Day 9: Wrap

Bruton, Crawford, Carpenter, Thomas and Michael Price

Today’s afternoon session saw the end of Doug Deedrick’s mind-numbing testimony and cross examination.  The former FBI trace evidence analyst had a tough Thursday and a slightly better Friday, thanks to his manager, AUSA Rachel Lieber.

Trace evidence witness for the government, Douglas Deedrick

Ward counsel David Schertler’s cross continued at 2:15pm, after today’s lunch recess.

Schertler again put Deedrick through the paces, looking to poke holes in his testing and findings regarding key pieces of evidence: the crime scene knife, bloody towel, Robert’s green gym shorts and a somewhat mysterious item (government exhibit #34), a white Prada shirt recovered from the washing machine at  1509 Swann.

Schertler hit Deedrick hard on an inconsistency between an article he authored years ago on identifying fibers,  and his more recent work on the Wone case.  Schertler boomed, “Your words as an FBI agent and trainer of all these other agents… You were the man!” Before the government could object, Judge Lynn Leibovitz reprimanded the defense attorney for being argumentative.  Hectoring seemed more like it.

More after the jump.

Deedrick was hit hard on his testing and experiments and his somewhat inconclusive opinions he got from them.  Schertler was suggesting his control samples, “the known cuts,” were of little use because of the many ways garments can wear, be exposed to sun and other chemicals or substances.  The towel may have had residue from Robert’s shampoo and body oils which could render it faulty to test against.  Deedrick conceded the point.

We learned that the hair fragments found on the crime scene knife came from an Asian.  Schertler was suggesting that was obviously the case since the knife pierced through a patch of Robert’s body hair; the wound locations in the autopsy photos reveal such.

Defense counsel David Schertler and Bernie Grimm

At 3:00pm, Price counsel Bernie Grimm took the baton cudgel and went to work.  He promised the court that he’d only take twice as long and his colleague’s seeming marathon cross. 

Leibovitz jokingly said, “We’re leaving at 4:45pm, you can keep going.” 

Grimm suggested that the hairs, seen clearly on the photo of the crime scene knife, had fallen off by the time it got to Deedrick’s lab, in other words a failure by the authorities to do timely evidence testing.

Grimm then donned a pair of latex gloves and held up the bloody t-shirt.  Grimm asked the expert if it was possible that the frayed cut mark on it, the one under the “A” in “William,” could’ve caused the dotted marks he observed on the knife’s bolster.  Deedrick said he didn’t know.  Bernie Grimm fooled us; he was done by 3:05pm.  Zaborsky counsel Tom Connolly, continuing his easy week passed on cross.

Judge Leibovitz had questions of her own for Deedrick and asked him about how nylon garments shed fibers, whether other trace experts use fabric imprint tests (they do), and how many times in his career did he use imprints for opinions.  15-20 Deedrick said.  The judge wrapped by asking Deedrick why he used a towel in his imprint test on the knife and not another article of clothing.  Deedrick said it was the loop fibers of a towel that may have most closely matched the pattern he saw on the knife.

Doug Deedrick had a rough go of it in this trial and the only reason he may not have slinked out of the courthouse with his tail between his legs is because of Rachel Lieber’s redirect.  To counter Schertler’s charge that Deedrick wasn’t following the established protocols set out in the article he authored, Lieber had Deedrick read the preceding couple of paragraphs, ahead of the one that Schertler cherry-picked.  That seemed to be all the cover Deedrick needed on that point.

To counter Schertler’s contention that the hairs found on the knife came directly from Robert’s chest, she posed a hypothetical to Deedrick: If a towel absorbed blood from a chest wound, could hairs transfer onto the towel as well, and if that towel was swiped onto a knife, could the hairs transfer to that?  Yes.

To beat back the charge that Deedrick got the knife very late in the process, months after Robert’s murder, Lieber asked him about typical delays in obtaining items of evidence.  Deedrick said sooner is always better but delays are inevitable; it’s rare to get a piece of evidence on the same day as the crime.  Deedrick said his forensic work on the Challenger disaster had delays in delivery of items, weeks later he said.

To account for Deedrick’s somewhat unorthodox tests (pork loin and knife swipe), Leiber quoted a respected forensics text that stated, “experimentation is necessary after all forensic examination is complete because you cannot recreate a Xerox copy of the event.”  Lieber even brought up a book authored by the renowned Dr. Henry Lee to give her witness some cover.  Lee himself is a believer in imprint and impression analysis, unlike the defense team that has hired him for other testimony.  At one point during the redirect, Schertler popped up and popped off.  Leibovitz sat him down pretty quickly, telling him, “I generally don’t permit speaking objections in my courtroom, Mr. Schertler.”  We’re guessing Leibovitz never allows them.

Lieber was done and Schertler rose with a request to re-cross; a bench conference followed.  Afterwards, Leibovitz told Schertler, “I’m just not going to allow recross in this trial.  That’s a pattern I can see going downhill quickly.”

All of this Deedrick shpilkes from the last two days may be for naught. At some point Leibovitz will rule if his testimony will be considered and maybe it won’t.

The hour was getting late but AUSA Glenn Kirschner called, make that recalled his next witness, MPD Detective Gail Russell-Brown.  Brown was sent home early days ago after she took the stand to testify on one of the interview videotapes, and since the government was not clear at the time on the use of those statements, for the truth or not, she never testified.

Kirschner then made for the most interesting moments in the last two days; he asked Brown about attending Robert’s funeral with Detective Waid and how she heard remarks that Price’s brother Michael made in the church’s parking lot.  The defense table erupted in an objection and a rather long bench conference followed.

Leibovitz asked Kirschner what he expected to get out of Brown’s testimony and its relevance.  The Chief said that Michael Price’s remarks heard in an “off-putting and alarming way… that he set out an alibi (without being prompted)… he indicated he was at the hospital at the time.” 

Kirschner went on to say that the testimony from a (as of now unnamed) “civilian witness dovetails with records of enrollment and attendance in a phlebotomy class for weeks and weeks… but he missed class on August 2 2006… He (Michael Price) pops up at the VCB the next morning…” 

Kirschner contends that the brother is key to an overt act of the conspiracy, Joe Price’s failure to divulge his younger brother had a key to the house on Swann Street.  The government will prove that he had a key by way of the defendants’ statements to the burglary grand jury.

And this is where we get into the dark and murky recesses (to novices, at least) of evidentiary law.  Confidently, Kirschner told the judge that Bruton does not apply to bench trials.  She cut him off and said:

“You really need to read the Thomas case.  Thomas and cases after Crawford shift the perspective on testimonial statements… Crawford, but maybe not Carpenter.  I want you to keep in mind why I keep throwing fits over statements… I’m doing three silo trials. “

Over the holiday weekend, the government will draft a follow-on notice on their use of civilian statements.  Kirschner said that Michael Price’s state of mind, subsequent burglary and the delayed reporting of that informs him on the Michael Price angle to August 2. 

