heard are sort of moot, because the judge has already heard it during the motions.
She can rule to herself that she should ignore some evidence, and she may have the intellectual discipline to do so — one hopes a judge would be a cut above the average juror in this regard — but still.
Amazing. Regardless of the defendants’ decisions, I hope Robert Wone and his young widow get the justice they deserve. This is such an incredibly sad story.
I don’t quite understand how some feel this would indicate a pending plea deal. This speeds everything up.
OK…what other shoes are gonna drop off this centipede…???
CVet: How many shoes exactly does a centipede have?
Lots of feet
Total aside. Interesting that Price and Ward had wine with dinner (I assume together?) And Zaborsky did not. Did they all dine together or was Zaborsky not with them…?
Would they pin the whole thing on Victor – claim everything was consensual until Victor burst in and stabbed the victim in a jealous rage, not knowing it was his friend Robert? Then Victor comes to his senses, realizes what he’s done, that its a horrible “mistake,” and Joe and Dylan decide to cover for him out of love and loyalty, and keep the secret of the terrible events in deference to Robert’s memory?
To be totally clear – I’m NOT at all suggesting any of this could actually be true. Among the many things wrong with this story, you don’t honor someone’s memory by shielding his killer, and the consensual thing is ridiculous. But I can imagine Joe/Dylan coming up with a story like this to pin the blame on Victor (maybe with a ‘temporary insanity’ out) and diminish their own culpability – a story they would think puts them in a more sympathetic light (poor Victor didn’t know what he was doing; they were just being loyal friends).
Its always the person not in the room who gets the blame. If I were Victor I wouldn’t let those two out of my sight for a minute.
Just the sort of “accident” story I fear they could try to peddle. Hopefully the prosecution won’t bite unless the plea gives justice to Robert and fits the facts.
Eric Menendez, serving a life sentence, still claims the reason he shot his mother repeatedly was beacuse he was abused by his father. His parents still have no comment.
TK, I also wonder if Joe and Dyl toasted each other last night with a house red over burned steaks for old times’ sake. Ma’am must have been busy trying to think of a new marketing strategy for milk, a commodity with a chronically depressed market price.
5:38 update: uh oh, What’s Grimm playing at?
i am stunned by the defendants’ decisions to waive the jury. clearly they and their lawyers know things that we do not. i wonder what those things are?
all along, i thought that they had a good chance of acquittal due to the many screw ups of the police, like giving back Robert’s blackberry without preserving its contents, and to the confusing way their statements were going to be entered into evidence, given redactions and limiting instructions and the like. for an acquittal, a defendant only has to persuade one juror.
instead, they now will have their fate decided by a pro-government judge who has shown little patience for their shenanagins (sp?), and who will hear EVERYTHING while stating that she will only take into consideration that evidence which is truly admissible.
i know one thing. The prosecutors are happy campers tonight. This development makes their jobs so much easier – no jury books, no jury selection, no dressing up specially for the jury, etc. plus it is simply much less stressful to try a case to the bench. and the trial, if there is one, will certainly be a lot shorter.
my head is spinning.
“for an acquittal, a defendant only has to persuade one juror.”
Not quite. Acquittal requires a unanimous verdict, just like a verdict of guilty. Your thinking of a hung jury and that allows for a re-trial.
quite right. as i said, my head was spinning!
Couldn’t this be their goal? Leibovitz hears the case and should she find them guilty, they can claim she was unable to separate what was admissible from what was to be excluded. Would that be grounds for appeal?
IMHO, that would be a difficult argument for them to make on appeal. In a bench trial, the parties can ask for, or the court, on its own, can make specific findings of fact which would lay out what exactly the court found and why. A judge would certainly be careful not to mention in those anything she already had ruled inadmissible or only admissible for a limited purpose. With a jury, you can ask for a special verdict (where the jury answers specific, usually yes/no questions) but you still don’t get to know just what they were thinking or how they got to their decision so it’s easier to argue that their verdict was based on improper considerations.
No, unless there was hard proof that she relied on inadmissible evidence in reaching her decision. For example, if in issuing the verdict she explains that her finding was based in part on X, and X was a piece of inadmissile evidence) then the defendants would have grounds to appeal. But the argument that she is incapable of separating admissible from inadmissible evidence simply by virtue of her multiple roles in the case would never win.
I just saw this on the news and couldn’t believe it! Maybe it is just me, but this to me seems like a last ditch effort and these boys might finally be getting scared…as they should be.
They are going to throw Michael under the bus for refuced charges.
If Michael was truly guilty of murder, then is this a bad thing?
Not at all. But if Michael is guilty, then others are as well, IMO.
Agree, FCH. He could not have committed that crime alone.
So maybe Michael did the murder with a buddy, and the two of them helped in the cleanup and fled before the EMTs arrived, taking all the cleanup stuff with them? (Where DID the cleanup stuff go??)
I don’t believe this, but maybe it’s a story they could sell.
Just read up on this today..what in the world would have been Michaels motive? The motive of this crime is what intriges me most. Jealousy,sex game gone wrong, psycopath needing no real motive???
someone on drugs, maybe?
If it was in fact Michael who killed Robert (I personally don’t think so, but perhaps he had a hand in it), then my guess would be drug-fueled sexual assault and then cover-up. Considering both his new found abilities in phlebotomy (and possibly equipment), I wouldn’t put it past him to have “stuck” Robert for “fun” and then (with another or others) gone so far as to kill him.
Lindsay had noted, interestingly, in another thread that Joe’s interrogation transcript to her sounded like he’s a big family protector and that he’s covering up for someone. I thinks there’s truth in this assessment, and I’d take it further to say that he may have stabbed Robert to “protect” Dylan or Michael (and himself, of course). In his head, this may well have been “justified” or if not then an understandable and somehow ‘noble’ thing for the head of the family to do. I think his pathology has a very strong foothold in the concept of “father”.
“a new report from the FBI regarding DNA and the bloody knife, and a stack of documents regarding Deedrick and Spaulding’s methodologies.”
Eds will these reports be on the site in the next few days?
I wonder if this new report was the driving force behind the the request for a bench trial decision.
WOW! Am I the only one who thinks the 3 creeps stand a much better chance of acquittal with a judge who will follow the law and truly understand what “beyond a reasonable doubt” means — no bias about weird 3-way relationship, lack of blood, defendants who probably won’t testify and the whole stigma that has with juries, etc?
