Day 4: Updates

05/21/2010
By Craig
2:30pm Update: Adjournment
The triple cross of Deputy Medical Examiner Lois Goslinoski wrapped up at 1:45pm in today’s shortened trial day.

She was hit repeatedly on her opinions, credentials (to a degree) and whether she was pressured by the government to identify which knife may have been more consistent with being the actual murder weapon.

Judge Leibovitz questioned her at length on her opinion of Robert being rendered unconscious in the attack – and if so, whether he could have involuntarily responded to the knife wounds.  Goslinoski said he would have responded, even if unconscious, to stimuli of some sort.

Leibowitz asked how long Robert could have survived.  Goslinoski stuck to her guns that he would have survived for minutes.  Leibovitz asked her to quantify how long.  “60 minutes?” asked Leibowitz.  “No,”  “10 minutes?”  “Yes,” said Goslinoski, “but not many more than that.”

The trial resumes Monday morning at 9:30am. A full recap of today’s session will go up around 4:00pm.

11:25am Update

Bernie Grimm’s cross examination of ME Lois Goslinoski turned out to be an anatomy lesson.

She held her ground as Grimm challenged her finding that did not jibe with his expert cardiac surgeons, Dr. Najam and Dr. Henry Baden.  Baden is present this morning, seated in the front row.

Pressed time and time again whether she could rule out their expert opinion that Robert was immediately rendered unconscious or incapacitated, she repeated over and over, “I do not agree.”

Court wraps at 1:45 this afternoon.  There is an award ceremony this afternoon at the Department of Justice and apparently AUSA Glenn Kirschner is to be “feted”.

9:30am

AUSA Patrick Martin and GWU ER Nurse Leah Lujan

Today’s session gets underway at 11:00am this morning.

Up first will be Joe Price counsel Bernie Grimm’s expected harsh cross examination of DC Deputy Medical Examiner, Dr Lois Goslinoski.

Grimm closed yesterday’s session entering a couple of medical and forensic text books into the record, no doubt to use them later to challenge the M.E.’s work and findings.

Box Seats: We’re still getting used to some of the unexpected cordiality we see around the courthouse.  The hallways of Moultrie sees cops, defense attorneys, and prosecutors chatting amiably and enjoying each others’ company.  “Cocktails at dusk, pistols at dawn,” as an old boss of mine used to say.

While waiting for the trial to resume yesterday, we took our seats in room 310 as Judge Leibovitz was handling other matters on her calendar.  Yesterday it was a couple of guys in orange jump suits and shackles.  In one seat that has been reserved for us in the press section, Bernie Grimm was seated, busily working over a document.  We slid into two open seats next to him and introduced ourselves.  Ward counsel David Schertler grabbed that seat a few moments later and we did the same.  Both gentlemen were very pleasant and greeted us with firm handshakes and ready smiles.

On each reserved seat for the media is a sign with the outlet’s name and reporter.  We peeled off one of ours that had WMRW.COM in big block letters and offered it to Bernie. “Maybe you want one of these for your scrapbook,” we told him.  A genuine laugh followed.  It’s business, not personal.

Press Gallery: Our continued thanks to courtroom artist William J. Hennessy, Jr., for letting us pull images of his teriffic work.  In Roby Chavez’ piece on WTTG-TV last night, Hennessy’s sketches included his renditions of the sofa bed with the blood stains, Robert’s t-shirt and some unsettling autopsy pictures.

Also of note, Harry’s Jaffe’s 10,000 word feature on Robert’s life and death, from the May edition of Washingtonian magazine is now online in its entirety.

Tags: , ,

162 Responses to “ Day 4: Updates ”

  1. Clio on 05/21/2010 at 10:33 AM

    Well, at least, there is somewhere in Washington in which bipartisan comity still reigns supreme.

    Editors, that was so kind of you to offer a memento of the occasion to Bernie: when he gets around to writing his memoirs several decades from now, it may bring back some inner debates about his client and this case.

  2. CDinDC on 05/21/2010 at 10:50 AM

    You’re a class act, Eds.

    Re Lisa Goslinoski’s testimony…..quite a few people said that her lack of an M.D. (as opposed to an….O-something (sorry can’t remember), would prohibit her from testifying. Guess that wasn’t the case afterall.

    • Cecily on 05/21/2010 at 11:20 AM

      I think I read someone saything that she could testify as to her findings but couldn’t offer an opinion.

      • Michael on 05/21/2010 at 12:00 PM

        In most states, the licensing process for a Doctor of Osteopathy (DO) is the same as a Medical Doctor (MD – originally called allopathic medicine). DOs’ 4 years of post-graduate education includes additional training in osteopathy. Most do their internships and residencies in the same institutions as MD’s. Dr. Goslinoski’s credentials are impressive.

        • Clio on 05/21/2010 at 2:33 PM

          I retract my earlier criticism of Dr. G., IF her testimony continues to hold up. More pate, Mother darling?

  3. Lyn on 05/21/2010 at 10:57 AM

    I second the eds thanks to Hennessy for granting access to his work. They are excellent quality drawings and they go a long way in helping me feel like i’m actually there. Kudos!!!

    • Carolina on 05/21/2010 at 3:52 PM

      Yes, if ever I go on trial, I want Mr. Hennessy doing my sketches. Everyone is gorgeous!

      Seriously though, the sketches go a long way toward giving us a better idea of the courtroom procedures. It was very generous of him to allow this blog to use them .

  4. Timeline on 05/21/2010 at 11:09 AM

    Timeline question–

    Do I understand correctly that Robert left the RFA office at 9:48, but he supposedly arrived at Swann Street at about 10:30? I know some other people have suggested that perhaps he took a cab and thus arrived earlier, but I don’t even see how it took him 42 minutes to WALK to Swann Street from RFA. It’s only about a 10 minute walk, 15 TOPS if you are really dilly-dallying.

    • AnnaZed on 05/21/2010 at 11:37 AM

      Robert left the RFA offices at 10:20pm or very shortly thereafter according to colleagues there.

      • Timeline on 05/21/2010 at 1:07 PM

        Thanks. Must have misunderstood something else I read about the timing of his departure from RFA. The compressed timeline is one of the things that is just so confounding about this case, so I was looking for any way to draw it out.

      • HKG on 05/21/2010 at 1:50 PM

        Anna is right (but maybe closer to 10:30?), and i think i need to correct my prior timeline posts. Timeline, where did u get the 9:48pm date stamp? (sorry if i have overlooked any better information that was previously stated here)

        While the 5/31/09 WP article does state that Wone called the Swann Street residence at 10:22 from the office phones, the WP didn’t mention any specific source. But the Day 2 Wrap testimony by the RFA shift supervisor, Kenny Swift, as chronicled here by our editors, states that the visit lasted until 10:30. (i wonder how Kenny can be so sure, if he remembered by what programing was going on, or some other time marker.)

        also, our editors had previously estimated that Wone arrived at the Swann residence at 10:30.
        http://whomurderedrobertwone.com/2009/05/07/does-anybody-really-know-what-time-it-is/

        so perhaps the timeline is more like this now? am i missing anything?