The prosecutor then went on to say how much longer his case in chief will go and that things have gone slower than he expected.  The entire courtroom laughed.  After getting squared away on use of statements he expects to call Detective Brian Waid next week for two days of testimony and cross, and that his civilian witnesses may run into a day or two into the week after.

Leibovitz again stressed her concern over the importance of statements of co-defendants in a joint trial and the concern of prejudice arising to the non-declarants.  “I have a huge degree of confidence to follow my own instructions,” she said, and then went on to say there was merit in Ward counsel Robert Spagnoletti’s arguments (from a pre-trial hearing).

“I’m not asking for additional mental gymnastics,” Leibovitz said.  Who can blame her.  She really got a workout this week.  The trial resumes Tuesday morning.

159 comments for “Day 9: Wrap

  1. AkaZappa
    05/28/2010 at 8:05 PM

    Whut? Michael Price at the hospital? Was that where he allegedly was with his lover or ex-lover? Color me confused.

    • KV
      05/28/2010 at 8:53 PM

      Hmmm, at the hospital. What better place to dispose of blood soaked items like towels. Just a thought. What was the reference to “He (Michael Price) pops up at the VB the next morning…” What’s VB?

      • AkaZappa
        05/28/2010 at 8:57 PM

        I think it’s the place where Joe et al were taken to be interviewed by the police.

      • HKG
        05/28/2010 at 11:34 PM

        Violent Crimes Branch (VCB)

    • csi
      05/28/2010 at 11:49 PM

      Looks like Michael was the intruder who had been called for by Joe to cover up the murder scene. Wonder if the police checked Joe’s phone call history that night. Can’t wait his testimony.

  2. commonsensewillprevailihope
    05/28/2010 at 8:10 PM

    Have any veteran defense lawyers/prosecutors commented on how they view this case in general, and developments so far. I don’t have any doubt that these scumbags are guilty and lying (at a minimum) but I wonder how the legal and evidentiary issues stand.

    • jfh
      05/28/2010 at 9:55 PM

      i think both sides are making their case. I find your name very fitting esp for a non criminal lawyer. so many people want it to be common sense, and many a crim lawyer has argued this very point to a jury, but in this case it is going to come down to the elements of each charge. the J. will have to determine whether or not they have met that burden. i think it is too early to tell. i think each side is “scoring” points if you will.

  3. CC Biggs
    05/28/2010 at 8:16 PM

    This is very interesting. Can you elaborate on this: “Leibovitz asked Kirschner what he expected to get out of Brown’s testimony and its relevance. The Chief said that Michael Price’s remarks heard in an ‘off-putting and alarming way… that he set out an alibi (without being prompted)… he indicated he was at the hospital at the time.’ “

    • ladyg
      05/28/2010 at 8:35 PM

      very interesting, indeed.

  4. Tarfunk
    05/28/2010 at 8:26 PM

    I know they don’t have to prove Michael Price’s direct involvement for the charges they’ve made, but the implication here is that they definitely believe he is involved. Or is a layman misreading? Can some of the legal beagles comment on this?

    • ladyg
      05/28/2010 at 8:37 PM

      do you think that michael was in dylan’s room…lying inwait?

      • Tarfunk
        05/28/2010 at 8:41 PM

        Victor says when he got home that Dylan was in his room exercising. Some people have questioned how Victor would know that for sure. Some have suggested that something else was going in Dylan’s room besides exercising. Michael was gay too, and yes I know that surely doesn’t mean Michael and Dyl were into it, but is anything else known about Michael’s interactions with the non-brother members of the trouple?

        • Elizabeth
          05/28/2010 at 9:47 PM

          I’ve thought it was rather weird that on a hot August evening in DC someone was exercising in their room with the door closed. Sounds stifling to me.

          • Clio
            05/28/2010 at 10:39 PM

            Dyl could have been working his abs, but where was his mat? And, did he have any weights or bars in that room? Did he have an elliptical machine or another cardio device in his room? I do not think that the gym equipment could fit in that space in “the sardine can”.

            • SJinNYC
              05/30/2010 at 6:51 AM

              Whenever I hear that statement, that Dylan was ‘exercising’ in his room I imagine him in a stiflingly hot, tiny bedroom, running in place and doing jumping jacks.

              Unless someone has a treadmill or elliptical in there, who “exercises” in their bedroom anyway?

            • SJinNYC
              05/30/2010 at 6:53 AM

              I can’t imagine Dylan wanting anything to do with Michael, at least on a physical or romantic level. I think we’ve all seen that picture of Michael (there’s one floating around out there somewhere on this site)and I can’t see what the attraction would be for Dylan – a chubby, premature balding, HIV positive, crack addict?

              • AnnaZed
                05/30/2010 at 12:09 PM

                I would have to agree with you here, Michael is not attractive; besides I would imagine that he lacks the primary feature of attraction to any man for Dylan ~ he has no money.

  5. Lyn
    05/28/2010 at 8:52 PM

    So M. Price volunteers at the funeral that he wasn’t involved in the murder or cover-up even though nobody asked him if he was? Interesting! Then, authorities check his attendence records at his hospital blood drawing class and find out that he didn’t attend class the night of the murder after all. Interesting! And it was the only class he missed! I wouldn’t doubt it if M. Price’s statement at the funeral is what triggered authorities to check his attendance. Oh, the irony.

    Why would M. Price lie about his whereabouts on the night of the murder unless he had a reason to?

    Imagine walking down the street and an unknown passerby says, “If you happen to look in the alley around the corner and find a dead woman, I didn’t have anything to do with it and I’ve got an alibi because I was at church.” Then, you check the alley and, sure enough, there is a dead woman. Might that make you wonder why that person felt the need to demonstrate their alibi?

    • AkaZappa
      05/28/2010 at 8:58 PM

      Ah, Lyn, very enlightening! Thank you!

  6. cinnamon
    05/28/2010 at 9:07 PM

    Perhaps Michael Price came in through the patio door while the 3 were having water in the kitchen hence the need to explain by using the story of the spider on the light, why that door chimed at that time of the night. Joe may have been trying to provide cover just in case the chimes could be tracked. And perhaps the second chime…the one that supposedly wakes Joe and Victor is Michael leaving through the patio door with his key taking the bloody towels and stopping to rinse himself off with the hose.

