Day 21: Updates

3:15pm Update: Adjournment

At 2:46pm, the government rested their case in US v. Price, Ward and Zaborsky.

This followed a 45 minute questioning of Dr. Lance Becker, by AUSA Glenn Kirschner.  The defense passed on cross examination.

A full wrap to the day’s activities hits around 5:00pmET

1:15pm Update:  The Long Lunch Break Edition

The balance of the morning was spent on housekeeping and not the government’s rebuttal witness, Dr. Lance Becker.

It seems that Becker missed his train out of Philly by four minutes, but was able to catch the next one.  Deputies are to meet him at Union Station and will whisk him to Moultrie for his testimony, now scheduled to begin at 2:00pm, after the lunch break.

Nearly ninety minutes was spent discussing and hammering out the remaining stipulations and exhibits that will be entered.  Zaborsky counsel Tom Connolly succeeded in getting one admitted to the record, the broadcast of Nightline from the night of August 2, 2006; specifically the portion between 11:45pm and 11:52pm.

What’s up with that?

It seems the defense thinks there may be another woman’s voice from the broadcast that government witness Mr. Thomas may have mistaken for WJLA’s Maureen Bunyan.  Leibovitz agreed to having it entered and she will listen to it, but it won’t be played in court.

Ward counsel David Schertler had a list of exhibits he wanted entered, most of them supporting documents that included books and articles that were referenced in Douglas Deedrick’s testimony.  For the government, AUSA Rachel Carlson Lieber agreed to most if they end up being properly redacted.

One of Schertler’s exhibits is still undecided, the MPD’s PD-251, the police report of the bike theft from 1509 Swann that occurred in 2008.  The government objected on grounds of relevancy and substantive content; double hearsay, too.

Schertler is leaning on a ‘business record exemption’ to have Leibovitz rule it in bounds.  She said she needed a hearsay justification: “These are garden variety and bread & butter hearsay areas,” she told Schertler.  He brought up a 1975 circuit court case, US v. Smith and gave a copy to the judge to help her decide.

Price counsel Bernie Grimm worked hard to have the judge make a missing evidence instruction, for herself of course, on the missing MPD radio transmissions from the night of the murder.  Grimm contends the defense was unable to really drill down with a clear event chronology, because officers’ arrival and departure times at both Swann Streen and the VCB are inconclusive.  Months ago we learned that these transmission were deleted by the MPD well after the murder and were unable to be produced.

Leibovitz agreed that, “…the record is full of inconsistencies,” but that Grimm did not establish a Jencks violation and therefore no sanction is in order.  She will not instruct herself to consider the absence of that piece of evidence in determining MPD witness credibility.

At 12:17pm, aside from one exhibit disagreement regarding Joe Price, to be worked out over lunch, the defense officially rested their case.  The trial reconvenes at 2:00pm with Dr. Becker.

NOTE: A clarification on EMT Weaver’s testimony.  It seems she did recall that her partner Jeff Baker attempted to place an IV in Robert’s neck.  The attempt was noted in her trip report, however, the location was not specified.  In her report, she noted the attempt with a “U,” to denote it was unsuccessful.

Earlier updates follow.

10:30am Update

The morning kicked off with a very brief redirect by Bernie Grimm of DC EMT, Tracy Weaver.  The upshot is that her recollection is of her partner Jeff Baker trying to insert and IV line into Robert’s neck.  But on review of her report, there is no mention of that unsuccessful attempt at all.

Now the headline: Thursday will see the closing arguments.  Judge Lynn Leibovitz has given each party one hour for their closes.  Ward counsel David Schertler and his colleague Robert Spagnoletti will split their allocated time.  The government will also have an extra half hour for a rebuttal close.

Shortly before the break, Leibovitz did a Boyd inquiry with the three defendants.  All were sworn in and asked a series of questions:  Did they willingly waive their constitutional right to testify? Did they have enough time to consider waiving their rights? Was the decision based on free will? Were they satisfied with their legal representation?

We are on break until 11:30am.  Left on the schedule is one possible government rebuttal witness, Dr. Lance Becker from the Center for Resuscitative Science in Philadelphia.

Becker is en route to DC by way of the Acela and is expected to take the stand around 12:00noon.  During the break, government and defense counsel are meeting to discuss and finalize pending stipulations and exhibit lists.

9:00am Update:  The Molto Moultrie Edition

The trial is rapidly reaching its conclusion, just as DC’s first real heatwave of the summer sets in.

A final defense witness, EMT Tracy Weaver, has her cross by prosecutors this morning, and then we expect to see the return of Douglas Deedrick as a rebuttal witness.

DC EMT Tracy Weaver

The talk is that closing arguments could come as early as Thursday with the increasingly impatient Judge Lynn Leibovitz not inclined to give the legal teams a mid-week day off to prep their closes.

Or Thursday will be dark and Friday is the wrap.  Then again, who the Hell knows anymore.  Isn’t one last flurry of paper required?  Statements of fact / law?

What’s surprising is the chatter that says Leibovitz is nearly locked and loaded to render her verdict, almost immediately.  Though it sounds like a bold prediction, we’ve heard her decision could come down as early as Monday.

Always Mostly wary of idle courthouse gossip, we try to keep in mind the old DC saw, “Those who say don’t know and those who know don’t say.”

The trial reconvenes at 9:45am.  Watch this space for update throughout the day.

274 comments for “Day 21: Updates

  1. Bill Orange
    06/23/2010 at 8:39 AM

    Reposting from the last thread. Thoughts after a night’s sleep:

    Dr. Najam was a highly credible witness, but he did little to help the defense. Their “instantaneous incapacitation” theory is pretty much gone–every expert who’s testified has stated that Robert would have been conscious for a minimum of 5-10 seconds after he was stabbed.

    EMT Weaver’s testimony was a HUGE blow to the prosecution. She stated that EMT Baker was the person who made the needle marks in Robert Wone’s neck, directly contradicting Baker’s own testimony. She appears to be backed up by her contemporaneous written report, in which she clearly documented this. On the narrow point of the needle marks in the neck, I think her testimony has thoroughly discredited this piece of evidence for the prosecution.

    I think the bigger problem she presents for the prosecution is that she makes them look unbelievably sloppy. Did they even interview her? She was one of only three people in the back of the ambulance with the victim, she directly contradicts one of the other two people, and the prosecution appears to have been totally blindsided by her testimony. I’ve had a lot of fun mocking the high-priced defense team over the last week, but I think they’ve just earned their money here. The defense will be closing its case with a witness that makes the prosecution look breathlessly incompetent.

    • cinnamon
      06/23/2010 at 8:53 AM

      I can’t find the comment from yesterday but I think it was Bill2 or someone who seemed to have some knoweledge of protocols for EMTs. They stated that normal procedure for someone PEA would be (I’m sure I won’t get this exactly right) for 1 person to do chest compressions while the other administered oxygen. Baker was administering oxygen and the fireman was doing chest compressions. The commenter noted that it wouldn’t make sense for Baker to try to put an IV in the neck but that part of the protocol did include (now this is where my memory is fuzzy) intubating. They thought that perhaps Weaver made an error in her notes. Perhaps Baker will be called back to the stand to clarify this.

      I’m sorry if this isn’t clear. I tried to find the comment but couldn’t.

      • Bill 2
        06/23/2010 at 9:01 AM

        Don’t look for it under my name. I’m not a medical person. History is my line.

        • Kate
          06/23/2010 at 10:08 AM

          Morning Bill 2 – history is my line, as well.

          Cheers,
          Kate

      • Bill Orange
        06/23/2010 at 10:13 AM

        That would’ve been me. I’m still trying to figure out what Weaver really said, so I think I was a little too firm in my statement above. My impression from yesterday was that she said that she was trying to put an IV in the arm and Baker was trying to put an IV in the neck, and both failed. I think that David said that her report supported this. If this is really what she said, the prosecution is in BIG trouble. If what she actually said was that she was trying to put an IV in the arm while Baker was “working the head” (as chilaw79 says below), that’s a BIG difference. “Working the head” means that Baker had a mask over Wone’s mouth and nose and was giving oxygen, and/or he was trying to intubate. Often, you will give several “breaths” through the face mask, then try to intubate. If the intubation fails, you give several more “breaths” and then try again. So did Weaver say that Baker tried to INTUBATE twice, or did she say that Baker tried to start an IV in the neck twice. They’re two VERY different things.

        • chilaw79
          06/23/2010 at 10:25 AM

          Bill,

          I now have my notes in front of me. On direct examination, the defense focus was the PEA. Weaver testified she attached limb leads that showed electrical activity, but since there was no pulse, it was PEA. She testified that an IV line could not be established so no meds were given.

          On cross, after some attempts by the prosecution to have Weaver reveal her subjective impressions, Weaver basically testified that Baker was “working the head” and she was trying to insert an IV in an arm while the fireman was giving CPR. Wone could not be intubated. I thought she said she tried to establish an IV twice and failed and that she then discontinued trying to place an IV. I did not make any notes about Weaver trying to place an IV.

          Weaver testified they were not able to revive Wone, there was no respiration, no pulse, the pupils were unreactive, there were no vital signs, and no printout of cardiac activity. CPR was provided en route by the fireman with no change. Wone’s pupils were unreactive and he had no eye opening, verbal response or physical response. This meant Wone was a 3, which she said was “deceased.”

        • Bill Orange
          06/23/2010 at 10:27 AM

          Softening my statement even more–I went back and read through the Day 2 and 3 posts, and it looks like there’s nothing there about whether or not Baker said anything about putting an IV in the neck, so I think that the person who was “misremembering” was me, not Baker or Weaver.

          • chilaw79
            06/23/2010 at 10:33 AM

            What my notes say precisely (like Weaver, I have to go back and decipher them) is that the EMTs could not establish a line and could not intubate. As a result, no medications were given during the run.

            I did note that Weaver said she tried to insert an IV twice and failed. She then gave up.

            I have to say that it sometimes was a little difficult to understand what a witness was saying. During Dr. Najam’s testimony, it sounded once like he said some tissue samples had been stored “informally,” but after Judge Leibowitz asked him to say it again, he said “in formaldehyde.”

            • LegallyConfused
              06/23/2010 at 11:36 AM

              Craig, the Editor’s 10:30 a.m. Update indicates that Weaver’s written report makes “no mention of that unsuccessful ttempt at all”, referring to “her partner Jeff Baker trying to insert am IV line into Robert’s neck”.
              If this is true, it seems easy enough to bring back EMT Baker as a rebuttal witness to show no third IV line was tried on the neck after the two unsuccessful IV lines that Weaver had done.

              • David
                06/23/2010 at 11:53 AM

                Legallyconfused,

                The prosecution will not be calling Jeff Baker back to the stand, so it will remain confusing.

                David, co-ed.

                • LegallyConfused
                  06/23/2010 at 12:06 PM

                  Thanks, David, for the update.

                  I sure hope Judge Leibovitz can sort all these conflicting statements out

                  • Cat in Cleveland
                    06/23/2010 at 2:48 PM

                    Full disclosure-I’d like to see a conviction.

                    Judge Leibovitz’ job is not to sort out conflicting statements. Her job is to decide if its possible that the Defendants did not obstruct justice (or tamper, in Joe’s case). If she finds that it’s possible (even though unlikely) that Wone was stabbed and died in his bed as he was found by the EMTs, then she will have to acquit the defendants. If she finds that it is possible (even though unlikely) that the various conflicting statements were a result of confusion and emotion, rather than an actual intent to mislead the authorities, then she will have to acquit the defendants. So if the Judge believes that it is possible that Wone was stabbed in his sleep, woke up too shocked to move, bled out quickly and died without a sound, and that its possible that the chimes of the intruder leaving woke the defendants, and they simply imagined the grunts/cries or whatever, they win.

                    I can’t stand the idea that we may NEVER know what actually happened to that poor man that night.

                    • KiKi
                      06/23/2010 at 2:57 PM

                      I 100% agree with what you just said. Especially the last part. Sometimes the systemjust can’t provide closure.

                • Carolina
                  06/23/2010 at 1:16 PM

                  Not really. He said he didn’t in his first appearance.

              • Pshep
                06/23/2010 at 4:38 PM

                I was in court today. Weaver read from pg 2 of the written report. It stated that she (Weaver) made 2 unsuccessful IV attempts and Baker made 1 unsuccessful IV attempt. There was no notation on the report of where Baker’s unsucessfull attempt was on Robert’s body. I’m not sure if there was a notation of where Weaver’s unsuccessfull attempts were…

        • cinnamon
          06/23/2010 at 10:31 AM

          OK, so I got the Bill part right. I just assumed it wasn’t you since today you have a different viewpoint about this. (Sorry Bill 2 for the mixup)

          I hope Baker is brought back to clarify this.

