Tooth Fairy

Defense Outlines M. Price’s Early Evening Activities on Aug. 2, 2006

Biding our time, and biting our nails, as we await for the trial to resume on Monday, we trotted over the courthouse to see if any more motions may have come across the transom.

Tooth Fairy

Much to our delight, there was not only one, but two documents — one filed by the defense, the other from the prosecution.  Each had some rather interesting, some might even say juicy bits of information that haven’t been revealed publicly.

The defense filed a motion to exclude any evidence and argument regarding Michael Price.

We already know how this played in court.  The prosecution moved to enter argument and evidence about Joe Price’s brother during the trial last week.  Joe Price’s attorney, Bernie Grimm, objected, while Victor Zaborsky’s and Dylan Ward’s attorneys did not.  It was the first time during trial that the defense was not united as a team.

Leibovitz ruled against Grimm; she allowed the testimony into the trial.  That’s the old news. 

What’s contained in the motion is what’s new.

The defense explains the reason for Michael’s first absence from his phlebotomy class on the evening of August 2, 2006. 

That afternoon, Michael went to the home of his nephews in Silver Spring, Maryland.  The defense explains:

One of Michael’s nephews had lost his first tooth and was excited about the impending visit of the “tooth fairy.”  During the visit, Michael helped one of his nephews remove the training wheels from his bike and his nephew rode his bike for the the first time without training wheels.  At 4:50, using Kim’s (Musheno, the mother of the children) home phone, Michael and Kim called Joseph Price on his cell phone to share these domestic developments.

This story is consistent with the story that from the defendants’ statements that Joe told Victor about one of the children losing a tooth, and riding a bike for the first time.  What is new in this story is that Michael Price was there at the home when this occurred.

It does seem odd that Michael Price played such a close role in the lives of his nephews when other members of the family, such as Victor Zaborsky, Dylan Ward and Sarah Morgan, all related similar stories about their unease around Micheal.  Apparently, the mothers of Victor and Joe’s children did not share that same sentiment.

The defense goes on to explain what happened next:

Having stayed later than planned Michael would have missed the beginning of a phlebotomy class in which he was enrolled at Montgomery County Community College, and consequently decided to skip the class, which began at 5:00 pm and went until 9:15.

Michael left his nephews and their mother and returned home.  When he arrived home, Mr. Louis Hinton, was already home from work.  That evening they had dinner together and watched television.  Michael went to bed first, and was later joined by Mr. Hinton. They slept together that night.

Now, everyone knows that the “tooth fairy” is someone who invades homes without ever showing any sign of forced entry, is never heard nor seen, and leaves barely no traces of having been there. 

Just another coincidence?

— Posted by David

140 comments for “Tooth Fairy

  1. Lyn
    06/09/2010 at 10:51 AM

    Sounds like M. Price’s nephew’s house wasn’t that far from the community college. Yet he decides to scrap his attendance completely rather than arrive a few minutes late and miss a relatively small percentage of that night’s 4 hour class? When his prior attendance record was perfect?

    It’s odd that he had taken his attendance at the course so seriously and then just decided to throw it all away because he would be a few minutes late.

    • interestedobserver
      06/09/2010 at 11:20 AM

      That’s a good point. If the nephew’s house is in Silver Spring as well, Montgomery County Community College is approximately 5 minutes away by car. Yes, the prior testimony/evidence by the instructor was that he had never missed a class before August 2 and that numerous classes had been already held.

    • Phil
      06/09/2010 at 11:30 AM

      Agreed. Assuming the class was held at the Silver Spring/Takoma Park campus of Montgomery County Community College, he was about an 8-12 minute drive away (depending on lights/traffic).

      (A little internet sleuthing led me to the address of the home of Ms. Musheno; it turns out I live roughly 3 blocks away.)

      This makes no sense; he skipped the class merely because he would (maybe?) be a few minutes late? In fact, I presume he was visiting there before the class b/c it was convenient, and made sense for him to go from there, to the class!!! (Although, obviously, that is pure speculation on my part.)

    • Nyer Wants Justice
      06/09/2010 at 2:07 PM

      Also – I think in testimony it was stated that he missed a bunch of classes after Aug 2nd. If he missed that class for a specific reason, why did he stop going altogether??

      • Faye Lewis
        06/09/2010 at 5:46 PM

        He missed more in the middle of the month, not immediately after 8/2. This is the time period when Louis and Joe had him arrested to get him off the streets.

  2. CC Biggs
    06/09/2010 at 11:18 AM

    I don’t find anything strange about a sexually deviant HIV-positive drug user mincing around with a young child. Nothing at all.

    • Carolina
      06/09/2010 at 11:30 AM

      I don’t call it strange, I call it convenient. Besides, I thought he said he was at the hospital?

      • Bill 2
        06/09/2010 at 11:40 AM

        I recall reading that he said he was at the hospital. While the class may have been a Montgomery County Community College class, do we know if it was scheduled to be in session AT the college or at an area hospital?

        • Phil
          06/09/2010 at 12:01 PM

          From Day 10 Wrap:

          “Salvador was the instructor of Michael Price’s phlebotomy course and she discussed both her credentials and the curriculum for the classes.

          Students were book taught first, then went onto simulations with dummies then would draw blood on each other. It was a three month course from June 7 – August 23.

          Salvador told us that Michael Price’s perfect attendance record was spoiled by missing his first 7:00pm-9:15pm class on the night of August 2, 2006. He would go on to be absent on the nights of August 9, 14 and 16 as well.”

          So was it a 5pm class or a 7pm class? (And if it was a 5pm class, does that mean it was a practical class (and not a 7pm class “book class”?)

          And this does not answer the question as to where class was that night….

          • Craig
            06/09/2010 at 12:42 PM

            Phil: Good eye. I just checked my notes from Salvador’s June 1 testimony. At one point before she got on the stand, there was debate on the exclusion of evidence regarding all things M. Price and Grimm may have said the class was from 7-9pm. However, on his cross of Salvador, that was corrected to 5pm-915pm. I may have missed that point in the write-up. Sorry for the confusion.

            • Phil
              06/09/2010 at 1:03 PM

              Since it was in the defense’s motion (and public information), I assumed that the 5pm time was right. This is the kind of thing you would want to make sure you were absolutely, positively right about, if you were the defense!!

              Thanks for the clarification.

              • Makes me wonder
                06/09/2010 at 2:51 PM

                I REALLY hope someone from the AUSA’s office has spoken with the moms to confirm the facts alleged in the Defendant’s motion… seems easy enought to do… that having been said, I wouldn’t be suprised with a lack of follow through at this point.

                • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                  06/09/2010 at 5:20 PM

                  Personally, I don’t think the mom’s would be the ones to question. Perhaps, Louis Hinton should be questioned again in light of all the new developments. It’s the late evening hours that are in question.