    • AkaZappa
      05/28/2010 at 9:09 PM

      Wow, that’s the most convincing idea I have seen about the spider vignette. Good thinking!

      • cinnamon
        05/28/2010 at 9:30 PM

        Maybe Micahel is delivering the drugs for the evening’s activities. I believe the theory that Joe, Dylan and Michael thought that Robert had OD’d on whatever they gave him. They then took him to the bathtub on the second floor to try to revive him. It didn’t work and they beleived he was dead. They were afraid of being caught with illegal drugs and of also drugging and accidentally killing their friend.

        So, in their drug addled state, they concocted the intruder theory. They removed his wet clothes, popped them in the dryer. They then stab him 3 times and allow the blood to run down the drain. Robert may have moaned at this point and this is what may have woke Victor who now comes downstairs and screams at what he sees. They try to calm him down but he won’t stop. They realize they have to call 911.

        So they continue with the intruder scenario. They find Robert’s overnight bag and dress him in his sleeping clothes also finding his mouthgard in his bag and putting that in as well for authenticity. They then cut 3 holes in the shirt to correspond to his wounds. Place him on a playmat to transport him to the bedroom without dripping blood in the hallway, which explains the pooled blood on the back of the t-shirt but not the bed sheets. Place him on the bed.

        At the last minute they remember to get the clothes out of the dryer and throw them into the guest room on the floor. There is no time to neatly fold them as Robert would have done.

        • AkaZappa
          05/28/2010 at 9:41 PM

          Very interesting.

          I’m curious though: if the blood gets on the shirt while Robert is being carried on the playmat, why doesn’t it go from shirt to bed sheets when he is laid down?

          • cinnamon
            05/28/2010 at 9:50 PM

            I’m not sure about that. I haven’t seen any photos of the sheet.

            • deepsouth
              05/29/2010 at 12:45 AM

              There’s a photo of the sofa bed with two patches of blood on the sheets in the excellent video clip that TJinNY posted below. It’s also interesting that the knife seems to be laid on the tabletop pointed outward, with blade turned toward someone standing between the bed and the table.


              • Sandra
                05/29/2010 at 9:15 AM

                I find this interesting too.

                Does anyone know if Price is left or right handed?

                Either way it would seem that if Price is sitting or kneeling on the bedside closest to the door, he would be down at least 30 inches from the top of the sofa bed since the sofa’s armrest is raised up and would be in the way. If Price was sitting at this angle it would seem that when he moved the knife he would swing the blade outward making the position of the knife’s blade face the wall.

                • SJinNYC
                  05/30/2010 at 7:02 AM

                  Wow, that’s the first time I have seen the sofa bed post-stabbing (from the video above). There are only two tiny spots of blood on the sheets – and this is a bed where a man was supposedly stabbed to death?! It looks like someone had a nosebleed on that bed, certainly not the location of a fatal stabbing! No wonder the EMTs were immediately suspicious!

        • cinnamon
          05/28/2010 at 9:48 PM

          In addition I think they may have used some drain cleaner in the bathtub too wash the blood away, which is why there was so much talk about the broken shower. I think all of the random volunteered statements are all for cover…the spider, the broken shower, the chimes, the bbq fire/water on the patio, etc.

          • Elizabeth
            05/28/2010 at 10:19 PM

            In such a stressful situation I wonder if I could remember to add these details…It seems like everyone agrees that the clean-up and cover-up happened in a very short time. I can’t really imagine having the time to also “brainstorm” these details and then having the presence of mind to mention them in the interrogations.

            • cinnamon
              05/28/2010 at 10:31 PM

              Joe’s a lawyer. He could have easily drawn up a punch list of items to explain away.

            • plumskiter
              05/29/2010 at 9:31 AM

              i think that elizabeth’s points will be legitimately argued by the defense.

              • cinnamon
                05/29/2010 at 9:52 AM

                It would makes sense if these excuses were mentioned when being questioned about certain things, like “why was there water on the patio?” or “why did the back door chime at 10:35?” but they were providing these excuses without prompting which makes it suspicious in my mind. They were concerned with covering their tracks. The were not asking themselves questions like: How did someone get in? Do you see any footprints out back? Is the gate open? They seemed to have it all figured out already which is even harder to understand given the short timeframe. If you found your friend stabbed and called 911 immediately, you would likely have a ton of questions yourself….not answers.

                • HKG
                  05/29/2010 at 10:45 AM

                  Excellent point!

          • vmm
            05/28/2010 at 10:28 PM

            i agree, cinnamon…it never sat right with me that they offered up that they burnt steaks on the grill. seems they needed a story for the use of the grill that night, which makes me think they burned something alright–evidence–bloody sheets, perhaps. they had an answer for everything without being asked. verbally tidy, too, those boys. the spider story is ridiculous!

            • Elizabeth
              05/28/2010 at 10:45 PM

              Actually, I don’t find the spider story as ridiculous as having a glass of water with an old friend. Call me an alcoholic, but if an old friend of mine stopped by after a long day I would think we would be having drinks on the patio and catching up, even if we were planning on having breakfast the next day. I can’t imagine just standing in the kitchen drinking tap water.

              • Elizabeth
                05/28/2010 at 10:56 PM

                Plus, I don’t think there is any way you can burn sheets on a grill without it smoking, stinking and alerting the neighbors who might call the fire department.

              • ladyg
                05/28/2010 at 11:24 PM

                joe said that robert didn’t drink (alcohol)…i could be wrong.
                hot august night, i’m figuring him (joe) saying something like hey buddy, can i get you something to drink (cranberry juice)? water, is for joggers coming in from a run….. my bad, there i go thinking like a woman,again.

                • Bob
                  05/29/2010 at 3:08 PM

                  The autopsy showed that Robert didn’t have ethyl alcohol in his blood.

              • Bob
                05/29/2010 at 2:40 PM

                But Robert didn’t have any alcohol in his blood.

            • plumskiter
              05/28/2010 at 11:03 PM

              i always thought the grill fire was a way of explaining water on the patio. they had to pour water (or turn on the hose?) to put out the grill fire. right?

              • Elizabeth
                05/28/2010 at 11:42 PM

                Didn’t Victor water the plants when he got back from the gym?

                • plumskiter
                  05/28/2010 at 11:53 PM


                  • KKinCA
                    05/29/2010 at 12:30 AM

                    In his police interview, Victor said he watered the plants outside the front of the house, and the plants inside the house, but there was no mention of watering in the back patio.

              • DavidR
                05/29/2010 at 12:23 AM

                No. If there is a fire on a grill you either put the lid on or close the lid depending on the type of grill. I do’t know anyone that would take a hose to it.

                • Carolina
                  05/29/2010 at 2:05 AM

                  And afterward still eat the waterlogged steaks.