    • chilaw79
      06/23/2010 at 9:28 AM

      Bill,

      I have not followed the trial as closely as you have, but I did not think EMT Weaver was a terrific defense witness.

      There still are unexplained needle marks and I thought she was pretty clear that Wone was dead when he was put into the ambulance. I did not see the run report. It was not blown up as an exhibit so it is not clear to me that the report details where the IV attempts were made. EMT Weaver was trying to put her IV into the arm. The run report seemed to be fairly cryptic.

      The other EMT was “working the head” but I did not hear her say anything about an IV being placed in the neck. The other EMT attempted intubation, tried to place the IV (not clear to me where, but clearly unsuccessfully), and provided oxygen.

      • Michael
        06/23/2010 at 11:13 AM

        It was I who stated that Baker’s attempt to start an IV in Robert’s neck was documented in the logs. Weaver did testify yesterday that was what she recalled, and shortly after stating this, she reviewed the log notes with Kirschner. I clearly misinterpreted that the IV placement activity was documented, as has been brought forth this morning in Weaver’s cross examination. Information overload. My apologies.

        In retrospect, though, Weaver was not a strong defense witness, since she did seem to confuse what actually happened with what is standard operating protocol. Certainly it would be difficult for any EMT to remember every detail of an ambulance run when hundreds are made a year, and it has been nearly 4 years since this particular run.

        It does continue to leave the needle marks on Robert’s neck in question, from what I can tell.

        All of your contributions from attending the trial proceedings are appreciated and help clarify the sometimes redundant and often unclear testimony extracted by the attorneys from the witnesses.

        – Michael, co-editor

        • chilaw79
          06/23/2010 at 11:24 AM

          I think this just goes to show that both eye witness and ear witness testimony have their limitations. Also, I came at this relatively fresh (although, in a bit of irony, I have been called for jury duty).

          I thought Weaver demonstrated through her testimony that she sometimes confused her recollections with standard protocol.

          • Carolina
            06/23/2010 at 1:19 PM

            Probably because if you don’t follow protocol, you aren’t on that job very long.

        • Kate
          06/23/2010 at 11:28 AM

          Thank you, MIchael, for the clarification.

          So it appears that the needle marks in Robert’s neck are still unaccounted for by the EMTs or the Emergency Room staff.

          Do I have that right … or am I also suffering from information overload?

          Kate

          • Michael
            06/23/2010 at 11:55 AM

            I don’t believe they have been accounted for. Anyone else weigh in?

            -Michael

            • Carolina
              06/23/2010 at 1:22 PM

              I thought someone in the ER said it occurred there and that Fowler indicated that the only two pre mortem punctures were in the ankles. I am now looking back to see what I can find.

            • Carol
              06/23/2010 at 1:22 PM

              Michael, I was in court yesterday and agree with your recollection.

              • David
                06/23/2010 at 3:02 PM

                I was in court court with Michael as well, and there were other puncture marks to the neck that Weaver did not account for, but with that said, it doesn’t mean that the ER docs didn’t do them. Just that Weaver couldn’t account for them.

                David, co-ed.

      • leo
        06/23/2010 at 12:01 PM

        I was at the morning session today (decided to return to work this afternoon so I can take tomorrow off and hear the closings) and what EMT Weaver said on Grimm’s redirect was that Baker tried to place an IV in Robert’s neck but was unsuccessful. She was shown her notes (the run report, I am assuming) and agreed that although she documented “IV” attempts by her and Baker as U (unsuccessful) (down in a square in the lower left hand corner of p.2 of the run report), she did NOT annotate “neck.” Thus she did NOT document that IV attempts were made in the neck; but she did testify that that’s where Baker made them.

        • Carol
          06/23/2010 at 1:24 PM

          Leo, you’re right on.

        • Michael
          06/23/2010 at 1:40 PM

          Thanks Leo. The latest update from Craig also brings this up.

          This demonstrates how difficult it is to completely summarize a day’s worth of testimony, with all the back and forth and cross examinations asking the same questions. In today’s world of digital recording and distribution, the ideal would be for a feed of the court reporter’s transcript be made available as the court reporter is transcribing the courtroom activities and testimony. Perhaps some day we will have that capability.

          -Michael, co-editor

          • Eagle
            06/23/2010 at 2:14 PM

            If we do have a court reporter’s transcript available as the reporter is transcribing, you can trace the history of that happy event right back to his historic blog.
            Good thinking!

    • srb
      06/23/2010 at 9:36 AM

      Let’s also not forget that Weaver is the paramedic who said that it looked like Wone’s body had been showered, redressed, and placed on the bed, and that she could tell immediately that something was very wrong about the scene. (This was discussed in the defense’s motion in limine to exclude EMS statements.)

      • weaver
        06/23/2010 at 10:16 AM

        Any idea why she thought he was redressed?

        • Carolina
          06/23/2010 at 2:08 PM

          If I recall correctly, the slit in the tee shirt was too clean, and there was some blood beneath it that should have transferred when it was fresh. In other words, the front of the tee shirt was clean.

      • cinnamon
        06/23/2010 at 10:42 AM

        Wasn’t this Baker’s testimony? Not Weaver’s.

        • RosieRiveted
          06/23/2010 at 1:19 PM

          I think that was the first cop on the scene’s testimony – the African-American female who was from a different district than where the crime occurred.

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

            Nope, it was a medical responder. Which of them, I do not recall, but I believe it was Baker.

            • chilaw79
              06/23/2010 at 2:27 PM

              EMT Weaver is an African American female. I thought Baker was a man.

              You may be thinking of Durham.

              • RosieRiveted
                06/23/2010 at 3:44 PM

                That’s exactly who I was thinking of – thanks for the refresher.

          • weaver
            06/23/2010 at 3:51 PM

            From what I read today (on day two wrap) I believe Baker was the first medical person to enter the room. I’m inclined to think he paid attention to some of the crime scene detail as I think he was immediately suspicious of Price, to the point he felt a sense of fear walking into the room. He has years of experience and something about Price made him uncomfortable.

        • jeff
          06/23/2010 at 2:10 PM

          Weaver’s was the one tied to the statement that it appeared as if the body had been stabbed, “showered, redressed, and placed in the bed”

          • jeff
            06/23/2010 at 2:11 PM

            Forgot to cite: that comes from the Defendants’ Joint Motion in Limine to Exclude Opinion and Speculation Testimony of EMS + Police, pg 1

    • Timeline
      06/23/2010 at 12:00 PM

      Does anything change now that Weaver’s testimony this morning reveals that the log DOESN’T say anything about Baker making an attempt to get a line in Robert’s neck? I believe the assumption last night is that her recollection of Baker’s neck attempt was bolstered by the fact that she was reading it from the log.

  2. CDinDC (Boycott BP)
    06/23/2010 at 9:28 AM

    “After 38 minutes of pulseless electrical activity (PEA) cardiac arrest…..”

    I found an article in which a patient had P.E.A. for 38 minutes….

    http://www.cjem-online.ca/v5/n1/p49

    • chilaw79
      06/23/2010 at 9:33 AM

      Yes, but that patient had some vital signs. She had blood pressure, respirations, etc. and Wone had none.

      Wone had no verbal response, no physical response, and no respirations. He had no blood pressure. In sum, Wone was dead when he was placed in the ambulance, if not long before.

      • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
        06/23/2010 at 9:43 AM

        Robert was in the condition you describe when the EMTs arrived. But….

        my point is that we don’t know how long Robert had PEA. This article clearly shows that PEA can last an extended period of time. The defense claims PEA can last only 12 mintes or so.

        Robert could have been in the same condition as the patient in the article well before emergency personnel was called. 20 or more minutes before 911 was called.

        Robert was at death’s door when the EMTs arrived and transported him. He could well have been suffering for an extended period before emergency personnel arrived. And this backs up what the medical examiner said….that Robert lived long enough to digest his own blood.

        • Hoya Loya
          06/23/2010 at 10:33 AM

          This judge rarely tips her hand, but I think she made it clear that she was not buying the twelve minute figure even before it was completely out of the expert’s mouth. I think the fact that Robert was clearly all but dead when the EMTs arrived, according to both Baker and Weaver, will weigh much more heavily in her decision than the “fourth quarter” emphasis by the defense on PEA.

        • leo
          06/23/2010 at 12:05 PM

          Does having PEA mean you are not dead? I am failing to get the significance of this. If having it means you could have moved, that’s one thing, but that is obviously not what anyone is saying. The dispute is over when Robert became unconscious and therefore unable to move. Dr. Fowler said 45-60 seconds. I believe the cardiac surgeon said 5-10 seconds. I don’t know who would be more familiar with this issue; I would presume that the cardiac surgeon has actually seen people die while in surgery so has some idea of a timeline, and that the medical examiner only sees someone after they have died, not during the dying process (one would hope).

          • chilaw79
            06/23/2010 at 12:23 PM

            I think the confusion comes in because the cardiac surgeon says that it is the filling of the pericardial sac with blood that causes the cardiac tamponade.

            Obviously, the cardiac surgeon has not seen someone being stabbed. His testimony was based on his clinical observations of patients in the ICU who had previously had cardiac surgery who then suffered complications resulting in cardiac tamponade.

            The prosecution tried to make the point that the cardiac surgeon could not know precisely how long it took for the pericardial sac to fill and did not know which wound occurred first. The only thing the doctor really could testify to was that once cardiac tamponade occurred (which involves the pericardial sac filling with clotting blood), the patient would become unconscious within 5-10 seconds.

            • leo
              06/23/2010 at 12:38 PM

              OK, then this is completely consistent with Dr. Fowler’s testimony. Fowler said that once tamponade occurred (no more blood flow), the brain would be able to remain conscious for 5-8 seconds based on the residual oxygen and glucose everyone’s brain contains. Fowler testified that the tamponade in Robert’s case was “open,” because the pericardial sac was pierced, and thus the sac would fill more slowly than a “closed” tamponade, where there is no slit in the pericardial sac and it can fill more rapidly.

              • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                06/23/2010 at 12:50 PM

                Closed tamponade is consistent with the medical examiner’s testimony….she testified that the blood would have seeped into the pericardial sac, not gushed.

                • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                  06/23/2010 at 12:50 PM

                  oops….OPEN temponade is consistent with the ME’s testimony.

                • chilaw79
                  06/23/2010 at 1:15 PM

                  Dr. Najam, however, also said he thought that 50 ccs of blood would have been going into the pericardial sac with each beat of the heart, so it would fill very quickly since it can only hold between 200 and 250 ccs. The slash of the aortic root occurred at a spot of maximum pressure.

                  • Carolina
                    06/23/2010 at 1:27 PM

                    Of that 50, how much would have leaked through the slit?

                  • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                    06/23/2010 at 1:42 PM

                    Chilaw says: ” the pericardial sac with each beat of the heart, so it would fill very quickly since it can only hold between 200 and 250 ccs”

                    Actually, it can hold much more…..as much as a liter.

                    From the article I read:

                    “If the fluid accumulates slowly, the pericardium will expand, and perhaps 1 liter would be necessary to cause death.”

              • chilaw79
                06/23/2010 at 12:53 PM

                Dr. Najam felt that the sac was closed (despite the 7/8″ inch slit in the sac). AUSA Martin tried hard to get Dr. Najam to distinguish between open and closed, but Dr. Najam resisted. He opined that a slit is not like a big hole or window of the type used in cardiac surgery to prevent a post-surgical cardiac tamponade.

                • Carolina
                  06/23/2010 at 1:29 PM

                  I hope that this is addressed by the rebuttal witness today. An inch slit should leak. Not gush, maybe, and not stop tamponade, but leak, nonetheless.

                  • Michael
                    06/23/2010 at 1:45 PM

                    Prosecutor Kirschner did bring this up in a round about way in his questioning of Weaver’s observations of the body. He asked if the wounds were “gaping” and big enough to insert a finger into them, leading one to believe that the 7/8″ “slit” was more than just a slit. of course, Weaver was not on the stand as an expert medical witness, so her testimony on that topic is probably insufficient to sway the opinions of medical experts.

                    – Michael

                    • chilaw79
                      06/23/2010 at 2:30 PM

                      There is no way that Weaver could see the slit in the pericardial sac. She could testify to the appearance of the wound at the skin.

          • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
            06/23/2010 at 12:47 PM

            Leo says: ” The dispute is over when Robert became unconscious and therefore unable to move.”