        9:15 class ends / walk to Metro Center (6 minutes) / takes the metro from Metro Center to Farragut North

        9:30 exiting Farragut North station (or in taxi?) calls Kathy Wone (taxi to RFA ~2 minutes)
        [9:33+?] arrival at RFA / introductions & small talk

        10:22 call to Swann Street from office phone (WP 5/31/09)
        10:30 leaves RFA (Day 2 Wrap testimony of Kenny Swift) / taxi to Swann Street (5 minutes)

  5. WM Student on 05/21/2010 at 11:17 AM

    In regards to timeline question:

    It is one I’ve thought about as well. The only way i see it taking 42 minutes is if he was talking to Kathy for an extended period on the walk. Maybe he took back roads or simply stood outside RFA or Swann Street while talking to her.

    That get’s back to the whole issue of Robert’s cell phone being wiped.

    Thanks for all you are doing eds.

    • Cecily on 05/21/2010 at 11:31 AM

      But even if they screwed up his cell phone they can get Kathy and Joe’s phone records

  6. AnnaZed on 05/21/2010 at 11:44 AM

    In this coverage: http://tinyurl.com/bltMay20 I read this:

    “Baker did testify that when he walked up the stairs, he made “eye contact” with Ward. He said that Ward was holding a cell phone and that Ward said Wone had been stabbed and was lying in the guest room. But Baker couldn’t say whether Ward was telling him that directly or was explaining the situation to someone on the cell phone.”

    Does Jones just have this wrong and mean Victor or is this the first I am hearing of Dylan being on a phone or speaking at all in those first minutes when the responders arrived?

    • TT on 05/21/2010 at 11:58 AM

      Agreed AnnaZed, this is the first time this has been mentioned. No matter if it was Victor or Dylan, why would one be speaking on the phone at that time. In other words, the EMT’s were already at the scene. No need to be on the phone….

      • AnnaZed on 05/21/2010 at 12:00 PM

        Well if Jones just mixed it up (which is what it seems like to me ~ and he should correct it!) in his report, Victor was on the phone with 911 when the responders arrived and when they played the 911 tape in court it seems like the line stayed open for awhile with him crying.

    • Michael on 05/21/2010 at 12:05 PM

      The author of that article mistakenly mixed the testimony regarding the eye contact with Ward with the testimony regarding Zaborsky appearing on the stoop of 1509, talking on the phone to the 911 operator.

    • Bill Orange on 05/21/2010 at 12:10 PM

      You’re much better on the details than I am, but I thought Victor stayed outside after Baker got there, didn’t he? So it would’ve been Dylan at the top of the stairs.

      I really hope the police dumped everyone’s phones for the 24 hours before and after the murder, but given some of the jaw-dropping mistakes that were made in this case, I wouldn’t be too surprised if they didn’t. I also wouldn’t be surprised if one (or more) of the defendants had a pre-paid (and untraceable) cell phone.

  7. srb on 05/21/2010 at 11:55 AM

    If I recall correctly, Joe said that Robert called the house to let him know that he was catching a cab from his office and was on his way over. And there are records showing that there was a call from Robert’s phone to the house at 10:22, then why would Joe not have been downstairs or at least listening for the doorbell when Robert arrived just a few minutes later? Dylan said in his interview that he came downstairs to answer the door after Robert rang it repeatedly and no one else came down to answer. Joe said in his interview, if I recall correctly, that he was upstairs watching TV with Victor when Robert arrived. But if their bedroom has an alarm monitor unit that chimes when an exterior door is opened, it should have also alerted him when the doorbell rang. All of this makes me wonder if any part of the sequence of events they have given is true.

    • dcbill on 05/21/2010 at 12:04 PM

      I don’t think there is much truth in anything these defendants have said.

      • ramknts on 05/21/2010 at 12:54 PM

        It makes more sense if Mr. Wone took a cab. He’d be there much earlier–closer to 10:30 than 11. Plus, if he was going to walk for 45 minutes, why not just take the one-hour train ride home?

        Another thing about the timeline:
        In Mr. Price’s testimony, he mentions that Mr. Wone emailed him earlier in the day to tell him that either Mr. Price had the time-frame wrong or he personally had it wrong, but either way, he would be there later than planned–closer to 11. At that point, it seems Mr. Price didn’t know that Robert was not just attending CLE but was also heading to meet the night staff. So, they initially could have been planning for their visitor to arrive closer to 9:30.

        • HKG on 05/21/2010 at 1:56 PM

          good point. if he was going to do so much walking after a full day of work, a three hour CLE class, and a late night visit with RFA radio jockeys, he could have just taken the train home. also i don’t know DC that well, but would you really want to be walking that far along all those streets at 10:30 at night?

          • DR on 05/21/2010 at 4:11 PM

            The streets in question would be relatively safe to walk at night. Apparently it’s when you step inside that things get dangerous.

            • Timeline on 05/21/2010 at 4:21 PM

              Agreed with DR — it’s not really that far and there are many people on those streets at night. I work close to the RFA office and live only a couple blocks from 15th & Swann, and I would definitely walk home by myself from the office at 10:30pm, no question. It’s hard to imagine a scenario where I would call a cab; I guess if I were really tired or had to carry something heavy.

            • slwapo on 05/21/2010 at 4:54 PM

              “Apparently it’s when you step inside that things get dangerous.”

              Now that was funny.

  8. slwapo on 05/21/2010 at 12:17 PM

    Just read the Washingtonian article.

    So the detective asked Joe Price, “Were you attracted to Robert?”. Then Price said “Robert was as straight as the day is long.”

    Talk about not answering the question.

  9. KV on 05/21/2010 at 12:49 PM

    As many others have expressed, kudos to the website creators and editors for their time and effort. Ketamine was mentioned by an earlier poster. Is this something that would show up in toxicology tests or that such tests routinely include? Apologies if this has been adressed previously — there’s so much information here.

    • Doug on 05/21/2010 at 12:57 PM

      KV – good question. No, Ketamine is not part of the standard slate of tests in the District – or many other places, we’ve learned. Robert was not tested for Ketamine.
      There are several ways to test, but urine is considered most accurate. However even if those samples still existed, we’re now very far beyond the test’s efficacy.
      -Doug, co-editor

  10. Friend of Rob on 05/21/2010 at 12:53 PM

    One small note to the editors — it’s “jibe,” not “jive” in that context. Common mistake and a pet peeve of mine.

  11. emg on 05/21/2010 at 1:15 PM

    I hope Officer Durham testifies. She was first on the scene after the EMTs. V,J &D were all sitting in the living room when she arrived. Reports don’t indicate the exact time she arrived. Joe tells her they heard a scream and found Robert downstairs near patio door and they brought him upstairs. She tells Joe to get a robe- that others will be coming. She says she is going to accompany Robert to the hospital. V,J & D, if left alone for any length of time before others arrived were able to get their story straight. For some reason they decided to change it to “finding him upstairs.

    It makes far more sense that it happened downstairs because of the kitchen knife and the drink of water. Robert probably never saw the upstairs or took a shower on his own. The change in location of Robert is incriminating. Case closed in my view.

