Day 17: Updates

4pm Update: An Early Day

The day’s wrap is coming soon.  Until then:

Nicholas Petraco finished cross and re-direct, and the court rose.  Tomorrow, one witness for the defense; court reconvenes at 2:15 pm. 

1:30 Update: In-and-Out Burger

Surprise!  Defense had asked to regroup mid-way through Petraco’s testimony, leading to a 10 minute break.  Reconvening, Schertler rose to announce “no more questions, your Honor.” 

“Does the government wish to begin cross? asked the bench.  “Actually your Honor, we would prefer to take a lunch break now.”  *sigh*  Court sits at 2pm with the start of cross, likely by Rachel Carlson Lieber.

Sharp eyes did notice Doug Deedrick departing Moultrie with Kirschner and Martin.   Any guesses as to the topic of discussion over lunch among those three?  No wonder Carlson Lieber called for a lunch break.

Despite the defense winning dismissal of evidence tampering charges against Ward and Zaborsky, there seemed to be little apparent joy.  Zaborsky smiled and nodded, and turned to Ward for a brief acknowledgment.  Price remained stoic, and the legal teams on both sides seemed unsurprised. 

Another observation: while Dr. Fowler commanded the witness stand, and Doug Deedrick himself at least held the full room’s attention, Mr. Petraco seems to know how to clear a room.  We don’t mean to be catty – certainly his testimony is important, and he knows his stuff.  But he seems less to command the witness stand and more just occupy it. 

Lastly, on this day – the 16th anniversary of the O.J. Simpson car chase – we note the continuing presense of much of Washington’s media stalwarts.  Shout-outs to Keith Alexander (WaPo), Pat Collins (WRC-TV), Mark Segraves (WTOP Radio), Paul Wagner (WTTG-TV), Steven Tschida (WJLA-TV/News8), Emily Babay (DC Examiner) and Rend Smith (City Paper) for near perfect attendance.   Also clear: Lynn Leibovitz is no Lance Ito.  

Last, we always appreciate meeting readers – do feel free to drop by and introduce yourselves.   We’re easy to spot.

 

12:30 Update:

We’re in short break from expert testimony from the defense’s first witness, one Nicholas Petraco, a hair and fiber forensic expert.  The thrust of his testimony under direct of David Schertler so far: the colorless fibers found on the recovered knife, Robert’s t-shirt and the white cotton towel as indistinguishable. 

An update on schedule: the defense intends to bring 8 witnesses, 5 or 6 of them expert.  Their case will take 5-6 days “…at the outside…”, with just Petraco today, and only one witness tomorrow (assuming Petraco is finished.)   The defense had sought to take a day to “reload” as Grimm termed it, but Leibovitz was unconvinced.  “I’d like to have a trial here,” she noted. 

So barring changes, trial starts late Friday at 2pm; Monday will be a full day.

11:10am Update:  BULLETIN

On the defense motion to acquit, Judge Lynn Leibovitz only rolls back two charges: tampering on Ward and Zaborsky. 

All other charges of obstruction of justice and conspiracy remain in play.  Price still has all three charges hanging over him.  The defense will proceed with their case today.

9:15am Update:  What We Promised

Court reconvenes at 11:00am to hear the last of the government’s response, and defense counter, to the motion to acquit brought under Rule 29.  We expect Judge Leibovitz to rule quickly on each of the defendants, and then move to the defense case…if one is needed.

Left to Right: Schertler & Onorato associate Veronica Jennings, Joe Price, Dylan Ward and Victor Zaborsky

Yesterday was fairly thick in content, and with it all we were unable to offer something we felt important for the record: as much of Dr. David Fowler’s direct testimony as we could offer…keeping in mind we are not court reporters. 

When we use quotes here, we’re reasonably confident it’s a mostly accurate quote.  Lack of quotation marks signals our best summation of his comments, and ellipses mark breaks in his comments. 

For the record, State of Maryland Chief Medical Examiner, Fowler studied at the University of Cape Town, where he specialized in forensic pathology.  There he personally conducted around 3,000 autopsies, many of them sharp force trauma (there are about 8 stabbings for every shooting in the RSA, which is almost reverse in the USA.) 

Fowler came to the U.S., took additional training in anatomic and forensic pathology, and has been with the Maryland Medical Examiner’s office since. 

In reviewing the case, Dr. Fowler saw autopsy records, photos, police records and various tissue samples.  He specifically examined Robert’s sternum, heart and pericardial sac, and reviewed x-rays of Robert’s chest.

Quotes from Dr. Fowler, as best we could catch them, follow.

-Courtroom artwork courtesy of WTTG-TV and William Hennessy, Jr.

Fowler on direct:

“The orientation of the wounds…in the 10 o’clock to 4 o’clock position…immediately catches your eye.   It’s very unusual…for an individual to say still enough…” to not cause any deformities.  “Once you go further, the depth is almost identical, and the wound paths also.”

Kirschner: Have you ever seen such uniformity in a case such as this?

Fowler: Not with this degree of precision, no.

On stabbing a human:

The sternum has 2 layers; an outer layer, a marrow core and an inner layer. “It’s a substantial bone…it’s surprisingly easy to pass a knife through a human in most situations.  Skin is like old leather…and the muscles are like meat, very much like a steak.  Bone is another matter, it’s very resistant and will take substantial force.”

On the needle marks:

“There are two spots on the lateral side of the anticubital fossa (elbow)…it looks like they came near or after the time of death (as there was a lack of minor hemorrhage.)  There are two more wounds on the ankle however with signs of hemorrhage, which suggests antemortem wounds.”

On defensive wounds:

“Defensive wounds are associated with defensive posturing – you either withdraw yourself from a noxious stimulus or you place something in the way.   It’s reflexive; if something comes at your eye you can’t help but blink…The hands, back of hands, back of forearms, even the feet – any extremity that’s not vital…The lack of blood on his hands was somewhat remarkable, because in addition to protecting yourself, you normally grasp at a wound.”

On “defects” to wounds:

“There’s usually relative movement: the wounds zigzag on the top, elongate at the bottom…there are abrasions, and multiple wound paths.”

Kirschner: Did you find any of those imperfections on Mr. Wone?

Fowler: No

On cardiac tamponade:

Closed tamponade is normally seen in clinical practice.  The pericardial sac is completely closed, but there’s been a defect in, say, the aorta while attempting to insert a stent.  Open tamponade – there’s a hole in the pericardial sac as well, so there’s partial release. ” The slit in his (Robert’s) paricardial sac is almost the same size of the aortic hole – so it’s going to take longer to fill.”

Kirschner: Were any of Robert’s wounds immediately incapacitating?

Fowler: Not in my opinion.

Kirschner: Were all three of Robert’s wounds together immediately incapacting?

Fowler: No.

Kirschner: Were any of them instantly fatal?

Fowler: No. 

Kirschner: Could he have moved?

Fowler: Yes

Kirschner: Reflexively, would you have expected him to move?

Fowler: Yes.

Kirschner: Does some degree of open tamponade override reflexive movement?

Fowler: No.

Kirschner: How long could he have survived these wounds?

Fowler: Minutes.

Kirschner: Would any of those injuries incapacitated him?

Fowler: He would lose consciousness at some point, perhaps :45 seconds to 1 minute.

Kirschner: Could he have moved in that minute?

Fowler: That’s the usual definition of consciousness.

Kirschner: Have you identified any reason why he couldn’t move?

Fowler: No.

Kirschner: Did he move?

Fowler: No. 

More updates to follow on Judge Leibovitz’ ruling on the pending defense the motion to acquit.

298 comments for “Day 17: Updates

  1. weaver
    06/17/2010 at 10:03 AM

    What happened to Robert was so horrific…. it makes me really sad that this is not a murder trial. I can only hope that the sub-human things that did this to him will eventually face murder charges and never see freedom again.

    • Also From the Post Story
      06/17/2010 at 12:09 PM

      > the sub-human things that did this

      OT, but no. The human tragedy is that they were as human as you or me, and much of the time their nature is probably about the same. Just not always. “Sub-human” is an utter falsification to avoid facing tragic realities.

      • Carolina
        06/17/2010 at 12:41 PM

        That’s what’s truly frightening, isn’t it? They’re just men, like you and me, walking down the street one day and the next…

  2. Elizabeth
    06/17/2010 at 10:05 AM

    Editors – thanks so much. It seems to me Fowler and Kirschner did a splendid job. Anything nearly this powerful on any of the crosses?

  3. Farmer Ginny
    06/17/2010 at 10:14 AM

    At what point was Fowler brought into this? Since the death occurred in DC, it seems odd that the Maryland ME would be examining the corpse.

    • Bill Orange
      06/17/2010 at 10:21 AM

      I’m going to guess (and I’m stressing that I’m totally guessing here) that he was brought in fairly early on. I think everyone involved realized very early on that this was going to be a very unusual case, and they probably wanted to get their experts lined up as quickly as possible. My impression from the post above is that he examined the actual body, not just the photographs. Eds, is this correct?

      • Craig
        06/17/2010 at 10:28 AM

        Bill O: I’m uncertain if Fowler was at the autopsy, but I’m guessing not. That fact would’ve come out in his testimony if that was inded the case. IIRC, the government listed Fowler as a possible witness a couple months back during the whole expert disclosure process.

        With the trial reconvening @ 11:00am, maybe we can expect to hear about Leibovitz’ ruling on the acquital motion around 1:00pm.

      • leo
        06/17/2010 at 10:56 AM

        No Dr. Fowler was not at the autopsy. He later met with the DC Med Examiner and was given permission to review the photographs and tissue samples from Robert’s autopsy. He was presented as a expert witness, not because he was present at the autopsy. As an expert, he provided some bolstering to the actual DC med examiner’s (Dr. Goslinoski’s) testimony, and his opinions will stand in opposition to those offered by various defense experts that are listed to be called in the defense case, if it comes to that.

    • Three Strikes
      06/17/2010 at 10:35 AM

      Farmer Ginny, It is my understanding that Dr. Fowler was called in later as an expert of stab wounds to testify on the prosecution’s behalf.

    • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
      06/17/2010 at 10:37 AM

      I belive he was brought in as an expert witness. An expert witness isn’t limited to a jurisdiction.

  4. Atlanta
    06/17/2010 at 10:27 AM

    Why would what Price has said was an intruder or burglar break into a home, tiptoe upstairs, pass the first bedroom, and stab a SLEEPING man? For what reason? And then do it again two more times? And then tidy up a bit. And then tiptoe out of the house? Defense argument makes no sense. And then if he was killed right away re defense what about those screams defendants said they heard?

    • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
      06/17/2010 at 10:39 AM

      Anything the defendants say is subject to scrutiny. It could be another part of their story.

      However, the scream the neighbors heard is important testimony.

      • weaver
        06/17/2010 at 10:52 AM

        Speaking of scrutiny and the scream– If people are deliberately tampering with evidence, the scene, etc, and planning to lie about what happened, then it makes sense to me to fake a scream too. They know the acoustics of the townhouse and that a scream would likely be heard by somebody to bolster their ridiculous claim that an intruder broke in and stabbed Wone.

        • Carolina
          06/17/2010 at 11:28 AM

          The scream actually screws their timeline, so no.

          • weaver
            06/17/2010 at 12:26 PM

            So do you think there was a scream due to an intruder?

            • Carolina
              06/17/2010 at 12:43 PM

              No. Again, I’d use the search function or google “Scream” and you’ll see the most logical is that it was Victor, coming upon the scene– alone.

          • KKinCA
            06/17/2010 at 12:44 PM

            Good point Carolina. Also, a scream could cause a neighbor’s call to 911 and the arrival of police. I doubt the scream was part of the plan.

      • Just Wondering
        06/17/2010 at 12:37 PM

        Remind me – did the neighbors claim to hear Victor’s screaming or a stabbing-type scream? I know they may not have distinguished in their testimony, but in terms of timing, is the proscecution’s theory that the neighbors heard Victor or that the neighbors heard the stabbing?

        • Carolina
          06/17/2010 at 12:44 PM

          Since we know Robert couldn’t have screamed, you can pretty much narrow it down to Victor, who said himself and was backed up by Joe that he screamed when he came into the room.

  5. PC
    06/17/2010 at 10:42 AM

    One thing I’ve wondered about is whether Mr. Wone’s blood was drained before he was stabbed. The presence of needle-marks with bruising seems to indicate that may be the case. Assuming his blood was drained, it would explain why there was so little blood evidence at the scene. Have similar theories been raised by the police or the prosecutors? I can’t seem to find much discussion along these lines. Have I just missed a big chunk of the conspiracy discussion, or is the government saving that theory for a possible case against Michael Price?