    • John
      06/14/2010 at 4:53 PM

      You are a homophobic asshole! While you are up to your neck in lurid tales of ejaculate you are in no position to judge anyone else as deviant, asshole!

      Ed Note: This is a little strong John and frankly we don’t see much of this kind of rage in the comments section. Just who exactly is the asshole? These threads get too long and I can’t tell. -Craig

      • gertiestn
        06/14/2010 at 5:10 PM

        This is a response to Craig, not to John. I wanna be first on the official List of Assholes.

  3. AnnaZed
    06/09/2010 at 11:40 AM

    Ms. Musheno was probably not given the information that she would need to make an informed decision about what is safe for her sons by (you guessed it) Joe. Only Joe would think that it is somehow ok for his brother with his myriad documented problems (not the least being his sticky fingers) to interact with his child and be in Ms. Musheno’s home.

    • Lyn
      06/09/2010 at 12:04 PM

      Yeah, I can’t imagine she’d be to too happy to have “Uncle Fisting, Rimming, & Pig Play” over to spend quality time with her tot.

      http://tinyurl.com/24r25vt (Link to M. Price’s profile on “Manhunt” via WMRW.com).

      • AnnaZed
        06/09/2010 at 12:08 PM

        I don’t see any indication that Michael or any of the others involved in this have any interest in pedophilia, which is a whole other world from the sexual interests that are alarming you. It’s the drug abuse and the thefts that would make him unsuitable for interaction with my child if I were the parent and fully informed about them.

        • Carolina
          06/09/2010 at 12:52 PM

          I hate to say this, but should the trouple go down for this, will Ms. Musheno and the children suffer financially? Enough to color their testimony?

        • Lyn
          06/09/2010 at 1:27 PM

          Do you have an indication that M. Price had an interest in sharing drugs with minors or stealing from minors or getting them involved in those activities?

          If not, what is the logic behind fearing that only certain traits/behaviors/activities may impact your child’s well being while others won’t?

          • AnnaZed
            06/09/2010 at 2:34 PM

            Because drug addicts are erratic, impulsive and not mindful of their own personal safety I would consider any drug addicted person an unsuitable companion for my child. If I was aware that this drug addicted person had an addition (and typical) addict problem with boundaries as to other people’s possessions they would not be welcome in my home at any time, ever.

            • Mr. Ripley
              06/09/2010 at 3:43 PM

              I agree with Lyn…Why not expose a child to this reality? Not explicity, if the child is small, but why hide it? Children will face the decision to do drugs before too long. I am not saying allow M. Price to take her kids to Six Flags…I am saying let him visit, with supervision. It’s better than creating shame and anger around what is a very sad disease. Does anyone know the nature of M. Price’s addiction? Was it a raging habit or more occassional?

              • AnnaZed
                06/09/2010 at 3:48 PM

                Let me guess, you are childless?

                “Yes son, that’s Uncle Mike over there on the nod from an overdose, we decided to share this with you for your edification.”

                Ridiculous.

                • Mr. Ripley
                  06/10/2010 at 1:50 PM

                  …i doubt very much the child’s mothers would allow M Price around their children if he was nodding off. Clearly that’s absurd…how would you know anyway?

                  My brother is an addict, in and out of recovery, and has a child, and my parents and my newphew’s mother have made a different choice. He can see my newphew as much as wants, supervised, when he is sober. From a young age, my newphew was told that his dad was sick, that it was ok to be angry about it, and that he loves him very much. Is that “ridiculous”? maybe…
                  But it’s a different approach, and for my family, preferable to stigmatizing my brother and his condition. Is that a lower “moral and personal standard,” as you say below, while you list acceptable and unacceptable moral characteristics in a person? It’s for each family to decide.

              • Lyn
                06/09/2010 at 4:16 PM

                Mr. Ripley, I think you misunderstood my point. I am in no way suggesting that the mother should be happy about having M. Price around. Just the opposite.

                • AnnaZed
                  06/09/2010 at 4:54 PM

                  I think we are actually agreeing, sort of.

                  I hold the position that the sexual tastes of adults when pursued by adults in privacy have no bearing on anyone’s suitability to interact with any child. In most cases with the other adults one meets, one has no idea anyway. You would be very surprised by how many “kinky” people there are out there of all orientations.

                  Pedophilia however is not a “kink,” it is a criminal behavior and universally recognized as such. Homosexuals suffer greatly as a group in our culture from the uninformed, homophobic and ignorant confabulation of criminal sexual conduct with homosexual expression. The uninformed phobia and confabulation of the criminal with consensual but minority or outlier sexual taste like BDSM is even more of a burden for law-abiding practitioners of any of these (after all) perfectly legal sexual interests. Sexual “pig-play” amongst consenting adults may not be my own sexual taste but it is, in and of itself when pursued by adults in private, a harmless pass-time that would have no bearing on their suitability to interact with my family.

                  My daughter is now a young woman and is herself a homosexual person. There are those in the Louisiana of my childhood who would call her unsuitable to interact with their children and I say that they are bigoted and wrong.

                  People who are habitually inebriated, intoxicated or high on drugs are not suitable people to interact with my family for reasons that I would think are obvious. Thieves are also unwelcome potential companions for reasons that shouldn’t even need to be stated but that I will anyway; people who steal from others lack the moral and personal standards that I seek in the people that I surround myself and my family with.

                  I have a second cousin who is a con-man and a white collar thief (he was a pivotal figure in a massive fraud perpetrated through American Express in Europe in the 1980s). I never liked him for reasons having to do with his slippery duplicitous personality (even when we were children together). Once his crimes were exposed I concluded that he would not be a welcome guest in my home regardless of my mother’s exasperating belief that “family is family.”

                  • tucsonwriter
                    06/10/2010 at 12:26 AM

                    I wish we could access Robert Wone’s “gut reactions” to the people he encountered on that eve. People who are narcissists or psychopaths or many of the personality types that are flawed and who a complete lack of empathy to humans, hence the crimes they commit, generally are very charming. However, I have been in the presence of one of these types, and I felt it immediately in my gut. This has nothing to do with sexuality or anything else – its just bad craziness. They are, for whatever reason, wrong. Hitler is such a person. Evil does exist. To parse the reasons for evil is to not recognize that people aren’t always what they seem.

              • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                06/09/2010 at 5:16 PM

                Pfft. I belive in tough love. Straighten your ass up or don’t come around. Period.

                Too many people coddle those with substance problems or addictions.

                Don’t enable by saying “as long as you don’t do it here.”

            • Lyn
              06/09/2010 at 4:29 PM

              Boundaries with other people’s possessions? That sure is a nice way of describing theft!

              I realize this is getting off topic, but I can’t see how a caring parent could be supportive of having their child around someone with a current, public advertisement (with a picture) seeking fisting, rimming, and pig play, and bondage. Maybe I’m out of the loop.

