Acquittal

But Not Exoneration

It took a sober and, at times soft-spoken, Judge Leibovtiz little more than an hour to plow through what she termed “…a very long and complicated legal trial.”  We have previously posted, and will post here again, Judge Leibovitz’ verdict in its entirety.

Because the story of today may not be just in the acquittal, but in the suggestions of guilt.

The hour long recitation of findings and conclusions swung like a pendulum – finding first strong merits in the government’s argument, then the defense.  It was like standing on the edge of the ocean while the ocean rolls in, then out.

Early on, however, there were signs that things weren’t going the prosecution’s way.  Among Leibovitz very first findings were that sometime “….between 11:08 and 11:49…” Robert Wone was stabbed.  This seemed a suggestion that the Judge was not persuaded by the government that the defendants were lying about the time line, and that Robert could have been stabbed just about the time of Victors 9-1-1 call.  Later, she returned to this point, noting that the government itself in closing statement admitted to not knowing with certainty what was happening when in the house.

She turned to definitions of “beyond reasonable doubt” and the various legal standards of proof – notably that in criminal trials.  Noting a turn from early use of “moral certainty” in U.S. legal proceedings, she noted the current standard she must follow is “evidentiary” certainty.  “This case has been a…test of reasonable doubt…” she noted from the bench.

Turning to the elements of each charge the prosecution needed to prove “…beyond a reasonable doubt…”, the judge detailed the specifics of obstruction, conspiracy and evidence tampering.  Crucial to each was demonstrating intent – specific intent to deceive, mislead, impede or undermine an official investigation.  Turning through each, a sense grew in the courtroom that the government had not proven this element in their case.

“I’m persuaded the murder was not committed by an intruder unknown to the defendants,” Leibovitz began, turning again to specific findings of fact.  Robert Wone was “…entirely immobile…” at the time of his murder.  The knife found on the scene, she said – noting testimony from Dr. Henry Lee – was “…used to commit the stabbing…” of Robert.  This replacement of the knife was an important element of the prosecutions case, she said, and they had not proven it.

“It is very likely Mr. Price pulled the knife from the victim’s chest,” she continuted, noting that he may well have tampered with the knife but she couldn’t conclude it beyond reasonable doubt.  Further, she couldn’t conclude that Price wiped Robert’s body, “…although it’s probable.”

She then turned her sights on the defendants.

“From the beginning, each one of them – Mr. Zaborsky included – displayed a demeanor wholly at odds with what anyone would expect from an innocent person who’s friend had just been murdered tragically and violently…” going on to characterize their response “dischordantly.”  defendant’s behavior was wholly at odds with normal human behavior…” adding that she found all of them acted “dischordantly” with just having found a friend murdered in their home.

Joe Price was “…arrogant, unconcerned, flippant, aggressive, self-centered and dismissive.  Mr. Zaborsky was hystrionic and tearful, but entirely passive and apparently unmotivated to help detectives…” noting his 9-1-1 statements were “…at best eyebrow-raising, and at worse calculated.

Mr. Ward was from the start distant and detached, unmoved, patient and calm.  He also was apparently unmotivated to help police solve this terrible crime.  Of which, had it truly had been done by an intruder, he could easily have been the victim.”

That said, one can only judge a person’s knowledge and intent so far by demeanor.  Another sign things of things to come.

The decisions came next, although they did not come as a surprise at this point.  Even though the judge found the intruder theory implausible (“Overall, the defendant’s story that an intruder committed the offense is incredible beyond a reasonable doubt” she said), even though the judge found it likely one or more of the defendants knew who murdered Robert Wone and/or covered it up, even though it was “…very probable the government’s theory is correct,” none of this was enough to clear the high hurdle of beyond a reasonable doubt.

Again raising the difference between moral and evidentiary certainty – in what sounded and reads like a tip to her understanding of what actually happened – she still was encountering what she termed “the math problem”: in short, a sense that while two of the three may well have been proven guilty of the charges brought, there was still a reasonable possibility that one was “…the odd man out.”  And given there being no way to determine who might be the odd man, she was forced to acquit all three defendants on all seven charges.

Citing Sir William Blackstone, she employed his famous axiom: “Better that 10 guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer.”

Judge Leibovitz apologized to the Wone family and their supporters, noting the appropriate legal findings in this case on evidentiary certainty were of “cold comfort.”

For their part the defendants reacted little – Victor shedding a tear toward the end, but Joe and Dylan remaining largely stoic.  Their families, too, seemed to evidence little joy in the verdict.  Members of the Wone family appeared genuinely distraught.  The media swarm gathered turned and looked at each other as if to say “Innocent?  Really?

No, not really.  Acquittal is not not guilty; not guilty means merely not proven.  Judge Leibovitz’ own words offer strong testimony to her understanding of this distinction.

The defendants left quickly; Bernie Grimm and the prosecution team spoke with members of the media.

Last note: we asked a member of the Covington & Burling legal team assigned to the civil case when that would begin.  “45 days?” we asked.  “No, it starts this afternoon.”

Price counsel Bernie Grimm speaks to the press

AUSA Glenn Kirschner speaks to the press

769 comments for “Acquittal

  1. Bill Orange
    06/29/2010 at 4:56 PM

    Okay, I know that a lot of people are upset because they think the defendants should not have been acquitted of all charges, but the comments about vigilante justice are really starting to cross the line. The judge has rendered her verdict, and while I don’t agree with it, I understand her reasoning, and we need to respect her findings. Advocating–or even hoping for–violence against the defendants is not helpful. There is a civil trial to come, and there will be numerous depositions over the coming weeks. This is all far from over. The defendants may have won the day, but I do not think they will continue to “run the table” in the long term. Please do NOT give them the umbrage of victimhood by making threats against them, even in jest.

    • mia
      06/29/2010 at 6:47 PM

      Agree. Even tho I thought the verdict was disappointing, but I do somehow understand the judge the point. And there are still civil trial and even murder trial to come. The justice could still be served.

    • BadShoes
      06/29/2010 at 7:39 PM

      Bill-

      I agree completely.

      I understand and respect Judge Liebovitz’ verdict. I believe that she acted in good faith, and tried, to the best of her considerable ability, to render justice under the law. Her position and her actions in an exceptionally difficult case warrant our respect, whether we agree with her decision or not.

      There is no acceptable justification for violence against the defendants or anyone else. Hoping for such violence is reprehensible. Advocating such violence is unacceptable. Joking about it is misplaced, under current circumstances.

      • Bill
        06/29/2010 at 8:22 PM

        Perfectly stated. But the lynch mob mentality has been building for weeks and reached a crescendo over the past weekend. Unfortunately, it continues today.

    • Eagle
      06/29/2010 at 8:27 PM

      It has been absolutely consistent since the beginning of this saga that Joe Price has played the victim card over and over and over. And what were the final words from Lawyer Grimm who represents Mr. Price?
      Victimhood. Price has lost 1 and 2 an 3 and 4 and now has to rebuild.
      Not one word about the fact that the Wone family and other friends of Robert-who Price claims were his friends- still have no truth about the murder and thus are deprived of peace.
      Good idea, Bill Orange. Lets keep it straight as to who the real victims are.