    • Hoya Loya on 05/21/2010 at 1:53 PM

      If they did it and it happened downstairs on the patio, it would explain the necessity of the gril fire story to explain excess water, which even came into the basement conversation with Kathy (not a detail you would think she’d care about at that point). It would also explain “he was stabbed in the back.”

      • AnnaZed on 05/21/2010 at 1:57 PM

        Yes, another poster pointed out the possible alternate meaning of “in the back.” I think Joe had two different stories running through his mind (1.) Robert was attacked outside “in the back” on the patio and (2.) Robert was attacked upstairs and that he bungled these stories twice (once with Kathy and once with Officer Durham) before setting on story (2.).

        • Lyn on 05/21/2010 at 3:03 PM

          Maybe he had three different thoughts running through his mind. #3 – Offering a good friend safe shelter for the night and then killing him sure was stabbing him in the back.

      • KV on 05/21/2010 at 2:02 PM

        If that’s the case, it would also explain the cadaver dog “alerting” on the patio drain which is where the missing blood presumably went.

      • Clio on 05/21/2010 at 2:03 PM

        Yeah, I am leaning more and more toward the patio as where the slaying took place, too, in part because of the Durham statement, the alleged grilling of the steaks and consequent fire, and the proximity of the kitchen to the patio (and its uncomfortable stools) with its door to the patio being “noticed” by Dyl as “ajar.”

        • Cam on 05/21/2010 at 2:19 PM

          New poster here who recently found this site. Kudos to the editors for introducing us not only to the case, but more importantly to Robert, who I really wish I had known in life.

          But wanted to quickly reply that in terms of where the attack happened. I agree makes sense that attack took place on patio or bathroom but then I can’t get over Robert having his mouth guard in. For me, that always places him asleep when attacked. Do you think possible that any of the three thought enough to place it in his mouth after the attack – to throw police off?

          • HKG on 05/21/2010 at 2:36 PM

            i do think Wone was already dead when the stabbings occured, but what if he was not completely dead yet?

            perhaps the mouth gard could have been put in so that he would not have bit his tongue in reaction to being stabbed? (kind of remembering in old movies, whenever someone is going to experience alot of pain, they always put a stick in their mouth to bite down on)

            • Bea on 05/21/2010 at 2:46 PM

              Agree. Too, if they did ‘think ahead’ enough to type but not send two text messages, they were awash in creating diversions.

            • Clemypooh on 05/21/2010 at 3:10 PM

              From what I understand of the autopsy, RW had to have been alive when he was stabbed because it is stated that the blood pooling in his stomach was being digested which indicates his body was still functioning over some period of time. I just cannot understand how he got stabbed though? No defensive wounds which tells me he must have been incapacitated.

              • MotherOfInvention on 05/21/2010 at 3:23 PM

                I suppose the story that seems most likely to me is that he was incapacitated with cholorform or some other inhalant, and then it was reinforced with injections, with the intent of exploiting Robert sexually. Then one or more of the defendants discovered they had either killed Robert or came to believe that mistakenly, so they decided to make it look like a home invastion burglary, and they stabbed him.

              • Carolina on 05/21/2010 at 4:07 PM

                The blood would have been digested chemically for some time after death.

          • mia on 05/21/2010 at 5:04 PM

            If they have enough time to shower and redress him, I wouldn’t be too surprised that they would take a few minutes to put the guard in.

        • Bea on 05/21/2010 at 2:26 PM

          Anyone take another look at those photos I referenced the night before last showing the kitchen at the time? I don’t see HOW anyone could ’see’ the door latch from the stairs/sofa. And that doesn’t jibe with Victor saying the door was unlocked while still on the 911 tape. Agree that liars work in some truths – “he was stabbed in the back” goes with Robert having been ‘out back’ whether he was murdered there, washed off, or whatever – frankly, it could have been where he was first drugged and assaulted.

          With the ‘plan’ changes (scream) and the ’story’ changes which followed, I think Joe was likely very high. Lawyers understand keeping a story straight – even when we’re not lying we have a sense of what we’ve said and what we’re going to say. In run of the mill arguments with my partner, I will (annoyingly) reference what I’ve previously said (with conviction) to make a point. It’s a generalization, but we’re trained that way (Hoya, agree?).

          That Joe changed stories that night tells me he wasn’t fully functioning. If he calls Kathy and has any sort of human reaction, he senses that this is ‘different’ than telling a cop – ’stabbed in the back’ distances him from guilt. Kathy will assume a total stranger killed him away from the house AND that Joe couldn’t have stopped it. That she thought he meant the stab wounds were in the back side of his torso shows that there was no follow up discussion from either of them in that moment. Joe was not OFFERING information as most of us do – we babble, we soothe. If she said anything at all, he’d have seen she misunderstood but Joe was too messed up to even know.

          NOT saying he didn’t know exactly what he’d done but that his skills were not working for him. There is beauty in THAT being his possible downfall.

          • TT on 05/21/2010 at 2:35 PM

            Bea, where can I find the photos?

            • HKG on 05/21/2010 at 2:40 PM

              i think the ones referred to are here —
              http://whomurderedrobertwone.com/multimedia/gallery-1509-swann-street/

              i think Bea is right. in the picture with the stairs (the 6th picture from the left), the island does appear to be blocking the view of the bottom half of the back door. not sure if there has been any remodeling since that night to sell the property..

              • Bea on 05/21/2010 at 2:41 PM

                http://whomurderedrobertwone.com/2009/03/09/open-house/ is the link to the photos of the house Joe/Victor bought – not the photos of the house they sold post-renovation. Still, the island existed before they moved in.

                • Bea on 05/21/2010 at 2:43 PM

                  The one marked “dining room” would be CLOSER to the door than Dylan would be coming down the stairs or “viewing” from the sofa. I don’t think he could see – were the lights even on?

                  • CDinDC on 05/21/2010 at 2:50 PM

                    You can’t even see the door knob in these photos. These photos were taken by a person standing closer than if Dylan were on the stairs. An “eye-level view” of the doors. Great observation Bea.

                    • Bea on 05/21/2010 at 2:58 PM

                      Not as good a feat as being able to time travel to tell Victor it was unlocked during the 911 call!!

          • Hoya Loya on 05/21/2010 at 3:09 PM

            “In run of the mill arguments with my partner, I will (annoyingly) reference what I’ve previously said (with conviction) to make a point. It’s a generalization, but we’re trained that way (Hoya, agree?).”

            “Honey, stop talking like a lawyer!”
            Absolutely, agree Bea, you are far too correct, as I know all too well, LOL!

        • Anonymous Friend on 05/21/2010 at 5:08 PM

          Anyone present during Mrs. Thomas’s testimony: My limited understanding is that she testified that she was near a glass sliding door in the back of her home during relevant time periods and saw no intruder. Did she have a view of the patio from her home, or would the fence obstruct? Was her window or sliding glass door open? I’m wondering how much her testimony may go againts an intruder but also against a patio stabbing or clean-up. Thanks for any light you can ched.

      • MotherOfInvention on 05/21/2010 at 2:53 PM

        It just seemed so far-fetched that they would do this thing outside. Wouldn’t that have been unbelievably risky in terms of being seen by the neighbors? Or do I not understand the layout? Were they somehow visually protected while outside?