    Also, I’d like to give a big thank-you to the editors of this site. You are doing a great job, and I really appreciate how much effort you are putting into this resource. Thank you.

    • leo
      06/17/2010 at 10:59 AM

      The “vampire theory” has been posited and discussed by some commenters on this site but not by anyone on the prosecution team, to my knowledge.

      • can'tstopreading
        06/17/2010 at 12:32 PM

        I would prefer to refer to it as the “phlebotomy” theory.

    • weaver
      06/17/2010 at 10:59 AM

      PC I too have been wondering about the missing blood. I can’t think of any reason to drain his blood, but I can see reasons for a clean up of a bloody scene, sheets, etc. The killer(s) dna could likely be tied to the act.

      It’s pretty apparent the murder weapon is missing, but so are the needles, the incapacitating drugs, the blood.

      The defendants claim Robert showered and went to bed, but it was determined he did not shower, and his clothes in a pile on the floor indicate he did not undress himself. So they lied about the entire night. Poor Mr. Wone never showered or went to bed.

      • cinnamon
        06/17/2010 at 11:20 AM

        “I can’t think of any reason to drain his blood”

        Maybe they thought they could remove traces of drugs from his blood?

        • Three Strikes
          06/17/2010 at 12:27 PM

          exactly.

          • Carolina
            06/17/2010 at 12:46 PM

            Do you have any idea how long it would take to drain 2 liters of blood? Just curious.

            • AnnaZed
              06/17/2010 at 1:00 PM

              Actually, I do know the answer to this, though I hadn’t given it a moment’s thought relative to this case until you asked.

              I am a frequent blood donor (I have O-negative blood which they always want so they email me and I trot on over once the required time between donations has past).

              When a trained phlebotomist (which I am pretty sure the Red-Cross people must be ~ though now I may never look at that credential the same way again) hooks me up to the line it takes about 20 minutes for them to extract 2 pints. They tell me that I am “fast,” presumably due to heart rate or something. So, do the math. Far too long for this time-frame I think when you add the time to drug, incapacitate, draw blood, murder and wash a person. I think that should put the vampire theories to rest (as it were).

              • Carolina
                06/17/2010 at 1:38 PM

                A+ for giving blood and new information. Thanks, AZ.

              • can'tstopreading
                06/17/2010 at 1:39 PM

                But could you draw 4 pints (which is roughly 2 liters) in the same amount of time if you were drawing from two sites?

                If he was incapacitated by the blood draw, that might still work with the timeline–20 minutes to incapacitate, 1 hour+ for everything else.

                • PC
                  06/17/2010 at 1:53 PM

                  Also, is it possible that you might be able to draw more blood using different gauge needles and tubing? What if you had a dialysis machine? Perhaps the tools used when giving blood may be selected specifically to slow the blood draw process for the comfort of the giver…there may be ways to speed up the process.

                  • Carolina
                    06/17/2010 at 2:13 PM

                    Where would one find, let alone hide, a dialysis machine?

                    • PC
                      06/17/2010 at 2:28 PM

                      I’m not suggesting that one was used, only that there may be diff. speeds of blood draws.

                    • Elizabeth
                      06/17/2010 at 2:35 PM

                      Carig’s List!

                    • gertiestn
                      06/17/2010 at 3:39 PM

                      In the pork loin?

            • ccf
              06/17/2010 at 3:06 PM

              Is it possible that they drain the blood directly from the stab wounds, perhaps with the help of a chest tube?

              Disclaimer: some medical research background but freely gives medical advices. More like a warning.

        • Tribe97
          06/17/2010 at 3:39 PM

          The problem to me with the whole draining blood theory is that, as AZ said, it takes 20 minutes to donate 2 liters and AZ is a fast draw *due to heart rate.* If the blood draw discussed here was postmortem, you have *no pumping heart* to help move the blood out.

          • weaver
            06/17/2010 at 3:49 PM

            If Wone was stabbed and then placed in a prone position, could the blood have drained out to that extent?

            With that much missing blood, and little blood on the sheet, then there must be a sheet or some kind of mat under him that was discarded. I believe somebody mentioned some kind of play mat, but I’m not sure what that is, can anyone tell me?

            • ccf
              06/17/2010 at 3:57 PM

              They might have taken Robert to the back and drain his blood down the drain and then clean up with a hose. Some of us theorized that a play mat normally used for BDSM was used to carry him.

              The draining of blood at the back would explain the detection of blood by a cadavar dog and the defendants explanation that water was used to put out a grille fire.

            • Babs
              06/17/2010 at 4:47 PM

              Could the stabbing have occurred in the shower and the blood went down the drain?

          • cinnamon
            06/17/2010 at 3:58 PM

            I think that Fowler testified that the puncture wounds around the ankle looked to have been administered prior to death.

          • Rapt in MD
            06/17/2010 at 4:08 PM

            I believe he was drained hanging over the bathtub or shower and cleaned there. I think he bled out, more than was stuck and allowed to drain through a tube. I believe the pre-death needle marks were from drug administration. Because the semen was found on his groin and his thighs(as well as inside), it suggests to me that the clean up involved only his upper body, i.e. torso in shower, lower half outside shower. Alternatively-torso over patio drain. Both scenarios could allow for management of the direction of blood to the extent that the bottom half of the body could remain unwashed. Opinion only.

            • weaver
              06/17/2010 at 4:14 PM

              But why would anyone want to drain the blood out? I don’t get that, which is why I wonder if he just bled out due to body position and then whatever he was laying on had to be discarded because it had other evidence that did not go to an intruder.

              • Bill 2
                06/17/2010 at 4:32 PM

                Perhaps Plan A, calling for the body to be dumped in an empty lot, was to put blood around the body in that location.

                It’s thought the Victor’s scream ended Plan A when they realized the scream could bring the cops at any moment.

                Bloody playmat, towels, weapon, cleaning gear, cameras, drugs, etc., may all have been sent away from the house before the EMT people arrived.

                Knowing how those guys lived, do you really think the house would be empty of all drugs (except one little pill), S&M playmats, and cameras?

              • ccf
                06/17/2010 at 4:41 PM

                To get rid of traces of drugs?

                If plan A was to dump his body. In a supposedly random stabbing, drugs would raise suspicion.

                • Bill 2
                  06/17/2010 at 4:51 PM

                  Plan A, so it’s thought, did not include putting drugs with the body. The cleanup of weapons, clues, drugs, cameras, etc. was a result of the end of Plan A. They had to prepare for the arrival of police. Don’t you think they would want to remove all drugs from the house if police were on the way?

      • QQS
        06/17/2010 at 3:53 PM

        Also, the bedsheets were never turned down on the sofabed. Wone was lying on top of the any covers. He never went to bed.

        • DonnaH
          06/17/2010 at 4:26 PM

          The sheets could have been changed. I recall that there was indication of blood on the sofa (as well as the walls etc.) but because of the misapplication of Ashley’s reagent, that wasn’t proven.

        • Carolina
          06/17/2010 at 5:32 PM

          They were turned down at a 45 degree angle.

      • DonnaH
        06/17/2010 at 4:21 PM

        Actually, previous discussion here makes me think that he did most likely get to bed. The most convincing evidence was some discussion of the mouth guard or teeth guard (sorry, forget the exact term) that he used nightly to prevent his grinding his teeth. I recall one poster saying that insertion of such a device was not easy and took some active jaw movement on the user’s part, which made it highly unlikely that another person could have inserted it properly into the mouth of an unconscious Robert. I also recall it being said–perhaps by Kathy Wone, you could check that–that it was the last thing he did before going to sleep.

        As for not taking a shower, do you know how that was determined? –The only relevant fact I can recall is that there were two unused guest towels in his room. I would imagine any guest towels there might have been used in the cleanup and then replaced with clean ones, so it’s possible (no factual evidence either way) that he did shower. But he would have done so before inserting the mouth guard. And I imagine his clothes could have been moved by the defendant(s) who didn’t think to replace them exactly as they’d found them, but in some way that in the moment seemed logical to them.

        • Carolina
          06/17/2010 at 5:33 PM

          Well, he sure wasn’t wet. I don’t care how well you towel-dry your hair, it’s still wet.

    • Rebecca
      06/17/2010 at 11:06 AM

      I wondered the exact same thing.

      Could Michael Price have been involved? He was known to Robert Wone and was taking some sort of phlebotomy course. If he had asked to test his skills on Robert in a friendly context it is likely that Robert would have said yes. He could have used that opportunity to inject Robert with a drug that incapacitated him and used that opportunity to withdraw the blood.

      Even though I can imagine that scenario, I still can’t come up with any logical reason why Michael Price or anyone else would want to remove Robert’s blood. That’s the problem with this case. We can come up with all sorts of ways to explain HOW but very few to explain WHY.

      • AnnaZed
        06/17/2010 at 11:18 AM

        “…If he had asked to test his skills on Robert in a friendly context it is likely that Robert would have said yes.”

        I don’t know about all that. I can’t imagine a friendly scenario where I would allow someone known to me who was not a notorious drug addict to practice blood drawing on he, let alone someone like Michael Price.

      • PC
        06/17/2010 at 11:22 AM

        Rebecca, I can’t think of a logical reason to kill Robert, let alone drain his blood. It just seems to explain a lot: why he didn’t defend himself (unconscious) and how the scene is cleaned up so quickly and thoroughly. Was it an experiment gone wrong? Just as you wrote, there’s very little WHY in this case.

      • Also From the Post Story
        06/17/2010 at 2:54 PM

        Why? As a logical part of Plan A: so the body wouldn’t leave a messy trail as they (or someone) carried it out to their car, transported it in the car, and disposed of it in the woods far away where it wouldn’t be found for months, if ever.

    • ccf
      06/17/2010 at 11:10 AM

      There are discussions here of draing of blood, and a cadavar dog detected scent of blood at the drain in the back of the house and at the dryer’s lint trap.

      I might have missed it but I have not read any theory here on the draining of blood. I think that could be an attempt by the defendants to remove evidence of drugs in Robert’s body. Perhaps their plan A was to dump the body after that.

      • ccf
        06/17/2010 at 11:21 AM

        I should add more.

        I suspect that their plan A was to make it like a stabbing and dump the body, because any traces of incapitating drugs in a random stabbing would cause suspicion.

        Discalimer: Not a lawyer, no criminal justice background, straight and terribly congested.

        • ccf
          06/17/2010 at 11:26 AM

          I should add more.

          I suspect that the defendants’ plan A was to make the murder look like a random stabbing before dumping the body. If incapacitating drugs were found in Robert’s body, they would be under suspicion.

          Disclaimer: Not a lawyer, no criminal justice background, straight and terribly congested.

      • DonnaH
        06/17/2010 at 4:32 PM

        Draining some blood from him would not dilute whatever blood remained, and consequently would have no effect on the toxicology tests of the blood taken later.

        • ccf
          06/17/2010 at 4:49 PM

          Perhaps they didn’t think about that. From what I’ve heard, the lack of blood actually precluded extensive blood testing.

          That’s speculation on my part, of course.

  6. ccf
    06/17/2010 at 11:18 AM

    “On the defense motion to acquit, Judge Lynn Leibovitz only rolls back two charges: tampering on Ward and Zaborsky.”

    That makes sense, especially for Zaborsky.

    • Sage
      06/17/2010 at 11:21 AM

      Thanks for the speedy update on the charges Editors! You guys are doing amazing work in the past few days. We really, really, really appreciate it. I hope the person involved in yesterday’s incident is feeling better.

      • cinnamon
        06/17/2010 at 11:25 AM

        “I hope the person involved in yesterday’s incident is feeling better.”

        What incident?

        …and yes, I huge thank you to the editors.

        • Sage
          06/17/2010 at 11:51 AM

          Yesterday’s post included an Editors Note that one of the WMRW team had experienced an ‘infirmity’ during proceedings.

  7. chilaw79
    06/17/2010 at 11:21 AM

    The judge’s decision on the motion for acquittal seems to be completely consistent with the Rule 29 case law in the District of Columbia. This does not mean the defendants are guilty on any of the remaining charges. However, Ward and Zaborsky have been acquitted of tampering with evidence; the government cannot appeal this ruling. No matter what other evidence comes forward, Ward and Zaborsky cannot be retried on this charge since double jeopardy has attached.

    This does not mean the defendants are guilty of the remaining charges. It just means a reasonable juror could find them guilty, based on the evidence presented thus far, when the evidence is considered in the light most favorable to the government, given the benefit of all legitimate inferences.