Unfortunately, I think it will be EXTREMELY difficult to prove which one if you even think at least one of them is guilty of obstruction.
At least the civil trial holds some chance for monetary punishment. I still hope something does come out or someone does crack and the truth can finally be known. Reading the Washingtonian article, Kathy and Robert seemed like such a wonderful couple — my continued prayers go out to family and friends.
You are not the only one who believes the Defendants stand a much better chance of acquittal with the judge. I believe that too.
Sat through hundreds of trials. Jurys are easily confused and don’t know what resonable doubt is. No confusion on the Judges behalf. These guys are toast. I mean they are sleeping and hear the door “chime” but then while awake don’t hear it as the murderer exits?
I disagree, Sigmund. Bernie Grimm’s star power just flamed out – no razzle-dazzle to confuse and confound. It’s pretty clear that something funky happened that night because the time frame is off, not to mention the knife and the rest of it – and just generally how unlikely the ‘intruder’ had to be AND the lack of blood. She seems no nonsense in approach and unswayed by the defense counsel’s antics unlike Judge Weisburg.
Bea says: “It’s pretty clear that something funky happened that night because the time frame is off, not to mention the knife and the rest of it – and just generally how unlikely the ‘intruder’ had to be AND the lack of blood.”
I agree Bea….and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist, or an attorney or legal professional or even someone that is “educated” (as Kim below points out), to see this.
I have always thought that the Defendants will walk away free. I am now certain of it. In my experience as a former criminal prosecutor and current criminal defense attorney, lay people – however well-intentioned – are so ignorant about the legal process as well as the substantive law they are required to apply to often confusing and even contradictory “facts” (try explaining to a lay person that the crime the defendant is charged with is a specifict intent crime, or what mens rea means) that they undoubtedly resort to deciding the case based on the all-too-familiar “gut feeling.” And the “gut feeling” standard can and is often influenced on factors that, legally, have no place in the court room. In this case, a bench trial would be advisable for many reasons, including: There is no DIRECT physical evidence, only circumstantial. There is no DIRECT testimonial evidence. The Police made some serious procedural errors, some of which have already been hightlighted. The coroner made some serious errors. The blood evidence was screwed up. The defendants are upstanding citizens with no priors. And last, but not least, the prosecution will have a heck of a time trying to establish motive.
So, you may ask, if the prosecution’s case is as weak as I make it sound, why not go with a jury trial; after all, with the jury you must have 12 people in unanimous agreement before they can find you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? And the answer is: Bias. There is a lot of bias in this case due to (a) publicity and (b) certain issues and details involved in the case: The homesexual lifestyle, the gay threesome, the non-mainstream sexual practices, including the S&M practices and devices used to facilitate those practices, the semen in the rectum, the needle-like punctures. The publicity, both from mainstream media and other outlets such as this blog, has done a good job tainting the jury pool. If I am Mr. Price, and I know some of this stuff will come out during the trial, I would much rather be judged by a single person who is educated, versed in the law, trained to keep her biases out, who has a stake in the outcome because she will not want to be reversed on appeal, as opposed to Joe Blow or Mary Smith, who will probably not appreciate the nuances of conspiracy law, obstruction of justice and evidence tampering, or the burden of proof, or the fact that they cannot infer that the defendants are guilty simply because of their sexual orientation and sexual practices. If I am Mr. Ward, after all the comments that have been posted on this site, I would not want anyone in this town –except for Judge Leibovitz– to judge me. Again, she has sometime at stake here. I rarely insist on a jury in my own cases, and obtain rather predictable results.
The task that has now fallen on Judge Leibovitz is simply awesome. Her role has changed from keeping things going in the courtroom and ruling on motions on legal issues, to deciding the ultimate question: did the prosecution establish that the defendants are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Very tough. So I must disagree with those that believe that today’s move in an indication that someone will cut a deal. To the contrary, the defendants feel their case is much, much stronger than anticipated.
So then why did the prosecution assent to the switch to a bench trial? It sounds like it was a dumb move on their part. Or is it that if they objected they would be tacitly admitting the fact that the jury ppol was biased toward them?
Kim, there was hardly any publicity, and clearly anyone who’d read this blog would have been stricken.
I simply disagree with the conclusions you’ve reached about the defendants feeling their case is strong and THAT’S the reason for requesting a bench trial. From the beginning it’s appeared that from adding Dr. Henry Lee to courtroom grandstanding that there would be quite the show from the defense. As a lawyer you well know that doesn’t play well in a bench trial.
Too, I think the defense just gave away bluster about MPD screw ups and making the defendants out to be victims.
You’re right that Judge Leibovitz doesn’t care that they were in a 3-way. I don’t care either. Likewise about their BDSM (consenting adults, of course). But she’s no fool and the facts are fiercely indicative of guilt of the current charges – all my opinion, of course.
Sounds like the mood in the courtroom would better be termed ‘deflated’ than ‘boisterous’ – no one plans and plans for a jury trial only to back out at the last minute because they think their case is strong. To me, the ONLY reason outside possible pleas coming down the pike is BECAUSE Joe Price insists on testifying. Less risk to have them all testify in front of the judge – but likely the sound of the jail slamming shut as well. She’s not likely to fall under Joe’s charm spell.
If Victor hadn’t screamed before 11:30, MAYBE they’d have had a chance if everything else went their way. But 11:30-11:49 is far too long to delay the 911 call.
Nice try Kim, I’m not impressed and I doubt that Judge Leibovitz is either.
Kim –
Here’s a crazy theory that might be used by the prosecution to establish a motive: the defendants obstructed justice at Swan Street in order to……………
….not be implicated in the murder of Robert Wone.
I know, I know, it’s a bit far-fetched, but just crazy enough to work for the prosecution. Hopefully the prosecution is reading my post, otherwise they won’t be able to come up with a motive for obstruction!
Ha, ha , ha rk (well said) what a concept.
Perhaps what Kim meant is that there doesn’t seem to be a solid motive for murder, which of course is not what they’re on trial for. But if they have no motive for murder, what then could be the motive for cleaning up? (Although I can see Victor and Joe screaming about the guest bleeding on the Frette linen and rushing them to the wash. Okay not really.)
But you have to prove motive.