              • AnnaZed
                06/09/2010 at 5:02 PM

                “…I think we are actually agreeing, sort of.”

                Umm, maybe not so much, see above.

              • tucsonwriter
                06/10/2010 at 12:33 AM

                Come on. How would she know? This is an amazing website with people putting in untold hours of work to bring this stuff up. I didn’t even know that people did this stuff under their own name. All I ever knew about was personals in the weekly newspapers and those are confidential. If she is the mother of a toddler, who’s “uncle” is the father’s brother, I think she would be going with that. You are suggesting that she should have been researching this guy – anyone with a toddler is just trying to make it through the day energy wise.

                • Lyn
                  06/10/2010 at 9:46 AM

                  You misunderstand me. I am not saying the mother should have known. I’m saying I bet she wish she did know and that if she did she probably wouldn’t be too excited about having M. Price around her kid.

      • Carolina
        06/09/2010 at 12:59 PM

        If she did have a problem with that, one would wonder why she agreed to be impregnated with Joe’s (AKA Daddy Fisting, Enema, Spanking) child. Except that like Michael’s background, she probably wasn’t aware of it, either.

        • Lyn
          06/09/2010 at 1:08 PM

          Yes, I imagine she wasn’t aware of any of this. It seems that most people didn’t really know them. I doubt urine drinking is too high on anyone’s list of sperm donor traits.

  4. christy love
    06/09/2010 at 12:02 PM

    Thou doth protest too much! I don’t believe a word of it. I’m surprised it didn’t say what color drawls Hinton was wearing.

    • Carolina
      06/09/2010 at 1:03 PM

      Give them time.

      You know what I don’t get? We already heard that Victor was on the phone about the tooth and bike ride. No one mentioned before that Michael was also on the other end of that phone. If it was made from Michael’s cell, it should be easy enough to check, but I’d make damned sure there wasn’t another call from Musheno’s phone. IF there is, it makes it even more interesting if Michael called the trouple before the murder on the first night he missed class.

      • Clio
        06/09/2010 at 9:48 PM

        So, Uncle Mikey had the free time to witness pivotal turning points in the Zaborsky-Price children’s lives. He would not have been my first choice for a babysitter or chaperone, but, given the particulars of his Manhunt ad, he may have been a much, much safer bet for the kids than say, a Roman Catholic archbishop.

        In this particular instance, Michael apparently knew all about the Kodak moment of the tooth and bike before Victor did — was this yet another slap in Ma’am’s face?

        Joe’s being “at the gym” then takes on a different meaning: was he really out with Michael in a DC rush hour trying to get the accoutrements for evolving shenanigans planned against Robert? Or, was Michael “exercising” with Dyl, a convergence of mental illness that forced even Sarah to flee Swann on a city bus with just a toothbrush? And, what was the original source of that reported body odor wafting around Swann –did that come from the younger Price, who may have been the only satellite not to have showered that night?

        • Bill 2
          06/09/2010 at 9:56 PM

          The story about Joe being at the gym just doesn’t ring true. It probably didn’t ring true to Victor so that’s why he went there to check on him.

          Was Michael Price in Dylan’s room the whole evening without Victor realizing he was there? Did he stay in there watching a video or reading until Victor was upstairs watching TV?

          • susan
            06/09/2010 at 11:52 PM

            If it’s true that M. Price actually was on the line with the trouple household from the Musheno home at 4:50 perhaps he learned about the trouple home’s plans for the evening, including Mr. Wone’s staying over later that evening. Perhaps it was that information that changed M. Price’s plans not to attend class.

            But it does seem odd to miss a four-hour class that has never been missed before on that particular night. Plus, L. Hinton had been convicted for theft, had he not? Not someone who sounds very reliable in terms of testimony.

      • Ohio
        06/10/2010 at 3:53 PM

        If I read it right, Michael was talking to Joe about the child? Later Victor spoke to the Mom? I don’t think they were all on the phone at the same time, if it makes any difference.

  5. Phil
    06/09/2010 at 12:16 PM

    The last line of this post: “Just another coincidence?” reminded me of the article I just finished reading–The Atlantic’s May story entitled “The Wrong Man.”

    A lot of strong reasons (although, it turns out, just coincidences) that led the government to think Dr. Steven Hatfill was their man. He wasn’t.

    I don’t envy the judge here.

    • Liam
      06/09/2010 at 12:36 PM

      And remember the Chandra Levy case. Although I don’t think he was ever charged with anything, many people believed Gary Condit was involved. Many thought he acted guilty. As it turns out, she was killed while jogging (which she did often) in Rock Creek Park (a place where she often jogged) by an El Salvadorean who had previously been arrested for assaulting a woman (I believe that assault was also in Rock Creek Park).

      So, in the end, the actual scenario of her murder was probably one of the most straightforward of the various scenarios proposed/speculated during the media hype.

      • Carolina
        06/09/2010 at 1:08 PM

        While I agree that these two cases had a lot of coincidences, both had perfectly good alternative scenarios. “She went out for a job and was murdered in the park” is a lot easier to buy than “Someone miraculously found an open door after vaulting our fence, grabbed our knife, silently climbed the stairs and murdered a stranger for no reason and then left, all without being seen or heard. Then the dead man was kind enough not to bleed all over anything but his own shirt and a few spots on our guest linen.”

        • Liam
          06/09/2010 at 1:43 PM

          Yes. And in this case I think the simplest scenario is the correct one.

          No intruder.

          Mr. Wone went to their townhouse; all or some of the defendants caused his death; all of the defendants covered up his death.

          How they caused his death (stabbing) is known. Why they caused his death is a complete mystery.

      • Bill Orange
        06/09/2010 at 2:38 PM

        Gary Condit lied to the police about his relationship with Chandra Levy. In my opinion, he should have be charged with obstruction of justice.

        • Faye Lewis
          06/09/2010 at 5:51 PM

          I think at that point, they were too embarrassed to charge him with anything.

      • ccf
        06/09/2010 at 4:24 PM

        In the Chandra Levy case, the suspicion against Gary Condit is based on relationship. In the Robert Wone, case it is based on much more than that.

    • Craig
      06/09/2010 at 12:45 PM

      Phil: And you know who sprung Hatfill and sued the crap out of Ashcroft’s DoJ for $6 million… Zaborsky counsel Thomas Connolly.

      • Kate
        06/09/2010 at 12:55 PM

        Wow, didn’t know that. Many thanks, Craig.

      • Phil
        06/09/2010 at 1:04 PM

        Yup. Definitely interesting. Thanks.

      • Phil
        06/09/2010 at 1:05 PM

        Yup. Definitely interesting.

  6. Dave
    06/09/2010 at 12:31 PM

    That is a very detailed account, especially since it was so long ago. Seems suspicious that this much was given. I am fairly new (and absolutely love this site, thanks)here but could Michael know more or was possibly responsible?