        • mia on 05/21/2010 at 5:19 PM

          I don’t think they had planned to do it outside, just like I don’t believe they planned to kill Robert (sex assault? maybe. murder? I don’t think so). But apparently, things went out of control that very night. And all they could do were trying to cover it up as best as they could.

        • HKG on 05/22/2010 at 12:35 AM

          yes, i find it hard to believe they’d want to do the washing down or stabbing of the body in the backyard. more believeable to me that they could be washing down items with blood on them back there after the stabbing.

          the question is where did the action go down that night. if in Wone’s guest room, then they would have had to drag the body down the stairs and back through the kitchen to get outside. if in the living room, then wouldn’t Wone be weirded out if people were half naked and getting things on already?

          any other place i’m missing that would be big enough?

  12. boltz3000 on 05/21/2010 at 1:44 PM

    With all three defendants’ lawyers sequentially questioning the witnesses, I wonder what sense observers in the courtroom have of how closely the lawyers are “choreographing” their lines of questioning to build upon and play off each other. I mean, is there a feeling that the lawyers have collaboratively strategized their performances for cumulative effect?

  13. anon in ny on 05/21/2010 at 2:15 PM

    the sad thing about this is that your site provides no real coverage because you (a) are so biased and (b) know nothing about the law. When these guys win, you will have no idea why. And people like you will make readers feel that they “got off” rather than were vindicated. For example, do you remember the big debate on Monday with Judge L. about admitting things “for truth”??? Do you have ANY idea what that means and how it will affect the case? Other examples of your analytical incompetence: Wonder why Paramedic Weaver ain’t being called to the stand by the prosecutors? Think the detective’s testimony is going to pass Rule 16 admittance tests? Have you gone back and compared the testimony of the paramedic who testified and the 911 tape (as a hint: “That did not happen!”). Have you mentioned it was the nurse’s first time recording a code yellow by herself? Good thing Prosecutor K is getting an award today. I guarantee it will be his last in a while…death by a thousand cuts, while you are looking for Perry Mason…

    • Bea on 05/21/2010 at 2:37 PM

      Hilarious that you’re knocking the site with a broad brush of ignorance and yet you’re so uninformed about people posting here. Do you think you’re the only lawyer who reads this?

      • TT on 05/21/2010 at 2:41 PM

        I was waiting for your reply to this and you did not disappoint me.

        • Kate on 05/21/2010 at 3:13 PM

          Indeed, well said.

          Since coming to the site, I believed I was only one of a handful of non-lawyers.

          But anon in ny does ask an interesting question: why hasn’t EMT Weaver been called by the prosecution? Perhaps we will hear from her for the defense?

          • Nelly on 05/21/2010 at 8:37 PM

            Wild guess: maybe she got fired or moved away and does not care to be involved? Or maybe her memory’s bad, and she doesn’t remember anything. Those EMTs see all kinds of traumatic, stressful events throughout every day.

      • Chuck on 05/21/2010 at 3:00 PM

        Were your comments necessary? There is a definite sense of a clique among posters. As the trials gets underway and draws national attention, more people are going to join in — that’s how networks build exponentially. Your lecturing is just off-putting and, frankly, a bit rude.

        • MotherOfInvention on 05/21/2010 at 3:10 PM

          I can’t imagine any comments being more necessary.

          Anon in NY is the new poster child for lawyerly arrogance and rudeness. Bea’s comment was mild.

          Your concern is noted.

        • TT on 05/21/2010 at 3:10 PM

          I would not call it a clique. Some of us have been on this website for a long time. I happen to think of some who post on here friends. Not a clique.

        • Mike on 05/21/2010 at 4:51 PM

          +10.

          • Gaga on 05/21/2010 at 4:54 PM

            +10 to Chuck. I wonder what happens when the defendants are acquitted? Maybe all of the WMRW family will ollectively set themselves on fire. We can only hope.

            1. I get to point out someone else’s typo for once.
            2. Only one screenname to a customer. By my count this is your fourth.
            -craig

            • AnnaZed on 05/21/2010 at 6:19 PM

              Heh, heh, heh ~ thanks Craig; I thought that was a chorus of peculiarly similar voices.

      • anon in ny on 05/21/2010 at 3:24 PM

        bea,
        maybe not only lawyer, but, unlike you, I’m in the courtroom listening to what really happens rather than what you read on this blog. beat that, civil lawyer lady in california

        • Kate on 05/21/2010 at 4:01 PM

          Dear anon NOT in ny (sorry, I couldn’t resist that):

          As courtroom seats are few and you are fortunate enough to be there, we can all benefit from your observations and reporting of the proceedings.

          I am new to the site and have taken the time to read the extensive official documents and materials provided here. I have also found the longtime contributors to be welcoming.

          Perhaps coming out with both guns blazing was not the most tactful way to introduce yourself, although this horrific crime can certainly cause heightened emotions … and strong opinions.

          No doubt, people would like to hear what you have to say

          • Bea on 05/21/2010 at 4:59 PM

            Anon, please give us updates as to what is being said and opinions as to demeanor by all means. Your introductory post was slamming this site and your language was inflammatory. Are we at war? Didn’t think so.

            If my snarkiness, was off-putting, apologies. I fully admit to being defensive of this site and its grand educational chops. Having spent a ridiculous amount of time here (some would say far too much), I don’t like it when someone kicks dirt in the Eds. eyes.

            The four guys have given over a good part of their lives for going on two years. They’ve undoubtedly funded this themselves and are spending their vacations educating us. I commend them and respect them greatly.

        • mia on 05/21/2010 at 5:30 PM

          I just couldn’t help but wondering, how many people here have included their locations in the UN? As far as I noticed, very few if there’s any except you. It reads like you’re trying to emphasize you’re not than you’re to me. Please don’t get mad, just random thought.

          • Bea on 05/21/2010 at 5:42 PM

            Hi Mia, I don’t know if you’re asking me something or not (or if meant for someone else). In your haste you may have left out some words – if you want to rephrase and it was for me, I will answer (and promise not to be mad, despite my apparent bad reputation here today).

            • Kate on 05/21/2010 at 6:02 PM

              Bea, I believe Mia was referring to Anon in NY not actually being in NY, but here in DC attending the trial.

              I made a silly reference to such in my previous post, just above yours.

              Methinks that’s it.

              • Bea on 05/21/2010 at 6:13 PM

                Got it! Thanks, Kate!

      • Mike on 05/21/2010 at 4:50 PM

        Pathetic that you always attack anyone who has a different opinion than yours.

    • Daphne on 05/21/2010 at 2:52 PM

      Joe, is that you?

    • MotherOfInvention on 05/21/2010 at 3:00 PM

      Well I know that Rachel Carlson Leiber of the prosecution was recently assigned to questioning the shoebomber, prior to being placed on this trial, before being put on the Wone case. If she and the other prosecutors are as incompetent as you suggest, we are all toast.

      Fortunately, I don’t believe you.

      One of the other trolls concerned commenters was whining about the 90% conviction rate of the US Attorneys. So which is it? Are they too competent or not competent enough? Or maybe both! That’s it! They’re too competen AND not competent enough!