            Actually, the dispute is when 911 was called. The defense is using PEA to close up the timeline. IF the is correct (i.e., PEA lasting 12 or so minutes), then Robert would have had to have been stabbed immediately before the 911 call.

            Tamponade is used as a defense to support lack of blood at the scene. The defense is trying to say that tamponade would have made Robert die within seconds, resulting in little to no blood at the scene (because bleeding was internal).

            • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
              06/23/2010 at 12:48 PM

              typo alert: “IF the is correct” should be “IF the defense is correct”

            • Carolina
              06/23/2010 at 1:30 PM

              But as we already know Robert’s PEA lasted longer than 12 minutes, it doesn’t seem to work quite so well, even if the extra time is tacked on the backside.

              • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                06/23/2010 at 1:37 PM

                The ER detected PEA after midnight.

                Shows right there, that the 12 mintue theory is hooey.

              • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                06/23/2010 at 1:47 PM

                How I see things is that both sides present testimony from experts that is accurate. However, the facts as presented by the defense do not match up with the testimony of all individuals. Including the defendants.

                You can’t ignore the defendants own statements. If you take their testimony as factual, the defenses’ own arguments to not concur.

                The prosecutions’ testimony does. From the EMTs to the ME to the defendants. It all ties together.

  3. Rapt in MD
    06/23/2010 at 9:43 AM

    I finally made it down to Moultrie yesterday and was surprised to find myself standing at the courtroom doors with Victor’s parents who were surprisingly willing to talk. Victor’s mother made several comments: She called the MPD Keystone Cops and said they completely screwed the case up; she said she and her husband knew immediately that they would have to pay for the absolute best defense because her son and his partners were gay and would be found guilty based on that alone; a fellow WMRW follower asked Mr. and Mrs. Zaborsky if their son had ever been in any trouble to which she replied that he was a kind, gentle and generous person, adding that all three of the boys were the same way. She said Victor and Joe’s children are unaware there is anything unusual going on in the lives of their parents. She very bitterly made a comment about who was paying for all the expert witnesses. Victor’s Dad looked at us and said “this has been four years of pure hell.”

    Shortly after this exchange with Victor’s parents, Victor himself walked up and stood right next to us. He was very much at ease and smiled as he greeted his parents. When the courtroom was unlocked several us asked if the parents had reserved seats because we didn’t want to take up space from the family. Victor’s parents said the lawyers would escort them in and Victor laughed and said something like “don’t worry, they have a seat for me.”

    Joe was next to join the group carrying large foam boards showing chest diagrams. Finally, the group was joined by Dylan.

    My impressions after finally seeing the three defendants in person are as follows: Victor was exactly as I had imagined…very friendly, approachable, easy going. Joe seemed quite assertive as he arrived to the courtroom door. If I hadn’t already known who he was I would have thought he was one of the attorneys trying the case. He was not as buttoned up in his appearance as the other two and seemed quite arrogant. His demeanor in the courtroom continued to be this way. He bounced his leg throughout the four plus hours we sat in the room, taking notes and occasionally leaning in to speak to Bernie. He seemed very pleased with the doctors testimony regarding the tamponade and how quickly it would have caused unconsciousness. Dylan was the big surprise for me. When he walked up to the door and I saw him up close, I had a chill go through me. He looked very intense and when he looked at me I found it quite piercing and disconcerting. My reaction to him was visceral and I had not expected it.

    I will not go into much detail regarding yesterday’s testimony because it was so extensively covered, but will say that the Prosecution did a very good job of dismantling the doctor’s testimony regarding the cardiac tamponade. Dr. Najam went from seeming very capable to appearing nervous and slightly unsure of himself. At one point the doctor had said a tamponade could happen instantly and then said he had never said that only a few minutes later causing a little wave of unrest in the courtroom. He completely contradicted himself.

    Finally, I happened to look at Robert’s mother who was seated in the back of the room during a time when the doctor was discussing the examination of pieces of Robert’s heart…the pain on her face was was absolutely wrenching.

    • chilaw79
      06/23/2010 at 9:58 AM

      Were Kathy Wone and her mother in the far back row of the courtroom? I wish I had said something to them.

      I sat behind Dylan’s parents. I had the same reaction to Dylan that you did. I was unnerved by his attitude.

      • Rapt in MD
        06/23/2010 at 10:18 AM

        Yes, Robert’s mother was in aisle seat of the last row and had her head pressing against the wall when the testimony was getting to be too much for her. Kathy came in later. I know this is not relevant, but I thought she was so delicately beautiful. I too, wish I had said something to her, but I already felt somewhat sheepish at being part of the spectacle after standing outside with Victor’s parents. I’m glad I went, but I did have an “ambulance chaser” moment.

        • chilaw79
          06/23/2010 at 11:18 AM

          Kathy Wone is very petite.

          I would not feel guilty about speaking with Victor’s parents. I think it may have been a relief to them to be able to speak with anyone.

          I think trials are stressful for all concerned.

          • Also From the Post Story
            06/23/2010 at 4:26 PM

            I feel terribly for the families on both sides. Whichever way the verdict goes, one of them will clearly feel that a horrible miscarriage of justice has been done.

    • Kate
      06/23/2010 at 10:06 AM

      Thank you, Rapt, for your keen observations.

      As a parent, I cannot imagine the suffering this nightmare event is causing the families of all involved.

      To see a poster-sized photo of your beloved child on a steel autopsy table is unimaginable.

    • Hoya Loya
      06/23/2010 at 10:26 AM

      Rapt — thank you so much.

      The report of the converstation with the Zaborskys adds some much needed perspective — I don’t think we’ve ever heard directly from family of any of the defendants before. We’ve guessed at what the parents are feeling and going through — now we know. You’ve done a real service.

      • Rapt in MD
        06/23/2010 at 10:33 AM

        I am so glad you feel that way. I posted elsewhere that I felt a little embarrassed to be part of the spectacle as I stood waiting to get in. It was surreal to stand there with these three defendants and their families and of course, see the real people behind this story. Victor’s Mom also commented that they are very thankful that this story has not been picked up in the national media. She said in their home town in PA (did not say exactly where) it is not being reported and that only family and close friends know what they are going through. Victor’s Dad said they drive down each week, after spending the weekend at home “getting things done at the house.”

        • des
          06/23/2010 at 10:35 AM

          ps – has anyone discussed the fact that joe’s parents are not in attendance? (i’ve been out of town for a couple of weeks and will never get a chance to catch up on the commentary.)

          • Bill 2
            06/23/2010 at 11:12 AM

            I haven’t noted any discussion about them not being there.

          • leo
            06/23/2010 at 12:47 PM

            I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that Joe has not told his parents anything about all this. Seems like he and Michael are all each other has in terms of family support. Maybe that’s why Joe has the need for a big family of his own making?

            • Carolina
              06/23/2010 at 2:13 PM

              I believe Mr. Price attended at least one session.

              I am always curious why some of us take an unknown and make something of it out of whole cloth.

        • Bill 2
          06/23/2010 at 10:52 AM

          Victor’s parents now know that Dylan planned to replace Victor as Joe’s partner – that’s according to testimony by the fourth “family” member, Sarah Morgan.

          Victor’s parents are also aware that Joe and Dylan were hopping in bed with their neighbor, behind Victor’s back. They also know the neighbor mentioned that he wasn’t the only one having sex with Joe and Dylan – again Victor was left out of the romp.

          Victor is there to water the garden and to hose down the patio when the steaks are burned.

          • Bill Orange
            06/23/2010 at 11:03 AM

            Don’t forget all the e-mails between Dylan and Joe. Victor’s parents know about all of them, too.

            • Bill 2
              06/23/2010 at 11:30 AM

              Parents want happiness for their children and Victor’s parents seem adjusted to the trio concept. As a result of this trial, the Zaborskys have learned that their son’s spouses have been trolling for tricks while keeping Victor in the dark. I can’t begin to imagine how they deal with this, in addition to the trial, when they leave the courtroom each day.

              • leo
                06/23/2010 at 12:12 PM

                I can’t imagine his parents are too interested in the specifics of Victor’s or his partners’ sex lives.

                • Bill 2
                  06/23/2010 at 12:33 PM

                  It’s not the sexual specifics that need to be addressed in the parents’ thoughts. It’s the fact that two men are doing things behind Victor’s back. They are being dishonest with him. If they are doing this type of thing in the sexual aspect of their “family,” how can they be trusted in any other aspect of their relationship?

                  Wouldn’t this make parents think their son had been dragged into this by the two men who were cheating on this “family” relationship?

                  Many here, feel that Victor was the outsider of the events that night while at least one of the other two was directly involved from the beginning of the night.

                  Don’t you think Victor’s parents may be seeing this, also?

                  • Eagle
                    06/23/2010 at 2:31 PM

                    Bill2:
                    I suspect that Victor’s parents now are doing what they need to do to get him aquited. How they feel about the other players probably depends on whether they feel part of the” family”

              • SheKnowsSomething
                06/23/2010 at 12:33 PM

                Victor may not have been let in on the play sessions with Joe’s and Dylan’s tricks, but he was far from being kept in the dark about their extracurricular activities. Joe Price often propositioned guys in public and right in front of Victor.

                • Bill 2
                  06/23/2010 at 12:36 PM

                  Their neighbor testified that Victor did not know he had sex with Joe and with Dylan. Perhaps Joe, in front of Victor, tried to pick up tricks for a threesome, but it seems Victor was kept in the dark about other tricks.

                  • SheKnowsSomething
                    06/23/2010 at 12:40 PM

                    I understood Hix to say that he assumed Victor knew about the other guys traisping in and out of the house. Sarah certainly knew about them.

                    • Bill 2
                      06/23/2010 at 1:12 PM

                      Day 14 Update read:

                      And it seems the threesome may have been somewhat in the dark about Hixson’s relations with them. He admitted to sexual encounters with Price twice before August 2nd 2006, and 3 or 4 times with Ward – before August 2nd and after.

              • Carolina
                06/23/2010 at 2:15 PM

                None so blind as those who will not see.

                It’s easy to see where Victor gets this from.

            • RosieRiveted
              06/23/2010 at 4:05 PM

              BillO – I can’t turn up a good search term to see where these are discussed. Where were these emails detailed?

              • Bill Orange
                06/23/2010 at 4:51 PM

                It happened toward the end of the prosecution’s case. They were arguing over what would be stipulated by both sides, and this included a series of e-mails between Joe and Dylan that apparently involved a lot of planning that didn’t involve Victor that much.

          • Ivan
            06/23/2010 at 12:18 PM

            My heart aches for Victor.

    • des
      06/23/2010 at 10:33 AM

      hi rapt,
      i met the defendants years ago fairly superficially. i had the occasion to see victor far more than the other two. you have the exact same impressions of the three that i have always had. specifically dylan. there was a time on this blog where the idea was bounced around that he is a shy gentle type. but i have the opposite impression (admittedly based on meeting/interacting with him 3 or 4 times tops.) another poster mentioned the word “aloof”. i would also describe him that way from my limited experience. basically when i met him i got a pretty strong negative vibe. i even commented on it to my coworker who had dealt with them as well. take it for what it’s worth but i am a pretty good judge of character.
      when i was in the courtroom earlier in the trial he seemed the most unaffected by the whole thing. from his attitude that day to how he looks since i last saw him (spring of 2006) compared to joe and victor. the weight of the murder has taken a toll on both of them (especially victor who truly is a kind soul, albeit much weaker or more gullible than i expected – in my opinion) but dylan seems “aloof” to it all which i find frightening actually.
      i could be totally mistaken, i do not know him well at all. but these are just my feelings and observations and i find it interesting that you have seen the same thing.

      • Rapt in MD
        06/23/2010 at 10:43 AM

        I agree with you that even though Victor was smiling and affable there were moments when you could see the strain. I realize I’ve never laid eyes on him before, but to me even his skin tone and posture made him look worn down. I know he may have put himself into a terrible cover up, but it is hard not to feel bad for him now that I have seen him in person. Dylan, however, is another matter altogether. Now the Dom role, the toolkit and the well-studied texts don’t seem far-fetched to me at all.

        • Former Criminal Sex Offense Prosecutor
          06/23/2010 at 11:29 AM

          Rapt,
          I’ve always had the same reaction you described to Dylan just from looking at his photo on this website. His stare is very unsettling.

          Thank you for that posting. It is very illuminating.

      • commonsensewillprevailihope
        06/23/2010 at 12:49 PM

        If V knows ANYTHING about this crime, and is not telling it fully, then he is not a kind soul. I assume you believe V is innocent or you would not make such a statement.