    • AnnaZed
      06/29/2010 at 9:57 PM

      I stand beside you on this sentiment Bill O, entirely.

      Some of these postings are really disturbing. Who are these people? They don’t speak for me and I am certain that the side editors wouldn’t dream of framing their disappointment or frustration (if they even feel those things) in such a way, and significantly calls for violence or vigilante action against these men fly in the face of everything that Robert himself stood for and dishonor him in a profound way.

  2. Kat1
    06/29/2010 at 4:58 PM

    After all, they were only tried for obstruction – not for murder. It’s not too late. Judge Liebowitz is a very smart, thoughtful judge. She put much detail into the Final Order and I hope that it can be used for future justice in trying the murderer(s) and peace for the Wone family.

    • Bill
      06/29/2010 at 8:24 PM

      I absolutely agree regarding Judge Liebowitz and believe that she did an outstanding job. Remember, everyone thought she was great until today’s verdict. I believe we owe her gratitude and respect.

  3. Bill 2
    06/29/2010 at 5:00 PM

    Robert Wone’s killer has gotten away with murder for four years. If the judge is correct in feeling that there was no intruder, that indicates someone in the household stabbed Robert Wone. If she’s right, the killer’s biggest problem is that two other people know he’s a killer. He’ll be very careful about what he says, as he has since a week after the murder. Will he begin to wonder if he can trust the others to never let anything slip? When the trouple go on their next vacation, it’s probably best if they don’t stand too near the edge of a cliff or maybe only one of them will return from the vacation.

    • mw
      06/29/2010 at 5:04 PM

      That’s great leverage in a relationship, if nothing else.

      “You didn’t take out the trash”

      “Well you murdered someone!”

      “OK, I’ll take it out”

      • Bill 2
        06/29/2010 at 5:10 PM

        I didn’t think I could laugh today, but that’s funny. Although it didn’t involve murder, I used similar tactics with my brother when we were kids.

      • Carolina
        06/29/2010 at 6:21 PM

        Thank you. Honestly.

        The truth behind the levity is, someone will never sleep again without wondering if someone’s talking. Tell-Tale Heart, indeed.

        • AnnaZed
          06/29/2010 at 10:01 PM

          Yes, maybe little Dyl will drift away, but will Victor be sleeping beside?

          By the way Carolina, you must go to the WAPO site and look at the photo gallery. Dylan’s smirk is something other-worldly.

          • Carolina
            06/29/2010 at 10:39 PM

            I am afraid to do that. I am trying vigorously to ignore them and deal with the verdict philosophically. I’ll get back to marveling at their utter gall in a day or two.

  4. Kat1
    06/29/2010 at 5:02 PM

    The headlines may make it appear that the defendants won the day, but any semi-intelligent person who reads the Final Order will/should think differently. The judge did the best she could for what she had to work with. She may feel just as frustrated as the rest of us.

  5. Andrew
    06/29/2010 at 5:03 PM

    Disgusting.

    Yes, I understand why the judge ruled as she did.

    But can you imagine if this were a different CLASS of defendants? What if this happened in the home of three uneducated, unemployed, men living together in Southeast.

    Would they get off? I think not.

    • Lyn
      06/29/2010 at 5:12 PM

      I agree 100 percent.

    • Carolina
      06/29/2010 at 6:22 PM

      Yes, this is alarmingly true.

      • ladyg
        06/29/2010 at 7:45 PM

        i hear you….this is so wrong on so many levels. if i read the judges verdict correctly, does this mean there still can be murder charges brought up against the defendants?

        • Carolina
          06/29/2010 at 7:50 PM

          Legally? Yes. It’s not practical, though, unless something in the way of god-sent evidence pops up.

    • JusticeForRobert
      06/29/2010 at 7:42 PM

      I could not agree more.

    • gina a.
      06/29/2010 at 8:19 PM

      Yep- They would have been tried, convicted and sentenced to life by now.

    • JT
      06/29/2010 at 9:05 PM

      I too was disappointed with the outcome, but I disagree completely with the opinion that if the defendants were not three upper class white men, the verdict would have been different. First of all, the implication that Judge Leibovitz would have applied a different legal standard to other defendants is entirely unwarranted.

      Second, as an employee of the DC court system I have observed many, many criminal trials. Disadvantaged black defendants from Southeast get away with murder quite often. I personally have witnessed not guilty verdicts in such cases because of exactly the same “odd man out math problem” that existed in this case, where multiple co-defendants were charged together and it was impossible to prove who did what. I remember one defendant in particular from Southeast who got away with murder not once, but twice (two separate trials concerning two different victims). All too often murders in that part of town go unsolved because witnesses are killed or intimidated, which creates considerable difficulty in getting people who know what happened to testify about what they know.

      • Carolina
        06/29/2010 at 10:40 PM

        I will concur that many AAs get away with murder, as long as they are kind enough to kill one of their own.

    • tassojunior
      06/29/2010 at 11:22 PM

      I don’t live in SE and couldn’t afford what a decent defense costs either. Catch-22 is I make too much to get a public defender. Basically I’d go bankrupt to get a crummy defense.

  6. CC Biggs
    06/29/2010 at 5:04 PM

    Based on my quick read of the judge’s order, it does not appear that she addressed the missing blood issue. That was (in my opinion) the most concrete evidence of obstruction/tampering. Didn’t the medical examiner conclude that Wone lost more than half the blood in his body? Nowhere near that amount of blood was found in the house. I thought that would be the clearest example of tampering and obstruction. How could it not be?

    • chilaw79
      06/29/2010 at 5:21 PM

      Whatever explanation for the missing blood might be, it apparently was not documented in a medical record or otherwise. I had hoped that the hospital records might show the amount of blood that came out of the chest tubes inserted in Mr. Wone.

      The medical experts who testified also explained pretty consistently that the stab wounds would not have produced a lot of external bleeding (despite the defendants’ assertions of a lot of blood), nor would the wounds have produced gushing blood spatter.

  7. Prtyboydc
    06/29/2010 at 5:05 PM

    This is an appropriate and fair verdict given the high burden of proof for the government. The judge’s ruling gives the three their freedom, but not their innocence.

    The parallel to the OJ Simpson verdict is an good one.

    • Carolina
      06/29/2010 at 6:38 PM

      Yes, it certainly is. Unfortunately for the Trouple, none have a NFL pension.

  8. Kat1
    06/29/2010 at 5:19 PM

    CC, on p. 8, the judge writes of the EMT’s observation of very little blood at the scene.

    • Carolina
      06/29/2010 at 10:42 PM

      Yes, we know. Victor and Joe both said there was blood everywhere. Where’d it go? Same place as the playmat and cameras?

  9. gertiestn
    06/29/2010 at 5:33 PM

    I’ve read the judge’s Order and I’m still not, um, thrilled with the decision.

    For me, a major question involves the timeline. The judge writes on page 33, “I am not convinced by the trial record, however, that the government has established its claims about the time of the stabbing, beyond a reasonable doubt.”

    What, exactly, would the government have had to show to establish the time?

    • mw
      06/29/2010 at 5:51 PM

      Something more than a scream, I guess.

      Which I can understand. It has been assumed, here, that the scream heard by the neighbors proves the time of murder. I don’t think the scream proves that at all. The scream might have nothing to do with the murder.