    It will be interesting to see whether any of the defendants is bold enough to take the stand. I seriously doubt it and if I were their counsel, I would put my body between them and the witness box (even though the defendants have a right to testify).

    • Former Criminal Sex Offense Prosecutor
      06/17/2010 at 12:11 PM

      If any of the Trouple take the stand it will be against the advice of counsel. Only 1 of them really wants to do so. Must be very hard for Joe P to be told that he cannot go ahead & use his perceived cleverness/charm offensive/natural indignation to state his case in court on his own behalf.

      • Carolina
        06/17/2010 at 12:48 PM

        How do we know Joe wants to testify? (Aside from the salivating look in his eye when he looks at the stand.)

        • Bill Orange
          06/17/2010 at 1:14 PM

          I knew Joe Price in college. Trust me, he wants to testify.

          • Bea
            06/17/2010 at 1:18 PM

            As others have said, I’m sure Bernie will do his best to stop it. If Joe hasn’t learned his lesson by now, he never will. Personally, I’d love to hear from him – and hear the cross.

            • Carolina
              06/17/2010 at 1:40 PM

              In this matter, I hope Joe wins.

          • Carolina
            06/17/2010 at 2:14 PM

            What do you think he would hope to do by testifying? I know you don’t *know*, but I’m curious what you imagine would be his reasoning for doing so.

            • Bill Orange
              06/17/2010 at 3:29 PM

              He thinks he can talk his way out of anything. And to be fair to him, he’s very good at talking his way out of things. How many people do you know who could talk their way out of moving their BDSM mistress into the house? Or handing over the house keys to their drug-addicted brother? Or cheating on their partner AND their mistress with the neighbor across the street? He’s good.

              • Carolina
                06/17/2010 at 5:37 PM

                No one can deny he’s an excellent attorney, and as you say, the fact that Dylan is in residence says much.

  8. AnnaZed
    06/17/2010 at 11:22 AM

    “…Judge Lynn Leibovitz only rolls back two charges: tampering on Ward and Zaborsky.”

    That seems logical to me. I don’t think tampering has been proved against Victor or Dylan.

    Still, I hope Victor doesn’t take too much comfort from this. He is still facing some very serious charges and essentially doing it for nothing.

    • Carolina
      06/17/2010 at 11:51 AM

      I would think that knowing some charges are gone would only make me more worried about the ones that remain. It would remind me that the judge felt like there was at least some smoke to go with the prosecution’s fire.

      • chilaw79
        06/17/2010 at 12:07 PM

        That’s exactly what it means.

        The judge is saying that as a matter of law a reasonable juror did not have to acquit. While this is not the same as saying that the defendants are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, if I were a defendant, I would find this unsettling.

        • Carolina
          06/17/2010 at 12:49 PM

          And I’d turn up the fire under my attorneys, as well.

      • whodoneit
        06/17/2010 at 1:04 PM

        I think you meant there was at least some fire to go with the smoke.

  9. Devin
    06/17/2010 at 11:23 AM

    Please do not take offense to my theories but I think everyone is far too quick to point the finger at our polyamorous trouple. I do believe the defendants probably know more than anyone else concerning this matter and may have covered up a discable crime.

    This is not a murder trial and I understand that the scope of evidence is very narrow and limiting but one has to wonder how seriously the dectectives assigned to this case investigated other leads and/or motives. I am not trying to accuse Robert of being the reason for his own demise, but again one has to wonder why someone would want this seemingly wonderfull man dead.

    Was he cheating on his wife? Was he secretly gay? Did he own money to the wrong people? Is it just me or does this crime look an aweful lot like a hit? If there is ever a murder trial hopefully these things will be more thorougly discussed.

    I am no lawyer. Just a insterested student trying to break up the monotony of the day.

    • Elizabeth
      06/17/2010 at 11:28 AM

      I would say “maybe I watch too much TV,” except that I don’t watch TV, so here goes – don’t people use guns with silencers for hits?

    • Carolina
      06/17/2010 at 11:31 AM

      Honestly, have you read any posts before this week? Any?

      • Devin
        06/17/2010 at 11:51 AM

        Actually every single one of them since this trial started. And to Elizabeth I think you don’t watch enough of the right television. If I was going to hit Mr. Wone and wanted to hide identity I would not use a gun it would wake the others in the house and narrow my escape time. I would incapacitate him i.e. Dexter style.

        Just came to a realization. This is exactly how Jeff Linsday’s Dexter mruders people.

        • Carolina
          06/17/2010 at 11:52 AM

          Since the trial started? You have 3 years of information to catch up on. It’s good reading and important if you’re going to offer up theories.

      • KiKi
        06/17/2010 at 12:02 PM

        Why be rude? I am continually impressed with how cordial everyone is on this site. It does not benefit anyone to be a post “bully.” If you don’t think someone has the proper info or basis for a theory read on. But Devon has the same right to post as does anyone else. Not everyone has the legal knowledge or medical expertise of other posters but you don’t see them saying “have you ever seen an anatomy book? ever?”

        It’s Nice to be Nice.

        • Carolina
          06/17/2010 at 12:09 PM

          Not being rude, but frustrated. To come on a site and read two weeks out of almost 4 years of information is… well, rude, particularly at this point in the trial.

          • Eagle
            06/17/2010 at 12:38 PM

            I disagree. No credentials needed here, to the best of my knowledge.

            • Bill
              06/17/2010 at 3:58 PM

              Personally, I think the opinions of the non-lawyers are far more important than the lawyers since they are more likely to think like an average juror.

              • Carolina
                06/17/2010 at 5:38 PM

                Of which exactly none will be finding in this case.

                • Bill
                  06/17/2010 at 5:58 PM

                  Do you go out of your way to be rude or is it just a reflex?

        • Carolina
          06/17/2010 at 12:19 PM

          Another point here, and please forgive me if the tone is rude, as it is not meant to be and it’s hard to assess that based on text.

          Many of us have been through the “blame the victim” questions over and over. It’s nasty work to have to prove he wasn’t gay, on the dl, a cheater, or secret gambler or what have you. This is a real person with family, and those questions have been addressed.

          • mia
            06/17/2010 at 2:15 PM

            Agreed. The secret gay theory has been discussed many many times on this site. When I first read the case Post, I suspected the exactly same thing but ever since I started digging into this case, I ruled out the possibility completely. Just use some time to read the materials and comments posted here.

            • Bill
              06/17/2010 at 4:03 PM

              Personally, I think the background to the gay or dl questions (or other theories) is how hard it is to find a motive to Robert’s horrible death. This wasn’t random and from everything that has been shared, the trio very much liked him. I think the variety of opinions are just part of the motive questioning. Remember, a average juror would be asking him/herself these very questions.

              • Carolina
                06/17/2010 at 5:39 PM

                My point is that is has been asked and answered ad nauseum. All one needs to do is google, search or read.

                • Bill
                  06/17/2010 at 6:01 PM

                  Why do you think you are the arbiter of who and how many times people can ask these questions? Maybe you need to find other interests. I find your comments rude and condescending.

    • Carolina
      06/17/2010 at 12:22 PM

      I’m going to say this for your benefit, since I most assuredly do not want to be seen as rude. However, the questions regarding Robert’s character have been answered time and again. Many of us a bit prickly on the “blame the victim” thing.

      Robert wasn’t gay. He wasn’t on the downlow. He didn’t owe money (read the article on his decision to take the RFA job) and he wasn’t a gambler. He didn’t have any enemies and his work for RFA did not constitute any risk of ninja assassins. His work prior to that was mostly in real estate.

      • weaver
        06/17/2010 at 12:38 PM

        Carolina I don’t think you are being rude, but why be overly frustrated at others who have just started learning about the case? There are a ton of posts here, more than many can read in just a few days. People will have questions and theories. I thought the purpose of this site was to bring public awareness and opinions to the case. I think for many the first response is utter shock at this horrible crime, and much sympathy for the victim and his widow. Little sympathy for the obvious liars who are covering up for the crime.

        • Carolina
          06/17/2010 at 12:59 PM

          To be fair, coming on here two days ago and making dead to rights pronouncements about the defendants is a little iffy. While the majority of us here believe them to be guilty at least to some degree, it is because we have spent a great deal of time, years in many cases, reading over the evidence and various theories.

          I do not know who killed Robert. I haven’t access to all of the evidence. I would assume you do not either. Opinions are just that, and to protect the site, it’s a good idea to couch them in that way.

          I do, however, know that blaming the victim is tiresome, and wildly speculating without doing at least a cursory read of the evidence is like walking into your first day at work and pronouncing, “In college, we did it THIS way!”

          No one is requiring credentials, but a cursory google or use of the search function is going to keep Robert’s character from being hit time and again.

          • James
            06/17/2010 at 2:00 PM

            For what it’s worth, Carolina, I do not think you were being rude.

        • cinnamon
          06/17/2010 at 1:01 PM

          I think the frustration that Carolina is addressing is that the editors have made many legal documents easy accessible and there is a ton of information available on this site. Many questions can be answered by viewing those documents and posts and by using the search feature to access older posts about specific information. That’s what I did when I started following this case several months ago.

          It’s understandable that not everyone has alot of time to review all of the content but it would be wise to spend what time they do have, researching and reading before speculating on a very complicated and difficult case.

          • Carolina
            06/17/2010 at 1:43 PM

            Thank you. This is especially true when speculating about the character of a man who was murdered and cannot defend himself except by evidence left behind. Evidence that is discussed on this site.

          • KiKi
            06/17/2010 at 1:56 PM

            I get that frustration. I get the idea that we don’t want to impugn Robert’s character or the integrity of the cite.

            But I also think that there is something to be said for a new set of eyes and new thinkers on the site. Maybe they haven’t read every document but that doesn’t mean they could not come up with something know one else has thought of.

            And when people respond to others with frustration I think it inhibits new posters from wanting to participate because they have not read every post and are in fear of being reprimanded by one of the vets.

            Your starting a new job analogy is interesting, Carolina, because my summer law clerks started 2 weeks ago and they are now at the point when they start bringing me their (unsolicited)theories and opinions on our cases and while I may question them on legal points, I have never said to one of them, “I don’t want to hear any opinions you have until you have read the ten boxes of documents collected over the last 10 years in this death penalty case.” In fact, in years past I have had interns who with a new set of eyes have found issues I had missed after working several years on a case.

            • Carolina
              06/17/2010 at 2:18 PM

              I understand what you’re saying, but we disagree. Your law clerks aren’t coming in cold off the streets and making up guesses. They’ve done some homework. That’s all anyone is asking.

              • LRN
                06/17/2010 at 3:49 PM

                Carolina,

                To tell someone that they need to have read up on years of the case, esp when they are not in the legal field, is to really exclude fresh opinions. I say this bc when i read new posters with new ideas it makes me wonder if the scenario was different. I have done a lot of the reading on this site and use other sources out there (of course none as good as this one) but when I told my husband about this case the first thing he said: was Robert secretly gay, his wife found out and had him killed? I mean, seriously , way out there, but he was going off instinctual feelings. He didn’t have the facts and like most straight men I talk to about this case the question will always come up: why was a straight guy staying with 3 gay friends overnight? So, we’ll keep seeing these types of comments re: Robert. It’s sad, but that’s human nature.

                • Carolina
                  06/17/2010 at 5:41 PM

                  Again, it’s been discussed, on this site, which has a search function. And then to tell us we need to think outside the box? No, he need only use a search box to find out he’s on well-trod ground.

            • KKinCA
              06/17/2010 at 2:18 PM

              Point taken. However, when long-term readers who are extremely knowledgeable about the evidence, facts, and floated/discussed theories (myself NOT included) are accused of not “thinking out(side) the box”, that goes too far. Asking questions and generating theories is fine – God knows all of you “old-timers” have really helped me a lot. I just think Devin crossed the line. Just my opinion.

              • cinnamon
                06/17/2010 at 2:26 PM

                “I just think Devin crossed the line.”

                For me it was when he said this after throwing out some ill informed speculation.

                “Just a insterested student trying to break up the monotony of the day.”

            • Sandra
              06/17/2010 at 2:55 PM

              KiKi, I agree 100%. Thanks.

          • Eagle
            06/17/2010 at 2:44 PM

            Maybe some of the members should form a committee and administer tests to allow anyone in.-with a password of course. Is that what you are proposing?
            Personally, I reject your pressure on new members and I welcome their varied new views and find them interesting.
            The cavalier attitude that one must review years of information is not helpful to the goals of this site or to the comfort of those participating, IMO.