        • Also From the Post Story
          06/23/2010 at 4:39 PM

          > If V knows ANYTHING about this crime,
          > and is not telling it fully, then he
          > is not a kind soul.

          Sadly, you are oversimplifying human nature in order to make a pat, easy, blind judgment.

          Many kind souls get mixed up in bad things by bad partners and then cover up for them out of misplaced kindness, or fear, or just weakness.

          Look at practically any abused wife.

    • TK
      06/23/2010 at 12:42 PM

      Sounds like Ward’s parents are a little bit self-deluded to me. Obviously they no nothing about his BSDM life with Joe.

      • Ohio
        06/23/2010 at 2:55 PM

        It seems to me that the parents have bought in to the line that if they all stick together that all will be safe. I hope they are ready for the ending.

    • tucsonwriter
      06/23/2010 at 2:18 PM

      Wow Rapt! I woke up this morning firmly convinced that Dylan did it. Now you post this.

      My theory is that Dylan and Joe had planned a little fun that didn’t include Victor. Victor got sent to bed. Dylan’s excursions to foreign lands signal to me a pre-occupation with illegal sex and perhaps more.

      Dylan and Joe’s show goes awry. Dylan stabs Robert Wone.

      Joe sees all of this but is unable to stop it. Either it comes from out of nowhere…. or it happens so fast Joe can’t react.

      Hence Joe’s BABBLE-lings that are incriminating them all.

      #1) the item about the thumb that is tucked in

      #2) the item about grilling steaks out back and having a fire and having to hose down the grill. No one hoses down a grill – they are made for fires.

      #3) Dylan being on medication for depression. Depression in psychobabble is anger turned inward. What happens when the anger goes outward? Dylan was already dominating Joe in the bedroom.

      #4) Joe’s bizarre discussion with Katherine Wone the day after the murder where she has to curtail his comments and says something like she felt like a door in her mind was opening and she just couldn’t go there. This was when he mimed the stabbing motions and made the grunting sounds

      It is also striking that the closing argument from the defense is being handled by Dylan’s lawyers.

      • Carol
        06/23/2010 at 2:32 PM

        Dylan will have 2 lawyers deliver closing; the others will have their own attorneys handle their arguments.

        • tucsonwriter
          06/23/2010 at 2:48 PM

          Saw that down below. Uggg. I have to step away from my computer. This is way too compelling.

  4. Vandy
    06/23/2010 at 9:50 AM

    Dr. Lee was paid between 10K – 20K for his expert witness testimony for the Def. Do expert witnesses used by the Govt also get similar payments, or do they get the usual $40 jury duty per diem.

    Another question: is there a reward for information that would lead to the arrest/conviction of Robert Wone’s murder(s)?

    • leo
      06/23/2010 at 12:15 PM

      Expert witnesses certainly can and do receive fees from the government. I am not sure whether they sometimes “discount” them or waive them altogether and testify as a public service.

      • Carolina
        06/23/2010 at 1:41 PM

        In the case of “Dr.” George Rekkers, he received over $100K of government money for testifying that gays and lesbians should not be allowed to adopt.

        Of course, he was generous enough to give some of that back to his rent boy.

        • Former Criminal Sex Offense Prosecutor
          06/23/2010 at 2:06 PM

          Not fair. That wasn’t a criminal case, Carolina. In addition I am willing to believe that George really needed the assistance of “Lucien” for those long strokes on his, uh bad back.

          • Carolina
            06/23/2010 at 2:37 PM

            No, it was not a criminal case, but the State did pay, and generously.

            He had good taste in rentboys, didn’t he?

            • Former Criminal Sex Offense Prosecutor
              06/23/2010 at 2:51 PM

              Well, 100k buys the best online!

              Have you ever seen Uber-Evangelist Ted Haggard’s former escort, meth procurer & masseur, Mike Jones? That guy was motivated by his conscience. He was the one with a conscience!

              Mike Jones had a genuinely placed moral fear of seeing some one so evil (he recognized him on TV carrying on about Satan) in such a powerful position preaching such hypocritical hate.

              I really admire Mike Jones. http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070707_mike_jones_on_ted_haggard_and_hypocrisy/

              BTW, Haggard now claims he has been “cured”, maybe George Rekkers performed the uh, “healing”.

  5. tassojunior
    06/23/2010 at 10:14 AM

    I’d be surprised if the prosecution doesn’t put on something to counter the PEA testimony. Otherwise they must accept the 12-minute window. Going with just a (quick) knife switch possibility seems a stretch even though they have Price’s admission he touched the knife.

    I don’t expect Baker back on. He said that Victor’s tears were insincere and that he never spoke to the EMT but was on a telephone call. In fact you can hear Victor speaking to the EMT while on the 911 call.

    • BadShoes
      06/23/2010 at 10:45 AM

      The 12-minute window is called into question by the twin observations of PEA at 11:59pm (12 minutes or more after the last possible moment for Mr. Wone to have been stabbed) and by the hospital at 12:17am. (a further 18 minutes since the previous observation, with the EMTs being able to do only very limited life support–no IV, but oxygen and CPR)

      The problem for the judge is that she can observe for herself that 12 minutes didn’t hold in this case, but at this point she has no expert testimony from either side that can help her form an opinion on what the right number might be. (I don’t have an opinion–informed or otherwise–either).

      Since the prosecution has successfully blocked further testimony on PEA under Rule 16, it isn’t so clear (to me) whether or not the prosectuion would see dispelling this uncertainty as helpful or not. It would depend, in part, on whether the PEA argument ultimately turns out to be real or red herring.

      It isn’t clear whether the defense intended PEA as an ambush or they just called an audible, but either way it looks like a mistake. It appears that the defense team had an opportunity to provide a plausible defense for their clients, and blew it either through excessive cleverness or because they didn’t notice PEA until too late.

      The only logical justification for a deliberate PEA ambush strategy (that I can see) would be that the PEA argument was highly rebuttable, so it had to be made via ambush or not at all. Otherwise, its just a screw-up.

      • Hoya Loya
        06/23/2010 at 10:56 AM

        This judge doesn’t often tip her hand, but it sounded as though she clearly didn’t buy the all too convenient 12-minute figure from the moment it was out of the expert’s mouth.

        I think it was an audible — someone on the defense team noticed it in Baker’s testimony and ran with it from there. Nice try — its the sort of thing defense lawyers are paid for. These sorts of things can often tip the balance. Here I think PEA was almost as much of a distraction in the defense case as Michael Price was in the prosecution’s case.

    • weaver
      06/23/2010 at 11:43 AM

      In reading the OS I get the impression that Baker was creeped out by Price when he arrived on the scene, to the point of feeling a sense of fear.

      • Carolina
        06/23/2010 at 2:38 PM

        I believe he implied he was sure not to turn his back on anyone there.

    • Carolina
      06/23/2010 at 1:42 PM

      Don’t know where you’re getting that. The 12 minute window is pretty much, well, out the window.

  6. Daphne
    06/23/2010 at 10:21 AM

    Isn’t the prosecution calling rebuttal witnesses? Won’t that add a day on? Or who knows?

  7. Kate
    06/23/2010 at 10:39 AM

    This is a follow-on question based on the observations of Rapt and Chilaw who attended the proceedings yesterday and I thought I’d toss this out there for discussions while we await the next update:

    Many court observers have commented on the demeanors of Price and Ward. Do they remind anyone else of Leopold and Loeb in the 1920s- the young gents who thought they could commit the perfect crime and were above the law due to their superior intellect?

    Loeb – intelligent, arrogant and quite the talker – much like Mr. Price.
    Leopold – intelligent, intense and very quiet – much like Mr. Ward.

    Just a thought for morning discussion -(although this may have been discussed before.) I’m practicing “work avoidance” on this extremely hot and muggy day in Northern Virginia.

    • Rapt in MD
      06/23/2010 at 10:49 AM

      Had not thought of this, but yes…Leopold and Loeb would be a good way to describe them. I know this may sound odd, but I’m a real animal lover and watcher of nature programming and my thought when I had the reaction to Dylan was that he looked like a mongoose when it locks onto a snake it is ready to attack. His look had what I would describe as the single-mindedness of a predator.

      • Kate
        06/23/2010 at 11:12 AM

        Rapt – that’s a pretty frightening analogy.

      • AnnaZed
        06/23/2010 at 12:32 PM

        Ward as Rikki-Tikki-Tavi, somehow we are back to the Victorians again.

        • Kate
          06/23/2010 at 1:05 PM

          That’s funny, Anna – Riki-Tiki-Tavi, haven’t thought of that in a long, long time.

          There’s much to be learned from history – and as an historian, I keep returning to the past. It’s my job.

          Cheers,
          Kate

      • tucsonwriter
        06/23/2010 at 2:23 PM

        I woke up thinking about lions in Africa and India. Once they get a taste for human flesh they have to be killed. Same with mountain lions when they start preying on humans.

        • DonnaH
          06/23/2010 at 5:13 PM

          It seems you’re making an analogy here to Dylan, who you earlier hypothesized as the lone stabber of Robert, and saying he should be killed. I find that an outrageously offensive suggestion which has no place on this website.

    • chilaw79
      06/23/2010 at 10:56 AM

      Even I am not old enough to remember Leopold and Loeb’s trial.

      Dylan just seemed inappropriate to me. He has a sort of half-grin and a certain boyish charm, but it wore thin pretty quickly with me. Joe Price seems like a lot of DC lawyers to me, although I think he talked himself into this jam with his theorizing and his defense of his housemates. He also seemed a little rumpled, especially compared to Dylan Ward.

      The only one I feel sorry for is Victor. He seemed more dignified than the other two defendants. He held the door for people entering the courtroom.

      • Kate
        06/23/2010 at 11:19 AM

        I, too, have sympathy for Victor.

        How did he ever get himself into this mess, one has to wonder?

        And I’m surprised that Joe looked “rumpled.”

        • Carolina
          06/23/2010 at 1:46 PM

          It’s hot and his shirts are too small. That’ll teach him to wash Prada in in the Maytag.

          • chilaw79
            06/23/2010 at 2:35 PM

            Carolina, you are one tough cookie.

            Joe definitely looked rumpled and grumpy to me, sitting off in the corner by himself.

          • Kate
            06/23/2010 at 2:45 PM

            That’s funny, Carolina.

            I suppose Joe’s shirts are now having to cover a greater circumference than what they were originally intended. Perhaps Joe is doing some stress eating?

      • Atlanta
        06/23/2010 at 11:28 AM

        You know who was polite and would hold open doors, had a gentle demeanor and a ready smile? Herman Webster Mudgett aka H.H. Holmes, aka the serial killer profiled in Erik Larson’s The Devil in the White City.

        You know who had a cold, unemotional response to the murder of his parents and was later exonerated for their murders? Martin Tankleff in New York.

        Sometimes, oftentimes, the expressions you see, esp. in a courtroom where everyone is watching you–and you know it–don’t mean a thing.

        • vamom
          06/23/2010 at 11:37 AM

          I’d have more sympathy for Victor if he showed some type of compassion for the Wone family.

          • commonsensewillprevailihope
            06/23/2010 at 12:51 PM

            exactly….i’m going to throw up on the keyboard if one more person talks about how nice V is. If one beleives he is covering up a heinous crime, that is simply evil, and cruel and inflicting continuing pain on the Wone family. So…I hope these people with such compassion for V think he is innocent or they have a really strange sense of compassion.

            • curiousdc
              06/23/2010 at 2:16 PM

              amen!

            • Bill 2
              06/23/2010 at 2:23 PM

              I hope your keyboard survives. It’s the people who burst in here on the Semen Trail that bug me. They’ve come here to learn about semen in the rectum. Once they hear it’s not part of this trial, they go away. The Semen Trail is a dead-end street right now.

              I feel no compassion for Victor but would like to see his parents stage an intervention over the weekend – get him away from Price and slap some sense into him.

              • Carolina
                06/23/2010 at 2:46 PM

                It would seem they are as thoroughly in denial as Victor.

              • Eagle
                06/23/2010 at 2:52 PM

                They think their son, Victor, is a victim of the “Keystone Cops” and prejudice(see eyewitness interview above). They do not think of him as having a responsibility or role in the murder/coverup .
                Seems the whole” family” is self-portraying itself as victims- of the police especially.
                Robert and the Wone family have little sympathy or presence in this scenario.
                The thrust is to save these three victims.
                Forget about the real victims.

              • Lee
                06/23/2010 at 3:45 PM

                Semen on the keyboard is a bigger problem that vomit.