      • Lynn
        06/29/2010 at 8:18 PM

        It also was not definitive in terms of time. He gave a pretty wide window, based on remembering that Maureen Bunyan was on a TV in a different room. He didn’t even see her on the TV, which weakens that time range a lot.

        With only one person testifying re scream, and with no solid evidence of the actual time of the scream, it is hard to get to the “beyond a reasonable doubt” threshold.

  10. Vito
    06/29/2010 at 5:34 PM

    Thanks Eds. et al, for providing some clarity on what I feel was a difficult result to accept.

    I ask, what could have been done different? Without sounding as if looking to the past can change the outcome, I just wonder what could have been done? Should Mrs. Wone not “lawyered up” as many have made reference to, as quickly as she did? Would JP had come to her to say “uh, Kathy, we had an accident last night.” Would anything had been different between the parties? Would there have been a different approach to the who case?

    I just don’t know what to make of this anymore. I was reading the WP Verdict Discussion with Christopher Leibig this afternoon and at one point he responded to a question about JP, he wrote, “If not disbarred or suspended, he can practice. This is just a guess, but opinion about this case was polarized. Not everyone believed he was guilty at all. Many people in legal community likely still support him.” REALLY? Is he serious? How can they? Am I the only moron in this world that thinks that if something smells like sh*t, and looks like sh*t, that beyond a reasonable doubt in my opinion, it is sh*t? Is there really an argument that it’s really not sh*t, so go back there and keep checking it to make sure because you haven’t convinced me!!!!

    Sorry, had to vent. I’m just sorry that the burden of proof wasn’t met under the circumstances.

    My prayers go out to the Wone Family.

  11. plumskiter
    06/29/2010 at 5:37 PM

    several thoughts.

    one area where the goverment’s case seemed deficient was on the question of blood volume. despite the belief of many that a significant quantity of Robert’s blood cannot be accounted for, the Judge’s decision makes it clear that the evidence did not address this issue clearly. If a good portion of blood “disappeared”, that would be significant. Was the failure of proof on this issue a mistake by the govt or does it show that the govt could not back up the speculation with proof? just curious. personally i thought the government could have done a better job on this issue, as well as on others.

    i imagine that at least one of the defendants went in to court today expecting someone to be convicted and expecting to consider whether, at that point, to part company with the others and tell what he knows. in other words, i imagine that at least one of the defendants – victor or dylan – was looking forward to some form of “closure” from which to formulate a next step. instead, they all remain in legal limbo with the prospect of the civil case coming alive and taking big chunks of their time, resources and emotional energy, as well as having the homicide case continue to hang over their heads, to say nothing of a written decision that concludes to a moral certainty that they know how Robert was murdered. If I were them, I think I would have preferred to see someone convicted today – at least it would have given direction for the future.

    like many of you, i nonetheless continue to hope that the shame of keeping the secret for all these years will eventually eat away at one of them and lead to a break in the case. just think of Crime and Punishment and/or the tactics of Detective Colombo. At some point, the drip drip drip of the continuing pressure to come clean will either drive one crazy or drive one into revealing what he knows. sooner rather than later i hope.

    let’s hope that dylan and/or victor are also getting pressure from their families to come clean.

    • Carolina
      06/29/2010 at 6:43 PM

      I don’t think there will be any pressure. To “know know,” if I may borrow the judge’s phrase, would require admitting their kid was a breath away from prison.

  12. christy love
    06/29/2010 at 5:40 PM

    The whitey’s win again.

    • Bill
      06/29/2010 at 5:47 PM

      Oh please, it had nothing to do with race. Tell that to OJ. It had to do with money to buy the best defense combined with the absolutely incompetence of the MPD.

      • Carolina
        06/29/2010 at 6:47 PM

        Bill, you are right in that I don’t think they were acquitted because they were white, but I can assure you that had these been three black men, possibly of reduced circumstances, they’d be headed to jail.

        And btw, OJ was acquitted because he was African American, no ifs ands or buts. I don’t need to be white to know that. It was the counterbalance to the Rodney King verdict– because even with videotape, the black guy still loses.

        • Bill
          06/29/2010 at 6:53 PM

          No, I don’t believe the OJ was acquitted b/c he was African American. He was acquitted for two, equal reasons. First, he was a celebrity (football, movies, Hertz ads), and second, he bought the best defense that money could buy.

          • ladyg
            06/29/2010 at 7:49 PM

            how about he didn’t do it? JMO!!

            • Carolina
              06/29/2010 at 7:53 PM

              I think calling OJ innocent is a gargantuan leap of faith.

              I appreciate BillO’s belief that it wasn’t OJ’s tit for Rodney King’s tat, but I will respectfully disagree.

          • mw
            06/29/2010 at 9:55 PM

            “No, I don’t believe the OJ was acquitted b/c he was African American. He was acquitted for two, equal reasons. First, he was a celebrity (football, movies, Hertz ads), and second, he bought the best defense that money could buy.”

            Wow, so how can you vilify anyone who believes there was a crime committed here, despite the verdict, when you yourself appear to believe that OJ “got off?”

            If OJ was gay, would you think he was innocent?

    • CC Biggs
      06/29/2010 at 6:16 PM

      Yes, upscale Asians are now rioting in the streets of DC shouting, “No justice no peace!”

      • Carolina
        06/29/2010 at 6:47 PM

        If only.

      • AnnaZed
        06/29/2010 at 10:13 PM

        That would be interesting.

  13. Jimbo
    06/29/2010 at 5:42 PM

    Question for the legal professionals? If, in the Civil Trial one or more are found guilty of Murder… what do you expect the punishment and terms would be for those convicted? Jail, Monetary settlement, other…? Thanks

    • AnotherSean
      06/29/2010 at 5:54 PM

      The only punishment they will face in a civil trial is monetary.

      • ladyg
        06/29/2010 at 7:52 PM

        after paying the legal fees, will they have any money left?

        • AnnaZed
          06/29/2010 at 10:15 PM

          Probably not, but it attaches future earnings as well. They can shelter money in Florida’s singular property laws by owning a home there though, as they already have done.

        • Ivan
          06/30/2010 at 9:38 AM

          don’t forget Dylan’s job as a massage therapist.

  14. Patrick
    06/29/2010 at 5:43 PM

    Members of the vindictive cyber lynch mob: shame on all of you. You and the Assistant U.S. Attorney did not seek justice–the AUSA and you seek vengeance. This was a malicious prosecution from the start.

    • AnotherSean
      06/29/2010 at 5:56 PM

      Patrick, your post is an insult to all people who have actually faced malicious prosecution.

      • proudpapa
        06/29/2010 at 6:07 PM

        As well as a slander against some very hard-working civil servants.

        • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
          06/29/2010 at 9:44 PM

          Rachel Carson Lieber delivered THE very best remark during the entire trial….”your little lab at home.” Genius.

    • mw
      06/29/2010 at 6:00 PM

      For crying out loud – I do believe we have a 2nd intruder-theory hold out.

      If you’re hitting the celebration party tonight, watch your drink.