Which I believe was Kim’s point. There would seem to be none, aside from speculation from those of us here.
CD, did you mean to say that the prosecution does NOT have to prove motive?
So sorry…you DON’T have to prove motive. Proofread is a beautiful thing.
RK,
Carolina accurately explained what I tried to say about motive. I was referring to motive to commit murder, which, if a good argument for it existed, the prosecution COULD allude to even if the charges in this case do not include murder. That would help establish motive for the crimes with which the Defendants have been charged here. Why? Because innocent people TYPICALLY do not attempt to conspire to cover things for actions for which they believe they are not responsible for. Of course, there are always exceptions.
I disagree. Unlike jurors, the judge IS aware of all the damning inadmissible evidence against the defendants. Although as a matter of law such evidence cannot be considered, it is nearly impossible for a person to forcibly ignore what they are aware of, and those facts probably will have an impact. If I were a defendant in this case, I’d much rather go with a jury.
i agree with you. i think they are expecting a jury to be too biased. one of the lawyers said they had been tossing the idea around for about a year. it must be due to the bias they feel they will encounter on the jury due to their lifestyle and sexual practices.
re: “no one plans and plans for a jury trial only to back out at the last minute because they think their case is strong”
I once worked for a candidate who wanted to run in a primary unopposed. There was only one other candidate considering getting in, and that candidate had an enormous family fortune. My candidate hired a slew of expensive consultants and let everyone know about it. When the other candidate saw how much my candidate was prepared to spend, she decided not to run – she thought it would be a tough fight and she just wasn’t up for it. Funny thing is, my candidate didn’t have deep pockets – she was just bluffing. She dumped the expensive consultants as soon as her rival announced she wouldn’t run.
By which I mean – perhaps the bluster about bringing in celebrity experts, the seemingly endless supply of money, etc. etc. was just that – bluster. Bluster intended to intimidate the prosecution into taking a very conservative approach.
NM, I don’t disagree that it was tactical. I simply don’t think it was based on “how strong their case is.” The defense may have used it as a way to narrow the issues and keep certain ‘seedier’ elements out of the record. That said, I think it’s a sign of some desperation and that only time will tell the real purpose. It seems a desperate measure from my vantage point.
Now that I’ve read the rest of the thread – well, if its true that there are “no backsies” and the motions to exclude stand, then I see the utility of pretending for as long as possible to be prepared to take the case to a jury – as you say, a tactical move.
I wish I had kept a running list of all the evidence and allegations that will be excluded, because I want know what’s left – what exactly the judge is allowed to consider in reaching her decision. Has the defense pared things down to the point that there aren’t enough pieces of the puzzle left to create a coherent picture? (If so, then i think the bluff worked).
Hey NM.
The restraints and the paralytics are OUT.
But the defense lost the try to keep out the Michael Price burglary (and Ward and Zaborsky’s grand jury testimony about the delay until Joe could tell them whether to report it to cops). They also lost the Motion to keep out the videotaped interrogations the night of the murder.
The defense won allowing their cardiologist expert who’ll say that Robert could have been immediately immobilized by the first stab wound to the heart and that he may not have bled more than appeared at the scene.
The motions yet to be decided were about the prosecution’s expert who conducted stabbing experiments – I think there is one another which escapes me.
As for a coherent picture, I (personally) think there is plenty. If the witnesses testify as expected (and that’s always a big IF), then the neighbor will say the screaming occurred before 11:30 but the 911 call didn’t begin until 11:49. The EMTs/cops will testify about the defendant’s behavior and the lack of blood. The ME will testify the murder weapon wasn’t the kitchen knife left in the room and that the wounds were consistent with the knife missing from Dylan’s 3 piece cutlery set.
I’m guessing from the interrogation videos it will be apparent that the stories were so similar that it appears ‘concocted’ (use of the wrong time told by the 911 operator- 11:43 – use of “intruder” throughout, Dylan “saw” the back door unlocked from across the room etc.).
Joe’s (adamant) testimony that the chime of the intruder’s entry was no more than 5 minutes before he heard ‘grunts’ which made him go to Robert (leaving no time for the intruder to clean or change knives – not to mention WHY a stranger would scale a 9 foot gate in hopes that the door would be open or why he would go immediately to stab Robert and have Robert not fight back).
If the Witness No. 5 noted in the affidavit (who went to breakfast with the defendants the morning after) DOES testify that Joe claimed that he pulled the knife from Robert’s chest then that would seem difficult to get around if “the” knife had blood wiped on it as will be the testimony and that it wasn’t the murder weapon.
There’s Joe’s contacting the mutual friend who was with Kathy Wone when MPD questioned her a day or two after the murder (before the funeral) to see if she’d waive atty-client privilege to disclose what the police asked AND Joe’s email to his friend about the Catch 22 that he/they couldn’t tell police all they knew without risking arrest, yet claiming that he’d already told them everything.
On and on.
Kim said: “There is no DIRECT physical evidence, only circumstantial.”
One person has admitted that his fingerprints might be on the knife. I wonder if authorities found any other “unidentified” fingerprints on the knife. If not, then that looks like some pretty direct physical evidence to me.
And remember, this trial isn’t for murder. Price and Zaborsky have said they applied pressure to the wounds with two towels and that there was blood all over the place. Yet only one slightly bloody towel was at the scene. Again, is this not direct physical evidence that they were lying to police about applying pressure? And if so, why would they lie about that?
In all due respect, I’d encourage you to read up on this case.
Re: bias–very reasonable analysis. Thank you for your perspective. The more I consider this, the more likely I think that the defense probably calculated the best they could possibly hope for would be a mistrial because of extreme prejudicial attitudes among the likely jury pool, particularly in light of the recent DC marriage equality developments.
It is difficult to overestimate the extent of anti-gay bias among the African-American community. For exapmle, in New York, within the last week, a lone African-American juror’s hold out for acquittal resulted in a mistrial for an African-American defendant accused in an anti-gay bias crime murder, despite a videotaped confession by the murderer. Three gay men living together in an unconventional relationship, with undertones of S&M? Not a snowball’s chance of a fair trial with person-on-the-street jurors in DC. Wise move, the bench trial, particularly after exluding as much evidence as possible.