            • RosieRiveted
              06/23/2010 at 2:41 PM

              Yep, he’s not earning sympathy by keeping mum on what he knows. But I can’t help feeling bad for him – we’ve all allowed ourselves to become attached to the wrong kind of person, and I’d like to think that is what happened here, versus him being a real cold-blooded killer.

            • Kate
              06/23/2010 at 2:52 PM

              I’m sorry, commonsense, but your posts lead me to believe you don’t understand the meaning of compassion.

            • ccf
              06/23/2010 at 3:09 PM

              Good vs evil is not so black-and-white. I can’t say whether Victor is a good person or not, but good people sometimes do bad things; they make mistakes. Victor has to decide between withholding the truth and preserving “the family.”

              I wish he had come clean in the beginning but now he’s stuck.

              Sorry, I should’ve reminded you to put a cover on the keyboard first.

        • Kate
          06/23/2010 at 11:40 AM

          Interesting references, Atlanta – particularly the Tankleff example – he had a very definite “flat aspect” when the police arrived, which I believe is one of the reasons he was suspected.

          As for H.H. Homes – he was the creepy of the creepy, wasn’t he? Larson’s “Devil in the White City” is one of my favorite books. Have you also read “Thunderstruck,” regarding the Crippen case? Another great read by Larson.

          • Atlanta
            06/23/2010 at 12:16 PM

            Haven’t read Thunderstruck but will look into it.

            Yes, re Tankleff, apparently when he testified in court, he didn’t shed a tear, and showed no emotion. Innocent then. Free now.

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

              You’ll enjoy Thunderstruck, especially in light of the recent discovery that Crippen was most probably innocent!

              PBS online has a “Secrets of the Dead” program devoted to these new discoveries. Fascinating stuff.

    • Mark M
      06/23/2010 at 12:43 PM

      THANK YOU! a few weeks ago when someone was saying that these individuals had too high a station in life and too much to lose by committing murder, I responded citing Leopold and Loeb. I also mentioned Jean Harris of the Tarnower murder. A big case around here a few years ago too.

      • Kate
        06/23/2010 at 1:19 PM

        Mark – I wasn’t familiar with the Tarnower case until a saw the HBO film. I believe Ben Kingsley played Tarower.

        Do you recall who played Jean Harris?

        Now I’m going to have to check on imdb!

        Thanks,
        Kate

  8. Vandy
    06/23/2010 at 10:50 AM

    Many court observers have commented on the demeanors of Price and Ward. Do they remind anyone else of Leopold and Loeb in the 1920s- the young gents who thought they could commit the perfect crime and were above the law due to their superior intellect?

    Kate,
    Which reminds me….I read the Washingtonian article yesterday and saw this in the comments section (posted by a Culuket):

    Wow. The perfect crime. These guys are really smart it seems.
    Posted by: Culuket, May 21, 2010 04:27:06 PM

    • Kate
      06/23/2010 at 11:23 AM

      Thanks Vandy – I’ll have to check out the comment section on the article again.

    • David
      06/23/2010 at 12:22 PM

      Vandy,

      We did a post and a video on the Loeb and Leopold link a while back.

      Here is the post:

      http://whomurderedrobertwone.com/2009/10/22/powerful-slave-master-criminal/

      • Kate
        06/23/2010 at 1:11 PM

        Thank you, David – I missed that post, it was before my time here. However, I did see the video a good while ago. Well done.

        Also, I must scold myself for not using the great search engine on the site.

        Cheers,
        Kate

  9. Lyn
    06/23/2010 at 11:00 AM

    EMT Weaver: “Robert’s extremities were pale and cool to the touch.”

    Price and Zaborsky claim they rushed downstairs upon hearing the grunt/scream, saw that Wone was stabbed, and called 911 within 1 minute. They also say Wone was still breathing about half-way through the 911 call. EMTs arrive about 5 minutes after the call is placed.

    Therefore, the total time between stabbing and EMTs arrival is “supposedly” 6 to 7 minutes and the total time between Wone still breathing and the EMTs arrival is “supposedly” about 3 minutes. Yet, Wone’s body is cool to the touch when the EMTs arrive.

    I have only three words: guilty, guilty, guilty.

    • mw
      06/23/2010 at 11:23 AM

      We’ll have to see what the defense comes up with in closing, but for now, I don’t think you can say that the defendants have “claimed” anything. They made certain statements at the time of the events and since. Those statements being inconsistent or even wrong don’t amount to a conviction. The state has to prove an active conspiracy, or tampering, not just that the defendants said things that were incorrect. It’s not a crime to say the wrong thing, or perceive something incorrectly, unless it can be proven that the proper mental element is there.

      • weaver
        06/23/2010 at 11:38 AM

        The defendants have claimed numerous things, and none of it fits with the evidence. It’s obvious they are lying, and covering up a murder. That is a crime and why they are on trial. I have no doubt the judge is going to find them guilty.

    • Former Criminal Sex Offense Prosecutor
      06/23/2010 at 4:48 PM

      We won’t know until Harry Jaffe announces his opinion again as he was the one who was so quick to write, “Innocent, Innocent, Innocent”.

      Eds, has he made any additional sweeping pronouncements since that eye popping bizarro one?

  10. Rapt in MD
    06/23/2010 at 11:11 AM

    I have often wondered if the grunting was from one or more of the defendants heaving Robert around while they dressed him, brought him from the shower (or wherever) and had to lift him up onto the bed. I wonder if the grunts of the exertion of doing this were loud enough that they were concerned they may have been overheard by a neighbor and hence had to be incorporated into the story in another way, i.e. made by the killer or Robert during the stabbing.

    • cinnamon
      06/23/2010 at 11:32 AM

      I always thought that the 3 grunts were coming from Robert upon being stabbed 3 times. Perhaps this is what caused Victor to scream. Maybe they had convinced Victor that Robert had OD’d and that making it look like an intruder came in and stabbed him was for the best for everyone involved. Perhaps, he agreed to go along with this plan and then when Robert moaned, he realized that Robert wasn’t dead and screamed inconsolably. They then moved Robert to the bed and called 911.

      I believe Victor even makes a comment toward the end of the 911 call…something to the affect of ‘now he’s really dead” or something like that.

      • whodoneit
        06/23/2010 at 4:55 PM

        I always thought the grunts were from the killer.

        • DonnaH
          06/23/2010 at 5:39 PM

          I agree. I think Joe’s grunting during offensive demonstration of the stabbing to Kathy Wone supports that (whether or not he did the actual stabbing, or watched someone else do it).

  11. Rick
    06/23/2010 at 11:37 AM

    I know this has been asked before but I haven’t read an answer. Does Price have any family members present for the trial for support?

    • Bill 2
      06/23/2010 at 11:45 AM

      I have seen no mention of Price’s family (other than Michael) except for people asking if his parents are at the trail. Thus far, I’ve seen no mention that they could be there.

  12. Wulfila
    06/23/2010 at 11:44 AM

    I have another theory on the “culuket” moniker, I posted it to the appropriate topic. It may be a little off-the-wall, but perhaps it will inspire another explanation?

    http://whomurderedrobertwone.com/2009/02/04/culuket-defined/comment-page-1/#comment-25470

    • David
      06/23/2010 at 11:54 AM

      Wulfila,

      I read your theory, and really appreciated the idea. We have no idea where the name came from, so off-the-wall is certainly worth speculating about.

      David, co-ed

    • Kate
      06/23/2010 at 12:09 PM

      Very interesting theory, Wulfila.

  13. 99
    06/23/2010 at 11:49 AM

    Does anyone know if someone is planning to write a book about this case? I can’t imagine that there isn’t one in the works.

    • Tim
      06/23/2010 at 12:08 PM

      In my opinion, the editors should write the book about this case. They are better placed than anyone else, in that:

      a) they have followed this case more meticulously and in person than any other source.

      b) as gay men, they are uniquely suited to do the necessary but complex commentary on the socio-political issues responsible for the comparative lack of national coverage of the case.

      c) there’s an analog for this kind of work: K.C. Johnson, the Brookyn professor who blogged obsessively for a year about the Duke lacrosse rape hoax, later teamed with legal journalist Stuart Taylor to write the definitive book on that case. He was also a liberal member of academia critiquing the socio-political elements of academia/media that carried the case forward. Our beloved editors are K.C. Johnson, times four.

      • 99
        06/23/2010 at 12:29 PM

        I completely agree. I know when I’ve read multiple books about a crime and trial the one written by the author closest to the sources is always the best one. I’d buy a copy.

  14. Rich
    06/23/2010 at 11:56 AM

    I really look forward to reading this site after the verdict.

    Then, we will see what people really think and feel about the case and the defendants.

    No more discussion of PEA’s, Knives, Culuket,EMT’s, Leopold and Loeb, Temponade and WAY MORE.

    RaptinMD’s perspective and opinions of the family and defendants were a home run and look forward to more of it. Could make for a fascinating weekend, if the decsion is Friday or definitely next week.

    Seems like most folks believe the defendants are guilty. Me, too.

    Just don’t want to see anyone go to jail for 20+ years and it looks like it’s happening.

    Really wish Victor spoke up. He will be alone and in a different jail and will later regret not coming clean and pointing the finger.

    How they could have thought they would have skated by after 4 years is beyond me.

    • Hoya Loya
      06/23/2010 at 12:34 PM

      Rich:

      No matter the verdict, this trial will not answer the question “Who Murdered Robert Wone?”

      Guilty verdicts, at best, will establish that the defendants conspired and/or obstructed justice or in Joe’s case that he tampered with evidence. Acquittals will indicate that they did not do these things. If guilty, some will feel the convictions were wrongful and if not guilty, many others will probably think they “got away with it.”

      But hopefully, either verdict (or combination of verdicts) will not lead to posts attacking the defendants but rather calm analysis of what the verdicts mean going forward (with regard to the civil case and the murder investigation). Hopefully, either verdict will bring us closer to finding the killer, whether by causing a new focus on other suspects, bringing about a confession — whatever.

      • chilaw79
        06/23/2010 at 12:59 PM

        I agree with this 100%.

        The defendants have stuck with their story. The 911 call and the police interviews, together with such forensic evidence as exists, may or may not be enough to convict on the current charges.

        The civil trial presents the best possibility of developing the facts from here, unless someone talks further about the events of that night. I wonder what inferences a civil jury will draw if the defendants remain silent.

  15. Doubtful
    06/23/2010 at 12:11 PM

    Boy, in reading all this one is really struck by how one sided and biased are the obervations and opinions expressed on this site. Everything is sliced and diced and randomly repackaged to support one and only one conclusion. Joe Price is evil incarnate and Robert Wone is the second coming of Jesus Christ.

    One piece of information is still left dangling though and certainly one that must have been a jarring note to Kathy Wone and Robert’s parents. How is it that Robert Wone’s semen is in his own rectum?

    The thought has occurred to me, I do not defend this conclusively. Perhaps this circus comes from a misguided attempt to cover Robert Wone’s tracks and spare his wife further pain and embarassment on the part of the defendents.

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

      It is a beautiful day in the neighborhood. The rain in Spain falls mainly on the plain.

      • Doubtful
        06/23/2010 at 1:34 PM

        Aren’t we smug?

    • Tim
      06/23/2010 at 12:19 PM

      You’re not even close to the first person to speculate as such.

      There’s simply been no evidence in court, in any of the reportage, or even in plausible internet rumor that Robert had a secret gay life, OD’d as part of a consensual sex act, and then had the defendants stab him after they thought he was dead in some gallant attempt to save his wife from the truth of his double life.

      And by the way, if those facts were true–and they arent–the defendants are guilty of obstruction of justice.

    • leo
      06/23/2010 at 12:32 PM

      If this were the reason for the initial cover-up, very hard to believe Dylan and Victor would keep to it over the ensuing four years and now facing possible prison sentences. Robert was Joe’s W&M classmate and friend, not Victor’s or Dylan’s. Victor did not even come downstairs to greet him when he arrived that night. Why would he and Dylan risk their reputations and freedom to cover up Robert’s supposed secret life?

    • David
      06/23/2010 at 12:51 PM

      I have thought about this – but I don’t know that I would be willing to risk the prison time, nor the time and money of this trial to spare someone the details of a husband who is on the down-low. I cannot imagine that these three guys would go to these lengths to protect anyone other than themselves.

      And yes – they are still to be considered innocent until proved guilty – and in this cause, guilty of conspiracy. We may well never know exactly what happened that night. and maybe it was some lunatic who followed Robert Wone from the Metro and then crept inside when the house had gone to sleep and stabbed him and then left.

      I don’t think there is good evidence for that, but it is in the realm of possible.

      One comfort I have from reading all of this is that the Judge is a fair-minded and intelligent woman. We look to her for justice in this case – for the victim and the defendants.