                  • Clio
                    05/29/2010 at 9:10 AM

                    Well, they had the cheap wine and then the tap water to wash it all
                    down. Gourmands, they were not!

              • bigfatmike
                05/29/2010 at 4:54 AM

                This may be a tangent that does not lead to perpetrators; but grill fires most frequently occur from rendered fat, that is grease, catching fire. Water makes this kind of fire larger, it does not put it out. A grease fire is typically extinguished by smothering with a lid or sprinkling with baking soda. Water might have been used to clean up after the fire was out.

                And, thanks for this site and the enlightening comments.

                • plumskiter
                  05/29/2010 at 9:33 AM

                  good point.

                • Carolina
                  05/29/2010 at 6:34 PM

                  To clean what, BFMike? You put out the fire by dropping the lid, and then what would require cleaning?

        • Agatha
          05/28/2010 at 9:53 PM

          Michael in the scenario makes sense. Gives some truth to the “intruder” story. And, dropping off any of the bloodied towels and items at a hospital … is horrifyingly clever.

          Yet – how would there be pooled blood on the back of a t-shirt and yet this blood doesn’t end up on the bed sheets? The blood would have be dry (some how) without transferring to the sheets.

          There must have been a significant time lapse.

          I hope someone steps forward to tell the truth.

          • Elizabeth
            05/28/2010 at 10:09 PM

            Have we heard anything about any blood on Robert’s back? If the shirt was very bloody on the back, wouldn’t there by some blood on Robert’s back?

            • HKG
              05/29/2010 at 10:49 AM

              Good point! And perhaps the shirt was almost dry except for two areas that would correspond to the two spots on te sheets.

          • ladyg
            05/28/2010 at 10:35 PM

            now that’s sounds like something straight out of an “ALFRED HITCHCOCK MOVIE”. gives me goosebumps.

          • Very New Eyes
            05/29/2010 at 1:30 PM

            Maybe they dried the wet t-shirt in the drier, before putting it back on Wone, because we know something with blood on it had been put in dryer, hence the dog alerted to dryer vent.

        • Elizabeth
          05/28/2010 at 10:11 PM

          Can you cut three holes in the shirt to correspond to the wounds? Don’t you think he was stabbed through the shirt?

          • cinnamon
            05/28/2010 at 10:13 PM

            They say there were no shirt fibers on the knife.

            • Agatha
              05/28/2010 at 10:19 PM

              I would expect that there would be blood and tissue on the t-shirt as there would be fibers on the knife and in the wounds.

              I wonder how holes in the t-shirt match the wounds.

              • AkaZappa
                05/28/2010 at 10:35 PM

                Thing is, T-shirt, if was on Robert when he was stabbed, could have been bucnhed or stretched, so the holes wouldn’t need to match up perfectly.

                • AnnaZed
                  05/28/2010 at 11:54 PM

                  That’s not the problem, it’s the lack of fibers from the shirt in the wounds.

            • Elizabeth
              05/28/2010 at 10:22 PM

              I attributed that to the fact that the “real” murder weapon was missing and the weapon the roommates were offering up was wiped with the bloody towel.

          • cinnamon
            05/28/2010 at 10:21 PM

            Also if they stabbed him through the shirt, blood would have then been on the front of the shirt as well.

            • Elizabeth
              05/28/2010 at 11:06 PM

              Yes, true. Good point.

              • whodoneit
                05/28/2010 at 11:37 PM

                I believe the front of the shirt may have been bloody, but don’t know how bloody. If you go back to the wrap and updates for that day, it is not clear that the front was not bloody, but then someone in the comments interprets it that way and then it gets repeated. Perhaps the editors can clarify this point.

    • Deb
      05/28/2010 at 9:29 PM

      Successful conspiracies are small and well attended.

      Sometimes, I also want to include others in the murder part — especially the brother’s friend who likes to torment domestic pets. But this is not a murder trial.

      I think the “ins and outs” statements, including the grill fire and the bug (or spider) are attempts to explain why they were outside at such odd hours. And why they were destroying evidence on the barbie.

      We all confuse the issues here, and the prosecution is confusing them in court, which is a shame.

      What time is it? 11:54. 11:43? 11:43. 11:43. 11:43.

      Fire in the grill.

      • Elizabeth
        05/28/2010 at 9:56 PM

        I have seen posts regarding the likelihood of putting the cover back on a warm grill, but I have not seen anyone talk about what evidence was “destroyed on the barbie.” Hard to actually burn something with coals or those little clay briquettes…Is this a theory or do we have evidence of what was found in the bar-b-cue?

        • Deb
          05/29/2010 at 9:33 AM

          Just theory, but charcoal lighter fluid is an excellent accellerant. I don’t think it would take long to consume a sheet or towel.

          They were worried about time. They know there are a couple of things that neighbors may have noticed, so they explain those noticable things away as best they can. I think 11:43 was their target time. . . we need to have this cleaned up by 11:43.

    • Elizabeth
      05/28/2010 at 11:11 PM

      But why would he stop to rinse them off with the hose? I picture all the “evidence” in a big garbage bag. If I am in a hurry to drive away and dump all incriminating evidence into an unknown dumpster, why would I rinse them off before I get rid of them anyway?

      • AnnaZed
        05/28/2010 at 11:56 PM

        A person in such a situation, about to gto out on the street might conceivably wash the blood off of their hands.

        • cinnamon
          05/28/2010 at 11:58 PM

          Yes. My thoughts exactly.

          • deepsouth
            05/29/2010 at 12:41 AM

            I’d be worried about leaving traces of blood in my car, too, if I were driving, parked behind the house and came in through the back door.

  7. Bill Orange
    05/28/2010 at 9:36 PM

    It’s becoming very clear that the defense doesn’t want anything about Michael Price to be admitted into this trial. Now it appears that he changed his alibi. If they want to break his current alibi (that he was with his now-ex-boyfriend that night), then they need to come down on his ex-boyfriend.

  8. BadShoes
    05/28/2010 at 9:38 PM

    “in case the chimes could be tracked…”

    A very interesting idea. (I’m pretty sure chimes aren’t tracked, because it would take some extra cost to implement that feature, and its of no obvious use to the owner, and, anyway, if chimes were tracked, the police would be all over that info).

    But, often people only have a vague idea how their alarm works, and maybe they weren’t sure whether door opening events were recorded or not. Hmmm.

    • Bill Orange
      05/28/2010 at 9:42 PM

      As you said, most people only have a vague idea of how their alarm works. Just thinking out loud here, but if I had a system that was wired in to a security company, I would assume that the company also got info on when the doors chimed.