      • tassojunior on 05/21/2010 at 5:18 PM

        Competent at getting convictions. Incompetent at justice.

        • plumskiter on 05/21/2010 at 9:28 PM

          tasso, did you ever answer my question as to the source of your knowledge about how prosecutors prepare witnesses to testify? if so, please direct me to your response. if not, please answer the question. thanks.

    • Chris on 05/21/2010 at 3:01 PM

      TO: anon in ny

      The fact I know little about law does not discount my ability to use reason and logic to form an opinion.

      I have heard of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ — and I believe it will be tough for the trio to evade conviction of evidence tampering, obstruction of an investigation, and conspiracy based on transcripts, reports, testimony, etc. In my opinion, they should be charged with murder.

      If they get off it will be because the prosecution failed to make its case. And witness testimony is so compelling because some can’t remember exact details — unlike the trio who are sure it was an intruder — why again — maybe “the intruder” or “they” from the 911 call were stalking Robert becuase he was with RFA. Stalkers hunting down Asian-American lawyers who work for independent USG broadcast bureaus are a dime a dozen. I just want to know if the intruder did it outside or in the room.

    • Carolina on 05/21/2010 at 3:20 PM

      Do you feel better about yourself now, sweetie? Oh good.

      • MotherOfInvention on 05/21/2010 at 3:30 PM

        All better now! ;)

    • MotherOfInvention on 05/21/2010 at 3:36 PM

      Is “for truth” the same discussion as “not as fact”? If so, I thought that was explained pretty clearly in earlier postings: statements can be admitted to show the that someone asserted something, but not as proof that something is/was the case, or as statements of what is true that can be used to assess the validity of other statements. IANAL, and this is the only discussion I have ever seen of this practice, but it seemed pretty clear to me.

    • AnnaZed on 05/21/2010 at 4:28 PM

      Hello anon, I for one am interested in what you have to say. Please proceed.

      Quoting from your earlier post I have these thoughts:

      “For example, do you remember the big debate on Monday with Judge L. about admitting things “for truth”??? Do you have ANY idea what that means and how it will affect the case?”

      I completely understand the difference between a statement submitted “for truth” and one that is not (I am assuming that by “things” you meant statements because I do not understand any other type of “thing” that can be admitted or not for truth.) and I am pretty sure that the moderators do too because it was discussed here. That said I do not have a clear idea at this point of how it will affect this case, can you enlighten me?

      “Wonder why Paramedic Weaver ain’t being called to the stand by the prosecutors?”

      I do now, why not? Will Weaver be called by the defense or not at all do you think? Is the use of “ain’t” meant to be demeaning to the reader or to give yourself a colloquial or street-wise air of authenticity?

      “Think the detective’s testimony is going to pass Rule 16 admittance tests?”

      Well, I’m not a lawyer so I just read this: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule16.htm

      I would be interested to know why the detective’s testimony would or should in your view be excluded based on this, please explain.

      “Have you gone back and compared the testimony of the paramedic who testified and the 911 tape (as a hint: “That did not happen!”).”

      I wasn’t in court to hear the entire testimony as you say you have been, but I have listened to the 911 tape (several times). What “did not happen”? Please explain.

      “Have you mentioned it was the nurse’s first time recording a code yellow by herself?”

      I did not know this. In you opinion does that raise questions about her competence? If so, why didn’t the defense attorneys raise these questions at the time?

      Thank you for coming here and braving the hostility that you perhaps reasonably expected and then maybe couldn’t help provoking.

      • Carolina on 05/21/2010 at 7:31 PM

        Don’t you suppose that if it was the nurse’s first time recording that the prosecution would have made this point? Yeah, me, too.

    • Bill Orange on 05/21/2010 at 4:56 PM

      If you really are in the court, please feel free to post anything that you think the blogmasters haven’t covered. They aren’t claiming to provide a transcript of the case, but rather a summary of the events. I think everyone reading the blog would be happy to have more additional information.

      As to your specific questions:

      1. “Do you remember the big debate on Monday with Judge L. about admitting things “for truth”??? Do you have ANY idea what that means and how it will affect the case?”

      Yes, we do. This was explained and discussed earlier by several of the lawyers on here.

      2. “Wonder why Paramedic Weaver ain’t being called to the stand by the prosecutors?”

      Absolutely. Do you have a hypothesis about why this is the case? Do you think the defense team will call her? If so, what do expect the testimony to show?

      3. “Think the detective’s testimony is going to pass Rule 16 admittance tests?”

      I have no idea, and I would be interested in learning more about Rule 16 admittance tests. Is there a particular detective and particular testimony you think this applies to? If you’re referring to testimony that’s already been given, do you have an opinion as to why the defense didn’t already raise an objection on these grounds?

      4. “Have you gone back and compared the testimony of the paramedic who testified and the 911 tape (as a hint: “That did not happen!”)[?]”

      You obviously think there was a discrepancy between the 911 call and the paramedic’s testimony. What exactly do you think it is?

      5. “Have you mentioned it was the nurse’s first time recording a code yellow by herself?”

      I haven’t seen that mentioned. Can you confirm this? Did the defense raise this on their cross-examination? Frankly, I don’t think it’s all that relevant. I was more impressed with her testimony that the SOP at GW’s emergency room does not include IV placement or needle injections in the feet or the neck, nor does she have any recollection of those areas being punctured.

      I have to say that when this trial started, I thought it favored the defense, because I thought that they had some very good legal minds that would be able to discredit large chunks of the prosecution’s case. My impression from reading the posts on here–and they may well be biased, which is why I’d welcome your opinion–is that the defense has been largely unable to cast reasonable doubt on several key pieces of evidence (e.g. the timing and location of the scream heard by the neighbor, the presence of unexplained puncture marks on the victim, the apparent lack of blood at the crime scene, etc.). Furthermore, I think it’s going to be hard for them to recover from some of these pieces of evidence, even with the testimony of expert witnesses. You obviously have a different take, and I be interested in knowing why.

      • Nelly on 05/21/2010 at 8:44 PM

        re: #5. The nurse did say that, but the defense did not pick her apart or make a big issue out of it being her 1st time handling a code yellow on her own.

    • Anonymous Friend on 05/21/2010 at 5:13 PM

      Please share your view of the evidence and your best theory to explain this tragedy.

  14. HKG on 05/21/2010 at 2:25 PM

    considering MDYD and SRB’s comments yesterday on Day 3 Wrap —
    http://whomurderedrobertwone.com/2010/05/20/day-3-wrap/

    MDYD — “If you were facing a person, why would you turn the knife upside down to attack them? Has it been explained whether Robert was stabbed from behind (reaching across his shoulders)?”