    • cinnamon
      06/29/2010 at 6:11 PM

      Patrick
      “Despite the many suspicious and even damning circumstances, despite the implausibility of the intruder story, and despite the discordant and inappropriate demeanor and conduct of the defendants, I am constrained to conclude that the government has not eliminated, beyond a reasonable doubt, the real possibility created by what I have termed the “math problem” in this case. It is very probable that the government’s theory is correct, that even if the defendants did not participate in the murder some or all of them knew enough about the circumstances of it to provide helpful information to law enforcement and have chosen to withhold that information for reasons of their own.”

    • Carolina
      06/29/2010 at 6:48 PM

      Oh bitch please.

    • Liam
      06/29/2010 at 7:27 PM

      I only skimmed the Order, but I see the Judge expressed that she found it “likely” the defendants (one, some or all) committed the crimes with which they were charged, but that the evidence did not meet the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.

      I believe that the prosecution did an excellent job with what they were given to work with. I believe they needed one or two pieces of solid evidence to seal a conviction.

      For example, suppose there was solid evidence that traces of Mr. Wone’s blood was found in the hallway leading to the bathroom and in the pipes in the bathroom. Suppose this was found by the CSI guys, and not revealed to the defendants, and the defendants were asked to confirm their story that they found Mr. Wone on the bed and he wasn’t moved from there.

      Now, of course the defendants can make up a story that the intruder must have dragged Mr. Wone down the hall to the bathroom and washed his blood down the sink, but I think something like that would have sealed it.

      I think the prosecution needed just a bit more evidence to push this over the threshold.

      • Lynn
        06/29/2010 at 8:21 PM

        I think the lack of blood drops, drag marks, blood in the drains was a huge obstacle for the prosecution. They needed some physical evidence of a clean up to support their theory.

        • Carolina
          06/29/2010 at 10:46 PM

          I have never known a BDSM couple that didn’t own a playmat.

          Except none was found at 1509.

          • Lynn
            06/29/2010 at 11:01 PM

            I hear you. But without evidence of a playmat having existed and being removed, it is speculation.

            • Carolina
              06/30/2010 at 12:52 AM

              And cameras?

    • curiousdc
      06/29/2010 at 10:05 PM

      No, shame on you! Do you support the “trouple”? Can you honestly say they’re not guilty? Better yet, do you have any critical thinking skills?

  15. Bill
    06/29/2010 at 5:44 PM

    Who can blame them for not talking? Why should them? For the past four years that have been absolutely vilified — In the same circumstance, I wouldn’t say anything and would move far, far away.

    • mw
      06/29/2010 at 6:01 PM

      Didn’t you say in one of your first posts that you believed that one of them was guilty of something?

      That “something” is pretty serious, is it not? But not worth villfying?

      • Bill
        06/29/2010 at 6:40 PM

        No, I made no comment regarding anyone being guilty.

        • curiousdc
          06/29/2010 at 10:07 PM

          Sorry, they’re guilty–why else whould the judge have made those rather revealing comments?

    • Carolina
      06/29/2010 at 6:50 PM

      With very, very good reason. Even the judge said as much.

    • EX Swann
      06/29/2010 at 6:53 PM

      Far far away?

      Not far enough!

    • DavidM
      06/29/2010 at 8:06 PM

      I hope and will work to make sure they can never move far enough away. Truth will out and you don’t get to just kill someone and walk into the sunset. I think its completely repulsive that anyone defends what the judge clearly believed they did though she couldn’t convict any one of them of doing it.

  16. 06/29/2010 at 5:45 PM

    Here’s a post I have been looking forward to making:

    I told y’all so.

    Someone else put it best: “vindictive cyber lynch mob.” So sorry you didn’t get to hang anyone from a tree this time.

    • mw
      06/29/2010 at 6:02 PM

      Nope, the only blood shed was Robert’s.

    • Vito
      06/29/2010 at 6:04 PM

      Nate,
      Thanks for all of your other posts, they were just as imformative…

      I hope one of your relatives doesn’t run into the trouple looking for a good nights sleep. What comes around goes around.

      • 06/29/2010 at 6:15 PM

        Gee, thanks, Vito … so you’re saying that my family members deserve to get murdered because you disagree with a post I made on a chat board?

        Typical of the hysteria here.

        • Carolina
          06/29/2010 at 6:52 PM

          Your mother must be proud. Really. I would only wish that you had to spend a year in the shoes of the Wone family.

          • Bill
            06/29/2010 at 8:10 PM

            Again with the sarcasm. Please!

            • Carolina
              06/29/2010 at 10:47 PM

              Honey, move on. Really. Like gets like.

              • 06/29/2010 at 11:49 PM

                Wow … another one wishing for my family to get murdered. Gee, thanks, Carolina, whoever you are … creep.

                • Carolina
                  06/30/2010 at 12:54 AM

                  Excuse me? Is English your second language, or do you have trouble with comprehension skills?

        • AnnaZed
          06/29/2010 at 10:52 PM

          For those of you just joining us, neither Nate nor Vito have posted much on this board or contributed to the more reasoned discussions that have been going on here for months and their spite does not reflect the true nature of the discourse here.

          just sayin’

    • Corgivet
      06/29/2010 at 6:18 PM

      Lynch mobs take justice into their own hands.. Most of us had hoped and prayed for a better result… Hope you never have to face what the Wone family has endured

      • 06/29/2010 at 6:32 PM

        My deepest sympathies are with the Wone family. This must be a painful day for them, to say the least. I continue to hope that the murderer will be found – whether or not he/she turns out to be one of the residents of 1509 Swann Street.

        That does not change the justice of today’s verdict.

        • DavidM
          06/29/2010 at 8:10 PM

          No justice in today’s verdict. Sophomoric posturing aside, a not guilty verdict does not mean that the accused is innocent or that justice was done – it just means that mix of the circumstances of the trial, personalities involved and mistakes made in the investigation prevented the correct legal conclusion. The injustice remains – three men, and only three men, were in that house when Robert Wone was murdered. Now we will see how long and well they can live with Wone’s blood on their hands.

      • Bill
        06/29/2010 at 8:07 PM

        The lynch mob justice drumbeat has reached an alarming crescendo since last week (particularly last weekend). It insults the memory of a wonderful man and public service lawyer.

    • Liam
      06/29/2010 at 7:52 PM

      Far from a lynch mob, but it does confirm my belief that people (and hence jurors) are terrible at rendering objective decisions based on the law and facts. I expressed an opinion towards the close of the prosecution’s case in chief that it seemed that it would be difficult to meet the “beyond a reasonable doubt standard”. That opinion did not catch any traction.

      But putting my opinions aside, very few posters (or should I say, a very small percentage of posters) ever entertained the distinction between (1) there is a likelihood that at least one of them committed a crime, and (2) proof beyond a reasonable doubt that at least one of them committed a crime.

      Most were convinced of their guilt, regardless of other reasonable explanations of the various “suspicious circumstances”.

      So, although not a lynch mob, I sure as heck wouldn’t want many of you on my jury. No objectivity.

      i

      • Carolina
        06/30/2010 at 12:55 AM

        I thought you believed in our system of justice? Isn’t that what a jury trial is?

    • heirgesellmakesmeill
      06/30/2010 at 12:08 AM

      Nate, I remind everyone, is the one who posited that tons of gay guys are as weird as this sicko trouple. Yeah, he’s a real nice guy.