      • Elizabeth
        05/28/2010 at 10:00 PM

        I agree. Upon request, my company can tell you exact times and exactly which outside windows or doors were opened. (Had someone throw a big rock through a window one night.)

        • DonnaH
          05/29/2010 at 12:12 AM

          Thanks for the confirmation, Elizabeth. Now at last, the spider story makes sense. Nice work, cinnamon!

          • cinnamon
            05/29/2010 at 12:13 AM

            Thanks. I’ve been losing sleep trying to figure this case out.

        • Kate
          05/29/2010 at 8:22 AM

          Great question, Bill and thanks for the confirmation Elizabeth.

          The spider on the light story has always struck me as such a minor (albeit silly) detail that it rang true – that kernel of truth we’ve been talking about.

          But now, with Michael possibly coming to the fore again, I’m reconsidering.

          Hmmm, “the beauty is in the details”, isn’t it?

          Many thanks for getting me to scratch my head again,

          • ramknts
            05/29/2010 at 1:48 PM

            I thought he used the spider story to explain why the back door would be unlocked.

            • DonnaH
              05/29/2010 at 4:52 PM

              Yes, by way of supporting the “intruder” story (the intruder could later have walked right in); and also in case the police did check the time through the alarm system, to explain why the door was opened at that time (which, we now see, could be because of Michael’s arrival).

    • cinnamon
      05/29/2010 at 12:18 AM

      There are a few instances in Joe’s interrogation where he mentions things like…you guys can check the records on that…regarding the time of the 911 call. I think this shows that he was thinking about all of the things that could be tracked and/or timestamped that would require explanation.

    • newbie
      05/29/2010 at 5:28 AM

      “police all over it”

      The DC cops (read keystone cops) have not been “all over” anything in this case. Bunch of amateurs. Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy. The reasoning seems to be they knew in first few hours there was no intruder. OK…then gather the evidence. One example: no pictures of top of fence to show nobody climbed over it…just their say so. Detective says he looked…why not call the photographer over to take pictures? Unforgivable. On and on and on.

      • Carolina
        05/29/2010 at 6:38 PM

        You sound familiar. Do we know you?

        • newbie
          05/30/2010 at 4:35 AM

          New to board. I think they are guilty of obstruction, conspiring, and perjury. Even with sloppy police work the case looks like a slam dunk to me. Just sayin.

  9. Bill Orange
    05/28/2010 at 9:40 PM

    BTW, I still don’t understand why Michael Price was at the funeral. Did anyone ask Kathy Wone if she’d ever met Michael?

    • interestedoberserver
      05/28/2010 at 10:39 PM

      Yes, that question was asked during direct examination. She had not met Michael Price before. When Joe introduced him at the funeral, all Michael said was “hello.” Not, “sorry for your loss” or anything like that. Just “hello.”

      • Clio
        05/28/2010 at 10:56 PM

        Hello! Why then would Joe drag Michael to the funeral in the first place? Joe had a starring role as pallbearer and, if Michael had been involved in the crime and you as Joe knew that, why then would you bring him to the funeral?

        Unless … was it blackmail between a modern-day (and lavender) Cain and Abel — with eyecandy dvds and the dropped burglary charges being other sops to quiet the younger Price? Hush, hush sweet Michael!

    • Carolina
      05/29/2010 at 2:10 AM

      Have you read the note of condolence Michael’s boyfriend left on Robert’s online memorial? He’s eloquent for a man who may have never met either Wone.

      • HKG
        05/29/2010 at 6:21 AM

        do you have a link for that?

        • Nelly
          05/29/2010 at 9:10 AM

          Originally from The editors put it up on scribd. It’s on page 2. Louis Hinton rambles on and says, “I know the tears of sorry….” Could that be because he’s seen Michael sobbing his eyes out after the murder?

          • HKG
            05/29/2010 at 10:51 AM

            Thanks Nelly

  10. AkaZappa
    05/28/2010 at 9:54 PM

    What kind of objections are allowed in Leibovitz’ courtroom, if not spoken ones?

    • plumskiter
      05/28/2010 at 11:07 PM

      again, i’m not in attendance, but usually this means that a lawyer can say something ultra brief like “objection, hearsay.” or “objection, asked and answered”, but not “objection, we’ve been over this before and the witness has already answered the same question at least fifteen times and opposing counsel is just trying to run out the clock today.” the latter would be a speaking objection. in jury trials, some judges prohibit them because they allow the lawyers to put too much irrelevant stuff before the jury (other judges could care less, and the lawyers can have a field day with objections). in a court trial, the main reason for banning speaking objections is to save time. a secondary reason would be to prevent the lawyers from playing to the gallery of those in attendance plus the public and the media.

      • AkaZappa
        05/28/2010 at 11:14 PM

        Much obliged!

      • Kate
        05/29/2010 at 8:28 AM

        Excellent, many thanks Plumskiter, for another great explanation of the legal procedures.


  11. WhatACase
    05/28/2010 at 10:00 PM

    Hmmmmn. Imagine a scenario where Joe, Dyl and Michael had, without tragic consequences, done this before: disorient an unsuspecting guest by putting something in their water, drug them further with some injections in places the victim is unlikely to notice later, such as between toes (courtesy of the phlebotomy student?), and then molest them. The victim wakes up in the morning unaware of any of the activities—what a rush for the boys! In this case, sadly, something went tragically wrong during the games. Perhaps Robert started to awaken, and they smothered him with a pillow as they injected him with some more relaxant? But the smothering pillow halts robert’s breathing. The boys panic, thinking Robert isn’t breathing, and they drag him into the shower hoping to wake him up, and when that fails, they hatch this ridiculous cover story of a knife-crazed intruder. As Robert is already in the tub, they stab him there so the blood will go down the drain. But then victor comes down to see what all the commotion is about, he screams at the sight of robert stabbed in the tub (and the neighbor hears the scream), and he agrees to support the trouples story. Michael helps with the cleanup and heads out with bloody towels, etc. Crazy?

    • Elizabeth
      05/28/2010 at 10:04 PM

      Actually, no. This piece of speculation is the only one I have read that makes even remote sense, at least to me. Much more plausible than the one I read earlier about Joe feeling competitive with Robert and attacking him when Robert refuses his help on a work issue.

      • WhatACase
        05/28/2010 at 10:15 PM

        agree with your “destroyed on the barbie” comment, elizabeth. I don’t think anything was burned on that BBQ–I think someone took the incriminating towels, etc., away, and that someone may well have been Michael. that guy seems to be enveloped in a fog of trouble.