    SRB — “I’m not convinced by the theory that he was stabbed in the shower because I think that he would have had to been lying down at the time in order to inflict the wounds that are described as perfect knife slits”

    considering those comments, not sure if anyone has made this comment before, but perhaps Wone could have been dragged into the shower backwards by one person behind him (with others perhaps helping from the front), basically such that Wone would be seated with his back to whomever dragged him in. that person (also in the showed now, and behind Wone) could then lean over Wone (looking over the top of his head), and bring the knife down right into the top of his chest.
    http://whomurderedrobertwone.com/multimedia/gallery-1509-swann-street/
    http://whomurderedrobertwone.com/2010/05/14/the-autopsy/

    that actually seems to make sense to me now, as to why the stab wounds were in the upper chest region rather than lower chest, as a person leaning over him with a knife would seem to come down exactly in the upper chest region. also could make sense why the three stab wounds were so closely grouped together, as the one person (in this scenario) doing the stabbing couldn’t move much. also, that could explain why the stab wounds were blade up toward Wone’s right arm, as if a right handed person from behind him had done the stabbing. perhaps the prosecution could measure the standing arm reaches of the defendents, and see if that would match the entry wounds of Wone, seated at their feet.

    • HKG on 05/21/2010 at 3:03 PM

      just reading the autopsy again, and all three wounds were as follows — “The wound direction is front to back, right to left, and slightly downward.” i think the *downward* direction does support a sitting up Wone with knife action as described above…

      also, i know there have been many criticisms and alledged screwups of the police, EMTs, etc. responding to the scene, and honestly, there are so many things that they may have to think about first coming to the scene (that we don’t even realize, not being there in that moment, and only now looking back in hindsight with current objectives in hand), it doesn’t surprise me that some things are overlooked. it’s only human.

      these people are professionals, but even professionals can make mistakes, and not catch everything. looking at the autopsy report, i certainly couldn’t do all that.

  15. Ohio on 05/21/2010 at 3:05 PM

    Interesting about Joe saying he was stabbed in the back, and the back of his shirt was covered in blood. Is there a link anywhere to transcripts of the defendants statements. I have looked to no avail.
    TYIA

  16. cjh78 on 05/21/2010 at 3:06 PM

    I have to wonder if the current owners of 1509 Swann Street knew what they were getting themselves into when they originally purchased the home. I assume the murder was disclosed to them prior to sale, but I am curious to know how they are feeling now about it, especially with the heightened media attention.

    I’d be a little creeped out living there.

    • Hoya Loya on 05/21/2010 at 3:14 PM

      cjh:

      There actually was an article recently about real estate agents selling houses in which terrible things had happened that included this house. I can’t turn it up at the moment, but it was within the past month.

      Apparently, the buyer of 1509 Swann knew and was happy to buy it anyway.

      • Carolina on 05/21/2010 at 7:34 PM

        Wasn’t the buyer actually connected to Price professionally? I recall some discussion about whether or not it was actually sold, or part of an attempt to cover assets.

  17. maryann15 on 05/21/2010 at 4:07 PM

    knowing people involved. angry re no feelings for deceased.

  18. maryann15 on 05/21/2010 at 4:13 PM

    I have many feelings re this case. I have known one defendant and parents for over 20 yrs. I feel that one defendant is controlled by another. His life is in jeopardy because of one person’s personality.

    • TT on 05/21/2010 at 4:22 PM

      So you know Victor? Can you speak with Victor and convince him to tell the truth?

    • Bea on 05/21/2010 at 4:30 PM

      Is Victor’s family LEANING on him to come clean? Are the right people telling him that he’ll be much better off if he tells what happened (and that he’d likely get immunity)?

    • Anonymous Friend on 05/21/2010 at 5:23 PM

      Please elaborate.

    • Anonymous Friend on 05/21/2010 at 5:27 PM

      And if you have personal knowledge, reach out to the prosecutors.

  19. maryann15 on 05/21/2010 at 4:23 PM

    I don’t know what went on that night, but know one thing and that is Joe Price is the dominant and controlling person in this case.

    • KKinCA on 05/21/2010 at 5:02 PM

      I actually feel kind of bad for Victor. In my opinion he was clearly manipulated by Joe (for how many years?!), was (is still?) totally emotionally dependent on Joe, and was put in an impossible situation that night. I just re-read his interview with the police, and he appears so confused and conflicted.

      For example, he tried to distance himself from Robert (“I couldn’t tell you five things about him”), then proceeded to mention at least five things about him throughout the interview- Robert’s history with Joe, Mrs. Wone’s surgery, Robert’s new job, attending the Wone wedding, etc. I do hope that something will give him the strength to tell the truth about that night, even if the facts as he knows them are different from any scenarios described on this site.

      Having said that, I feel MUCH worse for Mrs. Wone and Robert’s family, friends, and colleagues for their loss of Robert. Victor faced an impossible situation on August 2, 2006, but he made the WRONG choice. It is not too late to come clean and give Robert and those who loved Robert the justice that he and they deserve.

      • AnnaZed on 05/21/2010 at 5:06 PM

        Well, I used to feel bad for Victor, but that was over a year ago. Now, I have to admit that my patience is wearing thin. I can’t imagine how Mrs. Wone or the other Mrs. Wone (Robert’s mother) feel.

        • HKG on 05/21/2010 at 5:45 PM

          agree strongly. just read the Washingtonian article, and together with all the documents, autopsy, and descriptions of the Wone family crying through the court descriptions of the killing a few days back, it’s hard to even imagine putting myself in their shoes to try and understand what they’ve been living with for four years! so deeply tragic…

      • Bea on 05/21/2010 at 5:06 PM

        Well said.

        • Bea on 05/21/2010 at 5:09 PM

          Whoops, I think what AZ writes is always well said, but I mean KK. But I’m a Victor apologist and I’d love nothing more than to have him tell the truth so a MURDER trial could begin. My ties lie with the Wone family without question, but I’ve never believed Victor is a murderer nor that he deserves the same fate as his co-defendants IF THERE IS A MURDER TRIAL. He is likely guilty of THESE charges, though, and will pay equally. He could still save himself AND do the right thing by the Wone family.

          • KKinCA on 05/21/2010 at 5:26 PM

            Thanks AZ and Bea. I must admit that since I live in LA, I just became aware of this case last Friday when I found a link to this site in an on-line news article. I have read practically all the docs/posts/comments on the site (the upside to being downsized out of my last job!) and am still a newbie here, so perhaps my opinion of Victor may change over the course of the trial (a la AZ). But as a lawyer and a therapist, I am acutely aware of how much power some people give over to others, and how those others may exploit it.

    • Bill Orange on 05/21/2010 at 5:06 PM

      I think most of us have come to that conclusion, too. But I don’t think that absolves the other two of their alleged part in this crime.

      • KKinCA on 05/21/2010 at 5:29 PM

        Bill – I totally agree. And I don’t think Victor’s alleged participation in the cover up can be absolved either, even if he flips for the prosecution at some point. He must live with his actions either way. I would imagine that he must have some horrible nightmares and/or have developed the strongest denial coping skill ever.

        • Nelly on 05/21/2010 at 8:52 PM

          He’s a fully grown, educated man in his mid-forties who’s looking more and more aged. He had the intelligence and confidence to get his high-status marketing jobs. Victor does not appear to be a wilting violet, manipulated by an evil puppeteer. I don’t feel sorry for him at all. Everyday, he can wake up, have a nice meal, jauntily roam the streets of D.C., enjoy the beauty of nature, and see his loved ones. We cannot say the same for Robert Wone. Hey, Victor, Got a Conscience? Perhaps he is in too deep to come clean, and there is no bargain on the table for him.