At least with a bench trial the defendants get a verdict, and whether there is a conviction or not, I have to feel like it will be a fairer verdict, from someone who, as you point out, is “versed in the law” and “trained to keep her biases out”. While my gut tells me they were involved, the evidence does not, beyond a reasonable doubt……..yet.
Please continue to weigh in here. Your insight is a welcome relief from all the wild, hysterical ‘theorizing’ , and the snide, bitchy, sneering smears against the defendants and anyone (family, friends, acquaintances) who might be remotely associated with them.
thank you kim. at least you understand. as a crim defense attorney myself, this jury pool is way too risky esp in light of their sexual orientation. i think it is far riskier to have a jury than a judge.
Finally an opinion from reality and not from someone who has watched too many episodes of Law & Order (actually it sounds mor like Murder She Wrote)… Which is exactly why they asked for a bench trial
Should be more… too much wine (probably with Joe and Dylan while planning more dirty deeds with OJ and Robert Blake. Oh, wait… OJ’s in jail. Damn details…)
What a stunning, forceful and original jab. We are humbled.
And yet not humbled enough to take this incredibly rare opportunity to actually view real case files and real police transcripts and as-it-happens trial transcripts and learn something about your legal system and about what real murderers might look like without turning it into a soap opera for your own enjoyment.
A man died and you’re dismissing people who actually know something about how the system works so you can keep dramatizing it so it’s easier for you to digest.
But, yes, please, do keep sneering and breaking a sweat trying to cram your theories into some made-for-TV movie script.
Lindsay, I don’t even own a TV, seriously.
I would be interested if you have any contribution to make here, do you?
Based on your comments in the thread above… nope.
Dear Lindsey,
Some of us are lawyers and we’ve been reading everything we could get our hands on for a couple of years now.
Most of us keep coming back because Robert Wone was murdered in 2006 and, to date, there have been no murder charges brought against anyone. This trial may change that – but if not, at least those who were present that night will have to answer for their actions. Personally, it’s my opinion that Joe Price and Dylan Ward murdered Robert; this is but an opinion but it is based on facts which have been disclosed to date (transcripts, reports, autopsy, witness statements disclosed thus far, timeline; Price’s behavior afterward including emails).
I don’t know why you’re coming here for what appears to be the sole purpose of insulting people. If you have an alternate theory to provide, or want to point out information which leads to conclusions other than what a number of us here have reached, please do. I would like to hear it.
It seems many pro-defense folks ‘stop by’ this site but rarely do they attempt to ‘educate’ us as to their opinions about the murder of Robert Wone. I hope you are not among them. My guess is that most of these people are close to one or more of the defendants and can’t bring themselves to scrutinize the facts; the thought that their friend(s) may be headed to prison scares them and they spew (displaced) anger at this site, the editors, those of us who post here.
Please stay and let us know your opinion. Like most here, I do want the truth and do want (most of all) for Robert’s murderer(s) to pay the price. It’s my hope that the defendants get a fair trial – it seems that Judge Leibovitz is both fair and smart. If they are found guilty, as I suspect, then I will have a sense of validation in all the time I’ve spent reading. If they are found not guilty, I’ll be particularly interested in the witnesses and other evidence which leads the judge to a not guilty verdict to see what can be gleaned and, with luck, find a new avenue to find the murderer(s) if the defendants are not among them.
To paint “us” with a broad brush as ‘bad guys’ or idiots who’ve watched too many criminal trial television shows is silly. We have many disagreements among ourselves – I, personally, hope that Victor Zaborsky comes to his senses and has Connolly work a deal so he gets immunity in exchange for testimony – and I am routinely mocked for this (John, please let it pass this one time). I don’t know you, whether you do know one/more of them, or whether you care about the truth, but I’ll assume that you do want to know who murdered Robert Wone, and I’ll assume that if the defendants are guilty of the current charges that you believe they should be held accountable.
If I’m wrong about any of this, let us know. And, please, elucidate us about your opinion as to what happened at 1509 Swann on August 2, 2006. If you have facts that we’re not aware of, now’s your chance to prove we’re wrong.
As I’ve said since nearly the first post I made on this site, it absolutely galls me that these men, two of whom were poster boys for gay rights, may be guilty. I’d love to be wrong about Joe Price’s guilt because if he is guilty then he’s likely to put a large, ugly dent in the public opinion about gay people like me.
If you can’t bring yourself to see clearly about the facts of that night but you want to provide information or opinions about any of the three men, please do.
Wow! Go for Ophra!!
Bea, et al.,
I have my own opinions which, while not on the opposite side of the court room from most on this site, probably got there in a different way.
However, when people like Kim, who have real world experience in this arena, take the time to try to explain how things actually work and how pieces most probably fit together they are met with an onslaught of “Boo! Hiss! Down in front!” and the conspiracy theories and over-dramatization ensues.
So, thanks for the lecture and the presumption about my opinions, which I shall keep to myself for the exact reasons that you and your friend with the “I don’t even OWN a TV” badge have put on such magnificent display. Way to demonstrate my point for me.
As expected.
Well, that was a long-winded way of saying nothing.
Girls, girls…you’re ALL pretty lawyers.
I’m pretty, but I’m not a lawyer. ::batting my eyelashes coyishly::
Lindsay,
As I said below: “We, legal and non-legal bloggers alike, have had the unique opportunity to view myriad documents and details that the casual news viewer has not. We have had over the past 2 years digested and re-digested these FACTS over and over again; and we nearly unanimously agree that the defendants are guilty (except for the occasional apologist).”
Perhaps you should do the same. I’d put money down that you have not.
*That* is quite a lovely chip. Wherever did you get it? Did Kim lend it to you?
Seriously, many of us understood exactly what Kim was saying, and said so. It doesn’t mean one has to agree with her, nor does it mean that anyone who holds an opposing position is ignorant.
It appears the only reason you’ve arrived is to defend Kim, which is interesting in and of itself, but to then refuse to give your own insights seems petty and only plays into the stereotypes of female professionals.
So grow a pair and discuss your obvious superior insight into the case, or take Kim for a cocktail or a nice glass of whine.
Carolina, read the whole thread dear. Try to keep up!
In breaking news Lindsay is my new hero, in that (further down in this thread) she actually made me think differently. I like that in a girl.