        • cinnamon
          05/28/2010 at 10:18 PM

          I think the bbq story was just to explain the water on the patio. I don’t know anyone that would douse their food with water. Taking the steak away from the flame is usually sufficient. They just needed a reason to explain why there was water on the patio and why the hose was left out.

          • plumskiter
            05/28/2010 at 11:10 PM

            i agree with cinnamon and just posted the same thing above.

            • whodoneit
              05/28/2010 at 11:43 PM

              Was there water on the patio when the police arrived? None is apparent in the one crime scene photo on this site. But you can’t see the grill, only the hose. On such a hot day/evening/night you would think any water used to douse a grill fire would have evaporated by midnight.

              • plumskiter
                05/28/2010 at 11:44 PM

                not sure. and i agree about the evaporation. but the theory is that the guys were worried that there might be water on the patio and thus gave the grill fire story to cover that possibility.

                • cinnamon
                  05/28/2010 at 11:47 PM

                  Yes, I agree. They had alot of reasons for why there was water everywhere.

            • WhatACase
              05/28/2010 at 11:43 PM

              agree completely.

    • mia
      05/28/2010 at 10:23 PM

      It makes sense to me. Just one more piece, since they were on the 2nd floor, Ward would rush to his room grabbing the knife without too much thinking only realized it would be very hard to explain why a intruder would have his knife later so they decided to replace the murder weapon with the kitchen knife.

      • cinnamon
        05/28/2010 at 10:24 PM

        yes, plausible.

      • cinnamon
        05/28/2010 at 10:25 PM

        Yes, that fits.

      • AkaZappa
        05/28/2010 at 10:30 PM

        Although it’s still a question why they left any knife at all there. If we are assuming Michael took bloody stuff away, why not Dylan’s knife as well? I guess it was just a misstep.

        • TJ in NY
          05/28/2010 at 10:46 PM

          Another misstep was not getting rid of the article Dylan had been reading recently with the deathbed illustration, which may have been the unconscious source for the idea of putting Robert’s body back onto the bed.

          An informative newscast link with crime scene photos that were new to me (and I’ve been following this from day one… wow, what a case)

          This thread started by “WhatACase” really makes sense. I miss Bea.

          • galoon
            05/28/2010 at 11:04 PM

            Wow. Great news video TJ. Thanks.

          • Timeline
            05/28/2010 at 11:19 PM

            Thanks for the link. Interesting to have the clip intro’d by Maureen Bunyan. 😉

            Definitely has some new information in it. I don’t think the eds here mentioned anything about the discussion of the green fibers fround on the shirt in the dryer, as this report did. Lots of details, and it’s so hard to make it all make sense hen you try to add it up!

        • plumskiter
          05/28/2010 at 11:12 PM

          dylan’s knife was not seized and was not there. if it was the murder weapon, it was taken away. so, the question is not “why not Dylan’s knife as well” but rather, why add a second knife from the knife block downstairs to the scenario?

          • Timeline
            05/28/2010 at 11:24 PM

            Yes, just one of the MANY confusing aspects of the case. The defendents’ story is cotradictory and makes NO sense, but the coverup scenario has a lot of holes, too. Assume for a moment one (or more) of these guys did stab Wone with Dylan’s kinfe, and Michael Price or someone else disposed of the actual murder weapon off site. Why on earth would they bring up the knife from the kitchen instead of just claiming that the intruder took the knife with him when he fled? Isn’t that far more plausible than trying to fake the knife? It makes no sense.

            God, it makes me crazy that, no matter the outcome of this trial, we will probably never know all the details of what really transpired during those 90 minutes.

            • Elizabeth
              05/28/2010 at 11:33 PM

              Agreed. Crazy-making. When you get to heaven or wherever you go after life on earth someone says “here are all the mismatched socks from your dryer and here is what happened during those minutes.”

              • plumskiter
                05/28/2010 at 11:56 PM

                thanks – elizabeth. not sure i believe in heaven, but the prospect of finding those missing socks is something to look forward to. smile.

            • WhatACase
              05/29/2010 at 12:17 AM

              Timeline — their thought process may have been that, in the absence of a knife at the scene, and if they themselves became suspects, the police would search the house for the knife, find dylan’s cutlery set, and make a case. the kitchen knife fits the intruder theory (intruder enters back door into kitch and picks up knife from block).

            • DavidR
              05/29/2010 at 12:45 AM

              Yep. It’s sloppy. But if there was no knife the police would have still found Dylan’s set in his closet and theorized the missing knife was used and that begs the question of how an intruder got the knife from the set in the closet.

              The better thing to do would have been to remove a knife from the kitchen block and either dispose of it and then the missing knife fits or bloody it and throw it out into the alley.

          • AkaZappa
            05/28/2010 at 11:35 PM

            When I said “Dylan’s knife as well”, I meant that his knife would have been bloody evidence that needed to be removed as well as whatever other bloody stuff was there. Then you would have a scene without a murder weapon, with no need to introduce another knife.

        • WhatACase
          05/29/2010 at 12:08 AM

          It may have occurred to the boys that no knife at the scene would result in the cops looking for the knife (and dylan’s missing knife in his set would raise lots of eyebrows), whereas they believed there was a decent chance that the cops would believe that the kitchen knife really was the murder weapon. the kitchen knife also fits the intruder story–intruder came in unlocked back door, passed the knife in the kitchen and picked it up, then went upstairs.

      • BadShoes
        05/28/2010 at 10:42 PM

        Keep in mind that just because the knife case was found in Mr. Ward’s room at the end of the evening does not necessarily mean that the case was in Mr. Ward’s room at the beginning of the evening.

        One of the many puzzles in this case: When the EMTs arrive, Mr. Baker says (if I recall correctly) that Mr. Ward suddenly disappears into his room and closes the door. Why did he do that? Not to get dressed. When he emerges he is still in his bathrobe. He omits this action in his discussions with the police.

        Possibly it was to tidy up his room, putting away any old socks or cutlery boxes that might have inadvertently been left out.

        • WhatACase
          05/28/2010 at 11:55 PM

          very, very interesting.

        • KKinCA
          05/29/2010 at 12:28 AM

          I believe I read somewhere (it may be in a post by the Eds summarizing the testimony of the officers/evidence techs who conducted the search) that the cutlery box was found at the top of a VERY HIGH cabinet in Dylan’s room. Kind of a weird place to keep an incomplete cutlery set (putting aside whether keeping a cutlery set in a bedroom is odd).

        • HKG
          05/29/2010 at 7:40 AM

          yes, very interesting.

      • Elizabeth
        05/28/2010 at 11:49 PM

        So why not get rid of the whole cutlery set? Why have it in your room with only the knife missing?