            • Carolina
              06/17/2010 at 5:43 PM

              Oh please, stop. Asking someone not to throw out wild hares while telling us we’re not thinking divergently is what he did. Asking him to read up a bit first is hardly harassing newbies.

      • Banshee
        06/17/2010 at 3:55 PM

        1. Why so critical of a comment from a new participant? It discourages participation by others who might have comments that you do deem interesting or appropriately researched – or that others might appreciate regardless of your opinion.
        2. I get a strong message of insiders v. outsiders. Insiders comments, even if not substantive, but entertaining, are applauded frequently. I haven’t seen irritation expressed at the time or space that those messages take up.
        3. Waste of time, and I have contributed to it, but civility and tolerance ought to be primary concern. Good grief.

        • Craig
          06/17/2010 at 4:30 PM

          Banshee: We’re all outsiders actually. The only insiders just happen to be the three guys who are on trial.

          • Devin
            06/17/2010 at 4:36 PM

            Thats all I was trying to say. Thank you craig.

            • Carolina
              06/17/2010 at 5:45 PM

              No, sorry, that was not what you were trying to say. You posited about the victim’s responsibility in his own death without so much as looking back more than two weeks. Then you scolded for not thinking outside of the box. You may post what you please, but please take responsibility for what you post.

          • Banshee
            06/17/2010 at 6:14 PM

            Craig: I happen to agree w/r/t the three. But my point was different: it felt to me that some posters appeared to think themselves more equal than other posters; that the tone was getting negative, detracting from discussion of what is important, and perhaps discouraging some silent followers from partiicpating actively.

            This may be a symptom of the increased stress and frustration that many of us (certainly I) are feeling as this thing winds closer to its end. Direct our anger to its apropriate object(s). Make sense?

            I will bow out. Enormous thanks for doing this for so many from someone who has (some bona fides here) followed the case since the murder.

            • Craig
              06/17/2010 at 6:30 PM

              Nobody bows out. Everybody stays put. Don’t make me stop this car. This post hit its comment limit. Now, onto the wrap.

    • Alice
      06/17/2010 at 12:30 PM

      I think it’s just you.

    • Bill Orange
      06/17/2010 at 12:44 PM

      I don’t think there’s any evidence of cheating, being gay, or owing money. It’s easy to hide those kinds of things from a casual observer. It’s not so easy to hide them from investigators who are going through your phone records, your e-mails, your text messages, and your computer. The obvious example is Joe Price. He had little trouble hiding his BDSM fetishes from friends and co-workers, but he couldn’t hide them from the investigation team.

    • ccf
      06/17/2010 at 12:59 PM

      It is difficult to parse out the information you need in the commenst. If you have not done so already, perhaps you code read some of the media coverage.

      http://whomurderedrobertwone.com/media-coverage/

      http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/people/15483.html

    • RosieRiveted
      06/17/2010 at 3:43 PM

      Devin, I think you’ve missed something. If you haven’t done so already, check out some of the suggested ‘get started’ reading on the FAQ page. The police have done their work.

      • RosieRiveted
        06/17/2010 at 3:52 PM

        But to add – I think a couple of regulars over-reacted, and I hope you aren’t discouraged from joining and posting. I have noticed a few regulars get cranky when someone new joins and has not read everything.

        And for everyone else…let’s chill! This site is about Robert’s case, not about our petty rules of engagement. Oldies and newbies welcome, one and all!

  10. Pshep
    06/17/2010 at 11:23 AM

    Love the judge’s decision despite my concern after attending Tuesday’s session. That was probably the worse day for the prosecution so far. Hoefully these charges hold up and these 3 wack-os enjoy many years of food and shelter provided by the US taxpayers…

  11. CDinDC (Boycott BP)
    06/17/2010 at 11:23 AM

    @ Ben Franklin

    Aquittal, aquittal, aquittal? Not, not, not.

    • cinnamon
      06/17/2010 at 11:28 AM

      My thoughts exactly.

    • Carolina
      06/17/2010 at 11:32 AM

      Oh how I do love thee. And let me add: Ha. Ha. Ha.

    • KKinCA
      06/17/2010 at 12:51 PM

      CD – you ROCK!! Such a way with words!

      • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
        06/17/2010 at 1:08 PM

        I wonder if Ben ate crow for lunch.

    • BenFranklin
      06/17/2010 at 1:04 PM

      I’m actually pleased the defense case is going forward. It would be a pity not to see the skilled defense lawyers blow apart the government’s fragile case. It will expose the malicious misconduct & incompetence by the MPD that has caused so much anguish & damage to the Wone family & the defendants.

      It’s not over yet. It’s just started. Put in your ear-plugs; the big guns are about to fire.

      • Lee
        06/17/2010 at 1:20 PM

        And after the convictions, Ben Franklin will be saying “just wait for the appeals.”

        • Bea
          06/17/2010 at 4:56 PM

          Indeed, Lee. And when Joe, his W&M crush, is given the harshest sentence, will he go back to the Lunesta Zombie Ward Theory and try to “Photoshop up” the photos he promised so very long ago? I smile every time I see pictures of the small framed (and thin-necked) Ward.

      • KKinCA
        06/17/2010 at 1:49 PM

        BF – You would be more convincing if you remained consistent with your stated positions/opinions instead of ignoring the fact that you predicted something incorrectly and then changing to another position. Taking a stand by stating that in your opinion the Judge ruled incorrectly in not acquitting all 3 defendants on all charges is, in my opinion, more respectable than stating that you are now “pleased”. BTW – the defenses’ first “Big Gun” sounded more like a whimper . . .

        • Carolina
          06/17/2010 at 2:22 PM

          I like to think of him as our Zombie BF mascot, or maybe a windsockpuppet, ready to blow in any direction save Joe’s.

          • KKinCA
            06/17/2010 at 2:28 PM

            Hah! Good one!

            • Former Criminal Sex Offense Prosecutor
              06/17/2010 at 4:02 PM

              What happened to Tassojr? He was so often so Ben Franklin, if you know what I mean? Was he removed for screen name violations?

              • Kate
                06/17/2010 at 4:51 PM

                He still stops by from time to time.

                • Elizabeth
                  06/17/2010 at 4:56 PM

                  I’ve been wondering where John Grisham has been hiding.

                  • Carolina
                    06/17/2010 at 5:47 PM

                    I want my plumskiter back.

      • Elizabeth
        06/17/2010 at 3:36 PM

        I couldn’t get out of the office today so I had to have Ramen at my desk for lunch.

        • Kate
          06/17/2010 at 4:53 PM

          I like Ramen, with a side of potato salad .. especially while in Spain.

          • Elizabeth
            06/17/2010 at 4:56 PM

            Oh, you’re good, Kate! I can’t keep up!

  12. leo
    06/17/2010 at 11:24 AM

    Re: the latest bulletin, that tampering charges are thrown out for Victor and Dylan–for anyone who’s in the courtroom today, were those two smiling and shaking their lawyers’ hands or were they still proceeding in somber fashion, given they still must rebut the conspiracy and obstruction charges?

    • KKinCA
      06/17/2010 at 12:53 PM

      Leo – I have the same question about the defendants’ demeanor when the Judge issued her ruling, and whether the defendants looked at each other (given Joe’s famous “glare” at Dylan while the police were at the house after the murder). Body language reveals so much! But I’m sure our wonderful editors are busy and we will get the full scoop later.

  13. Rapt in MD
    06/17/2010 at 11:27 AM

    One of the things (of the many,many I wonder about) is what was the morning after supposed to look like if a planned drugging and assault had taken place and gone off without a hitch? Surely even quickly metabolized date rape drugs would make someone feel like they had been hit by a truck the next day.

    I remember reading that the plan was for Joe and Robert to have breafkast the next morning to catch up and spend some time together. What was that going to look like when Robert got up to take his shower, get ready for day and head downstairs? I could just picture him in the shower getting a creepy feeling that something had happened to him and not knowing what it was. This leads me to think Joe did not plan this and that someone else (most likely Dylan) decided to do this on his own to test out some new kinds of techniques. Never ending questions…

    • Carolina
      06/17/2010 at 11:38 AM

      If the plan was to get him unconscious and engage in a little erotic photography, Robert would have been none the worse save for a killer headache.

      Remember, Joe was fond of such things– so much so he had the stones to keep his own personal porn portfolio on his office PC. Not just any office, mind you, but a silk stocking DC firm that handled many, many cases that might have been damaged should those photos become blackmail material.

      Interestingly enough, no photographic equipment was found in the house. Nor was a playmat, a de rigueur piece in the toychest of any BDSM couple.

      • Rapt in MD
        06/17/2010 at 11:42 AM

        Very good points, Carolina. I forgot about the lacko camera equipment.

    • mw
      06/17/2010 at 11:50 AM

      I really believe that the truth of what happened that night hasn’t been correctly guessed by anyone yet.

      Nothing makes sense. Yes, these three guys were weird sex freaks, but I’ve still always had a hard time making the leap that they were capable of pre-mediated sexual assault/murder. What was the exit plan? Dealing with a corpse in the house, and the subsequent complications surely wasn’t worth whatever weird sex games they wanted to play, especially when it seems that none of them had any shortage of willing partners.

      These guys had so much to lose, even assuming the best (that there would be no charges against them).

      I guess the most plausible theory I’ve heard is that Michael Price broke in, and surprised Wong, necessitating a coverup. But even then – a burglary at that time, early at night, with people likely to be either awake or just recently asleep makes no sense either.

      I still have no idea. And that’s frustrating even for me, someone with no personal connection to this case whatsoever. I feel so bad for Wone’s famiy. Maybe with a conviction we’ll get some answers.

      • Carolina
        06/17/2010 at 11:55 AM

        Take a look at the posts regarding photography and what may have gone wrong with that plan. There are a lot of theories and thoughts that haven’t been mentioned in the last two weeks.

      • Devin
        06/17/2010 at 12:03 PM

        I agree with you there. I feel like everyone has it backwards. The most plausible explination does include Micahel in my mind.

        • Carolina
          06/17/2010 at 12:11 PM

          Which has been discussed in great depth. Google or the search feature on this site will point you to it.

      • KV
        06/17/2010 at 12:06 PM

        “still always had a hard time making the leap that they were capable of pre-mediated sexual assault/murder.”

        As some have suggested, perhaps it was an involuntary accidental drug overdose and not necessarily pre-meditated murder.

        • Carolina
          06/17/2010 at 12:13 PM

          That scenario is more complicated than it seems. Since the stab wound was the cause of death, even if the person(s) believed Robert dead from an OD, they’re still guilty of premeditated. They chose to stab him three times.

        • Eagle
          06/17/2010 at 12:26 PM

          The fact of the matter is that Robert Wone is definitely dead.
          He was murdered. Stabbed to death. Seems pre-meditated to me.

          • Carolina
            06/17/2010 at 1:01 PM

            Especially with no defense marks going to incapacitation.

      • Also From the Post Story
        06/17/2010 at 12:30 PM

        Well, an easy-out explanation is that people on the right drugs can go out of their heads and do anything.

        Not that I really believe that either.

        • Carolina
          06/17/2010 at 1:48 PM

          Say for a moment you did believe that. Who do you suppose was drugged? Joe? Dylan? Surely not Victor. Michael?

          While you could argue that Joe and Dylan did seem “off” when the EMTs and police arrived, they weren’t in a frenzied, Dionysian state, even if Joe was still parading in his underwear. Maybe that wildman-person was already gone?

          • RosieRiveted
            06/17/2010 at 4:03 PM

            This may be on the books somewhere, but were toxicology tests done on the defendants the night of the murder? I could definitely see Lunesta (which Dylan purportedly took at bedtime; did Joe?) causing someone to be a bit “off”.

            • Carolina
              06/17/2010 at 5:51 PM

              Rosie, they were not charged, so it’s doubtful. There has certainly not been anything entered into evidence, which is unfortunate.

              Dylan did seem exactly like someone who had taken a Lunesta an hour before, if you believe what the first responders had to say.

              I don’t recall about Joe, but I think it’s because there’s nothing to recall about sleeping meds.

              Victor took OTC sinus meds and a sleeping pill, which he usually did after flying.

  14. Craig
    06/17/2010 at 11:36 AM

    With tampering off the table for Ward and Zaborsky, according to DC sentencing guidelines, those offenses only carried a penalty of 2-3 years. They still face considerable exposure to the remaining charges: +/- 35 years.

    For Price, the magic number remains 38. All of this assumes the strictest of penalties of course, if they are found guilty at the conclusion of the trial.

    So much for my prediction of getting the update at 1:00pm. If anyone needs me today, I’ll be at the racetrack making more bad bets.