      And – if they are found guilty – are prepared for the appeals?

      • Atlanta
        06/23/2010 at 1:24 PM

        I could see Doubtful’s point. Some posters don’t seem to have a lot of tolerance for other views. People can always just ignore what doesn’t resonate with them. That’s just real life. That’s discourse. That’s a blog.

        Re David’s realm of the possible, Robert was in a guest room facing the street. Price and co. say someone came in the back way. Crazed lunatic would have to know the way around the house and the sleeping schedules to find Robert’s room from the back entrance, etc. What are the chances of that? Realm of the highly unlikely it seems.

      • Ivan
        06/23/2010 at 1:55 PM

        I thought Robert took a taxi to the house. Swan Street is not that close to either the U Street station nor Dupont. Anyway, there are times I wonder if it was a hit job at the wrong address. But the thought passes quickly.

    • Penelope
      06/23/2010 at 1:16 PM

      Kathy Wone wants answers – that was pretty clear from the press conference she held a year after Robert’s murder. My take is that she’d rather know what happened than preserve her memory of Robert. And based on what we know of Robert, he would want his wife to have closure on the cause of his death. IF (and that’s a highly improbable “if”) there was any sordid behavior by Robert that led to an accidental death, I’d bet that Robert’s connections would be able to keep that information under wraps, and the case would’ve been closed quietly.

      Has the trial even mentioned the semen?

      • Doubtful
        06/23/2010 at 1:33 PM

        What connections did Robert Wone have? The DL world is by definition exclusive and secretive and does not lend itself to black and white interpretations. The leap to “sordid” is telling, perhaps he got caught at plain old curious.

        Certainly Internet liasons going bad very violently in DC is far more common then all the convoluted feints and parries of this case as interpreted here.

        • Nora
          06/23/2010 at 2:16 PM

          Wasn’t this whole theory done to death at least two years ago? People posted multiple threads on this possibility, all of them dead ends. In four years no evidence whatsoever has emerged that Robert was anything but an honest, altruistic young man who would never deceive or endanger the woman he loved.

          What exactly are you trying to accomplish by suggesting otherwise, Doubtful? The semen samples were not even entered as evidence in this trial. They are completely irrelevant to what is being discussed today.

          If you are going to smear the name of an apparently decent man who died horribly and therefore cannot defend himself against your rumors, there should at least be some basis for it. The bottom line is that Robert did not deserve to die, no matter what his orientation, and if the defendants staged a cover-up they are still accountable no matter what Robert was doing that night.

          Sorry, but right now you just sound like the prurient village gossip.

          • RosieRiveted
            06/23/2010 at 2:53 PM

            Bullseye Nora. Whether Robert was on the DL is irrelevant to this case.

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

          Jesus. Yes, it was Robert’s fault. He was secretly gay and in a few short minutes met his death in truly Hammurabian ways.

      • leo
        06/23/2010 at 2:28 PM

        I don’t believe that’s in evidence. But it was part of the Medical Examiner’s investigation of the body (she used sexual assault swab kit #xxx, it says in her autopsy report), so perhaps the results of the swab did come in, in documentary form. We have not seen the vast majority of the 4000+ exhibits that have been entered into the record.

        • Coffee me
          06/23/2010 at 2:40 PM

          My friends and I discussed the semen issue this past weekend and the result of the sexual assualt kit (we undertsood) was seminal fluid and not very accurate. We dont know why it wasn’t part of the eveidence but concluded it was nominal and possibly a false positive. Can anyone shine a light on why the sexual assult kit results were not inlcuded in the prosecutions case? Is everyone walking around with some trace of seminal fluid therefore it’s not relavent?

          • Carolina
            06/23/2010 at 3:15 PM

            They took it off the plate because it didn’t help with the charges at hand.

            • Former Criminal Sex Offense Prosecutor
              06/23/2010 at 4:51 PM

              Best 1 liner of the day.

    • tucsonwriter
      06/23/2010 at 2:39 PM

      What did you read? This is brought up every other day.

    • bonsource
      06/23/2010 at 3:09 PM

      We will probably never know the circumstances surrounding Robert’s death. But to me, the salient feature of all of this is that there has been no believable motive presented for premeditated murder (and the scenario that he was lured there for that purpose is as preposterous as the one involving an intruder or an errant hit man). I don’t believe an interest in BDSM logically leads to the extremes of restraining, abusing and murdering a college friend whose wedding you attended. If that were the case the Eagle would have been out of business years ago.

      That said, there is plenty of reason to conspire to cover-up what really happened if you feel you were somehow negligent in the death of Robert, especially if you thought it might lead to manslaughter or 2nd degree murder charges. While we can speculate all we want on what that negligent behavior may have been, and the degree to which the parties willing participated, it seems likely there was some type of conspiracy to hide the true circumstances and hence obstruction as well.

    • Bill Orange
      06/23/2010 at 3:14 PM

      “Boy, in reading all this one is really struck by how one sided and biased are the obervations and opinions expressed on this site.”

      Probably because many of us have been following this case for years, and the facts are all pretty biased against the defendants.

      The “semen in the rectum” isn’t in evidence, but let’s address this comment: “Perhaps this circus comes from a misguided attempt to cover Robert Wone’s tracks and spare his wife further pain and embarassment on the part of the defendents.” You’re basically arguing that the defendants are all guilty of all the current charges, albeit for quasi-honorable reasons. And if this is really what happened, then their actions have helped a vicious killer go free.

  16. chilaw79
    06/23/2010 at 12:36 PM

    I think Judge Leibowitz will rule quickly. My guess is that she will hear closing statements on Thursday and rule on Friday (at the very latest, Monday).

    She is clearly at the top of her game, understands the issues, and has a firm grasp on what is evidence, what is not, and that certain testimony only gets so much weight in her mind. She clearly understands what the elements of each alleged crime.

    The big question mark in my mind is whether Judge Leibowitz will go as far in making inferences as some jurors might.

    • leo
      06/23/2010 at 12:53 PM

      I can’t imagine that she could rule that quickly, even if she’s been drafting her decision as the trial proceeded. There’s a lot of evidence and exhibits to review here. Also–what is that truism about juries who only deliberate for an hour or less and reach a verdict that quickly? Is it that they are going to convict or acquit? I think it’s convict, but perhaps I have it backwards.

      • Former Criminal Sex Offense Prosecutor
        06/23/2010 at 1:18 PM

        In my actual experience, none of the sayings are reliable indicators of what will happen. I’d say every case is unique.

        • chilaw79
          06/23/2010 at 2:43 PM

          This judge seems very conscious of time. Her opening remarks yesterday, when the court session was to begin and various counsel were absent, “Did I say two?”

          I am not suggesting that the Judge will not give the evidence every consideration. However, I think she has had access to much of the evidence for an extended period of time and has looked at the evidence on more than one occasion. I also think she fully understands the underlying law and will not spend the time that many juries do in trying to relate the facts to the jury instructions.

          I do agree that every case is unique. In my most recent bench trial, the judge ruled on the same day the two-day trial ended, perhaps because opposing counsel and I stipulated many facts in advance. Of course, this trial has been much longer and there are thousands of exhibits.

          I don’t think there have been many Perry Mason moments (to date myself still further).

          • Former Criminal Sex Offense Prosecutor
            06/23/2010 at 2:58 PM

            Chilaw79,
            The French have a saying, “A woman under 40 is like an unripe peach.” I am sure your many admirers will agree with me on this one.

      • William
        06/23/2010 at 3:09 PM

        Is there an actual written opinion on the verdict that the judge has to draft, or can she just say guilty (or not guilty) just like a jury, without explanation?

  17. TK
    06/23/2010 at 12:48 PM

    How late could Victor toss the others under the bus and cut a deal? Right up to the Judge rendering a verdict? Even after?

    • leo
      06/23/2010 at 12:56 PM

      Sure, they could all plead up until the verdict and perhaps even afterwards they could reduce their sentences if they had information on the murder to offer.

    • commonsensewillprevailihope
      06/23/2010 at 12:59 PM

      Don’t judges have to approve plea bargains? In this case even discussing a plea bargain with the judge would , one would think, influence the judge’s opinion of guilt or innocence on the verdicts not yet rendered. In contrast, when the plea discussion takes place during a jury deliberation the jury is obviously unaware of the plea discussion and would not be influenced by the plea talks.

      • weaver
        06/23/2010 at 3:37 PM

        I was wondering the same thing. This is the first bench trial I have followed and I find it interesting that the judge has dual roles. For example earlier I was reading the article from day 2 Bakers testimony, and he blurted out that when he walked into Robert’s room and saw Price the hair on the back of his neck stood up, the defense took a fit and the judge said she would instruct herself to disregard the comment.

  18. Bea
    06/23/2010 at 1:22 PM

    It will be interesting to see whether there is distancing in the three defendant’s closings. Both Connolly and Schertler could say that most of the evidence points to Price, that at most their clients were just following his lead as in everything else, not that they “conspired”. This works better for Ward, having allegedly slept through everything and hearing nothing until after the 911 call was in progress. Victor’s counsel has to deal with the delay between the scream and the call, but will (in my opinion) point out that most of the damning evidence lays at Price’s feet. I can’t recall the context in which Judge Leibovitz made reference to ‘at what point does the onlooking family member become responsible?’ but I do recall it – Connolly may run with this given how he secured ‘wasn’t Victor always kind and gentle?’ testimony from a number of witnesses.

    All this is to say is that I’m interested in whether there will be definite distance during the closing arguments, whether Price will be painted the only actor deserving a guilty verdict (if any).

    • Former Criminal Sex Offense Prosecutor
      06/23/2010 at 1:32 PM

      Bea,
      Wait for it..Trial is not over yet, Lance Becker, M.D. looks to be an exciting witness for rebuttal. He is qualified in both Emergency Medicine & Cardiac Arrest Resuscitation.

      http://www.pennmedicine.org/wagform/MainPage.aspx?config=provider&P=PP&ID=5289

      http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/News_Releases/apr07/resuscitation-center.html

      He has the goods to be really really good. Lingering questions should be put to bed by the time he is done.

      • Former Criminal Sex Offense Prosecutor
        06/23/2010 at 1:48 PM

        Correction of myself, Lance Becker, MD, is triple board certified, in internal medicine, emergency medicine and critical care medicine.

        His training in Emergency Medicine was in Chicago, that is one of the places that is commonly referred to in the biz as a real “Guns & Knife Club”. Guns & KNIVES, his testimony is going to be hot stuff. He had seen more than 1 stab wound to the heart from every angle of inquiry.

        • chilaw79
          06/23/2010 at 3:22 PM

          As one who has had occasion to sit in the University of Chicago Hospital Emergency Room at night, I can testify that emergency medicine in Chicago is trauma focused. Michael Reese Hospital also is on the South Side of Chicago.

      • Bea
        06/23/2010 at 2:19 PM

        Am looking forward to hearing the rebuttal, certainly, and apologies for getting ahead of myself. I do anticipate that there will be a conditional closing on behalf of Ward and Zaborsky – (1) the prosecution didn’t prove it’s case and all “issues” can be explained away, but (2) if you don’t buy that then all the “primary” actions are attributable to Price and just because our clients were under his spell doesn’t make them guilty of conspiracy or liable for his actions.

    • leo
      06/23/2010 at 2:36 PM

      Bea, when questioned this morning, the defense attorneys told Judge Leibovitz that they were going to split up the charges among themselves for purposes of closing–Grimm will do the tampering charge, and Schertler and Connolly will each take one of the remaining charges (they didn’t specify who will do conspiracy and who obstruction). They promised not to overlap. Schertler also asked the judge if he and Spagnoletti could divide their one hour between them, each doing 30 minutes, and again promised not to repeat each other in any way. She was adamant about one defendant’s not getting two closings and said she would be paying close attention to make sure that did not happen. So, not sure much “distancing” will occur with the closings. If it did, couldn’t one of the defendants argue for a mistrial, since the reason they agreed to a combined trial is that they have united interests? If somebody starts pointing a finger at somebody else, all he11 will break loose.

      • Bea
        06/23/2010 at 2:47 PM

        Thanks, Leo – critical info. It makes me wonder about Connolly’s stirring the Victor-is-nice pot and then being willing to lie down with the rest (I do still wonder about the signal sent by the judge re “family member participation”).

        I wonder if Connolly even put up a decent fight with the other counsel or if Victor just told him ‘don’t even bother’. From the discussion of the Zaborsky family (referencing ‘keystone cops’) I guess there’s no chance that they’re seeing this objectively as it relates to their son and what might be in his best interest (and in Kathy Wone’s best interest too – full disclosure).