    • Carolina on 05/21/2010 at 7:37 PM

      I really don’t get it. Victor is handsome, successful and well liked by anyone who speaks of him. Why would he stay with Joe if it was a manipulated relationship? He hardly seems like a battered spouse.

      • KKinCA on 05/22/2010 at 12:38 AM

        All I can say is that the psychodynamics of any dysfunctional relationship are very complex, and usually the dependent, weaker person involved will go to great lengths to cover up the dynamic (often out of shame and sometimes under direction of the controlling dominant), and appear differently in public (ie, attractive appearance, professional success, acquisition of all the material things that signal success to the world, etc.) to reduce outsiders’ notice of nature of their relationship and even to further their denial of the nature of the relationship.

        But perhaps the most compelling factor in sustaining these types of relationships is that they often repeat dynamics present in significant relationships they experienced in their development from childhood – the dynamics may be awful to experience, but that is all they know, and the pain is known and “comfortable.”
        Sorry for the lengthy post – it is very difficult to summarize.

      • aka Karen Walker on 05/22/2010 at 3:32 AM

        Victor’s first gay experience (after leading a VERY conservative lifestyle in a homophobic community) was with a very aggressive, take-charge fraternity brother — an older bro who some thought preyed upon Victor.

        It had quite an impact on his personality & he initially attempted to hide it from everyone, to the point of playing a major role in having a close friend of his ousted from Kappa Sigma for rumors of being gay, all the while secretly dipping his own proverbial toe in the water of homosexual activity (Read: witchhunt to divert others from your own sins).

        Yes, he is intelligent and quietly self-confident, but he grew up with a domineering mother and a weak father and I totally get it why he would be drawn to the safety and submission of a strong, assertive man. Joseph represents the first, exciting delve into V’s sexuality as well as fills the void left by his emasculated father.

        And after all, it’s the dream of all nice Republican girls from ultra-rightwing Oklahoma to marry a big strong man who will take care of you & protect you, myself included.

        • John Grisham on 05/22/2010 at 3:41 AM

          Interesting Karen. Thanks! Even in disfunctional relationships, the submissive member still clings to some loose threads of power. What do you suspect Victor’s was over Joe?

        • KKinCA on 05/22/2010 at 4:27 AM

          I echo JG’s thanks. Very nice of you to share with us your personal experiences and observations of Victor. None of that surprises me.

        • Kate on 05/22/2010 at 7:49 AM

          Karen, thank you for your insights.

          The tragedy of this case is staggering. So many promising lives destroyed.

        • Nelly on 05/22/2010 at 9:41 AM

          very interesting. Thanks for sharing your insight about Victor.

          • Clio on 05/22/2010 at 2:41 PM

            Thank you again, Karen. Both Dyl and Victor are yearning for that Big Daddy to protect and nurture them, but their choice in patriarch has only brought them misery. As I have referenced before, “well-behaved women rarely make history,” … unless they get caught up with the Brothers Price.

  20. TT on 05/21/2010 at 4:26 PM

    Yes, some of us here have surmised this already. I asked can you speak with Victor, now?

  21. Cecily on 05/21/2010 at 5:23 PM

    I find this site invaluable. I have lost a lot of sleep this week ruminating over this trial and trying to figure out what happened as I think many others on here have as well. I appreciate all the effort that has gone into this site and the very helpful questions and comments by the readers.

    Seems odd that Victor could be so controlled and dominated by Joe. Victor is handsome, smart and successful he could get anybody why Joe?

    • KKinCA on 05/21/2010 at 5:39 PM

      I second your statements about this site and the eds and people who comment here. What a tribute to Robert!

      Your comment as follows: “Seems odd that Victor could be so controlled and dominated by Joe. Victor is handsome, smart and successful he could get anybody why Joe?” I don’t want to get into psychobabble, and I certainly don’t know Victor so this is just a wild guess – you are focusing on his outside, not his inner world, which can often be very inconsistent with his inside, self-esteem, and sense of worth (lack thereof). In my experience (both professionally and personally), some of the most attractive and successful people have horrible or non-existent self-esteem. These types of people depend solely on others to validate who they are – the perfect match for dominant controllers (in my opinion). I am hoping that Maryann15 and her friends/family can reach out to Victor with love and without judgment and encourage him to do the right thing.

  22. CDinDC on 05/21/2010 at 6:18 PM

    Seems like the more publicity this site gets the more it draws people that love the use of anonymity to be arrogant, catty and mean-spirited.

  23. CDinDC on 05/21/2010 at 6:22 PM

    My cat has 49 whiskers.

    • KKinCA on 05/21/2010 at 7:23 PM

      CD – Your cat is NOT “mangy”! :)

      • Clio on 05/21/2010 at 7:56 PM

        CD — keep those claws sharp, and those teeth bared …

        Sincerely,
        A Fellow Member of “the Thought Police” &
        “the S.M. of the Wannabee Street Quartet”

        If you are just joining us, the sobriquets in quotes are those bestowed by trouple sympathizers. Aren’t they just divine? Kisses to all, Clio.

        • Bea on 05/21/2010 at 8:03 PM

          :)

          Yours,
          Joan Jett

        • TT on 05/21/2010 at 8:05 PM

          Love you Clio!

  24. Gama on 05/21/2010 at 10:28 PM

    Someone’s been doing a first-rate job derailing discussion of the case on the board today. I’m surprised so many regulars have taken the bait. Is someone desperate not to have the ME’s testimony discussed? She must have good.

  25. Mens Rea on 05/22/2010 at 12:16 PM

    Were traces of blood found anywhere in the house? Hard to believe he could have been dragged from the patio to the bedroom without leaving a
    trail of blood. Even if they managed to wipe it up, wouldnt there be residue that forensics would
    find?

  26. SJinNYC on 05/27/2010 at 9:43 AM

    Love the site, excellent, dedicated work by the editors and by the regular contributers. But very disappointed as well that some of the most respected regulars on this site ‘took the bait’ from rastfreeart. Seriously, the only thing to do is ignore these types of people. When faced with being ignored, they quickly go away. Please people, resist the temptation, to metaphorically speaking, argue with a 5-year old.

  27. Bea on 05/21/2010 at 4:52 PM

    Raster, the Eds. are not forgetting Robert Wone. Their energies here are above reproach and while there will be an occasional funny reference, it is still informative. You make it sound like knock-knock jokes – I’ve gotten more from this site than any news coverage, and you’ll note that most new stories CITE this blog and/or our dear Eds.

  28. CDinDC on 05/21/2010 at 6:16 PM

    rasterfreeart says: ” You’re obviously forgetting an innocent man was brutally murdered.”

    And so are you by digressing and posting antagonistic remarks. Let’s just get back to the trial.

    For pete sake.

  29. Farmer Ginny on 05/22/2010 at 7:18 AM

    I’m a first-time poster and a fan of this site, but I grudgingly have to agree with rasterfreeart that the jolly tone (and action) about the media sign was distasteful. I want to know that the eds are impartial. Getting chummy with the lawyers on either side undermines that.