  17. wolftownjeff
    06/29/2010 at 5:58 PM

    how sad,

    maybe one day down the road……

  18. LAD
    06/29/2010 at 6:07 PM

    This site is about justice for Robert Wone and his family. I understand there are some that believe the defendants to be innocent, but I am appalled at the flagrant contempt that some of you are showing the editors and people on this website that have come to their OWN conclusions about this case by following the evidence that was presented. Regardless of which side you believe, it is a sad day because no one has been held responsible for taking a precious life.

    In my opinion, today, justice was not served. And to all of you naysayer’s out there…shoo!

  19. enjointhis
    06/29/2010 at 6:08 PM

    Wowzers. It’s not the first time I’ve been wrong, sure, but … Judge Leibovitz’s version of “reasonable doubt” differs rather dramatically from mine. And defense lawyers get a LOT of credit – I’m pretty sure a jury would have come out differently.

    I’m still happy to vilify them, by the way. I don’t give a damn about their orientation or habits (icky & sad as I find them). But I still think they knew what happened, which would make them contemptible, sub-civilized bastards who’d deserve every bit of opprobrium sent their way.

    At least the verdict is irrelevant to the civil trial, which still looks like a slam-dunk to me.

    — ET!

  20. mw
    06/29/2010 at 6:16 PM

    Two other random observations before I logout and end my obsession with this site.

    1. All trials should be bench trials (perhaps with a panel of judges). I think more justice would be done. Trials would be faster, verdicts would be based on the evidence, it would be tremendous. This judge really controlled the courtroom and the trial, and shared a very thoughtful analylsis for the verdict. You don’t get any of that with juries.

    2. For the first time ever, I almost kind of understand why Republicans get all worked up about perverted but consensual sex antics. That lifestyle really can be destructive. You have to keep upping the ante, more and more, until serious injury, rape, or death can be a foreseeable consequence.

    • Carolina
      06/29/2010 at 6:53 PM

      This had nothing to do with lifestyle and everything to do with immorality, and I do not mean sex.

      • Bill
        06/29/2010 at 8:09 PM

        “Immorality?” Now you are the morals police? It’s much more helpful to argue from the case.

        • Carolina
          06/29/2010 at 8:49 PM

          Yeah, I’m kinda prone to consider murder immoral. Call me crazy.

    • AkaZappa
      06/29/2010 at 7:41 PM

      This is nothing other than prejudice, pure and simple.

    • ConservativeCutie
      06/29/2010 at 8:23 PM

      Thank you, mw, for almost understanding why we on the right warn about some of these extreme lifestyles. The thinking generally goes that if one lives so far outside of the “moral norm” (which is actually a pretty large umbrella) to fulfill carnal desires, then one is no longer constrained by the idea of right and wrong and any activity to fulfill those desires becomes possible. Even murder.

      • Bea
        06/29/2010 at 8:33 PM

        Uh, Cutie, my gay “lifestyle” entails working to build my kids’ college funds, taking them out for ice cream, sitting with my lovely partner and hashing through our busy schedules while trying to get the dogs walked and the laundry folded. What part of that bespeaks “extreme” to you?

        • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
          06/29/2010 at 9:34 PM

          The ice cream, without a doubt.

      • Carolina
        06/29/2010 at 8:48 PM

        For every gay man or BDSM practitioner accused of a crime, let us tally up the straight, conservative hypocrites who are caught red handed. Do that, will you? Because there aren’t many of the former and the latter are a dime a dozen.

        You forget that the basis of the Conservative movement was to mind one’s own business and smack the government’s hand from one’s pocket.

        I hope that this Taliban attitude you seem to put forth never becomes the American Way.

        • ConservativeCutie
          06/29/2010 at 9:37 PM

          Wow. I am truly hoping you did not read mw’s post “For the first time ever, I almost kind of understand why Republicans get all worked up about perverted but consensual sex antics. That lifestyle really can be destructive. You have to keep upping the ante, more and more, until serious injury, rape, or death can be a foreseeable consequence” to which I was responding. I in NO way believe I implied that gay or lesbian persons are living an “extreme” lifestyle. I was referring to the trouple’s extreme lifestyle of poly-amory, drug use, BDSM, pornography and intimate relations with at least one neighbor. If you believe that such a “life-style” is hunky-dory by you, then yes, we disagree. Carolina, you may not realize that conservatism, or classic liberalism, only fought for non-interfernce by the government because the founders of the ideology that a man’s religious and moral values would constrain his baser instincts. Yes, there are hypocrites among conservatives, and there are some world class misogynist and racists on the left. None of us are perfect.

          I am sorry you were so ready to take offense at my remarks that were specific to the trouple and in no way meant to apply to an entire community.

          • Carolina
            06/29/2010 at 10:49 PM

            They certainly sounded generic. If such was not the case, I apologize, but I was not the only one to form such an opinion.

          • Bea
            06/29/2010 at 11:52 PM

            Like Carolina, I took offense, and rereading your response, I see that you were trying to distinguish those with “lifestyles” which include drugs, threesomes, BDSM, drug use, pornography and relations with neighbors. While I acknowledge that you’re not lumping my dull gay “lifestyle” in with these, I am one to beat the drum that all these behaviors are “fine” so long as only consenting adults are “playing”. It wasn’t the sexuality or any other ‘labels’ which murdered Robert Wone, yet at the same time, I am disgusted by the men who murdered him. They are not my ‘brothers’.

            In my opinion, it’s unlikely that the ‘morality’ (in the sense of behaving like a good person) in the BDSM community is any different than non-BDSM. It’s sexual theatre. I’ve seen my share of “porn” and used illegal substances in my youth, and to a lesser extent BDSM, and it turned out not to be my cup of tea as I aged. But there are many good people who actively participate in all of these activities, so to think being one who “participates” makes one more likely to murder someone, I have to disagree. It’s that “slippery slope” argument that just doesn’t make sense to me.

            Was Ted Bundy less awful than Jeffrey Dahmer because his sexuality was heterosexual and Dahmer’s homosexual? Wouldn’t it necessarily figure under your suppositions that people who don’t use drugs or enjoy porn or have kinky sex would NOT be inclined to commit crimes – but you know this to be incorrect. While “moral values constrain baser instincts” as you say, my sense of it is that moral values exist separate and apart from whether one uses sex toys. They don’t have anything to do with one another.

            The only nod I’ll give you is that I think drugs played a role here – with a combustible personality trying to find his outer limits or a duo of combustible personalities who were out of control and fed off each other. Had they not done drugs, maybe these individuals would have stopped. The young male lacrosse player who became violent when he drank, and, in keeping with his violence-when-drinking history, killed his ex-girlfriend comes to mind. In that sense, alcohol likely results in more deaths than illegal substances, and conservatives like their drinks too. Drugs and alcohol are no excuse for anyone to behave badly, let alone murderously.

            Scott Peterson was a straight man who murdered his pregnant wife stone cold sober. The Menendez brothers reloaded to kill their mother as she crawled away.

            Some people are bad; some people do deplorable things. Like you, I have no sympathy for murderers, and I have no sympathy for the defendants, but I don’t think there’s any legitimacy to using this case as a cry against people whose personal tastes are not the norm.