(to make up for deficiencies of tone in internet postings imagine my posts being intoned by Janeane Garofalo if that helps)
New insights are always great. It can open new paths of thought, but it shouldn’t be new bandwagon to jump on without holding it up to the facts. No, I’m not saying this is the case with Ms. Bluth, but I do believe that as we consider these new scenarios, we lay them atop the gridwork of evidence and see what matches up.
Personally, I have always felt Michael and possible Phelps might have played a role, but knowing Joe’s ego, I don’t think he’d let anyone put him in this position if he had no hand in the crime.
(Also, see mea culpa to Ms. Bluth below. 🙂 Keep up, girl!)
Bea says: “Personally, it’s my opinion that Joe Price and Dylan Ward murdered Robert; this is but an opinion but it is based on facts which have been disclosed to date (transcripts, reports, autopsy, witness statements disclosed thus far, timeline; Price’s behavior afterward including emails).”
We, legal and non-legal bloggers alike, have had the unique opportunity to view myriad documents and details that the casual news viewer has not. We have had over the past 2 years digested and re-digested these FACTS over and over again; and we nearly unanimously agree that the defendants are guilty (except for the occasional apologist).
I imagine the defense team requested a bench trial as they see that individuals that have had the opportunity to review “the bones” of this case will find their clients guilty.
Lindsay needs to have a seat and review the case like everyone at WMRW has. She may be surprised at her conclusions.
The facts are there for all to see. Just as a jury would. And if I were seeing these fact as a juror FOR THE FIRST TIME, I would come to the same conclusion.
Perhaps Lindsay should have a seat and begin reviewing the case as if she were a juror. She may be surprised at her reaction to the case.
“And if I were seeing these fact as a juror FOR THE FIRST TIME, I would come to the same conclusion.”
Absurd. You can’t possibly say this after having steeped yourself in WMRW-alia for the last two years.
On the other hand, a relative newcomer who had not obsessively read and commented on every aspect of every motion, theory and counter-theory MIGHT more reasonably approxmiate the idealized concept of an unbiased juror without any preconceived notions about the case.
If the WMWR-niks were able to look at the case from the perspective of an outsider, I think THEY might be surprised at what they’d see as well.
Owin’
That would be refreshing actually. Maybe we should go out and find this unbiased person, point them at the blog and the docs files, suggest that they not read the comments at all (seriously) and then ask them what they think. I would be interested in that experiment though I’m not sure how the logistics would be worked out.
Maybe you could drum up such a person. I am serious.
Dear dear Owin’,
There WAS a time when I knew nothing about this case. Nothing about Robert Wone. Nothing about the defendants. Nothing. Again nothing. It didn’t take 2 years to formulate my opinion. It took MUUUUUCH less time than that.
I heard about the murder when it first hit the news, and it took me about two seconds to think that their explanation of the night’s events was ridiculous. One or more of them was guilty. The only thing that’s changed in my mind is that I originally wondered if Robert was there for more than a sleepover and something got out of hand. I don’t believe that any more.
And again, another pro-defendant blogger that has nothing to present in the way of innocence.
See, this is the kind of snidery that really devalues and derails the otherwise interesting commentary on this site. And predictably, it comes from some of the more frequent (i.e. ‘obsessed’) commentsers, who are emotionally vested in the case. I often wonder if they are related somehow to the victim, or if they have had any negative dealings with one (or more) of the defendants, or if they’re just bored and don’t like the Wizards (né Bullets) or the Redskins, or the Senators, but need a tribe to glom onto. Care to disclose your connection?
BTW, I’m on the record in an earlier post as saying that my gut tells me they’re involved (guilty), but that the evidence doesn’t. If that counts as pro-defendant in your analysis, I don’t think there’s any way you can make any claim to objectivity.
I’m sorry, Owin’, but I don’t see the snideness. All CDinDC was asking for was a substantiated opinion. Some explanation of how exactly the trio’s story could possibly be true. Please give details, not anger and dismissal. From where I stand, the snideness lies elsewhere and the irony runs deep.
OK… truce. Here’s my contribution.
I have reviewed the facts of the case and the facts about those involved in the case. I applaud the dedication of everyone here in reviewing those facts. However, I think that everyone has spent most of their time on the facts and documents they understand or feel are most immediately relevant (police interviews, certain portions of “original affidavit”, Joe Price’s dominating behavior).
I think there are some conclusions that have been reached here and some evidence that has been accepted at face value that are incorrect. First, the impression that Dylan Ward is some sort of sweet, impressionable idiot.
Ward is highly intelligent and the only things he shows any interest in doing (in spite of his vast education) are separating people from their money (repeatedly record-breaking fund raiser which is not a stupid shrinking violet’s job) and prostitute. He gets off on exercising his control over people. Also, since the murder Dylan comes and goes as he pleases, doing whatever he wants. He is clearly not under the control of Joe Price. Put Dylan, Micheal Price, and Micheal’s buddy who likes to torture animals in the same room together and somebody’s going to get hurt.
Joe Price is acting like a dad trying to protect his family. It’s a warped idea in light of everything that has happened, but that’s what he’s doing. He has an enormous amount to lose. He has an actual family. That’s why he’s working so hard which makes him look like the mastermind. I’m not saying he’s innocent. That’s just why he’s the one who’s breaking a sweat.
Victor is dedicated to Joe. He’s spent years building a life with Joe and he’s not going to abandon him now. That’s just the way it is.
Anyway… that’s some of my opinions.
“Put Dylan, Micheal Price, and Micheal’s buddy who likes to torture animals in the same room together and somebody’s going to get hurt.”
Have to agree there…have always thought (and continue to) that MPrice and DWard (don’t know ’bout PCollins) had something to do with the killing. The cover-up followed. Where there is drugs, there’s crime.
NOW were talking! Okay…first question…do you know any of the defendants (or michael price personally? Or have you met them? It sounds like you are able to say with certainty that Dylan “comes and goes as he pleases.” (The fact that he was living in Florida shortly after the murder and out of the watchful eye of Joe/Victor supports this.)
IF you know Dylan, your insight is valuable. If you don’t know Dylan (or any others) your opinions are truly appreciated. A fresh opinion is always welcomed when presented in a palatable manner.
Thanks Lindsay.
I don’t know anyone involved in this case, nor do I know anyone who claims to know anyone involved in this case.