  7. Logan73
    06/09/2010 at 12:33 PM

    I’ll tell you what I find odd and uncharacteristic. All of these people going to bed so early and in such an orderly manner on a Friday night. Some of these stories sound like lives in a senior village. Ate dinner, watched a show, went straight to bed.

    Many of these people are or were in their 30’s at the time. Many of these people admit or are known to be party types and or social drug users. We live in the city too, this is not hooterville or bumblechuck. The vast majority of young gay guys living in Dupont Circle are not going to be sound asleep at 11 PM on a Friday night. But everyone associated with this case was or so they say.

    I just find it really odd. All these young gay guy guys living in Dupont Circle fast asleep before 10 or 11 PM.

    • Liam
      06/09/2010 at 12:41 PM

      August 2, 2006 was a Wednesday night, not a Friday night.

      • Carolina
        06/09/2010 at 12:56 PM

        Nonetheless…

      • Logan73
        06/09/2010 at 12:57 PM

        Yikes, How embarassing. I did not live here in 2006. During a discussion with friends I thought it had been stated that the murder happened on a Friday night… Either I misunderstood or someone misstated…

      • CC Biggs
        06/09/2010 at 12:57 PM

        Correct. Still, I agree that the early bedtimes seem a bit strange.

        • Carolina
          06/09/2010 at 1:04 PM

          I guess if you play hard, you have to rest up between sex pig parties.

          • ccf
            06/09/2010 at 4:29 PM

            Not just early bedtimes.

            I wonder if any intruder, or burglar or ninja or whatever, would break-in an urban home at 11:30pm. In this case, the neighbors were still watching TV.

            • Faye Lewis
              06/09/2010 at 5:52 PM

              The *elderly* neighbors.

              • Clio
                06/09/2010 at 9:17 PM

                Alas, Project Runway had everyone, except Lil’ Dyl and Robert, glued to their sets that night.

            • susan
              06/09/2010 at 11:57 PM

              Good point!

              • susan
                06/09/2010 at 11:59 PM

                BTW, I meant good point re

                “I wonder if any intruder, or burglar or ninja or whatever, would break-in an urban home at 11:30pm. In this case, the neighbors were…”

  8. wads
    06/09/2010 at 1:14 PM

    hi. long time reader, first time poster here. i love this site, and am suffering withdrawl all week while the case is in recess.

    i’ve seen references a few times to the children. can someone explain who victor and joe’s kids are? who had children with these men and where are they? thanks!

    • Phil
      06/09/2010 at 1:19 PM
      • wads
        06/09/2010 at 1:27 PM

        oh. wow. thanks. that made my head hurt a little bit. so, legally, they are not parents, but biologically yes? and the women are nice enough to let them in the kids’ lives, yes? wonder how long that will last…

        these guys sure do leave a papertrail, don’t they?

        • Phil
          06/09/2010 at 1:53 PM

          Yup…I’ve wondered about how all of this has played itself out…have they contributed to the legal defense fund? Should they? (I’m pretty sure they would—but then again, I’m also sure these are hard questions….)

          And, they may even know stuff…for example, they would know when Michael left that day whether he was at least intending to go to his class…or did he tell them he wasn’t going? [Come to think of it, does it even matter?…maybe he changed his mind on the car ride there?]

          I imagine the paper trail may be related to the (reported) size of the egos involved.

  9. NYer
    06/09/2010 at 1:23 PM

    The motion is well-written mechanically, but nonetheless absurd. While it touts the importance of relevance, it neglects to mention the two VERY relevant pieces of evidence- that Michael had access to 1509, and had subsequently burglarized 1509.

    • Phil
      06/09/2010 at 1:38 PM

      Two exceptionally good points.

  10. CC Biggs
    06/09/2010 at 1:51 PM

    The defense motion says (in a footnote) that the police never attempted to interview Michael Price. Why the heck not??!! This is a stunning omission.

    • Phil
      06/09/2010 at 1:58 PM

      I’m unclear what this means….Michael Price’s partner at some point vouched for him; at some point the police knew about/received the diary entry saying he was home and/or skipped class (right? not 100% sure about that); it’s clear Michael Price was investigated, so I’m not sure what “never attempted to interview him” really means?

      Was it really an oversight? or was it not necessary? I’m going to assume the police/prosecution know the answer to this question, and this just may be smoke.

    • NYer
      06/09/2010 at 2:01 PM

      I’m not sure if by government, the defense means just AUSA, or all governmental entities, including the police. Still, it is stunning…

      • Phil
        06/09/2010 at 2:16 PM

        Eh, if it’s 2 sentences in a footnote, this tells me the defense doesn’t make that big a deal of it (for, presumably, very good reasons).

        Again, I’m just guessing–but if the defense isn’t jumping up and down about this, it probably doesn’t merit “stunning.”

  11. William
    06/09/2010 at 2:43 PM

    “It was the first time during trial that the defense was not united as a team” … but this was filed as a joint defense motion. Is this sending a signal that any rift in the defense teams has been mended and they are working together again?

    What did the prosecution filing say?

  12. Bill Orange
    06/09/2010 at 2:58 PM

    My brain hurts. Let me see if I understand this. The prosecution is alleging that Michael Price was somehow involved in the killing, in part because he missed his 5 PM-9:15 PM class that evening. And the DEFENSE volunteers that at 4:50 PM that night, Michael Price was right down the road from his class, but he decided to skip it after talking to his brother Joe on the phone. Do I have it about right? I’m stunned that no one proof-read this filing and said, “You know, maybe this doesn’t really help us as much as we think it does.”

    • NYer
      06/09/2010 at 3:24 PM

      I think their (defense’s) objective with that is to show MP was somewhere, and give him a legit alibi for not appearing in class.

      But I think their main objective is to assert that ANY evidence or assertion related to MP and his movements is speculative and irrelevant- especially if MP had a good and verifiable reason for not attending class. Which, as I mentioned above, is ridiculous, given MPs access and record of burglarizing 1509.

      But what’s somehwhat ironic is that the allowing of MP into the equation here would actually create a hypothetical scenario that comes closest to giving credence to the notion that an intruder had committed this crime.

      • Craig
        06/09/2010 at 3:31 PM

        NYer: I think the Govt is OK with that. Intruder, elf, tooth fairy or ninja; it doesn’t matter. The prosecution contends that whoever did the murder was known to the defendants and they are protecting his identity to this day.

        • tucsonwriter
          06/10/2010 at 12:47 AM

          Nice…. I like that…. Intruder, elf, tooth fairy or ninja….

          Other permutations?

    • Ohio
      06/10/2010 at 4:14 PM

      So, do Joe and Michael have the same attorney? This seems to be some kind of strategy on Joe’s part, that he is the only one objecting to Michael’s info. Also, by stating that Michael was at the Mom’s house and why he didn’t go to class, are they testifying for him? Wouldn’t he have to come to court and say this himelf? Just wondering.