    • chilaw79
      06/17/2010 at 11:45 AM

      Craig,

      Making predictions in a trial is difficult.

      The judge has shown a “need for speed” throughout this trial. If you are going to the racetrack, look for a speed horse on the rail.

      Otherwise, stay at your post and keep giving us these fantastic updates.

    • Themis
      06/17/2010 at 11:46 AM

      Here is what DC Lawyer previously posted in response to my question about structured sentencing in DC:

      DC Attorney on 05/17/2010 at 5:39 PM
      Themis:

      The District has voluntary sentencing guidelines that are far less structured than the Federal Guidelines. Nonetheless, unless a Judge strongly feels that there are reasons to depart, he or she rarely will. Because the DC guidelines are voluntary, departures from them cannot be appealed. That said, the guidelines range with no prior record is 36-84 months for each count of obstructing justice, 1-12 months for each count of conspiracy to obstruct justice, and 1-12 months for each count of tampering with evidence. Under DC law and the DC guidelines, the Judge would have discretion to run those consecutively or concurrently.

      • Themis
        06/17/2010 at 11:50 AM

        I should add that indictment only charges one count of each offense. Thus, Price’s voluntary guideline sentence if convicted on all three charges would be 108 months at the high end of the guideline range. Ward and Zaborsky would face 96 months at the high end of the vountary guidelines range. That presumes consecutuve sentences, which is generally not the norm in the federal system unless mandated by statute. The caveat again is that the judge would not have to sentence within the range.

        • chilaw79
          06/17/2010 at 11:58 AM

          Even though the evidence could show the defendants obstructed a murder investigation (and, in the worst case, covered up their own crime), the sentences you cite seem appropriate to me.

          Of course, Joe Price also would lose his license to practice law if he were convicted of any of the crimes alleged.

        • Craig
          06/17/2010 at 12:00 PM

          Themis: Thanks for the clarification and arithmetic. Although hardly an indicator, we got a glimpse of Leibovitz’ approach a week or two back. One morning, in another matter before she took up the Wone issue, she was managing a procedural motion on another case, a drug violation, and a woman (a mother of two I believe) who tested positive for a substance.

          Her defense team and the prosecution both agreed that she should not be sent to jail while she’s trying to get her life in order. The judge spurned both recommendations and “set her back,” saying that since children’s lives hung in the balance, the woman was a threat to them. Leibovitz surprised everyone in the courtroom with that ruling.

          • Carolina
            06/17/2010 at 12:14 PM

            Yow, that’s some tough love there.

          • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
            06/17/2010 at 1:05 PM

            This sounds like she sentences “outside the box,” as I mentioned below regarding the sentencing guidelines.

        • cinnamon
          06/17/2010 at 12:05 PM

          Would the judge give weight to what the conspiracy was for? For example, would a judge be more likely to go for the higher end of the guideline range in a conspiracy for murder than for say, insider trading? Or would a judge weigh all conspiracy charges equally regardless of the reason?

      • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
        06/17/2010 at 12:03 PM

        So that’s a min of 3 years to a max of 9 years. Even the minimum is a lot of time behind bars.

        • KV
          06/17/2010 at 12:14 PM

          That’s a lot less than the 30+ years cited in the Post today and up to 38 years mentioned elsewhere. Any idea what accounts for the big difference?

          • leo
            06/17/2010 at 12:26 PM

            Are those the maxes under the Federal sentencing guidelines? DC has its own, as explained above.

          • Themis
            06/17/2010 at 12:28 PM

            The highest numbers are statutory maximums run consecutively (known in the trade as box carred or running wild). The judge still has discretion to impose such a sentence. Sentencing guideline ranges are recommendations that are intended to cover the average case for persons with similar criminal histories. I work in the federal system now and have never worked in DC so I am not well versed with the District’s particular guidelines or practices. But DC’s explanation makes sense to me.

            • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
              06/17/2010 at 12:43 PM

              Here are the DC Sentencing guidelines.

              http://acs.dc.gov/acs/frames.asp?doc=/acs/lib/acs/2010_voluntary_sentencing_guidelines_manual.pdf

              See Appendix A for Themis’s calculations. She’s spot on.

              the fact that the defendants have no prior convictions would place them on the low end of the sentencing periods.

              They could also be fined (10K for ObJustice).

              • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                06/17/2010 at 12:57 PM

                The judge can also sentence “outside the box.” There are mitigating and aggravating factors on which the judge could base her sentencing decision.

                Particularly, Aggravating Factor Nos. 4, 7, 10 and 11.

                No. 4 The crime committed or attempted was substantially premeditated, as evidenced by a high degree of planning or sophistication or planning over an extended period of time.

                No. 7 The defendant threatened, bribed, attempted to bribe, induced, or attempted to induce a victim, a member of the victim’s family, or a potential witness, or any other person to withhold truthful testimony or provide false testimony, or otherwise attempted to obstruct justice, unless the defendant is separately convicted of an offense that arises out of the same conduct.

                No. 10 (10) The consecutive/concurrent sentencing policy results in a guideline sentence so lenient in relation to the seriousness of the offense and the history of the defendant that imposition of the guideline sentence would result in manifest injustice. A departure based solely on this factor shall not result in a sentence that exceeds the sentence that would result if all guideline sentences were consecutive.

                No. 11 There is any other substantial and compelling basis, as articulated by the sentencing judge, comparable in gravity to those listed in 1-10 above, which aggravates substantially the seriousness of the offense or the defendant’s culpability.

                • Carolina
                  06/17/2010 at 1:03 PM

                  What risk is there in going outside the box? Can an appeal of the sentence be based on that? Can they even appeal the sentence?

        • Joelle
          06/17/2010 at 12:44 PM

          Will any of these guys really enter into a plea bargain to avoid 3-9 years (less with parole)?

          • leo
            06/17/2010 at 12:55 PM

            I agree, nowhere near the 35+ I thought was possible. And Dylan’s already spent a month in jail, which would be counted against any sentence he could receive. Maybe these guys will just tough it out and serve 18 months or so (for Joe, less for the others) and never utter a peep about what really happened.

            • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
              06/17/2010 at 5:23 PM

              The Judge has the descretion to apply a harsher sentence if she applies aggravating circumstances. They meet a few of them. See my post above.

          • chilaw79
            06/17/2010 at 1:28 PM

            If the defendants did not commit the murder (for example, if Michael Price committed the murder or some other “known” intruder), why wouldn’t they plea bargain? Judges tend to give people a lot of credit for a guilty plea and remorse.

            Joe Price has the additional factor that he would lose his license to practice law, if he is convicted or pleads guilty. His decision to go to trial is more understandable.

            Of course, the defendants may just believe they will be acquitted when all the facts are in.

            • Bill 2
              06/17/2010 at 1:42 PM

              If they had thoughts of being acquitted, I’m sure those thoughts are not as strong today as they were earlier in the week.

          • Bea
            06/17/2010 at 2:48 PM

            I think that since this isn’t a conspiracy/obstruction related to some financial dealings, or a standard robbery, but instead a murder, that the sentences imposed by this judge will be significant.

            It would not surprise me if Judge Leibovitz did not hand out a harsher penalty against Price as a lawyer and “officer of the court” – a title she undoubtedly takes quite seriously and expects the same of others.

            But for those who WERE thinking 38 years and now feeling somewhat dismayed at the notion of 3-9 years (and she can still go outside the guidelines) – and that that is inconsequential – it’s a good idea to recalibrate and give it further consideration and put the numbers aside for a bit.

            If guilty verdicts are delivered (and we are a LONG way from this being a certainty), just imagine being one of these men and facing the Judge and being hit with, say, 7 years in prison: each man will have gone from being a ‘respected’ professional (well, Victor and Joe at least) living a pretty charmed life to an inmate number. Turn in one’s Prada for the jumpsuit; upscale Dupont home to the 8 X 10 cell. Those ‘burned’ steaks never looked so good.

            Life as the defendants knew it would be gone for good (hence Victor’s statement “my life will never be the same”) – Joe, age 39, would have gone from free wheeling, moneyed young attorney with lots of boys and toys, getting his name in the paper for his good deeds, to a man watching his forties go by slowly behind bars. Turn the channel from CSI (which I don’t watch) to the real life prison shows on Discovery to get a genuine sense of what might be in store.

            Having earlier in life visited clients in maximum security prison, I can say from walking the halls and interacting with personnel that this is no one wants to be for 7 months let alone 7 years. Unimaginable fear and unwavering boredom.

            I don’t want to grace the obvious prison jokes about new daddies, etc., but instead really have folks consider the prior lives versus the ones which would follow if convicted. Because the “sentence” would not be over when the time has been served. These men would not resume their old lives upon being released in their late 40s.

            A decade of prison time or less does not feel a suitable punishment for the murderer(s) of Robert Wone but these charges are not for his murder. I hope that in addition to serving justice in a lesser way that too there is impetus for someone to break the pact and step forward. The Wone family deserves to know what happened.

            And the short answer to Joelle (sorry for the pontifications), I do think at least one of the defendants would be very well served to enter into a plea to avoid 3-9 years in prison. For many reasons.

            • dcbill
              06/17/2010 at 5:10 PM

              Bea, to your knowledge, will these defendants need protective custody if they do go to prison? Will it be given?

      • Bill Orange
        06/17/2010 at 12:46 PM

        This is a no-nonsense judge. If she finds the defendants guilty, she’s going to throw the book at them. Because it will mean that not only are they guilty of the charged crimes, they’re also guilty of wasting a lot of the court’s time and money. Judges don’t like being jerked around.

        • Themis
          06/17/2010 at 1:19 PM

          They cannot be punished for insisting on their right to a trial and that the government be put to its burden of proof. It would clearly be unlawful under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments and anathema to our founding fathers and even, I am willing to bet, Justices Scalia and Thomas.

          Proper sentencing facts are things like just punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, community safety, criminal history and the like. There would be no protections under the Bill of Rights if defendants were punished for exercising them.

          • chilaw79
            06/17/2010 at 2:17 PM

            While I appreciate your principled stand, it is generally understood that the criminal justice system would come to a screeching halt if every individual indicted for a criminal offense insisted on his or her right to a trial.

            It may not be a proper sentencing factor, but it is widely understood that defendants will receive less time for pleading guilty than if they insist on a criminal trial.

            • Themis
              06/17/2010 at 2:38 PM

              There is a distinction between providing a benefit for pleading guilty and punishing someone for exercising their rights.

              In the federal system you get 2 points for acceptance of responsibility and 1 additional point if you plead before certain events happen. You also might plead to lesser charges or reduce your statutory max or avoid a mandatory consecutive sentence.

              In those cases your sentencing exposure is reduced. It is called plea bargaining for a reason.

              It is a completely different ball of wax to say a judge could and should sentence above the guideline range for the charged crimes because a defendant has exercised a constitutional right.

              The Supreme Court has recognized that these are distinctions that make a difference. And when practical considerations start to trump constitutional guarantees, we should all be afraid.

              • chilaw79
                06/17/2010 at 3:26 PM

                The current plea bargaining system shifts a lot of responsibility from the judiciary to the prosecutor.
                Whether that is a good idea is up for grabs. However, I think we both agree that cooperation, acknowledgment of wrongdoing, and remorse are factors that can and should be taken into account in sentencing.

                Particularly through the efforts of criminal defense attorneys (both public defenders, like you, and private counsel), this can be done without compromising the defendant’s Constitutional rights.

                • Former Criminal Sex Offense Prosecutor
                  06/17/2010 at 3:55 PM

                  Thanks.

                • Former Criminal Sex Offense Prosecutor
                  06/17/2010 at 4:36 PM

                  Thanks, well said.

                • Themis
                  06/17/2010 at 6:23 PM

                  I do agree with that.

                  A large part of being a capital defense attorney is putting the work in to get your client a favorable plea. Because more often than not, factual guilt is not much of an issue, and a plea at least takes death off of the table. So you, as the defense attorney, work on demolishing their story and making them understand concepts like felony murder. I’ve never worked a case where I didn’t know more about what happened than the prosecution at the time it pled or went to trial, even when my client wasn’t completely honest with me.

                  That said, I’ve also negotiated pleas that clients have rejected. In one case an 8 year plea that was turned down even though the only possible sentence after a trial was life without the possibility of parole, which is what the client got. It broke my heart that the client wouldn’t take the plea, but it wasn’t my decision to make. And I didn’t represent the client any less vigorously for insisting on a trial.