            One of the things I’ve long been frustrated by is that this case will be used by the right to slam gay people in general. That Joe and Victor were “poster boys” for the gay community just galls me. THESE men, in my opinion, are morally guilty of the charges, as Judge Leibovitz wrote, and correctly or not, I held them to a higher standard, perhaps, because they did hold themselves out as role models. This case will be used against gay people by homophobic people looking for ammunition.

            I’m not saying that you’re doing this, as you’ve indicated that you’re not talking about ‘ordinary’ (my word) gay families/gay people. And my response may have been jumping the gun a bit out of concern that THIS which I fear has begun, but I can’t just find solace in that you’re giving a pass to “ordinary” gay people.

            While I don’t practice BDSM, (currently) look at porn, etc., I defend those who do because ONE example of bad-acting people doesn’t mean a damned thing about others. Joe Price was an Eagle Scout and a ‘military brat’ – should this case dent the reputations of Scouts and Brats? Or Dylan Ward being a doctor’s son or a Georgetown grad? Of course not. I’m going on and on (as I am wont to do) and am sorry for ‘calling you out’ in a way which is likely more than is necessary (your comment that “I am sorry you were so ready to take offense” pushed me over the edge on an already difficult day).

            I hope you can see my point. I suspect that our prisons hold Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals. Even some who would have been better served to not squelch ‘the homosexual within’ to please their preachers.

            • tassojunior
              06/30/2010 at 12:10 AM

              Bea- That’s the problem. These are not Gacy’s or Dailmers. There’s no basements of bodies on Swann believe me. To a fault everyone knows everyone’s business. Respect for privacy is not our forte. With lack of obvious motive people do not become cult-like murderers suddenly. The obvious isn’t there.

      • AnnaZed
        06/29/2010 at 9:28 PM

        This tripe has no place here. Criminal acts are entirely distinct from consensual acts. If you don’t understand that then you are a fool.

        • Carolina
          06/29/2010 at 10:50 PM

          Well. That’s. That’s pretty much that. Next!

        • Bea
          06/30/2010 at 1:05 AM

          Very well said – and SO succinct compared to my diatribe!

    • gina a.
      06/29/2010 at 9:12 PM

      I was speaking with someone today who pointed out that in England which has an inquisitorial system of law, the judge is tasked with finding out the truth and sends investigators out into the field to answer the questions that she has. Now I think that over there you are also guilty until proven innocent, but it made me think that with the judge having to get the facts herself with her team, we might have had a different result, and maybe have been able to get to the truth of this case. Not sure I want to toss our adversarial system out the window, but the thought gave me pause today.

      • tassojunior
        06/30/2010 at 1:11 AM

        I actually studied civil law which England adopted long ago. US only place still with our evidence rules. Actually works much better for defendants as our “protections” have come to be twisted in ways that exclude evidence of innocence.

  21. Aquanetta
    06/29/2010 at 6:20 PM

    So, I was afraid this would be the result. There’s a couple of thing that stand out.
    1. The Judge obviously believes that there was no intruder but can’t take the leap that one or all of the three had something to do with the cover up? It reminds me of an old saying, if it sounds like a duck, then it is a duck Very disheartening.
    2. This is just another symptom of a failing legal system. One, where money and power trump justice. Million dollar legal teams will 99 percent defeat overwhelmed, under staffed, and under intelligent( I refrained from saying unintelligent or stupid) prosecution team.
    3. Another poster commented that it were three black guys from the SW, they would have already bend in jail. I agree!
    4. Mrs Wone, Best of Luck with your civil suit.

    • Bill 2
      06/29/2010 at 7:58 PM

      “The Judge obviously believes that there was no intruder but can’t take the leap that one or all of the three had something to do with the cover up?”

      That’s not correct. She did say that one OR all had something to do with the cover up. There was a possibility that one of them did NOT take part in the coverup. Which one? There’s no way to know that. She can’t convict them when one may be not guilty.

      Who is not guilty? Unknown. Thus, none can be found guilty.

  22. etta2
    06/29/2010 at 6:20 PM

    The judge was correct; she couldn’t speculate and attribute knowledge to the particular defendants. Three men in a house, a murder, no intruder – not even Michael Price using his key – and she clearly concluded that responsibility lies among the three.
    This sure was gay Rich Man Justice!

    I commend the gay authors of this site. If not for them, and their dedication to justice, I’d be very prejudiced against gay people by all this crime revealed (bondage, drug use, clubs hookups, etc.) as openly acknowledged in the gay community. The whole neighborhood sounded sickening, and some of the contributors here, well… Good job, men! We appreciate you!

    Wonder if these three defendants will stay together, and whether they’ll be involved in another killing?

    • Helen
      06/29/2010 at 6:24 PM

      Very disappointment.

    • mw
      06/29/2010 at 6:30 PM

      “I commend the gay authors of this site. If not for them, and their dedication to justice, I’d be very prejudiced against gay people by all this crime revealed (bondage, drug use, clubs hookups, etc.) as openly acknowledged in the gay community. The whole neighborhood sounded sickening, and some of the contributors here, well… Good job, men! We appreciate you”

      That’s a very honest and intersting comment. I too have this nagging impression of the D.C. gay community. I have this expectation that they will now rally around these guys and make them cult heroes. That this will be viewed as a big win for gays. I can’t help but wonder how many of them sympathize and can relate to the defendants because they themselves have been involved in violent-sex-games-gone-wrong scenarios.

      I know those nagging impressions are not accurate. But these defendants were certainly not helpful to gay equality in D.C. and anywhere.

      • Bill
        06/29/2010 at 6:49 PM

        While I appreciate your honesty, I am sure that you appreciate that you can’t possibly take the behavior of a few people and generalize it across a group. To do so is the basis of bigotry. Whether these defendants are guilty of un-indicted crimes is yet to be determined, if they are it’s their behavior and not that of a group.

        As a group gays and lesbians continue to be the last acceptable minority and one in which discrimination and animus are legal and widespread. Please see us individually. Thanks.

        • DCGuy
          06/29/2010 at 7:00 PM

          Well said Bill. What happens between consenting adults is irrelevant to me. If the defendants were straight would it make any difference in your perception of their activities? I didn’t draw any conclusions of all Italians or straight people based upon the Amanda Knox case.

        • mw
          06/29/2010 at 7:02 PM

          “I am sure that you appreciate that you can’t possibly take the behavior of a few people and generalize it across a group. To do so is the basis of bigotry”

          UNLESS they’re cops though, right?

          • galoon
            06/29/2010 at 8:25 PM

            zing.

        • jackrabbitslim
          06/29/2010 at 7:08 PM

          Better “individually” than as a “throuple” or whatever y’all call it!

      • Bill Orange
        06/29/2010 at 6:57 PM

        “I have this expectation that they will now rally around these guys and make them cult heroes. That this will be viewed as a big win for gays.”

        No and no. While I’m sure they will be able to find a few defenders, “the gay community” is going to treat these three men like toxic sludge for the rest of their lives.

        • mw
          06/29/2010 at 7:00 PM

          I do hope you’re right.

          I’d love to see one of those post-OJ verdict polls about people’s opinions of verdict sorted by sexual preference.

          • Bill
            06/29/2010 at 7:27 PM

            ?? What are you saying? How are OJ verdict polls connected to sexual orientation?