  13. CC Biggs
    06/09/2010 at 3:49 PM

    Shouldn’t the defendants’ motion have included an affidavit by Michael Price in support of the assertions regarding his whereabouts on the day/night of the murder? The brief makes a number of factual assertions about Michel Price’s whereabouts, but those assertions are not backed up by any proof in the record. Shouldn’t the defendants have submitted an affidavit or similar sworn statement by Michael Price as evidence that these assertions about his wherebouts are true? Is the judge just supposed to accept these assertions as true even though they are untested and unsupported?

    • AnnaZed
      06/09/2010 at 4:02 PM

      Yes CC, this defense team seems to be big on the unsupported-assertion-put-forward-as-fact method of communication ~ toss it against the wall and if it sticks (sticks in the minds of observers, media and commentators is good enough) then great, if not, oh well. Like the assertion that Dylan’s knife is “in Seattle”; they got a lot of mileage out of that for a completely unsupported and unsupportable assertion, even so far as one reputable outlet reporting that the knife had been produced when it had not. It’s just a tactic, I am sure that Judge Leibovitz has seen it all before.

    • NYer
      06/09/2010 at 4:06 PM

      Interesting point, but the defense is ultimately making a legal argument here — not a factual one — to have evidence excluded based on legal precedent. Namely they’re arguing that the “evidence of third-party perpetration” is relevant and must not be “too remote in time and place” to be admitted.

      My take is that they are stating these factual assertions all for the sake of argument (as opposed to hard evidence)- that if the government is pointing out the significance that MP skipped class, well we have witnesses that were prepared to march into court who can testify to the contrary…and thus making MP inquiry a fishing expedition of sorts, thus irrelevant.

      • Faye Lewis
        06/09/2010 at 5:57 PM

        So let’s throw a party and see who comes. I’d like to get Louis and the moms on the stand.

        • NYer
          06/09/2010 at 6:11 PM

          That indeed would be interesting to see.

          Anyway, I realize what I wrote didn’t make much sense (stream-of-consciousness on my part). My basic point was they want to show that any evidence regarding MP is an undue waste of time and contravenes evidentiary precedent. (But ironically, to do so, they address MPs whereabouts in detail, in order to show irrelevance).

    • Hoya Loya
      06/09/2010 at 5:32 PM

      An affidavit might have been more persuasive but I’m not sure it’s required.

      I wonder, why make this motion now if the government has repeatedly speculated about MP “prior to and during trial?”

      The judge has previously ruled on the issue — why doesn’t the defense put on its witness(es) during its case and then ask the judge to exclude the MP theorizing from her final considerations.

      To answer Bill O.’s question above, I don’t think the explanation for the missed class is the real concern here, only the pretext for a more important general exclusion. After all the judge has already heard from the instructor. Maybe the defense is worried about further witnesses regarding MP — the MPD officer from the funeral and possibly Louis Hinton (maybe they are worried he may cave on the really crucial alibi for later in the evening). This motion, if granted, would eliminate those concerns.

      The motion also serves to forcibly remind the judge that two of the men on whom she will be passing judgment are the parents of young children.

      While the defense is taking a second pass at the MP issue, the government should think about asking for reconsideration of the restraints — they were excluded during a long, hot, tiring session back when prejudicial effect on a jury was still the major consideration. That’s not the case now.

      • chilaw79
        06/09/2010 at 11:27 PM

        The credibility of witnesses is a question of fact. I have seen affidavits that are not worth the paper they are printed upon, especially when you toss in questions of bias. A lover providing an alibi is always suspect.

        The judge is going to have to sort this all out. If one (or more) of the trouple did not murder Wone, then Michael Price is a potential alternative suspect. He had a key to the apartment, knew the layout of 1509 Swann, and later burglarized 1509 Swann. The defendants may be willing to cover up for him.

        I do not see the judge granting this motion in limine.

  14. ccf
    06/09/2010 at 4:55 PM

    My two sons are now in college. But ever since they were born and until high school, I devoted almost all my non-work (as in job) time to them. Getting up early, fixing breakfast and lunch, taking them to school and picking them up, cooking dinner, bathe them, read to them, coaching, etc. However, I would not miss a 4-hour class to take the training wheel off their bikes. Even if they were sick, their mom could watch them.

    Perhaps MP is completely innocent. But, to me, knowing the reason as presented in the motion makes him less so. Could he be involved in the planning of the assault of Robert which required him to be in the house before Robert’s arrival?

    Hinton’s testimony will be the key.

  15. Craig
    06/09/2010 at 5:59 PM

    Some have wondered if Michael Price was being kept far away from DC and the action while the trial is playing out. A friend tells us there was an actual Michael Price sighting earlier today, right in downtown DC.

    • Clio
      06/09/2010 at 9:58 PM

      Was it at Cosi?

  16. Occam's Razor
    06/09/2010 at 6:48 PM

    Let’s get back to the observation made in Craig’s post — that Victor and Dylan did not join in Joe’s earlier motion to exclude testimony concerning Michael. I would be interested in hearing from the legal experts as to whether that fact bears significance and — if so — how and why? What would V and D have to gain by allowing testimony as to M that would distinguish their interests from J’s on this point?

    • CC Biggs
      06/09/2010 at 7:10 PM

      The would “gain” by avoiding putting their names on a frivolous motion.

      • Occam's Razor
        06/09/2010 at 7:15 PM

        Perhaps, CC. But for the record. . . though I am not personally acquainted with Bernie Grimm, I have a friend who is a forensic psychologist and who appears in D.C. Superior Court frequently in cases requiring psychological evaluations. My friend is personally acquainted with BG, and cautions that BG should not be underestimated.

        • Bea
          06/09/2010 at 7:36 PM

          I don’t think anyone underestimates Grimm or Connolly (or Schertler). They’re very good.

          I am confused – is the Motion to exclude the Michael stuff signed by all three on June 1 simply written evidence of a PRIOR Motion that was Denied OR is it a RENEWED Motion that all three defendants now sign off on? What of the two defendants agreeing in open court that they did not join the prior Motion and tacitly or explicitly stating that the evidence re Michael Price is in fact relevant?

          I thought it was just dusting off old info to see what was in the written motion but now I don’t know since I can’t recall if that occurred before or after June 1. Help?

          • Hoya Loya
            06/09/2010 at 7:48 PM

            Aha, think you are right Bea. This is the old motion but with information that we didn’t hear about in court. Pardon any erroneous speculation on my part.

            • Bea
              06/09/2010 at 8:19 PM

              Was it Denied after June 1? – I can’t find it quickly enough!

        • Hoya Loya
          06/09/2010 at 7:40 PM

          I don’t think the motion is frivolous — Michael has always had an alibi and the new claim gives him an alibi for the missed class.