                  If I wasn’t passionate about these issues and providing a vigorous defense of my clients and the Constitution, I couldn’t work as a public defender. We lose far more cases than we win, and meet people at the lowest ebbs of their lives. And whether innocent or guilty, they are still human beings. That’s precisely why good defense attorneys do have sympathy for victims and their families. If you can’t feel sympathy for them, how can you feel any sympathy for your own clients?

          • Former Criminal Sex Offense Prosecutor
            06/17/2010 at 2:37 PM

            Huh? You don’t believe it is proper to consider taking responsibilty for your actions by way of a guilty plea while demonstrating sincere remorse, providing cooperation as well as a desire to admit that punishment is appropriate, a legitimate consideration for a judge to therefore lessen the sentence as opposed to a party who denies any & all culpabilty, refuses to cooperate in any way, & makes it clear that they feel neither remorse nor that punishment is warranted? It is not so much about punishing those who refuse to enter guilty pleas, it more about the facts & circumstances that the judge will look on favorably regarding the attitude & demeanor of those who choose to do so.

            In addition, here in Maryland, the Federal Sentencing Guidelines are so draconian as compared to the State, it is a well known that the failure to take a plea in Federal Court will result in a very long sentence if convicted. While everyone is entitled to a full trial under the law in theory, the caseloads in fact make that impossible to fulfill. One could argue that multiple weeks long trial such as is currently taking place actually deprives countless others of their right to be heard by utilizing so much of the available resources on just this 1 matter.

            Bill O is right, judges don’t like being jerked around, for good reason. The Trouple are not the only defendants in the system, they are just taking up far more time, space, financial & judicial resources than 99.9% of the others.

            • Themis
              06/17/2010 at 2:49 PM

              Again there is a difference between conferring a benefit for acceptance of responsibility and punishing someone for going to trial. I’m a lifelong public defender, and I don’t hold it against anyone who goes to trial, even a long trial with private counsel.

              I’ve been in court appointed/defender cases that have lasted 8, 10, 13 weeks, some capital some noncapital. That was my client’s right. Wasn’t always smart. But in the end, it was what they were entitled to demand.

              • Former Criminal Sex Offense Prosecutor
                06/17/2010 at 2:55 PM

                I’ve been a representative for The Women’s Bar Assoc. in evaluating & making recommendations of potential judicial candidates & do you know what is always 1 of the most important areas of concern in terms of qualification? The ability to move a docket.

                • Themis
                  06/17/2010 at 3:05 PM

                  That may be true for many if not most. But no one should pretend that indigent defendants benefit from a “rocket docket.” They don’t. Nor do they suffer as a result of people with means exercising their rights.

                  Frankly, I’m thankful that the federal judges I clerked for were as concerned with the Constitution as with clearing cases. And they were both former AUSAs, one of whom gave a four closing argument when prosecuting a governmental corruption case.

              • Bea
                06/17/2010 at 3:02 PM

                I respect your position, Themis, and it needs to be said. That aside, I think suppositions here aren’t meant to deride the defendants’ constitutional rights – just using common parlance which may be misinterpreted in a legal context.

                I’d love your take on this, Themis – what would you do if Joe Price were your client and said he wanted to testify? Could you do a mini primer here for what would happen if you thought he might be perjuring himself and knowing he was perjuring himself? Always, respect.

                • Themis
                  06/17/2010 at 3:16 PM

                  If I truly believed that he was going to perjure himself, which would require more than inferences that his testimony conflicted some of the evidence, I would would move to withdraw citing a breakdown in the attorney/client relationship. I cannot suborn perjury. But being doubtful is not enough to withdraw given the prejudice to the client. If were to move to withdraw, I would not say to the court that I want to withdraw because my client plans on perjuring himself

                  But hopefully by this point I would know whether he was going to testify and what he would testify to because I would have put him through at least 2-3 directs and as many or more crosses. And I would have some of the crosses conducted by colleagues who know how to conduct a withering cross, including some former prosecutors.

                  That’s the only way to find out how a client will stand up on cross, if they have a tendency to be combative, if they have verbal or physical tics that need to be addressed.

                  More often than not, clients choose not to testify after being put through the wringer. Even very truthful people can come across poorly when testifying. That said, I always explain that it is their right to testify as well as remain silent. But I also generally advise against it.

          • Also From the Post Story
            06/17/2010 at 3:16 PM

            > They cannot be punished for insisting
            > on their right to a trial…. It would
            > clearly be unlawful under the Fifth and
            > Sixth Amendments

            Happens all the time. Including every time someone is sentenced more harshly after a trial than if he’d pled guilty.

  15. Themis
    06/17/2010 at 12:01 PM

    The interesting aspect of the judge’s decision is that she must believe that the government failed to prove that Ward and Zaborsky partiipated in any clean up of blood or of Robert’s body , actions which are alleged as overt acts in the conpspiracy count. Along the the same lines, if she believed that the evidence construed in the light most favorable to the government proved either Ward or Zaborsky participated in the disposal of the real murder weapon (as posited by the prosecution), she would not have granted the Rule 29 motions as to tampering.

    Query then, does she believe that the government has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a clean up of the scene, as Joes would have to have done it by himself or with an unindicted person? Or that the “real knife” was discarded?

    After all, Joe could still be found guilty of tampering with evidence if he pulled the knife out or wiped blood off of it. Or if he disposed of the “real knife.”

    So what do you think, Bea?

    • Bea
      06/17/2010 at 12:39 PM

      My gut reaction (after not much sleep) is that she’s limiting the conspiracy to the obstruction and uncharged conduct as it relates to the three defendants – not tampering. I think she’s a pragmatist and knows appellate process there quite well, kicked out the tampering as against Ward and Zaborsky, which I speculated might be the case (as did a number of others). My sense of her reasoning is that the evidence against Joe on tampering is much like the way he rules the roost, that he did the heavy lifting (pardon the pun) on the clean up regardless who murdered Robert, and the Judge is a stickler for detail.

      I reason she does have the plant knife still in play, and a clean up, that Joe himself performed. That’s to say the Dylan and Victor may well have known that that was the plan, but as with many things, Joe was the decision maker and thus the two performed no overt acts of tampering. She’ll not be concerned about appeal as to this, yet my guess (don’t know jurisdiction or up to date caselaw) is that she’s withholding judgment on which acts within obstruction have been proven within a reasonable doubt for later.

      All is to say in my opinion she’s going literal as to “actions” on tampering (kicking out DW and VZ) but keeping the rest as the evidence fully develops.

      Side note – since she’s kicked out tampering against DW, the Seattle knife which Ward’s counsel thumped his chest about in Opening and which presumably will be coming in with stellar testimony, is almost a non-starter in how much it helps DW as it relates to remaining charges.

      • Bill Orange
        06/17/2010 at 12:53 PM

        I was surprised she threw out the tampering charge against Dylan. The hidden knife case seemed pretty solid to me.

        • leo
          06/17/2010 at 12:59 PM

          Even if you buy the missing knife theory, it doesn’t have to have been Dylan who caused it to disappear. Joe would certainly be familiar with Dylan’s room and the paraphenalia therein.

          • Bill Orange
            06/17/2010 at 1:20 PM

            Dylan had the knife case, though, which is evidence in and of itself (and was introduced as such). The fact that it was reportedly hidden suggests evidence tampering to me.

      • RosieRiveted
        06/17/2010 at 4:50 PM

        Does Dylan’s missing knife really matter for this case? So what if Dylan had an incomplete knife set, and the missing knife from that set is the more probable size and shape of the murder weapon. Don’t the tampering and obstruction charges simply depend upon that the knife on the nightstand was not the one that killed Robert?

  16. NYer
    06/17/2010 at 12:11 PM

    Question for crim lawyers on the tampering charge- does the fact that the defendants showered before arrival of authorities — thus removing possible evidence on *themselves* — carry any weight in tampering charges?

    It appears not. It seems like that element would be circuitous and un-prosecutable (i.e., the act is not a crime in itself, and would remove any evidence of itself – much like shredding a document no one knows exists).

    Can one of the attorneys explain if tampering based on that fact could ever be successfully prosecuted?

  17. Hoya Loya
    06/17/2010 at 12:15 PM

    Bea and I agreed (see Day 15 Wrap) that Dylan and Victor might likely be acquitted on tampering.

    But I think it is significant that Dylan remains in the case on the other charges.

    • Former Criminal Sex Offense Prosecutor
      06/17/2010 at 12:23 PM

      My recollection is that Bill O also predicted the ruling correctly. You may all 3 take a bow. I declined to make a prediction.

      • Hoya Loya
        06/17/2010 at 12:44 PM

        Yes, kudos to Bill O. as well.

        Not taking too much credit for the prediction — I think the writing was on the wall based on the dearth of tampering evidence against the two.

        But I am surprised Dylan is still in the case. I suspect your man Fowler may have played a big role in that regard.

        • Bill Orange
          06/17/2010 at 12:54 PM

          Nope, I got it wrong. I thought the tampering charge against Dylan would stay in.

          • Hoya Loya
            06/17/2010 at 1:11 PM

            Well it’s to your credit that I assumed you had it right;) I hold your opinions in very high esteem.

    • Bea
      06/17/2010 at 12:50 PM

      I did seriously consider the possibility of Dylan walking today, though I thought I saw ‘enough’ based on readings here and by news outlets. I’m very glad we are proceeding with all three defendants. While I’d hoped the Judge would have considered tampering within the conspiracy making all conspirators guilty of co-conspirators’ actions, it did seem shaky against Dylan and Victor given absence of evidence of anything overt by either of them in this charge.

      • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
        06/17/2010 at 1:02 PM

        Same here, Bea. This ruling gives me confidence that this judge is not one to be played with. She’s not a push-over. This says to me she has an idea percolating in her head as to what happened ……. Joe orchestrated and Victor and Dylan followed his instructions. Now it’s up to the defense to prove her thoughts wrong.

        • Carolina
          06/17/2010 at 1:07 PM

          Whatever the verdict in the end, I feel that the judge will rule correctly, even if it’s on a technicality in favor of the Trouple. I don’t think she’s anyone’s fool and takes the law very seriously.

          • Bea
            06/17/2010 at 1:12 PM

            Agree, Carolina, and a smart judge doesn’t want to be overturned on appeal (which WILL occur no matter how lame). She wants to be carefully weigh the facts and apply the law so that the verdict and sentence (if there is one) will be “tight.”

            But we’re still a long way from home . . .

  18. Rich
    06/17/2010 at 12:20 PM

    In all of these posts, I have never seen any discussion on a an obvious question.

    If they did tamper with the scene and clean up the blood, wipe the knives, etc, then where is the evidence?

    Where are the used towels? If discarded, they would have eventualy been found? No?

    • Devin
      06/17/2010 at 12:28 PM

      This is exactly my point. People need to think out of the box.

      Did Michael take away the evidence? Did the intruder leave with it? There is so much that just doesn’t add up. I can’t peg these men as the culprits of the murder.

      • rk
        06/17/2010 at 1:00 PM

        Here’s a crazy theory: evidence was removed from the house in a dark trash bag, walked 1/4 mile away, and deposited in someone’s trash can. It then ended up at the dump and now sits under 300 feet of waste. This would take about 10 minutes to accomplish.

        DC police could not possibly search every trash can within a half-mile radius. That only happens on TV.

      • KKinCA
        06/17/2010 at 1:08 PM

        Devin – if you had reviewed the historical posts/comments on this site, you would know that a majority of the people who comment here “think out(side) of the box.” Not to be rude, but I think Carolina made a good point above. I just started reading this site shortly before the trial started, and I made sure to do some research before I made any comments.

        • Devin
          06/17/2010 at 1:44 PM

          As did I. I started the same time you did and have read the older post. I have a lot of free time at my job here and I have read over the majority of the site.

          • Carolina
            06/17/2010 at 1:52 PM

            Google and the search engine are your friends. We’ve been inside, outside and around the box. We’re keen on new insights, don’t get me wrong, but there’s nothing new in your New.

            • Devin
              06/17/2010 at 3:21 PM

              I’m not saying that my ideas are new because I dind’t believe they were for a second. What I am saying is keep an open mind. Don’t jump to one theory and stick with it then use that theory to make assumptions about the character of the defendants.

              It’s keeping in line with the whole inncoent until proven guilty thing. As far as we know an alien could have abducted Robert and placed him like that in the bedroom. I am sure that was not the case but do you get what I’m saying? Leave the judgements for the judge.

              • Carolina
                06/17/2010 at 6:00 PM

                No, in fact we know it was not an alien. There’s reasonable doubt and there’s delusion.