        • WhatACase
          05/29/2010 at 12:13 AM

          Great question Elizabeth. My only thoughts: the case that the knives were in had the names of the previous owners on it (according to testimony)—if they tossed the case and it was somehow found, it could be traced right back to Dylan. But my real theory, as a cook who loves his knives: dylan simply didn’t want to give up the other knives, which may have been favorites of his, as a chef. Yes, very, very sad if true.

          • deepsouth
            05/29/2010 at 12:35 AM

            And maybe a mistake, too – would’ve been smarter to drop the other two knives into the knife block or some such (as though they were in current use) and put the empty box in the cabinet.

          • mia
            05/29/2010 at 12:39 AM

            I wonder did the police recover any figure prints from the knife?

          • cinnamon
            05/29/2010 at 8:18 AM

            This makes sense. I would be reluctant to let go of one of my knives as well. They are usually cherished possessions for chefs/cooks and often times have sentimental value.

    • Eagle
      05/28/2010 at 10:51 PM

      If I was Victor in this scenario and I saw my two housemates standing over a recently stabbed body and they asked me to join them in a conspiracy, I would certainly go along with it- at least temporarily. Just for myown protection. If this scenario is correct, the two murderers would have nothing to lose by killing another person.
      Prudence if nothing else.
      Maybe this is where the third stab wound occurred, thus binding all three in the murder.

      • DonnaH
        05/29/2010 at 5:09 PM

        Or possibly, Joe, Dylan, and Michael. In part because I imagine that the sight of an unconscious Robert might be much less apt to elicit screams from Victor than the sight of him after the stabbing.

  12. Lee
    05/28/2010 at 10:43 PM

    If Michael hasn’t been charged with being part of the conspiracy, Michael must take the stand if he is subpeonaed. He can take the fifth, of course, but he cannot hide as the defendants can. He could be very vulnerable at this point.

    • Clio
      05/29/2010 at 9:03 AM

      Interesting point, Lee.

      The younger Price did attend earlier status hearings, and his “room mate” Mr. Hinton has been at Moultrie in the past, too. In contrast, Mr. Collins, Michael’s partner in the burglary, and Mr. Collins’ former patron Mr. Clark have not attended any hearings, according to this blog’s Editors. Have Michael and Louis understandably decided to stay away from the publicity of the trial? Or, have they been in attendance yet under the radar (or gaydar)?

      I then wonder where Michael “fits” in with the Zaborskys and Wards, if at all. I could see Needham high-fiveing Joe (a former law firm partner) but I could not see the noted physician doing the same with Michael (clerk at Go, Mama, Go).

      • plumskiter
        05/29/2010 at 9:43 AM

        if Michael has been given a trial subpoena by any party – and that is a big If, because we do not know – he would be barred from the courtroom under the Sequestration Rule [which prevents most upcoming witnesses from hearing the testimony of others]. Ditto any of his confederates and associates, past and present.

        • Clio
          05/29/2010 at 2:49 PM

          Thanks, Plums, for that info!

        • AnnaZed
          05/29/2010 at 2:51 PM

          From that can I take it that his appearance as an observer at the court precludes any possibility of his being called to testify?

          Thanks plum!

  13. SaraSidle
    05/28/2010 at 10:46 PM

    For those who are of the opinion that some key evidence (another knife, bloody towel, etc.) may have been removed from the scene of the crime…is it at all plausible that the reason for the “break in” was to remove evidence that was well hidden and went undetected by investigators during their search of the residence?

    • Ohio
      05/30/2010 at 10:34 AM

      I think that could be very likely, imo.

  14. Danali
    05/28/2010 at 11:00 PM

    I really hope the prosecution has some surprise evidence in reserve- records of phone calls after the incident, other not-yet-disclosed emails. It feels like the prosecution is fumbling some of this stuff. The stab test / Safeway pork loin / fiber matching ‘science’ at least to me seems like amateur hour and the stuff of bad Court TV theater.

    The Michael Price volunteered alibi moment seems curious and potentially significant though.

  15. ladyg
    05/28/2010 at 11:39 PM

    this is another side step, some of us (well maybe just me) are starting to look in michael’s direction? this may be alittle out there, but here goes, did michael go to the hospital the following day ( day after the murder)? the reason why i ask, is that if he did would the hospital has cameras? would it show him carrying a back pack or a small duffle bag?

    • DonnaH
      05/29/2010 at 5:20 PM

      I wouldn’t be surprised if the hospital had cameras. I’m wondering, though, if they keep old video records long enough for the police to have gotten around to checking the records for that time period.

  16. commonsensewillprevailihope
    05/29/2010 at 6:47 AM

    Hiccups and fumbles in the prosecution case unfortunately probably make it less likely Victor will come to his senses and plea bargain (assuming he is not the actual murderer) because he/they will think it looks like he/they may well get away with this. However, if convicted of these charges, the whole ballgame changes. It might then dawn on Victor that the trio are unlikely to be given a conjugal play-cage to live happily ever after together, playing out endless real-life prison cell sex scenarios. They would presumably be separated. At that point Victor might re-think the value of a correspondence relationship with Joe, and start focusing on his years and years in jail. And/or one of the others, even the murderer, may lie and concoct a story that makes them not the murderer in order to bargain about the jail time.

    • Bill Orange
      05/29/2010 at 10:41 AM

      I would defer to the lawyers on this point, but I think that Victor’s value as a potential prosecution witness drops enormously if he’s convicted. Once the court has determined that you’re a liar, the value of your testimony goes way down. Here’s a question, though: If Victor flips between the judgment and the sentencing, would he be able to testify against the other two during the sentencing phase of the trial?

      • plumskiter
        05/29/2010 at 10:56 AM

        i can take these questions.

        victor’s value as a cooperator won’t drop if he is convicted, IF he doesn’t testify in his own defense. He is, of course, stuck with the videotaped interview, but that has been the case since day/night one.

        victor could presumably choose to cooperate at any point. what he will get in exchange for his cooperation, however, will go down as more time and phases of the investigation and prosecution pass.

        and, yes, if he flips between conviction and sentencing, he could certainly be called as a government witness at the sentencing of one or both other defendants.

  17. Farmer Ginny
    05/29/2010 at 7:10 AM

    Why would they want the blood to go down the drain? Just so it wouldn’t mess up the guest bed?

    Also, everyone keeps talking about the defendants being high on drugs. Did the police mention anything about their being stoned? They were certainly alert enough to recount their stories during interrogation.

    • cinnamon
      05/29/2010 at 8:33 AM

      There was mention of their odd behavior. Joe did not make eye contact with the EMT when he arrived. He slinked off sideways. Dylan was not responsive to EMT questions. I’d like to see the video taped interrogations to get a glimpse of their body language. It’s unfortunate that they were not tested for drugs that night.