          Nobody is underestimating Bernie. He’s got a tough client — a lawyer (always difficult) who was friends with the victim, has a personality some find off-putting and who talked quite a bit to the police long before he was retained. He hasn’t yet come into his own in this trial — but if he wins this motion and keeps out the prosecution’s current pet theory that will be big.

          • BenFranklin
            06/09/2010 at 8:27 PM

            This motion forcefully flushes the last of the government’s lies & turds.

            Things are smelling pretty sweet for the defense.

            • Hoya Loya
              06/09/2010 at 8:40 PM

              Ben: I goofed — this is the same motion that was alread denied (see above).

              Otherwise, what I said about Bernie stands — my guess is we ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

            • Bea
              06/09/2010 at 8:44 PM

              Silly Ben, Tricks are for kin!

              • gertiestn
                06/09/2010 at 9:03 PM

                Excuse me, but that’s an almost perfect comment.

                • Bea
                  06/09/2010 at 9:05 PM

                  Thanks, Gertie.

    • WhatACase
      06/09/2010 at 9:29 PM

      So what have we learned? The defense admits that Michael and Joe spoke by telephone just before 5 pm. After the tooth fairy news, perhaps the conversation then led to the following: Michael: so Joe, what r u guys up to tonight? Joe: Robert is coming over and dyl and I are thinking of slipping him some special K and taking some fun pics. Michael: Damn, I have class tonight but I’d love to join in. Joe: blow off the class—we’ll see you later.”

  17. dcbill
    06/09/2010 at 7:27 PM

    I am having trouble buying this whole Michael Price is the murderer scenario. Sure his brother Joe took care of him, cleaned up after him, etc. But I really don’t see Joe taking the fall and going to prison for him. And I especially don’t see Victor or Dylan doing that. Already, they have lost jobs, houses, friends, money defending themselves–all for an errant brother? It doesnt’ make any sense to me.

    I know there has been endless speculation about BDSM play by some or all of these men that involved Robert and went horribly wrong, but it’s just that–speculation. I was in court when the prosecutor outlined his new theory with Michael as the murderer. I thought he was going out on a limb and I still do. It would have been simpler and more reasonable to posit that one or all three of the defendants was directly involved in the murder–however it went down–and were thus motivated to conspire, obstruct, tamper.

    • Bea
      06/09/2010 at 7:32 PM

      I tend to agree, dcbill, but actually I don’t think it matters WHO the defendants were conspiring/obstructing/tampering FOR – themselves or Michael. And frankly I don’t think the prosecution cares either – because they’ve left out the ‘ick’ factor stuff of restraints and assault, they’re having to stick with the basics on these charges and all they need is for them to be ‘protecting’ themselves or someone else. I kind of appreciate it in that the defendants have played their cards carefully, and now so too is the prosecution.

      • Carolina
        06/09/2010 at 9:14 PM

        I don’t know. I think by the time the other two, or at least Victor were dragged into it, Joe had already involved himself.

        No one is being charged with murder. Had that been the case, we might have seen things develop differently. I believe Joe convinced them that if they just hang together, they’ll walk. He just may be right.

        • WhatACase
          06/09/2010 at 9:47 PM

          I have no idea whether Michael was there or involved. Best argument that he WASN’T involved is is appearance at the VCB the morning after the murders, and his attendance at the funeral; if he were involved, I’d think Joe was smart enough to keep him very far away from the cops and the Wone family and friends. Michael is a loose cannon and wouldn’t be allowed to hang around with cops and the Wones.

          • Carolina
            06/11/2010 at 9:59 AM

            Joe hasn’t been too successful in making MP do much of anything, has he?

            And why, if Kathy is correct and she’d never met Michael, did MP attend the funeral and make a fool of himself with a tirade worthy of a reality show?

    • AJ
      06/09/2010 at 8:42 PM

      dcbill that assumes Michael acted alone, which I don’t buy, for a second. If Michael was involved, so were 1 or more of the roommates. This gives us motive for a cover-up. If MP had acted alone, you’re right, he’d be under the bus already.

      The prosecutors don’t have to prove MP was the murderer, they just have to lead us down that path.

      • Bea
        06/09/2010 at 8:47 PM

        Exactly, AJ.

      • tucsonwriter
        06/10/2010 at 1:04 AM

        Err…. I am on the west so I post so late I don’t feel part of the dialogue>>>> but I post anyway.

        And I posted this a few nights ago…. Michael may or may not have been involved in the actual murder but he was certainly involved in the cover up.

        • Elizabeth
          06/10/2010 at 1:34 AM

          Based on what? He had a key to the house and he missed class that night. Anything else?

  18. Just Wondering
    06/09/2010 at 8:40 PM

    So I don’t understand how the defense motion can properly include a “Factual Background” section that purports to set forth facts that are simply not in evidence. It’s not accompanied by an affidavit or declaration from any of the players that would be in a position to offer first-hand knowledge of those facts — Michael Price, Kim Musheno. It seems to me that the legal argument in the motion — that the MP evidence should be excluded as irrelevant and prejudicial — cannot properly be based upon counsel’s unsupported assertions of facts that are not in evidence. Right?

    • Bea
      06/09/2010 at 8:46 PM

      Just- I think this Motion was already denied. Certainly the substance of the Motion was denied once already – just don’t know if the defense is trying a do-over. You’re right that these are assertions and are not (yet) in evidence. If it’s reheard, then veracity of such claims would have to be considered – and the “alibi” of the hours in question has remained the same, namely that his then-boyfriend claims Michael was at home with him – hardly a stellar alibi.

    • NYer
      06/09/2010 at 10:19 PM

      That sounds correct, JustW. But also, there have been a lot of filings in this trial. Perhaps the affidavits already exist? Still nevertheless, it seems like it would be bad form for the defense not to cite these in the footnotes, if they do exist.

    • Bill Orange
      06/09/2010 at 11:34 PM

      Like just about everything else from the defense in this case, I’m guessing that the judge just assumes that these so-called factual assertions are “not for truth”.

      • tucsonwriter
        06/10/2010 at 1:06 AM

        Could someone explain that on a thread for tomorrow. What does the for truth and not for truth mean?

        • Bill 2
          06/10/2010 at 1:18 AM

          Good luck! It has been explained several times but I always get a headache before it begins to make sense.

        • Turtlejay
          06/10/2010 at 9:22 AM

          This may not be wise on my part but I’ll try to distinguish “for the truth” and “not for the truth.” 😉

          Speaker says: “It was hot.”
          If you’re using that statement for the Truth of the Matter Asserted (TOMA), you will infer that it was hot.
          If you’re NOT using that statement for TOMA, you may use it to infer that is why Speaker jumped in the swimming pool. It may or may not have been hot but Speaker thought so and jumped in the pool.