                I’m not going to bird dog your every post, but I will point out that your points do seem to change depending on the moment. First you drag up questions about Robert long since put to rest, and then you say, “Let’s not judge the Trouple.”

                The thing is, no one here is judging them. We’re judging the evidence. If you’ve really read the site, why are you asking questions asked and answered repeatedly?

                • Lee
                  06/17/2010 at 6:17 PM

                  Kick some ass!

      • Ohio
        06/17/2010 at 2:18 PM

        I can see them responsible for this death, but until they are charged with that crime, we will have to make do with the current charges.

      • Elizabeth
        06/17/2010 at 3:32 PM

        Devin – Just because you haven’t come across it doesn’t mean it’s out of the box. No offense, Rich,(at all, I have certainly posted my fair share of BFO’s!) but yes, we have talked about the “evidence” and where it could have gone, who took it there, searching of cars, etc. So Devin, if it is a new thought to you, cool, awesome, enjoy diving into this intriguing case. But please refrain from telling people who have been tackling this case for years to “think outside the box.” (I didn’t actually know people still used that phrase.)

        • Devin
          06/17/2010 at 4:22 PM

          Ugh you guys arent getting what I’m saying.

          • Carolina
            06/17/2010 at 6:00 PM

            I think you were very clear.

    • leo
      06/17/2010 at 12:32 PM

      Oh yeah, there’s been lots of speculation over the last 18+ months about the disposal of incriminating evidence. Synopsis of the speculation: the bloody stuff was bagged up and Michael or some other accessory took it out of the house before EMT/police arrived.

    • ccf
      06/17/2010 at 12:47 PM

      There is a theory that Michael Price took them.

      • Bea
        06/17/2010 at 12:57 PM

        You can read many, many old threads where these issues were tackled. Many speculate the stabbing occurred in the shower, greatly lessening the clean up ‘towels’ etc. The absence of any video or digital cameras was striking to most of us, and I personally think that the weapon and the cameras were carried away along with cleaning materials – many posts too on who might have assisted, where the materials might have gone (including discussions of local area, when ‘trash day’ was, etc.)

        I appreciate that this case is baffling, and I encourage all to read and post, and read some more, because many issues have been bandied about numerous times. I don’t mean this as discouragement but to simply say new posters shouldn’t be offended (or surprised) if there isn’t much response simply because it’s been rehashed before. And welcome.

        • Bea
          06/17/2010 at 1:00 PM

          Didn’t mean to respond only to ccf but instead to all our newer members –

          • LegallyConfused
            06/17/2010 at 2:37 PM

            Thanks Bea. This is my first comment although I’ve been following the blog for almost three months.
            I know what I don’t know. While I have gut feelings, I’m not ready intellectually or legally to posit any theories or draw any conclusions.

            I’ve been a juror on two murder trials in DC, and, both times I was completely confused by the time the prosecution rested its case. Yet I had paid very close attention to what limited evidence was presented in court.
            A lot of evidence presented only made sense to me when we went to the jury room, and could openly discuss our questions.

            Thus, I am going to continue to read the current analysis and comments, and, when I don’t understand some commentors’ remarks, I’ll do my homework and search back thru the mountain of data that has been assembled by the eds.
            Thanks to all–the eds. especially, but also to all the serious commentors who have provided us with insights that might not have occurred to us. And, for some much needed comic relief at times.

            • Bea
              06/17/2010 at 2:56 PM

              Hey Legally – welcome. While I wanted to tell people why their comments might not get much in the way of response if it was hashed and rehashed in the past, I do think most of us old-timers are more than happy to answer legitimate questions (and possibly learn from fresh eyes!).

        • Rapt in MD
          06/17/2010 at 2:08 PM

          You know, I was just thinking…I know my digital photos show what type of camera took the pictures if I go in and look at the Properties of the file. It would interesting to get this type of tag information off of some of Price’s photos and then query the manufacturer(s) of the camera to see if the trouple members were good consumers and filled out the registration card. I would love to see them asked for the missing camera to go with the missing knife.

          • cinnamon
            06/17/2010 at 2:14 PM

            Very smart.

            • Rapt in MD
              06/17/2010 at 2:16 PM

              I hope the prosecution is reading this blog…I know many have said that is the case.

          • weaver
            06/17/2010 at 5:55 PM

            I agree, very smart!

            Rapt in case the prosecution doesn’t read this blog I think you should email them.

            I have a question along those lines, is it a known fact that they didn’t have any camera equipment in the townhouse?

  19. KiKi
    06/17/2010 at 12:30 PM

    Interesting quote from the city paper coverage:

    “After the morning ruling, defendants Zaborsky and Ward headed into the hallway with one of their attorneys to discuss the recent developments, while Price remained in the courtroom. It’s the first time this reporter has seen the lovers separate at all during the proceedings.”

    Dissension in the ranks? Or just an explanation of the judge’s ruling to the two it effects?

    As someone who has conducted trials, I think a lot can be determined by the attitude of the attorneys throughout the case and their interactions with their clients. Especially hallway conversations!

    • Themis
      06/17/2010 at 12:49 PM

      Which is why attorneys should request a room in which to confer with their clients and maintain poker faces in the courtroom, which good attorneys generally do. I tell all of my clients to act as if the judge’s and jury’s eye are on them at all times when they are present in and around the courthouse, even if they are having lunch a block away and follow the same rule.

      • Craig
        06/17/2010 at 12:58 PM

        Goddess: I wasn’t in the courtroom yesterday but heard that Price made no effort to maintain a poker face. While AUSA Rachel Lieber was aguing against the motion to acquit, it seems that while he was listening to her, his reactions were obvious to all: shaking his head, mouthing words of disapproval, etc.

        • Themis
          06/17/2010 at 1:05 PM

          I don’t doubt that he presents significant “client control” problems. The judge undoubtedly noticed. And while she will not hold that against him, many jurors would. Too bad a pack of crayons and a coloring book couldn’t divert him.

          • Bea
            06/17/2010 at 1:10 PM

            Love the notion of giving Joe a coloring book. Excellent.

          • Carolina
            06/17/2010 at 1:21 PM

            I could understand if Joe were the average client, but anyone who has so much as been in traffic court knows this is just NOT done. What is *wrong* with him? What is he trying to do? I can’t believe he doesn’t have a reason for it.

        • Bea
          06/17/2010 at 1:06 PM

          Joe Price really is his own worst enemy – apparently he learned nothing from his previous gaffes. It’s crazy to think he doesn’t know better per Themis’s sage advice to clients that I would have thought he’d have known. Out of control, I wonder?

          • Hoya Loya
            06/17/2010 at 1:21 PM

            Lawyers are always the most difficult clients aren’t they (speaking from experience on both sides, lol)?

            I’m sure Bernie is earning every penny of his fee.

          • KKinCA
            06/17/2010 at 1:22 PM

            Denial! Plus I think that Joe really believes his lies – I understand that pathological liars do that.

            • Carolina
              06/17/2010 at 1:23 PM

              Or at least believe other, lesser beings should believe them.

          • Carolina
            06/17/2010 at 1:23 PM

            Is he out of control, or trying to do something else? As I said above, he’s a lawyer, a good one, too. He knows better. What is he trying to do here?

            • weaver
              06/17/2010 at 1:40 PM

              Maybe he is scared?

          • Elizabeth
            06/17/2010 at 3:18 PM

            Little or no impulse control – he sounds like one of my kids!

  20. weaver
    06/17/2010 at 1:42 PM

    Here is an update on the defense case:

    The first defense witness is Nicholas Petraco, an independent forensic consultant who has worked for the New York City Police Department.

    Petraco testified Thursday afternoon that he saw no distinctions among cotton fibers from the knife found near Wone’s body, a towel found at the scene and Wone’s T-shirt, all examined under a fluorescent microscope.

    That means neither the towel nor the shirt can be excluded as the source of the knife’s fibers, he said, rebutting testimony from a prosecution witness that the fibers on the knife didn’t come from Wone’s shirt. Prosecutors say the knife was planted as part of the cover-up.

    Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/blogs/capital-land/defense-begins-its-case-in-wone-trial-96577684.html#ixzz0r8KJDUTj

  21. weaver
    06/17/2010 at 1:48 PM

    Concerning Wone’s shirt and lack of blood…. would there have been enough time to wash and dry it to remove forensics from the killer? I’m thinking about the dog alert on the dryer lint.

    • Carolina
      06/17/2010 at 1:55 PM

      The shirt was bloody, not the sheet. It was still bloody when it was taken off the body. The articles in the washer were interesting, though. I still don’t know a single person who washes a Prada shirt at home.

      • Elizabeth
        06/17/2010 at 3:23 PM

        I thought it was decided that it was a Prada t-shirt – as in undershirt? Otherwise, no, and if it wasn’t a t-shirt that seems valuable. I doubt these guys (not because they are the trouple but because they are busy and could afford it) did much laundry at all. And Prada or not, most people send out their work clothes to the dry cleaners.

  22. Farmer Ginny
    06/17/2010 at 1:53 PM

    With all the talk in yesterday’s posts about one of the defendants turning, it’s wise to remember that a judge isn’t required to follow a plea bargain. If one of the defendants decides to sing, thinking that he’d get a substantially shortened sentence, he could be in for a really nasty surprise. That’s one of the reasons I don’t believe that we’ll see the three break ranks.

    • Carolina
      06/17/2010 at 1:58 PM

      There’s little reason to sing at this point, especially with their lack or priors and the sentencing guidelines.

      • Former Criminal Sex Offense Prosecutor
        06/17/2010 at 4:18 PM

        What do you think of this possibility..somewhere down the road of time Michael Price, with his history of priors, drug use & relapses, is arrested holding an amount of illegal drugs making him subject to the very frightening sentencing guidelines of current Federal statutes. 25 years mandatory…wouldn’t his court appointed counsel be wise to suggest if Michael knows anything at all that would be of interest to investigators regarding another criminal matter, perhaps the unsolved murder of Robert Wone, that will be the time to make a deal? No issue with double jeopardy as to the current charges..There is no statute of limitations on murder. All they have to do is bide their time.

        • Hill Bird
          06/17/2010 at 6:19 PM

          Spot On.

  23. ebgodard
    06/17/2010 at 2:30 PM

    Help! Can someone clarify “tampering”? Does this refer only to acts after the police arrived or tampering with evidence at the scene. If it includes the clean-up, I am surprised that Victor is off the hook.
    I don’t know how Joe could have accomplished so much by himself, especially if Victor’s scream was closer to 11:00pm than 11:35. I believed that Victor was probably not involved in the actual murder, but came down after, screamed and then was persuaded by Joe to help him. I think it was premature to through anything out. The defense could inadvertantly open a door for prosecution cross or redirect that might show either Dylan or Victor did tamper and nothing can be done.

    Perhaps I am confusing tampering with obstruction.

    • chilaw79
      06/17/2010 at 4:02 PM

      The prosecution needed to show that Victor or Dylan altered, removed, etc. a document, record, or physical object in order to interfere with an official proceeding.

      Except for testimony about Victor providing another towel to Joe, there was no evidence that Victor or Dylan actually altered, removed, etc. any material. The only physical objects recovered were a knife, a towel, the clothing Robert wore, and the bed sheets. Apparently, the judge did not believe there was sufficient evidence except as to Joe (who reported he moved the knife and wiped some blood).

      Although we can speculate that other objects may have been removed (particularly something with blood on it or a weapon), there is no real factual basis for that other than evidence that the knife found in the room with Robert’s body may not have been the murder weapon.

  24. Danali
    06/17/2010 at 2:42 PM

    “Petraco testified Thursday afternoon that he saw no distinctions among cotton fibers from the knife found near Wone’s body, a towel found at the scene and Wone’s T-shirt, all examined under a fluorescent microscope.”

    This surprises me a great deal. Is this some Fisher Price grade microscope? There must be some detectable differences between the fibers of the (white?) towel and (grey?) t-shirt- whether or not Petraco could detect them…

    • leo
      06/17/2010 at 2:47 PM

      Well, even the prosecution’s expert, Deidrich, testified that “white” cotton fibers are ubiquitous and even found floating around in the air. The grey tee shirt fibers look white under the microscope, just like the towel fibers. The Diedrich testimony was not that convincing to anyone–too vague and inconclusive and easily rebutted.

  25. Bystander
    06/17/2010 at 3:45 PM

    Everytime I think of the comment about trying to “gay him up”, it reminds me of this, lol:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkjnKTEffbQ

  26. tucsonwriter
    06/17/2010 at 3:59 PM

    Editors – thanks so much for the testimony of the forensic expert. Wow. Very compelling statements. So according to my tally – Ward, Zaborsky and Price are all still charged with conspiracy and obstruction of justice and Price is still charged with crime scene tampering.