But the fact that Dylan moves to Florida, Joe then buys a house that Dylan moves in to (where did that money come from by the way?), and Dylan is doing his sensual massage thing (which probably isn’t sitting well with anyone who is associated with him) suggests that the only person in control of Dylan is Dylan.
As far as someone shutting the money off on the lawyers… Dylan’s daddy has spent lots of money keeping Dylan happy and away from home for the last 20 years. Doubtful that would change now.
Re Dylan living in the house in Florida…I have thought about that. But it still begs to question, WHY would Joe do that for Dylan.
I always go back to Joe being involved and Joe is making Dylan happy so that he doesn’t sing about Joe’s involvement.
I just can’t see Joe protecting Dylan for no other reason than “love.”
Buying a house in Fla. when you’regoing to be sued, harkens back to O.J. Simpson being sued by the Goldmans. O.J. bought a house in Florida because your home is protected from lawsuits. O.J. could have a posh place and the Goldmans couldn’t touch it. As soon as Joe Price bought a place in Florida, I figured he knows he’ll lose any case brought against him by the Wone family and this will give him a place to live after the Wones win their lawsuit (if he’s not jailed following this trial).
Linday,
I have another question….IF Dylan were responsible for Robert’s death, why do you think Joe would cover for him? Covering for him is what is putting his family in jeopardy. Why didn’t he fess up immediately about what he knew. Let the guilty party be arrested and save himself, Victor and his children from what is happening now? Personally, that’s why I think Joe is more involved. I just don’t think he would risk everything to save his “lover.”
Wow Lindsay, just wow.
Thank you so much for your insight.
I wonder, given that my reading of Dylan’s police interrogations caused me to change tacks and give more credence to his version of events than I had previously, maybe I’ve just been (at a distance) duped by a very smooth operator. You know what plays into this even? What plays into this is my own liberal, intellectual (PC!) efforts to not make judgments about sex workers and slackers, though previously I gave him very poor grades for life skills and social niceties.
Your thoughts are very thought provoking and I (seriously) thank you very much for them.
All,
I’m going to post my reply to all this at the bottom to avoid the pain of reading it as a 1/4-inch wide column 😉
Wow ….
Where is Clio?
Did she pass out?
Eagle dearest, I am speechless at this turn of events! Even the oracle at Delphi did not foresee a bench trial.
Needham must have told the Four Horsemen to wrap it up, or Bernie has a new, more lucrative client to exploit. Follow the money!
I must admit that I did not anticipate this. I see both points of view as to what this means, but the ultimate point is that a judge can if she doesn’t agree (legal issue) with the verdict will set aside a guilty jury verdict so foregoing a jury means only one bite at the apple rather than two. Why not go for the jury especially since these defense lawyers are best before a jury? It really cannot be jury bias. With all due respect to all of us who read and/or post on this site, the number of eligible D.C. jurors who even know about this site is very, very small. The Post article was not likely read by the final jury pool. So this strategy is interesting, if puzzling.
Respectfully,
Meto
You clearly have not been called for jury duty lately. My 1st time (1996)my fellow jurors were 95% African American. The fellow who sat next to me was drinking whiskey from a brown bag. The last time I went the makeup was 50% white and the blacks were professional-types.
My theory is that today’s development was planned long ago and the defendants waited until now to make their motion because they wanted the court to rule on the motions in limine and motion to sever first. The grounds for severance are strongest if there is a jury. If a judge is deciding the case, it’s much harder to argue that the finder of fact will not be able to weigh the evidence against each defendant separately or that there will be confusion of the issues. While I haven’t read all the motions in limine in this case, generally the strongest arguments on such motions are the risks of confusing or misleading the jury regarding the true issues in the case. You don’t get very far on those types of arguments when it’s a bench trial.
Given the nature of this case and the defendants’ backgrounds, I would hazard to guess that these defendants have long thought that they would fare better with a judge than with a jury, but knew that it didn’t behoove them to waive their right to a jury until they had ridden the “risk of confusing the jury” argument as far as they possibly could.
Someone on this board commented that it sounded like the defense lawyers had talked to the Washington Post reporter who wrote the story in today’s paper. It would not surprise me at all if the defense attorneys gave the interview so that they could make the “too much intense media scrutiny” claim with a straight face today.
srb-
Agree-
It would not surprise me if the attorneys set up the “too much media scrutiny’ themselves.
As a matter of fact, would the bench trial actually generate less scrutiny than a jury trial?
I am not so sure of that. Media scrutiny was not the real reason, but a cover reason.
The Post reporter seemed to understand the defense attorneys mood exceedingly well.
The reporter seemed favorably impressed by the defense attorneys’ previously publicized activities.
The attorneys and the Post are probably talking with each other when it benefits both mutually.
Which only goes to show how canny and manipulative the defense attorneys are.
As a friend of mine commented after she finished lamenting this bench trial news,
the defendants are very slick and very smart.
We will see how far that gets them. (the defense).
This “vicious” blog and its intrepid Editors may have them running scared; it is the one variable that Mr. Price did not count on. Rather, he counted on the pervasive discomfort and cynicism that blocked coverage of the case before indictment. Don’t ask, and he still won’t tell!
The DC jury pool is very troubling. This smart decision leaves room for everyone to maneauver, including directed judgement, dismissal, or acquittal.
ironic how you were incessantly commenting weeks ago about tainted jury pools, benjoemin.
Hmmmm.
“And I don’t think it’s fair…
RATHER: And Mr. Vice President, if these questions are —
BUSH: …to judge my whole career by a rehash on Iran. How would you like it if I judged your career by those seven minutes when you walked off the set in New York?”
Accordingly, one hopes that Lynn judges Team Price by how they acted between 10:30 and midnight on 8/2/06. Check, please, says Mr. Grimm!
BenFranklin: “Maneauver”??? “Directed judgement”? Where’d you get that “legal” term? You’re not a lawyer and the lawyers viewing this site can obviously see that. So, give it up already…
I think the defendants have decided that it is less risky to go before a judge, who doesn’t want to lose on appeal and who knows it will be appealed. Because of all the police mistakes she may also be talked into having a reasonable doubt. She will understand the subtly of the law a whole lot better than a juror.
The chance of getting jurors who have no prejudice against gays is slim in these days of a more limited and less educated jury pool.
Unfortunately, I’m afraid there is a good chance these guys will get off.
“less educated jury pool”
I laugh everytime someone says this.