        • KiKi
          06/23/2010 at 2:54 PM

          Hi Bea, I agree that Tom Connolly’s switcharoo was a little weird. But in the end he can only do what his client tells him to do. While the attorney does have some say over purely strategic and procedural issues, the client is the boss. Even if Connelly wanted to play the nice innocent Victor card his client may not let him.

          That being said, I am not convinced that the best defense strategy is to blame Joe. I actually think you win this on the united we stand strategy. If you blame Joe I think you admit guilt. I mentioned this the other day but I think as a defense attorney I advise my client at this point you either plea out or go for broke. And going for broke means a united front.

          • Bea
            06/23/2010 at 3:23 PM

            Agree that the client always calls the shots, ultimately, but here am curious whether Victor is calling it or if Joe-via-Victor is calling it. I understand the all-for-one approach (even from civil trials) but the odds are rarely fairly distributed. Pending the final witness(es) testimony (and a lesser degree, the closings – much less valuable in bench trials), in my opinion, Joe will bet taking Victor down with him in obstruction and conspiracy (though perhaps not Ward). Even if one is defense-oriented (I am generally but not in this case) I think few would argue that Joe is likely considerably more culpable than Victor yet they will (again, my opinion) both get convicted (with the and-one of tampering for Joe).

            If there is a conviction for these two, and that is a big ‘if’ no matter my opinion, whether the Judge allows her gut to affect her sentencing of the two in a disparate way remains a possibility as well, though I wouldn’t count on it.

      • David
        06/23/2010 at 3:35 PM

        Leo,

        I wouldn’t agree that the defendants agreed to a united trial. Each of the defendants filed a motion to sever from their fellow defendants and the Judge denied the motion.

        David, co-ed.

  19. former crackho
    06/23/2010 at 1:30 PM

    It has been a while since I posted but I have been following everything as closely as possible and really appreciate not only the editors’ diligent coverage, but also that of everyone else who has added valuable information and insights, espeially on some of the medical stuff that I found a bit confusing.

    I don’t feel sorry for Victor. If he couldn’t tell that Joe was a selfish, pompous narcissistic ass from the moment he met him, then he’s dumb beyond feelings. I feel extreme sorrow for Kathy and Robert’s parents and his true friends. I get tears in my eyes just thinking about them sitting through all of this. My only hope is that Judge Weinberg’s Leibovitz’s decision and the end of this trial will bring them some peace.

    • Ivan
      06/23/2010 at 1:50 PM

      Who is Judge Weinberg? And crackho, haven’t you ever fallen in love?

      • David
        06/23/2010 at 2:11 PM

        Judge Weisberg was the Judge who had this case before Judge Lynn Leibovitz. And Former Cracko — glad to see you are back. I have missed your take throughout the trial.

        David, co-ed.

    • galoon
      06/23/2010 at 2:11 PM

      You’ve been missed CrackHo.

      • Bea
        06/23/2010 at 2:48 PM

        Agree!

      • ccf
        06/23/2010 at 3:36 PM

        *Former* CrackHo.

        • galoon
          06/23/2010 at 3:52 PM

          so true – my apologies to “Former”CrackHo.

  20. Aquanetta
    06/23/2010 at 1:39 PM

    So, apparently the judge is going to render a quick verdict. This is generally bad news in a jury trial for the defense… Any insight or stats for bench trials?

  21. Gama
    06/23/2010 at 1:40 PM

    Did Deedrick testify today?

  22. Bill
    06/23/2010 at 1:54 PM

    While I was one of those who kept stating to hold opinions about the outcome of the case until the attorneys for the defendants had the opportunity to present their $1-million defense, I have to say now that I think their presentation was pitiful. This is what all that money bought?

  23. Former Criminal Sex Offense Prosecutor
    06/23/2010 at 2:00 PM

    Here is the applicable behind the scene saying on that topic:

    Kids, while I urge you to make lemonade out of lemons, I must caution you that it is impossible to make chicken salad out of chickenshit.

    Not from my co-authored “District Court Training Manual” for new prosecutors, but part of my oral presentation.

    • KiKi
      06/23/2010 at 2:02 PM

      How about “Don’t count your chickens before they hatch.”

      • Former Criminal Sex Offense Prosecutor
        06/23/2010 at 2:10 PM

        Nope. “Judges & juries are unpredictable, the only thing you should count on is that.”

        • KiKi
          06/23/2010 at 2:12 PM

          That may be one of the few we agree upon. Always good to find common ground.

          • KKinCA
            06/23/2010 at 3:47 PM

            Hi KiKi – totally off subject but I wanted to thank you (and all the other criminal attorneys) for setting me straight re: Mens Rea yesterday (by the time I logged back on that Post was closed to comments). Thanks for all the helpful info and opinions you express on this blog.

  24. CDinDC (Boycott BP)
    06/23/2010 at 2:16 PM

    Attorney question:

    I continued to be baffled by the fact that the defense is presenting testimony by expert witnesses that flies in the face of the defendants’ statements. The defendants CLEARLY said that Robert was breathing, grunting, screamed, etc. They never said “he’s dead.” They claimed they were trying to stanch his wounds. If you go by the defendants’ OWN statements, Robert was alive after the stabbing and while they tended to him.

    How can the defense continued to present testimony that Robert died immediately after being stabbed?? No pulse. No breathing. Period.

    I just don’t get it.

    • Nora
      06/23/2010 at 2:26 PM

      CD: Details remembered by witnesses fall into a more subjective realm than expert medical opinion. I think the idea is that human memory, perception, imagination, etc., are infinitely less reliable than, say, the time limit on PEA. If you are panicked enough you can imagine that your dead friend is breathing, other sounds can resemble grunts to you, etc. The mind does unusual things in unusual circumstances, and all the defense needs to do is muddy the waters enough to produce reasonable doubt about what those circumstances were.

      • commonsensewillprevailihope
        06/23/2010 at 2:41 PM

        Yes,Nora, but if there are numerous instances of discrepancies then the muddiness starts to work against the defendants, and what looks suspicious starts to simply look concocted.

        • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
          06/23/2010 at 3:13 PM

          Commonsense…..what’s up with the little squares?

          • Former Criminal Sex Offense Prosecutor
            06/23/2010 at 3:16 PM

            CD,
            i have had the same problem reading Commonsense at times, it looks like uni-code. Try altering your compatibilty view on your browser. That worked for me.

            • Lee
              06/23/2010 at 3:50 PM

              What did you change it to?

              • Former Criminal Sex Offense Prosecutor
                06/23/2010 at 4:00 PM

                What browser are you running?

                I am using Internet Explorer which has a green & white “cracked” page image button that represents the “Compatibilty View” next to the refresh button at the top of the page.

                Just click on it. Hope that helps.

                • Gama
                  06/23/2010 at 4:12 PM

                  You’re right, Compatibility View works in IE. Usually that suggests the page is using outdated or non-standard (x)html, but the page validates with only a few errors that shouldn’t affect the character rendering, so who knows? Weird.

                  • Former Criminal Sex Offense Prosecutor
                    06/23/2010 at 4:58 PM

                    Glad it worked for you. Not a computer geek, but try to be resourceful, aim towards multi-talented.

                • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                  06/23/2010 at 4:55 PM

                  got it….thanks all.

              • Gama
                06/23/2010 at 4:01 PM

                In Firefox it’s readable, albeit in an odd monospace font, by changing the character encoding to Unicode UTF-8 (under View, Character Encoding). In IE8, I get garbage no matter which encoding I chose.

                Commonsense, did you copy and paste from a word processor or other software program? If so, try using a simple text editor like Notepad.

                • Lee
                  06/23/2010 at 4:23 PM

                  I can’t fix the problem no matter what I try in any of several browsers.

                  • Former Criminal Sex Offense Prosecutor
                    06/23/2010 at 5:06 PM

                    Lee,
                    I think I have re-formatted it for you. This is what Commensense posted:

                    Yes,Nora, but if there are numerous instances of discrepancies then the muddiness starts to work against the defendants, and what looks suspicious starts to simply look concocted.

                    • AnnaZed
                      06/23/2010 at 5:15 PM

                      It’s just Chinese-simp, toss it into babelfish if you really care what the post says. Someone is just participating from a Chinese based keyboard that is supposed to convert, but doesn’t all the time. Happens to me all of the time with files from my Japanese co-worker.

        • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
          06/23/2010 at 4:57 PM

          Thanks Commonsense….I agree. As I said before, it flies in the face of what they said, so I feel like the defense is making things up to get their defendants off.

    • leo
      06/23/2010 at 2:44 PM

      Yes, I agree with Nora; neither Joe nor Victor has any kind of training or experience that would have allowed him to correctly ascertain whether Robert was alive, dying or dead. Victor’s telling the 911 lady that Robert was still breathing was just foolishness. For one thing, you could hear the pause while he was obviously listening to Joe telling him something, then he says “Yes he’s still breathing.” While their statements go toward the likelihood that they conspired to obstruct, I don’t belive they can be given, or will be given, any weight as to truthfulness at all.

      • Carolina
        06/23/2010 at 3:08 PM

        Joe was an Eagle Scout and a lawyer. I’m sure there isn’t much he didn’t feel capable of.

      • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
        06/23/2010 at 3:10 PM

        Hmm…..”If you are panicked enough you can imagine that your dead friend is breathing, other sounds can resemble grunts to you, etc.”….that sounds like “excited utterance.”

        The defense attempted to suppress the defendants’ statements. They were unsuccessful, so it seems to me they would have more weight than that. Why attempt to suppress if they can be poo-poo’d away. Teh defense must have known that there was damning information in those statements, or they wouldn’t have tried to suppress them.

        Just thinking outloud…..anyone else want to weigh in on this?

        • Nora
          06/23/2010 at 3:16 PM

          Agreed. Their statements are clear evidence of guilt. That’s why the defense has to work so hard on other issues (time of death, missing blood, etc.).

  25. Babs
    06/23/2010 at 2:26 PM

    I have a question re:Tom Connolly’s request to have admitted to the record, the broadcast of Nightline from the night of August 2, 2006; specifically the portion between 11:45pm and 11:52pm.
    I am not making the connection as to the woman’s voice on Nightline during the time of the 911 call, and its relation to the charges in this case.
    “It seems the defense thinks there may be another woman’s voice from the broadcast that government witness Mr. Thomas may have mistaken for WJLA’s Maureen Bunyan.”
    Thanks for clarifying this for me.

    • leo
      06/23/2010 at 2:46 PM

      Yep, that’s what it sounds like, which would delay the timeline in the defendants’ favor–i.e., the scream occurred just a minute before Victor called 911, not 14 to 44 minutes.

    • Carolina
      06/23/2010 at 2:58 PM

      They insist that the elderly couple might confuse the voices of the newscasters. The problem is that the elderly couple were adamant, and anyone in DC would know if they were watching the local news reported by a longtime anchor.

      It’s a shame the defense didn’t try to bring this up with the couple on the stand. I suspect you’d see exactly how sure they were. Old does not equal stupid or deaf.

      • Ohio
        06/23/2010 at 3:50 PM

        I would have to think that is why they didn’t bring it up then.

    • Bill Orange
      06/23/2010 at 3:08 PM

      The next-door neighbor heard a scream at the same time that his wife was watching Maureen Bunyan on television. She was on from 11 to 11:35. The defense is trying to say that the next-door neighbor didn’t really hear Maureen Bunyan, but someone on Nightline (which was on afterwards), thus getting rid of the delay in calling 911. Unfortunately, the next-door neighbor’s wife said she usually didn’t watch Nightline, so I don’t think the judge is going to be terribly impressed.

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

      The defense has been trying to discredit the Thomas couple since they testified.
      Took a shot at their age. Now they don’t know what time it is.
      So much for dirty politics.
      The Thomas couple was very firm on what they heard and when they heard it.

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

    If we are ever to get to the truth of who committed the murder, it will be because Victor gets prison time. He’ll fold like a cheap tent to get a shorter sentence.

    • Carolina
      06/23/2010 at 2:54 PM

      I don’t think so. I think all three are going to keep mum, even in the face of prison time.

      Beats the hell out of a murder and accessory charge.

      • Ivan
        06/23/2010 at 3:05 PM

        Very good point.

    • mw
      06/23/2010 at 3:36 PM

      Too late for that I think.

  27. Carolina
    06/23/2010 at 2:52 PM

    Here is something I think of often but have never said until today.

    Would Kathy Wone condone these men being tried for obstructing justice in her husband’s murder if she felt they were uniformly innocent? I know that one can be blinded in a desire for justice, and sometimes retaliation is cloaked as a drive for justice, but would she?