          Speaker says: “He’s the most despicable, untrustworthy Guy who ever lived.”
          If you’re using the statement for TOMA, you will infer that Guy tells awful lies and can’t be relied on.
          If you’re not using that statement for TOMA, you may use it to infer that Speaker will not be entering into a business partnership with Guy. That is, maybe Guy is really great and honest but Speaker does not think so, so even if we don’t use Speaker’s statement for TOMA (we can’t ourselves know that Guy is awful), since we know that is Speaker’s opinion we can make other inferences that are not based on the TOMA of the statement (e.g., now that we know Speaker has that opinion, we can infer how Speaker relates to Guy).

          So basically, sometimes you may use a statement not to show the TOMA but to show Speaker’s state of mind (he subjectively thought it was hot, but not that it objectively actually was hot). Or you might use it to show Speaker’s state of knowledge (he should have known not to go into business with Guy – not because Guy actually was untrustworthy and despicable – but because Speaker “knew” or believed that Guy was untrustworthy and despicable”).

          Clear as the Gulf of Mexico?

      • KiKi
        06/10/2010 at 10:05 AM

        Whether or not something is for the truth of the matter asserted is a legal standard that (for the most part) deals with witness hearsay comments.

        The question, I think, here is why the defense can make bold assertions in a motion, without attaching any affidavits. The answer is, as someone stated before, the point of the written motion is to address legal arguments. The judge looks at the motion and says “assuming the facts are true does the defense have a cognizable legal argument” ( do the alleged fact sustain the objection?). If the answer is yes, then the judge can ask the defense to prove up the facts alleged before ruling or withhold her ruling allowing the government to prove relevance. More than likely in this situation the judge has found (or will find) that even assuming the defense can prove up the facts in the motion, the objection does not hold legal muster.

        On a practical level it is not within the defendant’s interest to take or turn over any statements by any witnesses in the motion. Any statement taken by the defense will have to be turned over to the prosecution but only if the defense calls the witness to the stand. So in jurisdictions such as DC, with a Jenks Act it is not good defense practice to take affidavits and statements from potential witnesses.

  19. curiousdc
    06/09/2010 at 9:35 PM

    Speaking of family matters, any sighting of Joe’s parents at the courthouse over the past few weeks?

  20. christy love
    06/10/2010 at 12:40 AM

    IF.WE.COULD.ONLY.SEE.THE.PHONE.RECORDS!!

    Seeing the cellphone tower pings and phone calls made by the trouple, the wayward brother, and sarah BEFORE the murder, this would clear up 70% of the unanswered questions. Of course, after the murder there would not be much to see. Joe knew not to use it afterward.

    • NYer
      06/10/2010 at 5:52 AM

      Yes, good point, Christy, one that I hadn’t really focused on before: phone records *before* the murder. My attention had been on post-Aug. 2 activity — JP’s communication and e-mails, Cosi breakfast, etc.

      Eds.– anything in Kirschner’s opening that referenced phone records?

    • Bill Orange
      06/10/2010 at 7:33 AM

      “Joe knew not to use it afterward.”

      I’m not so sure. Based on the porn on Joe’s office computer, I think he can be quite reckless. In any case, I’m more interested in who Michael called right after the murder. We know Joe made a flurry of phone calls after the murder that night, which is pretty understandable. What I want to know is, did anybody call Joe BEFORE they could’ve found out about the murder? If Michael Price called Joe at 1:30 AM for no apparent reason, then I think we’re pretty much done.

      • christy love
        06/10/2010 at 10:21 AM

        Well he kept saying in his interrogation “you can check the phone records, you can check the phone records, you can check the phone records.” So I am assuming the ones before the murder might be more interesting, but, you never know.

        I’m inclined to believe these phone records might not say much, since we hear so little about them. Or could it be yet another screw up by the police? If I kill someone, I am luring them to D.C.

    • BadShoes
      06/10/2010 at 10:37 AM

      Well, there is various indications in the press reports that the Prosecution has access to the defendant’s phone records. If the phone records were helpful to the prosecution’s case, then they would have been referenced in the indictment.

      Similarly, IMHO, the defendants would have mentioned or explained any phone calls they might have made between 10pm and midnight, even (especially) if their overall story was untrue.

      Phone calls prior to 10pm might be suggestive, but not really conclusive of anything. Phone calls between roommates and brothers are routine occurrences, and could arguably have been innocently overlooked by the various dramatis personae in their statements to police.

      Tower pings may or may not have been collected, but they show the location of the phone, not the person. Also, I should think pings would be accurate only to within a neighborhood, rather than a building. Conceivably, pings could suggest (but not prove) that the alibis of Ms. Morgan and Michael Price are true or false. For various reasons, I believe both alibis are more likely to be true than false.

      So, I think that seeing the phone records and tower pings probably wouldn’t help. One might have wanted to look for “outlier” calls to someone who has no obvious connection to the case.

      • christy love
        06/10/2010 at 10:52 AM

        I understand all of that, I still would like to see them.

        • Bill Orange
          06/10/2010 at 11:00 AM

          Ditto. I really want to know if someone started making phone calls in the middle of the night prior to someone telling them that Wone had been killed.

        • emg
          06/10/2010 at 6:24 PM

          I don’t know how phones work in Dc but if you have a comcast bundle there are NO hard line phone records. I also know tht Verizon wireless only keeps phone reords for 3 months. If the police didn’t jump on it they might have been lost- just as the blackberry info.

  21. Archduke
    06/10/2010 at 1:29 PM

    I am not sure if Michael is the killer, but my hunch is that Michael was the “bag” man. He was there, helped in the cleanup and then was tasked with disposing the knife, bloody towels, etc.

    If I remember correctly, the police did search Michael’s place in NE, although I don;t think they found anything.

    Perhaps the reason Robert asked Victor to inquire about the time with the 911 operator was to make sure Michael had enough time to get out of the neigborhood before anyone showed up. They guessed it might take Michael 10-15 minutes to ditch the items and then get out of the neighborhood so they delayed calling. That might also be why Victor did request the police arrive.

    It would look pretty bad to have your druggie brother spotted near the scene of a murder.

    • Archduke
      06/10/2010 at 1:30 PM

      Sorry for the typo — That might be why Victor did not request the police, just the EMT.

  22. tucsonwriter
    06/10/2010 at 2:17 PM

    Forensic psychology….. now that would be interesting in this case.

    For some reason the image that strikes me in all of this is the one of Joe Price at William and Mary talking at great length to Victor Wone’s parents on his college tour. JP as tour guide is a great success. Robert Wone does enroll and becomes an outstanding student and graduates with honors, etc.

    The years go by. Robert Wone, who is an active human being known for being involved in humanitarian issues and is staying late in town so he can meet the very real people on the late shift at the radio station he is legal counsel for….. decides to stay in the home of Joe Price – where he is turned from a human being into an object that can’t move and then murdered.