There are more attorneys in this city than any other.
Exactly, CD. When I lived there and was called for jury duty, I thought (being new to DC) that I might get waived because of being an attorney. Uh, nope. At least a third of us were attorneys.
From the 2000 Census (for washington dc):
High school graduates (includes equivalency) 20.6%
Some college, or associate’s degree 18.2%
Bachelor’s degree 18.1%
Master’s, professional or doctorate degree 21.0%
As opposed to 28.6%, 27.4%, 15.5% and 8.9%, respectively, for the national average.
So, as you can see, DC is “smarter” than the national average (i.e., the percentage of bachelors and advanced degrees is higher).
That leaves 22.2% with less than a high school education.
I heart DC! The cliche about its “Northern charm and Southern efficiency,” be damned!
I’d be interested to know how many lawyers actually serve. My experience is that the more educated people I know get out of it more frequently because they know how to work the system.
A long time ago, I served on a jury for a Federal fraud and conspiracy trial in DC that had a few parallels with this case. There were multiple counts and multiple defendents, the trial lasted a month, and the facts were complicated. Each defendant could allege that he was duped by the other defendants, and was much a victim as the victims. Conspiracy law ain’t no bed of roses, neither.
There were a lot of strikes, and most of my fellow jurors were older African-American ladies: good citizens and active in their church.
They had direct, personal experience with police misconduct, and gave serious consideration to the argument that the police and prosecutors were lying, incompetent, or both.
On the other hand, they all been touched by crime. They were pretty tough-minded about crime and criminals of all races.
We never discussed gay BDSM, so I am unable to report on their views. These ladies had seen a lot, and didn’t strike me as being either naive or particularly shockable, though.
That the defendants are gay is actually a double-edged sword: it might prejudice the jury against the defendants, but OTOH, it might provide a motive for an allegation of police misconduct. Its hard to know which way it cuts.
Faced with the complexities of the case, a number of jurors fell back on a heuristic: the defendants were bad people who needed to be locked up. (This was a reasonable view of the totality of evidence, but it didn’t help decide specifically whether defendant x was guilty of charge y).
We deliberated for a long time, but, IMHO, the jury reached evidence-based verdicts that were wise and just.
Based on my experience, the real risk of a jury trial to the Swann Street defendants would be that a jury would hear the evidence, decide that the defendants were bad people who knew more than they were telling, and just skip over all the complexities in the evidence and the law and go straight to guilty. I think it would be hard for a jury to reach a split verdict.
The judge, on the other hand, has to seriously consider and perhaps explain (?) why each defendant is individually guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense may believe that the three-way “he might have done it” defense will work better with the judge.
Still, a big surprise, nonetheless….
I just don’t understand this move. I thought/think the defense’s best shot was jury confusion (with a shot of MPD disgust) – and Bernie Grimm’s celebrity. Much as the trouple’s ‘arrangement’ might trouble some, the really kinky toys were NOT coming in. I think this is a ploy of a ploy – pretending that the jury pool would be too tainted to get a fair trial when they know that they just don’t have the facts. AND the prosecution won’t be so committed to allowing the jury to decide mid-way through and might ‘hear out’ some trolling for pleas.
They may well have been “talking about this a year ago.” Talking that is with whomever is paying the bills. I think it’s possible that Dylan’s parents were willing to pay for a rigorous defense, but only up to a point. When every conceivable feint and jab failed to make contact (remember the audible disappointment when the laughable motions to dismiss were tossed out?) and the yawning abyss of jury selection followed by more histrionics was reached today they just said “fish or cut bait gentlemen.” I expect some rapid movement towards a plea from team Dylan. I would imagine that a wealthy cardiac surgeon is no fool.
Yes, AZ, there are only so many clogged arteries in Tacoma!
Speaking of Tacoma and media over-exposure (weren’t we?); it’s interesting that in Tacoma it’s as though this crime didn’t even happen.
Well, Lisa (via Miss Anderson Cooper perhaps) must have a lot of pull there as well, for some reason.
I don’t mean CNN (though the noticeable lack of interest on their part in this crime is … well … noticeable).
I mean the media in the entire state of Washington (even blogs). I don’t think they’ve even even touched on this trial, the indictment of Dylan, the murder itself and one of their own accused – nothing, zilch, nada.
Rather odd actually when one ponders it. Maybe it will be a discreet paragraph below the metro fold when Dylan pleads guilty to tampering, conspiracy and obstruction (but not murder) on Monday, and maybe that’s what Dylan’s parents are most fervently hoping for.
Seems like even the internet doesn’t reach Tacoma, Washington, and as the grand-daughter of a truly great newspaper man I can say with some authority that the local rag (http://tinyurl.com/Tacoma-News-Tribune) is hardly a robust representative of the fourth estate.
We’ve had Victor’s old (female) high school beard, tons of folks from Joe’s alma mater, tons more folks that claim to have attended Joe’s alma mater but can’t even spell maneuver, but nary a whisper about the beginnings of little Dyl. Interesting isn’t it? I wonder if anyone back home has the faintest idea what he’s been up to all of these years?
> Rather odd actually when one ponders it.
Nah. WE may be preoccupied with it, but it’s one more murder on the opposite side of a country that has thousands of murders a year. (And in a time of shrinking newspaper space.)
Could it be that the boys are completely humiliated at all the attention and don’t want to bring even more attention and exposure a long jury trial would surely create? Now I am thinking that there really is some evidence that they want to keep as low-key as possible. I don’t look at this as a good thing for the trouple at all. More of a resignation. Fast trial, quick decision, a few years in the pokey and less drama for Dateline or Nancy Grace to report.
Tactically disconcerted maybe, but I don’t think Joe is capable of feeling real humiliation, just the fabricated kind.
Didn’t the defendants argue in some of their motions/briefs that various evidence should be excluded due to the risk of prejudicing the jury against the defendants? Well, now that there will be no jury, shouldn’t that evidence be allowed in? The prosecution should immediately move for reconsideration of any motion that was granted in favor of the defendants based on the argument of prejudicing the jury.
CCB: Won’t the defense say no backsies?
If not, I guess that means different probative/prejudicial thresholds for jury vs. bench?
Not knowing much about trials, I agreeCC.
Once again, they are canny.
Joe has had a lot of free time to plan every detail of his defense.