    I don’t think so, and I believe Joe felt the same way. That’s why he said he wanted to talk to her, but she had already heard one side and it had hardened her against the Trouple.

    I wonder if he had gone to her and said, “Kathy, I know how this looks and what they’re saying, but we DID NOT DO THIS. What can we do?” if things might have taken a different course.

    • commonsensewillprevailihope
      06/23/2010 at 2:57 PM

      Uh, what are you talking about.

      The widow cannot control the prosection actually. And of course she wouldn’t want innocent people tried for a crime they didn’t commit.

      • Carolina
        06/23/2010 at 3:02 PM

        Uh, it was a thought, just like many you have had.

        Everyone knows Eric Holder stood beside her on the one year anniversary and begged for anyone who knew something to step forward. Chances are good she had Torch with her for more than moral support.

        If she didn’t feel they were guilty, I think it would show.

        See how that works? You don’t need to agree.

      • Carolina
        06/23/2010 at 3:06 PM

        And, by the way, I can cite numerous examples where a family member of the victim’s family has shown quite plainly that they supported the defendant(s) in their case.

    • Kate
      06/23/2010 at 3:06 PM

      Carolina – I agree with you – I don’t think Kathy Wone would condone charging three innocent people. She, and the Wone family, must certainly believe the men are guilty, hence her pending civil suit.

      But, she must have thought all three were innocent immediately after the murder, as Joe was even one of Robert’s pall bearers.

      Kate

      • Babs
        06/23/2010 at 3:15 PM

        Just like it is very difficult for parents to believe their child was involved in anything so horrific, it probably didn’t occur to Kathy Wone initially that her husband’s long time friends could have been involved. As evidence has been presented, she has been able to gain a different perspective.

      • weaver
        06/23/2010 at 3:30 PM

        I find it really creepy that Joe was a pall bearer. Considering what is now known I think he had a lot of nerve doing that, it almost seems like something a sociopath would do, imo.

        • Babs
          06/23/2010 at 3:37 PM

          A good book to read is “The Sociopath next door.”
          Also read “Snakes in Suits.”

  28. weaver
    06/23/2010 at 3:26 PM

    If the judge rules guilty will the defendant(s) be taken into custody immediately?

    Also does anybody have any thoughts as to what kind of sentence the judge will hand out in the case of a guilty verdict?

    • RosieRiveted
      06/23/2010 at 3:42 PM

      Do a search on verdict on the site – there’s been extensive discussion of the possible sentences.

  29. ccf
    06/23/2010 at 3:27 PM

    Yes! Congratulations, Team USA! I was at work when I heard the news.

  30. Meto
    06/23/2010 at 3:48 PM

    All:

    Not to steal our Editors’ thunder today, but I finally managed to get away to attend the trial this afternoon only to see two examples of bad lawyering and one example of smart, good lawyering.

    First, Bernie Grimm made an almost incohert Jencks argument regarding D.C.’s non-taping of the police radio calls. He never asked for specific relief and Judge Leibowitz shut him down quickly. Probably makes no difference whatsoever.

    The incredibly smart lawyering was the defense team taking a five minute break after Dr. Becker’s testimony. As they took the break, I surmised correctly that they could and should ask no questions.

    Why? Because although Dr. Becker is extremely smart and articulate and makes a great witness, Kirschner made a complete hash of it. In a nutshell, Dr. Becker, clearly qualified, runs research programs into how long animals, specifically pigs and rats, can exhibit PEA and still be revived. They “induce” PEA (meaning they kill the animals) and then after 10 or 15 minutes attempt to revive them. He said some interesting things about PEA being a “garbage can” term that he and others helped invent to explain a wide range of non-pulse electrical impulses that may show up on a monitor.

    But for some reason Kirschner’s big question was: “can you translate animal studies perfectly to humans?” And Dr. Becker said: “No, human beings are far too complex and different creatures.” Kirschner didn’t ask whether there is a reaonsable comparison or anything like that.

    Even though Judge Leibowitz asked some perceptive questions that might have clarified the prosecution’s work, she did not step in on this one.

    The problem may well have been as Dr. Becker described it – “I didn’t know I was testifying today until you called me while I was (about to?) teaching my class at 8 a.m. this morning. He missed the first train because he forgot his wallet. Then he got down and the prosecution may have had 10 minutes or so to talk with him. It was obvious that on one had prepared him. Not one whit of preparation!

    So other than ending on a weak note, the prosecution didn’t hurt its case, but my opinion is that today’s testimony adds nothing to the PEA debate and how it does or does not impact the timeline.

    My take even as a civil litigator is that Dr. Becker added virtually nothing to the PEA analysis. And quite clearly the Defense thought so as well.

    I will reserve any other comments until at least after oral argument. I have quite deliberately not commented since early Mary until the trial evidence was all in. But I will say that Hoya Loya and KiKi yesterday expressed views that are largely in line with mine regarding whether I believe (and my opinion is not relevant) the prosecution has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

    A strong closing could still swing this case, but I think predicting and outcome in this case is truly impossible, so I won’t do it.

    And as I stated in my May 8 pre-trial post, this trial for whatever else it is represents “Some Justice” for Robert Wone and for the defendants.

    Respectfully,

    Meto

    • weaver
      06/23/2010 at 3:56 PM

      Thanks Meto.

    • KiKi
      06/23/2010 at 4:00 PM

      Thanks for that wrap up Meto – I was wondering what Brecker could have said that would make the defense choose not to cross but that explanation makes a lot of sense.

      As far as BG and the Jenks Act argument, I always got the impression that Grimm was a fact guy not a law guy. I bet while he could argue a closing in the spirit of Darrow making a simple legal argument is not his strong suit.

      I’d be interested when this is over to hear your opinions and those of the editors and other court watchers as to the lawyering and affectiveness of the Four great litigators in this case.

    • Bea
      06/23/2010 at 4:02 PM

      When I read that there was no cross, I didn’t it sounded good for the prosecution. There are times when it’s just better to shut up because the witness is ‘too good’ and ‘nothing good can come of it’ but more often it’s because of little damage being done and not wanting to give up a second shot. Thanks, Meto.

      • Former Criminal Sex Offense Prosecutor
        06/23/2010 at 4:09 PM

        Thanks from me, too Meto. Bea, what do you make of the info that the Judge didn’t pounce in for the save to ask the right questions as she has in the past.

        Is it possible she had already made up her mind about PEA analysis before Dr. Becker testified?

        • Hoya Loya
          06/23/2010 at 4:20 PM

          Been wondering where you were Meto — thanks!

          My hunch is that she’s not giving it much weight one way or the other. I think many times when she has tried to move things along, it’s been a signal that she doesn’t find the line of questioning interesting or even relevant (see, e.g., Martin’s cross yesterday).

        • Bea
          06/23/2010 at 4:40 PM

          If I had to guess, I’d say the judge thinks “PEA” is a little too junky for science to be a legit time stamp. She understands what we all do: Robert was dead when the EMTs arrived but they had to follow protocol to take him in so the doctor could call this one. I have no medical background, but the testimony TO ME (big caveat) suggests that PEA is primarily a charting function after other signs suggest death. In other words, a data point which standing alone is fairly ambiguous.

          I suspect (but can’t know) that Judge Leibovitz decided the same thing by the time that she told the defense witness he couldn’t “tell” anything by the 12 minute datapoint. I understand the defense jumping on it like a gift they hadn’t expected but too realized that it didn’t TRULY match the theory they’d agree to follow beforehand.

          Still, I find the lack of cross odd – perhaps the defense had already decided their best arguments for closing and a cross wouldn’t be of assistance.

          My two cents.

          • Former Criminal Sex Offense Prosecutor
            06/23/2010 at 5:47 PM

            Thanks Bea,
            I place the fair value of your opinion at a much higher rate of exchange.

  31. tassojunior
    06/23/2010 at 4:02 PM

    The Thomas’s recollection and the PEA timeline do not necessarily conflict. If the news was over at 11:35 and there were the normal 5 minutes of commercials that could take it to 11:40 when Nightline came on plus both are news shows which is probably more important. Subjective recollections of people are often trumped by cold physical evidence.

    PEA may not have set in immediately upon the victim being rendered unconscious. But the fact that PEA was still apparent in the ER after 12 with minimal assistance makes it even more unlikely the stabbing happened much before the “within 5 minutes of the 911 call” that Victor claims. Smith’s 12 minute limit may be a stretch but so would more than 30 minutes of unassisted PEA.

    • David
      06/23/2010 at 4:17 PM

      Tasso,

      dear sweet tasso, please keep up. There is NOT five minutes of commercials between the end of the evening news and the start of the Nightline (If that was the case, it would allow viewers to turn off the TV, which is exactly what the network doesn’t want to happen. This is why they go directly to the new program, hook the viewer first, then run ads a little later.)

      Second, you obviously missed the Thomases testimony. The defense could not knock them off their stated positions. They have grown up with Maureen Bunyan, they know her and her voice from over thirty years of viewing her. Maureen is like a member of their family. In fact, when the defense tried to get them say it was a Nightline speaker, she held firm, and didn’t like their insinuation that they didn’t know what they were talking about.
      Nice try though.

      • Meto
        06/23/2010 at 4:24 PM

        Tasso:

        Your post does jog another recollection of Dr. Becker’s testimony that is helpful, I think, to the prosecution. Mr. Kirschner asked him about assisted versus unassisted PEA. To say that the Doctor was disdainful would be an understatement. “Such terms do not exist and he would and has never used them.” Ergo someone who does use them, doesn’t know much, I guess. This last is not directed at commenters here, but rather at a witness.

        Respectfully,

        Meto

      • srb
        06/23/2010 at 4:51 PM

        Also, I seem to recall from that day’s summary that one or both of the Thomases testified to how much Mrs. Thomas doesn’t like Nightline and how she will turn off the TV (or switch the channel?) once the local news finishes. So, it’s improbable that she would have still had the TV on that station 10 to 15 minutes into a show. Plus, if the scream that the Thomases heard was so late in time, they likely would have associated it with the ambulance that showed up on their street before midnight, which they did not.

        • Hoya Loya
          06/23/2010 at 5:24 PM

          The Nightline tape seems like a CYA by both Connolly and the judge. He had to try to get something in to rebut the Thomas testimony and she had to let it in to avoid an unnecessary appealable issue.

  32. CDinDC (Boycott BP)
    06/23/2010 at 4:16 PM

    From the City Paper:

    http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2010/06/23/defense-seeks-maureen-bunyan-mimick-in-robert-wone-case/

    Well, neighbors, did you watch Nightline? A simple “no” will clear this up.

    • gertiestn
      06/23/2010 at 4:33 PM

      Not long ago I was at the Whole Foods Tenleytown store and just ahead of me in line was Maureen Bunyan. I found myself thinking of her not as a newsperson but as a key player in this case. Weird.

  33. tassojunior
    06/23/2010 at 5:26 PM

    “”Doctor Becker told the court in the trials he has conducted P-E-A has lasted as long as 20 minutes but he has seen it last longer””

    Paul Wagner on MyFoxDC

    Somewhere else Becker is quoted as saying in some tests on animals PEA could last up to 45 minutes, but also says 10 to 15 minutes is the average in tests. Even if there is in fact no difference in assisted vs. unassisted PEA, and even if it could in fact actually last up to 45 minutes, timing back from when PEA was recorded in the ER still puts the time of heart stoppage close to where Victor’s version implies.

    • Meto
      06/23/2010 at 5:34 PM

      Tassojunior:

      Whoever is quoting 45 minutes, I did not hear that. My hearing isn’t perfect, but Dr. Becker was terrific witness and he did not say that.

      Importantly he was discussing timelines after which they intervened to save the animal’s life, NOT how long PEA lasted although he did allow that it could go for an undetermined time. He declinded to say even in animals. And 10 to 15 minutes wasn’t the average. They are looking at moving test to 20 minutes, but are not there yet. Also he was reluctant to discuss 15 minutes tests because the surviving animals didn’t make it to 3 days which seems to be his test for success.

      So the only clear test that he was willing to discuss was test of 10 rats who after 10 minutes were given life saving measures and 6 of those rates lived at least 3 days. For the 15 minutes, 4-5 could be brought back, but not for the minimum of 3 days.

      All fascinating stuff, but since he disclaimed ability to apply it to humans I don’t think it helps the defense any more than I think that it didn’t hurt the prosecution (except that I hate to see anyone just bungle things).

      I am not looking to contradict Fox News, I am only reporting what I heard today.

      Respectfully,

      Meto

Comments are closed.