            • Carolina
              06/29/2010 at 7:59 PM

              Bill, he was saying that after the OJ verdict, many polls broke down the opinions by race. He was suggesting that one be done for the Wone trial by sexual orientation. I think he might be surprised by the result, but whatever.

              • Bill
                06/29/2010 at 8:13 PM

                Sexual orientation is notorious for being impossible to track in surveys due to disclosure fears and related concerns since it is not an observable characteristic.

                • Carolina
                  06/29/2010 at 8:24 PM

                  You may or may not be correct and I won’t argue with your opinion, but that was what the poster was saying.

                  • mw
                    06/29/2010 at 9:58 PM

                    That’s correct, and yes, maybe such a survey would be impossible because people would lie on. Still, I WISH such a survey could be completed.

                    Anecdotal evidence here tells me that if you’re gay, you’re more likely to believe there was no crime.

                    • Carolina
                      06/29/2010 at 10:52 PM

                      I would say there was a crime. Unfortunately, that’s worthless.

        • Jack Dempsey
          06/29/2010 at 8:50 PM

          I’m quite sure Bill is right. As for people’s secret sexual lives: the number of married “heterosexual” men on gay sex sites has helped me understand the “heterosexual community”… (I loathe the phrase “homosexual community, as if there were on, monolithic, and all of one mind.)

    • DCGuy
      06/29/2010 at 6:49 PM

      I wonder the same thing as well etta2. I keep thinking of the Joran Van der Sloot case. A narcissist who probably got away with one murder and then several years later another poor girl lost her life.

    • Carolina
      06/29/2010 at 6:54 PM

      If JP says he wiped blood, why isn’t that sufficient to be tampering?

      • Goose
        06/29/2010 at 7:15 PM

        Because the intent to tamper was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge wrote that Joe could have wiped blood because he was freaking out, as he said, and lied about it to the police because he felt foolish about doing something so stupid.

        • Carolina
          06/29/2010 at 8:01 PM

          But why wipe it off the knife? I could understand it if he’d said he wiped blood off Robert. I would say it might be the natural instinct to want it off him, perhaps even to evaluate the wound. But the knife? That’s what I can’t work around here.

          • Goose
            06/29/2010 at 9:42 PM

            “Despite my conclusions that the knife blade was wiped
            along the sharp edge, it is the case that wiping the blade only would have been of little value to someone trying to destroy evidence. In addition, there was no expert testimony regarding this factual scenario, and the government has never adopted this theory in its prosecution.”

            I agree, this reasoning is a stretch. It seems like the judge didn’t think the knife was wiped with an intent to destroy evidence because there would be little value in doing so. Joe’s nonsensical actions seemed to get him acquitted. I guess the prosecution should have addressed this.

          • cinnamon
            06/29/2010 at 9:43 PM

            I’m now thinking that the knife blade was held in the towel in order to wipe finger prints off of the handle and the blood on edge of the blade came off then.

          • Liam
            06/29/2010 at 9:48 PM

            Therein lies the catch. If you think that he’s guilty, you wonder why he’d wipe it off the knife. If you accept he’s freaking out, he wipes it just like you wipe an oil dipstick, just like you wipe anything that may drip and cause a mess. You wipe it instinctively to prevent the mess. You’re not really thinking, you’re just doing.

            • Carolina
              06/29/2010 at 10:54 PM

              Then why not wipe it clean?

          • AnnaZed
            06/29/2010 at 11:02 PM

            I know Carolina, I was surprised that the defense never made that obvious point; that maybe Joe wiped Robert’s belly to get a look at the wound. I’m not saying that he did but as defense I would have certainly posited that.

  23. 06/29/2010 at 6:26 PM

    Now that my head has stopped reeling, a few thoughts. First, I’d been resisting the too trite, too taboid-ish analogy to the OJ case, but the similarities just keep striking me in the face. What stuck in my mind, after all these years, about the OJ verdict were words of wisdom/experience by celebrity defense attorney, Gerry Spence, the aw shucks guy with the Western style, fringed jacket who appeared nightly on all the trial analysis TV shows. To paraphrase, he said that he’s found that guilty people who win their cases in court eventually slip up and get theirs in the end, and here on earth too. (That stuck in my memory not only because they were soothing words, but I had remembered a prediction from the psychic Jean Dixon, years before Watergate and even before his presidency, that Nixon would get in trouble with a tape recorder!!) I waited and waited … and waited for Spence’s prediction to come true, gritting my teeth through OJ’s playboy life. And then ….. voila! The reed I’m grasping now, to continue the analogy, is the “successful” outcome of the Goldman family’s civil case. I had slipped Kathy Wone a note in court, saying there are people, including myself, who will chip in financially to assist in expenses for a civil case if one is needed. I hope many in this community would assist in this way if requested by the Wone family.

    Second, although I had hoped for a different judgement, deep in my conscience I knew that if I were the judge, I’d have a hard time — with the evidence — sending all 3 of them to jail for what could be the rest of their lives. Why? I am forever humbled by my certainty about the guilt of Steven Hatfill (anthrax) and Richard Jewell (Atlanta Olympics bombing), and yet, both were innocent. Not that I think these guys are innocent, mind you. When I observed Judge Lebovitz, I knew she “got it” and that she’d follow where the law leads. I am “satisfied” the process was fair, given the evidence and the legal tools at her disposal.

    Third is the irony of Mayor Fenty, on tonight’s news, crowing about a rapid arrest today by the DC Police in a Northeast slaying. He said that the MPD used to screw up investigations in the past, but today’s arrest of a suspect (recorded on a security camera, apparently) demonstrates the new, improved MPD. I hope so.

    Finally, we all feel heartsick for the Wones, but I also feel for Doug, Michael, Craig and David. Take care of yourselves, friends.

    • TT
      06/29/2010 at 6:39 PM

      Gloria, I saw Fenty as well and thought to myself, “what a joke”. To our editors, I am with you all the way. Whatever you need to pursue justice, I am there. To all of my friends that in my mind I made on this site, bless you all. We will continue the fight for Robert. Clio, I love you.

      • Clio
        06/29/2010 at 7:04 PM

        TT, I love you, too, and everyone else, including Bill, Kiki, and Nate. I just hope that Team Price realizes that this is just round one of a Thirty Years War. We will never leave “this island” until justice has been served: so Doubtful, turn the boats around empty! “The flies” will always be there to remind the “persons of interest” of their possible crimes, despite Lynn’s sudden love of process over principle.

        So, please get used to the new normal, Joe, although you may want to buy Diane a new Wusthof cutlery set for Christmas. It’s the very least that you could do.

        • Meto
          06/29/2010 at 7:07 PM

          Clio:

          Caesar is unamused, but resigned. He just told me to deal with it and he genuinely thinks the good Judge didn’t do the defendants any real favors other than letting them go today. So Goddess what help will you give us?

          Respectfully,

          Meto

          • Clio
            06/29/2010 at 7:28 PM

            Well, Meto, first of all, I may b-slap the oracle at Delphi for being wrong again: she also had predicted a quick Athenian victory in the Peloponnesian War.

            Second, I will continue to post, despite the electronic threats that smack of silencing intimidation — who knew that defendants had their own cyber bullies. I hope that other like-minded veterans and newbies will do so as well.