Wouldn’t reconsideration of any motion that was granted in favor of the defendants based on the argument of prejucing the jury open a can of worms.
Still not quite sure what to make of this. The defense looked like they were gearing up for a lot of razzle dazzle, so I was really expecting the circus of a jury trial. I wonder if there were jury consultants who advised the defense that they were in bad shape if they went with just about any jury they could imagine.
At this point, I really don’t have a good feel for which way this is going to go. Based on what I know right now, I’d say that Zaborsky will be acquitted, and Ward and Price have about even odds. But I think there are still a lot of things we don’t know.
If I were the judge, I’d be annoyed at the antics of both sides already. The trial starts next week, and the prosecution just gave the defense a DNA report on the knife? And the media-loving defense team is complaining about the media coverage? I can’t imagine either side is winning brownie points with the judge.
Keep in mind is that Mr. Zaborsky said that he was with Mr. Price upstairs from about 10:50pm until the great descent, circa 11:45pm. Mr. Price said that he was with Mr. Zaborsky.
Both claimed to be asleep (together) from 11:05pm or so, with Mr. Zaborsky having taken a sleeping pill, so there is some faint possibility that one party snuck out (and back) while the other slept.
Both men were back in bed and heard the grunts or screams, and both men heard chimes (though not the same chimes) at around 11:45pm, even though Mr. Wone had been dead “for some time” by 11:55pm.
It seems very unlikely that one party is telling the truth and the other is lying. So, IMHO, Messrs. Zaborsky and Price’s statements are inextricably linked. It would require an inconsistent reading of the evidence to conclude that one was guilty of obstruction and the other was innocent.
And then there is “the scream”…..fit that into the scenario and make everyone a liar.
Interesting tidbit from today’s WashPost article:
“When Price told Leibovitz that he had a law degree, she asked him whether he was a practicing lawyer. “You could say so,” he said.”
Lyn: I meant to include that in our spot, but forgot. Price paused before answering in a somewhat sheepish tone. Judge Leibovitz quickly realized the situation and stepped up with a rephrased question to help out. Doug, co-editor
Owin’ says: “Absurd. You can’t possibly say this after having steeped yourself in WMRW-alia for the last two years.”
And I say that you know nothing about me. You don’t know me from Adam. So for you to make a statement about how I would react to something is absurd.
Continues from above…
I don’t think Joe is protecting his “lover”, he’s protecting his family (and I don’t think Dylan is part of that anymore). Joe and Victor are a bit screwed because they are being charged with (at the very least) exactly what they did: obstruction of justice and cleaning up a crime scene.
Dylan was definitely involved in the murder. Whether the other parties involved in the murder were Joe, Michael, Phelps, or the boogey man… not at issue in this trial.
What is Joe trying to protect his family from? Think about the time line and all that happened. In less than ninety minutes Robert Wone was restrained, incapacitated so that he could not fight back or react to pain, undressed, sexually assaulted, moved to another part of the house for easy clean up, stabbed, washed, redressed, his hair dried, and placed into a perfectly made bed… all with no evidence of a blood trail. Think about how many people it takes simply to undress, wash, and redress an unconscious, grown man without leaving bruises. And all the others in the house were clean and dry when the cops got there. That’s no accident or sex game gone wrong. That takes planning and experience on the part of someone.
And no one has been charged with murder yet which means no one is going away forever yet, so everyone is still in the same boat, like it or not. Again, not saying Joe’s not a bad guy, but his actions in protecting people don’t mean that he’s protecting Dylan out of affection or loyalty. He’s protecting everybody whether they deserve protecting or not (including himself? and Michael?)
First my apologies for not giving you a chance to respond re: your insights and the snippy tone. We’re sensitive when people arrive to simply berate. Again, I apologize for that.
I see where you are coming from here, but in recent appearances, it seems more that Dylan and Victor are the ones leaving the courtroom together, and of course we know Joe and Dylan had dinner the other night, as well. Not that this means anything other than a casual speaking relationship, but I have to wonder why Joe continues to supply Dylan with a home if they are no longer a family.
No apologies necessary. My “wit” (at least that’s how I like to think of it) gets the best of me at times. Apologies from me to all and I’ll assume the same. Let’s move on.
As I said… they are all in the same very small uncomfortable boat. Sounds like Dr. Ward is paying for most things these days? So Dylan lives where Dylan wants. I don’t think Joe and Victor are doing much of anything that they want to do anymore. They’re just surviving and trying to make it to the end of this.
How would you expect them to treat their co-defendant/guy with the money? This isn’t a question of etiquette or “why don’t you just break up with him?” That stuff went out the window with the whole “we murdered a guy and cleaned it up and lied to the police about it” thing.
Neither Joe nor Victor are stupid. If they are only guilty of obstruction and conspiracy, why continue the charade? Yes, Dylan appears to have the majority of the funds via mom and pop, but wouldn’t it be in Victor and Joe’s best interest to plead to lesser charges and cooperate if they had no involvement in the actual murder? Unless, of course, Michael (and possibly Phelps) was also involved.
Exactly my thoughts.
Something like this has happened before at someplace with one or more of these players involved.
It was a smooth operation. Cool players.
Required team work. Experience.
This was not the first time. (Not murder necessarily, but perhaps whatever was going on- and likely had happened before- went very wrong.)
(Hopefully the death had not happened before.)
Will we ever know?
I think the defendents know something that no one else knows and they’re gambling.
Yes, Alice, they know who did it, and they’re gambling with both Aunt Marcia’s time and Dr. Needham’s money. Fold, Joe, before you completely empty the inheritances (and reputations) of your “in-laws”!
I think the judge was only trying to determine the frame of mind of the defendents. She needed to know if they were thinking clearly when they elected to not have a jury trial. I think she was well within her rights and did the right thing. Less chance of an appeal later on.
This whole thing is beginning to sound like a daytime soap opera.
I wish it were.
Sometimes I can detach and see facts and legal analysis and opinions. Then sometimes someone says something that makes this strangely personal. A few of us have been here for the duration. So that means not a day has gone by for that long that I (or we) haven’t thought about Robert Wone. Or the defendants. And, believe it or not, I see this whole tragedy as the loss of more than one life.
I heard that Castor Oil doing well on the eyelashes. Can someone write how to use it? I’m young and I’m not familiar in cosmetic products.