  27. weaver
    06/17/2010 at 4:04 PM

    Does anybody have any guesses as to how the defense will attack the missing blood? What can they possibly say? It’s not like an intruder drains blood or gets rid of bloody sheets/mats…. I can’t think of any possible way around this.

    • Ivan
      06/17/2010 at 4:10 PM

      Remember what MedLaw said. Sometimes blood stays within the body. It think it’s related to the cardiac tamponade. (out of my knowledge realm I’ll admit), However, keep in mind what JP said several times – it was a bloody scene.

    • leo
      06/17/2010 at 4:48 PM

      The Medical Examiner expert Dr. Fowler said that most of the bleeding in a case like Robert’s would have been internal. He did not find unusual the small amount of blood on the sheet below his body.

      • RosieRiveted
        06/17/2010 at 5:05 PM

        If Robert’s bleeding was internal, wouldn’t the autopsy have revealed where all the blood went?

      • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
        06/17/2010 at 5:13 PM

        Actually, his answer was “yes, but…” and was not allowed to continue. Kirschner was able to ascertain more information about the amount of blood present. Here’s what was in yesterday’s posting:

        “Last note: Kirschner followed up with Tom Connolly’s earlier question if the blood found on the scene was consistent with the wounds. “Yes, but…”, replied Fowler, with Connolly declining to follow up on “but.” Not Mr. Kirschner.

        In Dr. Fowler’s mind, any pressure being applied to the right side of Robert to stanch blood flow would have resulted in more blood being moved to the right of his body…and more blood being pressed or just oozing on that side. No evidence of that was found.”

        • TK
          06/17/2010 at 6:03 PM

          And I thought that the amount of blood found in his body was like 25% of what he would normally have, so a lot of blood went somewhere…

      • Ivan
        06/17/2010 at 5:16 PM

        Where did he say that? I must have missed it.

        • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
          06/17/2010 at 5:21 PM

          I pulled this info from yesterday’s post, Ivan.

    • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
      06/17/2010 at 5:08 PM

      They will probably try to blame it on the Medical Examiner.

  28. CapHill 507
    06/17/2010 at 4:10 PM

    As far as conspiracy/obstruction charges remaining, wouldn’t the obvious nature of the crime scene itself – clearly a reasonable person would believe that there had been some clean-up/modification of the circumstances – be evidence of some deliberate alteration of the evidence?

    And the fact that the three defendants claim to be the only parties (other than the “intruder”/Michael) in the home adjacent to the events and their stories, although consistent, do not correspond to the state of the victim/nature of the crime clearly indicate the conspiracy? If I leave my partner, a carton of eggs and a pan in my kitchen and return 10 minutes later to find my partner and an omelette, isn’t it reasonable to conclude that he made the omelette, even though I did not see him make the omelette, despite any attempt he might make to deny it?

    • weaver
      06/17/2010 at 4:15 PM

      My feelings exactly.

    • ebgodard
      06/17/2010 at 4:19 PM

      I agree. So I am not sure how the judge could drop tampering since all admitted being in the house and the scene was not as it should be. Unless she believes Joe could have done it all by himself, which to me is highly doubtful. Had the judge left the tampering in for all, there would have been much more incentive for Victor or Dylan to roll. Now I think it is less likely.

    • Devin
      06/17/2010 at 4:30 PM

      Thats circumstantial at best. Your just assuming that he made the omlette. When in fact he is just in the room with the omelette. Is the pan dirty? Are his prints on the pan or the carton of eggs? Is there a third party in the house?

      Sorry to play devil’s advocate but people assuming things is my biggest pet peeve.

      • CapHill 507
        06/17/2010 at 4:49 PM

        Okay, but we’re not debating the meaning of life or the existence of God here. Any adult with reasonable parenting skills, or anyone whose parents called him or her out on an attempted con (“But, Mom, I swear I didn’t do it!”) can put two and two together.

        In my personal experience on juries, all trials go forward with incomplete banks of evidence. If the evidence were complete and incontrovertible, there really would be no need for a trial other than a tactical attempt to delay/defer punishment. The standard is not certainty, but “reasonable doubt.” Anyone who cannot connect the dots in this circumstance is, to my thinking, not reasonable. The proposed explanations offered by the defense may be plausible (some moreso than others) on an item-by-item basis, but altogether do not add up to any reasonably possible scenario.

        • Elizabeth
          06/17/2010 at 4:54 PM

          Yes, the standard is reasonable doubt, not no doubt.

        • weaver
          06/17/2010 at 5:35 PM

          I agree this is a no-brainer.

          I can’t imagine a single person buying the intruder theory in any way, shape or form. It is not at all reasonable.

          Since the three men are pushing that ridiculous scenario to me it is proof they are all lying. I really do think it is that simple.

    • mw
      06/17/2010 at 5:20 PM

      What if there were three people in the kitchen? Can you just assume all three helped with the omlette and convict them all?

  29. tucsonwriter
    06/17/2010 at 4:28 PM

    To whit- what is missing from the scene? Cameras, needles,the drugs used to render Robert Wone immobile, clean up materials, blood, knife…. Where did they go? Never found in the house. They must have been disposed of by someone at some time. I think this is where the defense was trying to bring in Michael Price. We don’t know what is in the phone records but they have been admitted into evidence.

    What is striking and unusual in this case? The nature of the stab wounds, and the lack of defensive marks, most notably blood on Robert Wone’s hands, according the the expert testimony for the prosecution.

    Note that at some point Joe Price said something about Robert Wone being stabbed from behind.

    All of this points to the often cited conclusion that Robert was stabbed after someone thought he had died to make it look like he died from the stabbing. This whole thing is so staged and way-over thought out and impossible that its hard to believe.

    Also if anyone has read Albert Ellis who came up with Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy – his conclusion is that most of us are irrational most of the time. Hence the enduring fondness we have for Sherlock Holmes and the dog that didn’t bark in the night.

  30. youhoodc
    06/17/2010 at 4:28 PM

    It has been almost 3 hours since the last update!! I’m having withdrawal symptoms. I need my update fix now.

    • dcbill
      06/17/2010 at 4:40 PM

      I know. I am dying to find out what’s been going on this afternoon.

      • chilaw79
        06/17/2010 at 5:28 PM

        I just watched the local (Washington) Fox News broadcast. Their report suggested that the defense might wrap up its testimony as early as tomorrow, putting on a trauma surgeon. It was not clear whether there were any other defense witnesses.

        I am not sure what this means for Henry Lee. Maybe he has a conflict in his schedule.

        This would suggest none of the defendants or Michael Price will testify.

        • weaver
          06/17/2010 at 5:44 PM

          I’m very curious as to what Henry Lee could do for the defense. Any idea? He can’t analyze blood spatter, they cleaned that up.

          It could be the defense won’t call him because on cross examination he would say things that would help the prosecution.

    • Bea
      06/17/2010 at 4:58 PM

      Am I reading correctly that this witness admitted he’d been fired from his job and didn’t know why?

      • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
        06/17/2010 at 5:06 PM

        That just blows my mind. LOL Defense counsel had the nerve to attempt to rake Lois Goslinoski over the coals for not being board certified and their “expert” actually got FIRED from his job. ::rolling my eyes::

        yeah…those are some big guns I hear firing. pardon the pun.

        • Carolina
          06/17/2010 at 6:16 PM

          I believe that sound was BF’s crow sandwich backfiring.

        • Carolina
          06/17/2010 at 6:21 PM

          I’ll tell you something else. I don’t know how much fiber evidence was on that knife, but I can tell you from professional experience that if you cannot differentiate between tee shirt fiber and terry, you’re probably doing it wrong.

          I’m not talking about whole strands of thread, either. I’m talking about basic fibers, worsts, twists, etc.

      • ccf
        06/17/2010 at 5:10 PM

        “. . . he had been a member of the Scientific Working Group on Materials Analysis.”

        I don’t know. That might not be a job — as in an employee. Could be a consultant.

        • chilaw79
          06/17/2010 at 5:39 PM

          Through the miracles of Google, I determined that the FBI establishes these working groups to develop standards of analysis for different types of forensic evidence. The working group members come from a variety of backgrounds, including the academic community, state and federal forensic labs, and the like.

          It is not clear who decides who can be a member. I could not find anything regarding Petraco’s departure from the membership of the Scientific Working Group on Materials Analysis/

      • Sage
        06/17/2010 at 5:12 PM

        Worse than that, he was asked to leave a Working Group. Which I assume is not paid employ. It looks like he was kicked out of a professional voluntary society. Boy, you have to really p.o. a group of people for them to ask you to leave.

      • Pamlico Sound
        06/17/2010 at 5:33 PM

        What’s that old Groucho Marx quote? I don’t want to belong to any club that would accept me as a member?

  31. ebgodard
    06/17/2010 at 5:32 PM

    If this had been a jury trial and I had been a jurer the following would have stuck with me:
    1-At one point Joe stated as he came down the stairs he “saw a lot of blood”.
    2-Victor said “there was blood everywhere.”
    3-That is NOT what the police found.
    4- Therefore I do not know why Victor had tampering charges dropped. He either participated in the clean-up or witnessed it. I would have let that charge against him remain for the time being based on his own words.
    5-I don’t think blood was drained as people have offered.
    6- I think the initial plan was to take Robert somewhere else and have no trace of blood in the apartment. Initially I think there was alot and it was cleaned up soley to support that Robert was removed by an intruder. A bad plan, but the only one they had under the circumstances to give them deniability and distance.
    7-The police really screwed up. They used Ashley’s Reagent which showed blood in multiple locations but it apparently degrades the blood to the point the FBI could not find even a trace. Had they used Luminol, which is standard operating procedure, there would have been traces left to test. There is no way that apartment should show no signs of blood had the police handled the scene properly. It would have been a slam dunk.
    8-Obviously CSI and NCIS is not the real world of crime scene protocol.
    9-If these guys get off it is because the first responders made mistakes.
    10-Across the country there is a huge territorial battle going on between police and the prosecuters/medical examiners. If murder is remotely suspected, crime scene analysts should be brought in to preserve the scene. That was not done and consequently the prosecution is at a disadvantage when there should have been a boatload of evidence.
    11- Finally the hospital screwed up in my view as well. Extra vials of blood should be drawn when murder is obvious. It can be extracted from organs even if veinous blood is not available. Since it is pretty clear that Robert was DOA on arrival it would be prudent to have a standard protocol for retrieving essential samples and try not to disturb crucial evidence.
    12-By the time the ME sees the body it has been moved numerous times and trace evidence has been lost forever.
    13- As a jurer, since it is only an obstruction/tampering case I would convict based on a crime scene that can not be explained.

    • Carolina
      06/17/2010 at 6:07 PM

      For 1&2, do you think what they were talking about could have been Robert’s soaked shirt, rather than the scene as a whole? I’m not saying I believe this is the case, but I can also see how someone unused to blood in any amount might see this as “a lot of blood.”

      That, of course, begs the question, why wasn’t it transferred to the sheet.

  32. vamom
    06/17/2010 at 5:45 PM

    Has anyone worked a case with three defendants, all represented by their own counsel, who all live in the same place during the trail? (the three are still living with Victor’s aunt, right?) Could you imagine living with the other two while you cut a deal with the State? Unless someone has moved out, I don’t any of them turning on another.

    • Carolina
      06/17/2010 at 6:03 PM

      Dylan is not living with the aunt, and it’s been said that Joe and Victor are no longer enjoying her hospitality.

      • AnnaZed
        06/17/2010 at 6:05 PM

        Really? Said by whom? When?

        I.did.not.know.this.

        Interesting, what on earth are they living on?

        • Carolina
          06/17/2010 at 6:13 PM

          I’ll be honest, I cannot say where that came from, but they’re supposedly staying closer to the courthouse these days. I don’t think it’s a permanent arrangement, unless of course the lease on their condo is up.

  33. Farmer Ginny
    06/17/2010 at 5:55 PM

    I have a question about a defendant’s testimony.

    If his lawyer asks him only questions that the defendant wanted to answer, then the prosecution can’t ask about other matters, right? I’m not expressing that well, but what I mean is that if he testifies only that he was asleep, heard a noise, came down stairs, and found Mr Wone stabbed, then the prosecution couldn’t ask him about what he did after that. Is that right?

    • Carolina
      06/17/2010 at 6:02 PM

      You’re asking if the prosecution can bring up things that have been ruled out, if the defense doesn’t open that door? THen yes, you are correct in that.

Comments are closed.