  30. Bea on 05/21/2010 at 5:20 PM

    We disagree. I respect the Eds. greatly (and if you’re trying to insult me by saying “your beloved ‘Eds’” then you missed the mark). If you don’t like the site, go elsewhere.

  31. Carolina on 05/21/2010 at 7:40 PM

    Sorry, but no. Gallows humor is typical when the stress really comes to bear. And what would you propose, that the eds remained silent while sitting between the defense attorneys? The sign was a lighter way of introducing themselves. Not doing so would have only played into the opinion that they had an axe to grind.

  32. Bea on 05/21/2010 at 6:10 PM

    The Wone family provided materials to the Eds.

    I am not a Republican, a Bush fan, and thus am unaware of your reference to the Bush era.

    Clearly you are rubbed the wrong way by me or by what I say, though I have no desire to call you names or pepper you with insults about your mental health. Mama used to say ‘take the high rode’ especially when someone is lashing out for reasons you can’t understand. Good luck to you and your friends.

  33. Bea on 05/21/2010 at 6:31 PM

    Thanks. I always prefer being lucky to unlucky.

  34. KKinCA on 05/21/2010 at 6:38 PM

    You are characterizing witness testimony as “tattle-tale”??? Unbelievable!

    CD – remain on that high road. This is getting ridiculous.

  35. Bea on 05/21/2010 at 6:52 PM

    And, again, thank you.

  36. MotherOfInvention on 05/21/2010 at 6:56 PM

    Your concern is noted.

  37. TT on 05/21/2010 at 6:58 PM

    Stop, can we have some dignity for Robert Wone.

  38. Bea on 05/21/2010 at 6:58 PM

    Dude, more of the same in THIS thread as in the other where you told me to seek a mental health professional?

    I can tell you are genuinely worked up, but I seriously doubt it is over the Eds./this site being disrespectful to Robert or the Wone family. The Wone family provided materials to this site. Noting one quasi-humorous note about Bernie Grimm is in keeping with every talking head show including those starring Bernie Grimm.

    What is really eating you? Are you personally connected to something that you’re not disclosing? It really can’t be what you’re complaining about because that is just silly.

  39. KKinCA on 05/21/2010 at 7:06 PM

    FYI – Personal attacks just underscore the weakness of your argument(s).
    Please identify the posts containing “cheerleading” (your word; in full disclosure, I admit I added the “ing”), which I assume to be comments on this site, for “scintillating tattle-tales” (your exact words; again I added the “s” as your above post identified multiple examples), which you describe above as “WMRW.COM promos, brain-fart comments that draws laughter, “tough crowd” departing remarks following cross-examination, “looked like a lawyer with white shirt and tie” punch lines,” (your exact words). There were few, if any, posts about these “tattle-tales” reported by the Eds. The posts I have read after each day’s update/wrap have focused on substantive matters – witness testimony, questions from the judge, etc.
    In my opinion it is interesting to hear about the happenings in the courtroom, and I give the Eds credit for providing snippets of their observations along with the substance of the case. And obviously the Eds can’t include every question and every answer – their posts are NOT transcripts (as much as many of us would like to see transcripts).

  40. TT on 05/21/2010 at 7:00 PM

    Bea, you are valued here by many, don’t bite.

  41. KKinCA on 05/21/2010 at 7:09 PM

    TT – you are right. I wish I could withdraw my comment below.
    rasterfreeart: please disregard my comment made at 7:06pm.

  42. TT on 05/21/2010 at 7:16 PM

    Well said!

  43. TT on 05/21/2010 at 7:29 PM

    Wait, my cat is whispering sweet nothings in my ear. No, I have a dog named Diesel, how butch is that…

  44. Bea on 05/21/2010 at 7:31 PM

    Noted and agreed.

  45. TT on 05/21/2010 at 7:34 PM

    Clio, waiting for your wit….

  46. Clio on 05/21/2010 at 8:10 PM

    Well, as a charter member of the “ThoughtPolice,” I think that this first week went swimmingly. Accordingly,I am ready to foxtrot the night away with my husband!

  47. AnnaZed on 05/21/2010 at 9:54 PM

    I think that you have made your point.

  48. Vandy on 05/21/2010 at 10:11 PM

    just Googled “rasterfreeart” and it appears “rasterfreeart” attacks a lot on various message boards/chat sites/blogs………….

  49. plumskiter on 05/21/2010 at 10:13 PM

    oh, puleeez raster. the eds were simply giving us information about how things really work in a courtroom. a courtroom is a place where a civilized society resolves disputes. and the reality is that parties, lawyers and interested observers have contact in the courtroom, and usually do not treat each other with animosity. sometimes laypeople are surprised by this. The Eds were simply describing the reality of the scene for those of us who are not there.

  50. MotherOfInvention on 05/21/2010 at 10:19 PM

    I don’t think this one does the whole civilized society thing.

  51. Clio on 05/21/2010 at 10:29 PM

    Vandy, thanks for the tip. What a relief that that knowledge is — it’s not just us and our Editors who have to deal with this one difficult customer.

    Anyway, “I love rock and roll, so put another dime in the jukebox, baby …”

  52. Gama on 05/21/2010 at 10:31 PM

    Typical hallmark of a professional troll. They’re often paid to keep discussion off-topic. Not saying that’s what’s going on here… but not saying it’s not.

  53. Craig on 05/22/2010 at 9:35 AM

    Farmer G: Thanks for joining in.

    Let me put Thursday’s brief chat with Grimm in some context: Within the previous week he had referred to this site as, “…vicious… salacious, vile and offensive.” That’s his job and we have ours.

    It would have been awkward, if not extremely bad manners, to sit next to him for five minutes without introducing ourselves personally. We broke the ice with a timely joke, one he could appreciate, to demonstrate we did not take his remarks personally.

    Characterizing that exchange as fraternizing with the enemy is wide of the mark. It struck us as the adult thing to do, that we are big boys and can take his criticism. It’s business, not personal.

    AKA Karen Walker: Thank you again

    Others: Re: The Govt’s knife case. Kirschner has retired FBI G-MAN Robert Spaulding lined up to testify regarding the blood patterns on it, and Doug Deedrick to talk about the fiber evidence. Neither of those topics were within the purview of the M.E. it seems.

    RE: The interrogations: At yesterday’s wrap there was brief discussion on the videotapes being played in open court. Judge Leibovitz appears in favor of playing them in their near-entirety and the only issue remaining may be what small redacts/edits the Gov’t does on them.

  54. NYer on 05/22/2010 at 9:53 AM

    Thanks Craig- well put.
    On a separate note, did you all have to take personal days/vacation time to attend the trial? I myself stay later at the office to get work done- just because I’m refreshing this site every 15 minutes!

  55. Farmer Ginny on 05/22/2010 at 4:23 PM

    Okay, I can picture it better now. Thanks.

  56. Clio on 05/22/2010 at 4:31 PM

    The videotapes: will they be allowed to streamed later on for the general public to view?

    The demeanors and gestures of the defendants during their Anacostia dialogues will be key: a play is very different staged rather than just read.

Leave a Reply

Purpose of this Site

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

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

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

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

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

RSSTwitter

  • Could not connect to Twitter