  18. cinnamon
    05/29/2010 at 8:29 AM

    My theory is that he was already in the bathtub when he was stabbed. The orientation of the knife wounds support this. You can now see the placement of the sofabed in the guest room in the video clip above. If the intruder had stabbed Robert while he was in bed, the intruder would have had to enter the quest room (in the dark?),then go around to the far side of the bed and be standing above Robert’s head to inflict wounds at the angle they were found. It just doesn’t make sense.

    Allowing the blood to go down the drain reduces the chance that the housemate’s (and whomever else may have been present) DNA and/or fingerprints would show up anywhere. For example, if Robert was stabbed in the bed, there would be a chance that a bloody fingerprint would be left by someone or blood would be tracked somewhere. The scene would have been much more difficult and messy to control and cover up.

    • WhatACase
      05/29/2010 at 10:14 AM

      Agree Cinnamon. And if they had first put Robert in the shower in an attempt to revive/wake him, before concluding he was dead, leaving him in the shower for the stabbing was easier, more efficient, and more in line with roommates who kept an immaculately clean and organized home. In the panic of the moment, i can see them reverting to type: “leave him there a little longer until he stops bleeding so much before moving him.”

    • BadShoes
      05/29/2010 at 10:15 AM

      Excellent point about the angle.

      It would be much easier, and just as lethal to stab sideways, with the blade in the “3 o’clock – 9 o’clock position.

      Also notice the dinky little bloodstains on the bed. You can how the police got the idea that the crime scene had been altered.

      • Very New Eyes
        05/29/2010 at 2:53 PM

        Excellent theory, all! I just don’t see anyway the Judge would buy the Intruder story because we know Intruders wouldn’t bother to give a bath to the body, scrupulously clean crime scene, and remove all cleaning materials/towels, etc. before they vanish. In fact I don’t think one person could do all that by themselves in short period of time. But whoever did it must have used the ejaculation device after all the cleanup was done, so as to still have semen after the bath. WOW! These 3 are truly depraved and dangerous people and shouldn’t be left to wander the streets right now! I think you’d have to be stupid and crazy to buy the Intruder story under all these circumstances.

    • DonnaH
      05/29/2010 at 5:53 PM

      But if they came up with the “intruder” story plan before they stabbed him, it would look really strange for the police to come upon this nearly bloodless scene of a stabbing, with blood also having been cleaned up from around the room (unfortunately the police messed up when they applied chemicals to prove this). For this reason, I still hold to the theory, put forth under Day 5: Wrap by posters between 10-11pm, that the original plan in relation to the stabbing was to take Robert’s body and dump it somewhere to make him look like the victim of a violent crime. That would explain why they cleaned up the room. Then when Victor came down and screamed, they thought his screams would bring the police momentarily so they had to revise their plan to one of an in-house intruder.

      As for where the stabbing took place–the shower is one possibility. But it’s also possible that they were using a “play mat,” a plastic sheet used by BDSM participants, to protect beds, rugs etc. from bodily fluids, even before the stabbing as well as during it. They could have just wiped the blood off of Robert, as one of the patterns of blood on him suggested, and put his T-shirt back on and laid him down on the mat, thereby getting blood on the back of the shirt (probably inadvertently). Then perhaps it was rinsed–in the patio, where the cadaver dog indicated blood? –and disposed of.

      I have no

  19. Very New Eyes
    05/29/2010 at 3:00 PM

    I also think if Victor has any brain cells left after all this stress, he better come forward and report to the police/prosecutor what he witnessed, Now! He could get a good amount reduced sentence, but only if he reports Now! Later, not so much.

    • observer
      05/30/2010 at 12:50 AM

      I don’t think Victor will turn them in because Joe is his domestic partner, which can be regarded as husband. I don’t think any wife in the world would do that.

      • AnnaZed
        05/30/2010 at 1:29 AM

        I don’t know what kind of marriages you are used to observing, but if my man had anything to do with the murder of an unarmed man he could not count on me for support, not a chance. Just because I am bound to him doesn’t mean that I am bound to lie and commit felonies for him; in fact I don’t know a single spouse of either sex who would.

        • Bea
          05/30/2010 at 1:49 AM

          Sing it, Sister! This is not a look-the-other-way traffic violation. And I can attest to spending long hours (days, weeks) of trying to get my beloved to turn herself in (both to take responsibility, seek redemption, and possibly get a plea bargain). But I would not think the person I fell in love with could commit any heinous act (or even actively tried to cover up someone else’s heinous act while the widow/family suffered), and I’d have to question just how real that love could be. And I’d seriously doubt that such a person would be willing to do 38 years in jail for me if the tables were turned. . .

  20. Kathleen
    05/29/2010 at 6:39 PM

    ” . . . Sequestration Rule [which prevents most upcoming witnesses from hearing the testimony of others.”

    In D.C. you invoke the “rule on witnesses” for any subpoened or announced witness. You can also request the court to remove other potential witnesses but that would depend on how likely it was that person would be a witness. It does not, however, bar friends, relatives or associates of those witnesses from attending the trial.

  21. Angela Channing
    05/30/2010 at 10:57 AM

    Forgive me if this was previously discussed, but there is one thing that caught my attention as a gay man…In evidence, a Prada shirt was found in the washing machine. What professional gay man in Washington DC washes a Prada shirt? Wouldn’t it be professionally dry cleaned — or in the hamper/clothing bag to go to the dry cleaners? I am just dopey gay guy from Baltimore and I have all my nicer shirts dry cleaned. My thoughts were the shirt was laundered because it had evidence of a horrific crime? Thank you for listening.

    • AnnaZed
      05/30/2010 at 12:11 PM

      It’s just a Prada undershirt or t-shirt.

      • AnnaZed
        05/30/2010 at 12:12 PM

        That said, I would be very interested to know to whom it belongs.

  22. Bodhi
    06/01/2010 at 6:52 PM

    While the Judge questioned Deedrick, he said that the green fibers from Robert’s gym shorts that were found on his bloody t-shirt had to have separated from his gym shorts after Robert’s gym shorts were cut from his body, in other words after Robert died. The Judge reiterated, are you sure the fibers could not have gotten on the t-shirt through some other activity while Robert was alive. Deedrick said they could not have.

    I was sitting in the courtroom behind Schertler and Connolly when Deedrick said that, both attorneys looked at each other intently, as if that answer was meaningful. So did Price and Victor.

    Does anyone understand the significance of Deedrick’s testimony?

  23. 06/03/2010 at 3:44 PM

    That said, I would be very interested to know to whom it belongs.

Comments are closed.