    Suppose there is a history of abuse in the Price household from childhood onward. The two brothers are rather classic, the older an overachiever, the younger messed up and underachieving. Both have a taste for (and I am saying this in light of a history of abuse not as a judgement call) “aggressive” sexual practices. If they come from an abusive family, that would have been a “secret” they kept while acting normal. If someone is abused by their parents they generally are the most loyal person in the world to that parent. So they develop a “false” self that goes out and performs in the world, while the real or abused self festers inside.

    Depending on the level of abuse – this kind of personality disorder can result in the type of extremes that you see in the classic psychopath – childhood of ripping the wings of flies, torturing small animals, etc. The great writer W. G. Sebald introduces the figure of the butterfly catcher in his book , “The Emmigrants.” To go and catch a butterfly and then pin it up in some book for your personal collection may seem innocent to some but I find it chilling. It is the same chill factor that emerges in this case. Here is an innocent person who is very well meaning that has been turned into an object that is then violated.

    I think the very fact that Robert Wone was such an exemplary human being is a very vital fact in this case. That unleashed something in someone. Who that someone is is hard to say because another one of the features of this case is the abundance of nice material stuff – a pretty solid indicator of narcissism. Look good, have nice stuff, have an important job, have it all look good on the surface. Can’t have anything look bad- oops look at all the blood. Better clean that up.

  23. emg
    06/10/2010 at 6:30 PM

    Can anyone explain how someone can get accepted into a phlebotomy program when they are HIV positive and a drug addict? That is scarey. It would seem that any application would ask those questions.

    Is it possible that Louis Hinton could get on the stand and recant the “alibi?” Or does this have to be disclosed to the defense ahead of time as part of discovery.

    • Bill 2
      06/10/2010 at 7:00 PM

      “Is it possible that Louis Hinton could get on the stand and recant the “alibi?” Or does this have to be disclosed to the defense ahead of time as part of discovery.”

      There are a lot of “ifs” involved. If he lied, maybe he doesn’t want to give advance notice that he’ll tell the truth in court. If he lied, he may be afraid for his life and will continue to lie. If, no matter what the topic of the first question may be, he suddenly blurts out that he slept alone the night of the murder, he may need protection or end up with three stab wounds in his chest.

    • BadShoes
      06/13/2010 at 12:55 PM

      “Is it possible…?”

      Well, anything is possible. It seems very, very, unlikely to me for a long list of reasons. Assuming that Mr. Hinton testifies as expected, though, his testimony will put the prosecution and defense in yet another strange dilemma.

      –The prosecution must assert that Mr. Hinton is testifying fully, truthfully and accurately about Michael Price’s alleged entry into 1509 Swann Street, but would probably also like to at least hint that Mr. Hinton is untruthful or mistaken with respect to Michael Price’s alibi. How they gonna do that?

      –The defense has the reverse dilemma, but the horns aren’t as sharp. They can argue that Mr. Hinton’s testimony is always truthful and accurate, but that since Mr. Hinton’s testimony exonerates Michael Price, all the brouhaha about Michael Price and the burglary is irrelevant. I don’t think they will try to impeach Mr. Hinton’s testimony on the specifics of the burglary episode.

      • AnnaZed
        06/13/2010 at 4:44 PM

        What exact testimony could Mr. Hinton offer with reference to the burglary itself? Also, I am not clear on this but didn’t the burglary coincide with Mr.Hinton falsely reporting that Michael stole his car in an effort to get Michael rounded up? Isn’t filing a false police report a very serious matter? Is that part of the story just a rumor? If true, even though Mr. Hinton alibied Michael for the night of the murder his testimony would be tainted for both sides by virtue of his demonstrated willingness to lie to authorities to suit his own purposes. (Right?)

        • Hoya Loya
          06/13/2010 at 5:03 PM

          Can’t Hinton say that he gave Micheal permission, but that after learning of the circumstances decided that Michael was essentially AWOL and therefore called the cops on him?

          • AnnaZed
            06/13/2010 at 5:07 PM

            I don’t know if the cops consider that there is any wiggle room like that for adults, a teenager maybe. I think calling the cops and saying that someone stole your car but then amending it to say that actually you gave them the keys but weren’t happy with where you thought they might be going wouldn’t sit all that well with them. If that’s what happened.

            • Bea
              06/13/2010 at 8:06 PM

              My guess is that if Louis ‘rolled’ on Michael & Co. he’d get a free pass on the false reporting!

  24. anon
    06/13/2010 at 11:48 AM

    Is this the child of Price and Zaborsky? If so, it is extremely odd that Michael Price, the child’s uncle, was alerted to the tooth-losing and even went over to share in this “domestic event” prior to Joe Price and Zaborsky (the actual parents) even learning about it. Also, it seems very strange to me that two rather large events in a child’s life — losing a tooth (the first one, might i add) and riding a bike without training wheels — happened to take place on the same day. Another coincidence.

    The defense had to come up with something for Michael to be doing long enough for it to warrant missing his class. Chit-chatting about losing a tooth and the tooth fairy wasn’t going to cut it; thus, they brought in this (rather ludicrous) bike scenario. If there’s push-back on why this warranted missing a 4-hour class, they’ll probably throw in that, after losing a tooth, having his training wheels removed, and learning to ride his bike, this kid then learned to tie his shoes, write in cursive, and had his first date. Hearing this story gives me the same feeling I get when I hear the “there was a fire on the grill, there was a bug on the light” routines – i.e that they are totally random and likely fabricated.

    I lost many a tooth and the last people I cared to call about it (much less have come over) were my uncles, to whom I am actually quite close. It is bizarre and completely unlikely. I wonder how this child would feel to know his major life events are being used to obstruct justice.

    • AnnaZed
      06/13/2010 at 12:33 PM

      I don’t think that it’s quite possible for Victor and Joe to share fatherhood of the same child. One child is Victor’s child and there is a second child fathered by Joe; so these boys are brothers (step brothers I guess).

      I too am less than impressed by this piece of evidence, but am not sure what part of it is making me ping the most. I guess the main problem for me is the testimony (do we have actual testimony from the mother or just another assertion by a lawyer?) of the mother. I feel certain that she is highly invested, really very very highly invested, in the belief that these men are innocent of all charges. I don’t mean in a monetary sense but in a profound emotional sense because they are the fathers of her children. I am afraid that I think it just possible that she would be motivated to lie to protect them, more family circling the wagons.

      The question of why Victor would continue to lie and hold the line in this situation is often speculated upon on this blog. I have opined before that I think that he just can’t face the mother of his child or the child himself and tell the truth. Victor is very invested in the image that he has of himself as a model for modern parenting which up until that night he probably was and he just can’t let go of it I think. I think he would prefer protesting his innocence from prison for most of the rest of his life to facing his child and Joe’s child and saying, “your brother’s Daddy murdered someone son, and I helped cover it up.” I think that he can’t and won’t do that unless something forces his hand, and threat of incarceration will not be enough.

Comments are closed.