            Third, I will give to the Wone Trust, and I hope that another round of donations by myself and fellow posters may lessen the sting of today’s surprising setback.

            • Kate
              06/29/2010 at 9:02 PM

              Yes Clio – please do give Delphi a good talking to!

              I’ve been thinking of having cocktails with She of Cumae, instead.

              Salutations,
              Kate

            • susan
              06/30/2010 at 12:04 AM

              Clio, you are wonderful. Wish you had been on the prosecution’s team (team historian with moxie and wit).

    • Craig
      06/29/2010 at 7:01 PM

      Thanks. We’re cool, but the market dropped almost 300 points on the news….

      We’ll have a better sense of what’s next in the coming days. We’re here, we’re queer and we’re not going anywhere… and we’ll probably have to get smart on civil law at some point.

      Papa: Your girl did a good job with the bad hand that she and her colleagues were dealt.

      Our thoughts are with the Wone family. They continue to be victimized by what happened in the home of Price, Ward and Zaborsky, three men that they thought were their friends.

      • She did it
        06/29/2010 at 7:22 PM

        be well, my friend!!!! xo SDI

      • Tarfunk
        06/29/2010 at 8:32 PM

        You guys are such a class act. You’ve got more fans than you know.

        • Doug
          06/29/2010 at 8:45 PM

          Personally, I’m a big fan of Craig.
          -Doug, co-editor

          • AnnaZed
            06/29/2010 at 11:20 PM

            Me too.

      • Kate
        06/29/2010 at 9:05 PM

        Bless you and thank you,

        I’ve got a crush on all four of you!

        With warmest regards,
        Kate

      • gina a.
        06/29/2010 at 9:31 PM

        Thanks again you guys for all your hard work and dedication to the truth. You are an inspiration. And regardless of what all the trolls/haters/sock puppets are saying now, this has been the best most reasonable, welcoming, open site. Even ignorant newbies like myself never got a smack down when asking the same question that had been answered a million times. And, contrary to what some may believe, I found an incredible tolerance for those with different opinions. I’ve honestly been on websites for knitters that have been more vicious and hurtful and less tolerant of questions and difference of opinion. (the famous continental vs. english knitting style melee on one site a few years ago, or the never ending controversy over acrylic vs natural fiber yarns comes to mind! never have I seen such angry, hateful vicious posts! I’m serious!)

        But I digress. Please continue this site to follow this case and be a place for supporters of the Wone family to show that they will never forget. And I would love to be able to follow the defendants wherever they try to hide, in order to warn other potential victims, but I can see that this might not be possible.

    • Ivan
      06/30/2010 at 9:42 AM

      Most everything Fenty does is a PR stunt but I digress….

  24. Sandra
    06/29/2010 at 6:31 PM

    Eds, many thanks from N.C. Without this website I would not have been able to follow this case so closely.

    Also, many thanks to Bea & KiKi for their kindness and compassion to the new & not so frequent posters. You present the upmost character, not to mention your posts are always informative and well-written.

  25. TT
    06/29/2010 at 6:32 PM

    Mistr Knucklz…..On to the next one, somebody bring me back the money please.

  26. TT
    06/29/2010 at 6:36 PM

    Bea, where are you?????

    • Bea
      06/29/2010 at 6:40 PM

      TT, I posted earlier – no worries, haven’t gone off the deep end. But thanks for asking. I had to pull myself together before writing my standard overly long post.

      • Tarfunk
        06/29/2010 at 9:00 PM

        No, not overly long. Just thoughtful, well reasoned, well written, and appropriately measured, as usual. Many of us have read this site for quite some time, jumping in occasionally with a stray comment here and there, but your consistently insightful posts have always been appreciated. LIke the editors, you’re a class act too.

        • KKinCA
          06/29/2010 at 9:01 PM

          I second that! I always look for Bea’s posts. Keep it up!

          • Kate
            06/29/2010 at 9:06 PM

            Yes, yes.

            • susan
              06/30/2010 at 12:15 AM

              Likewise!

      • Bill 2
        06/29/2010 at 9:43 PM

        A few weeks back, you were gone for several days (without advance notice – ahem!). Please warn us next time. Dealing with Bea withdrawal isn’t easy.

        • Bea
          06/30/2010 at 1:08 AM

          You’re very funny – and, by the way, I’ll be gone starting mid-week next week for about 10 days. But there’s no getting rid of me.

  27. Jackie
    06/29/2010 at 6:41 PM

    If the Judge told me and the world that my friends and I “probably” committed all these crimes, but she was going to let us stay out of prison because she couldn’t prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, I wouldn’t be celebrating tonight or any other night. I would be looking for someplace to hide my face in shame for the rest of my life. I can’t believe they are happy with this Judge’s stated opinion. Most people will, rightly so I think, never believe they are innocent after that for sure.

    • DavidM
      06/29/2010 at 8:16 PM

      Jackie, I want to agree with you, but a real sense of shame and remorse would have led to a confession or at least some truth telling by now. I have to suspect these three men are really pretty much shameless.

      • Jackie
        06/29/2010 at 9:10 PM

        I know, you are so right about them.

  28. EX Swann
    06/29/2010 at 6:41 PM

    Such a fine community of folks on this site but …

    Gosh do we need our voice of reason, our Bea!

  29. reader
    06/29/2010 at 6:53 PM

    The judge’s verdict and written explanation reads correctly and sounds reasonable. She basically believes beyond a doubt that it wasn’t an intruder and that one or more of them did it or know who did it, but the prosecution couldn’t prove it was definitely Ward, or definitely Price, or definitely Zaborsky, so out of fairness to any innocents among them, they all are acquitted.

    While J or D or V is guilty of the charges (minus tampering for two of them)… it does not follow that J and D and V are together guilty.

    It’s ironic that because they are a unit, the charges couldn’t be pinned to any of them.

    • ETB
      06/29/2010 at 7:08 PM

      It is clear to me that the judge could not find them guilty of these charges……….but that they are certainly not innocent!!! The demise of the threesome is inevitable and I take comfort in that.

  30. Bill 2
    06/29/2010 at 7:04 PM

    Michael Skakel got away with the 1975 murder of Martha Moxley for 25 years. Justice caught up with him and sent him to jail. Today, a killer walked out of the courthouse in DC. I predict that, like Michael Skakel, he’ll end up in prison for his crimes.

  31. curiousdc
    06/29/2010 at 7:07 PM

    This may have been posted numerous times and if so, I apologize in advance. I’d like to know how Kathy Wone’s attorneys will approach the civil trial for negligence?

    • FORWFCB
      06/29/2010 at 7:29 PM

      “This may have been posted numerous times and if so, I apologize in advance. I’d like to know how Kathy Wone’s attorneys will approach the civil trial for negligence?”

      ANSWER: Paraphrasing a line from “Jaws,” one of my favorite older movies, the defendants “are going to need a bigger boat” – a lot more money and more lawyers – Kathy Wone and Robert’s estate are being represented pro bono (for free) by one of the world’s largest great white sharks – – Robert’s former law firm, Covington & Burling. It is is one of the best civil litigation law firms in the ENTIRE world. Compared to the criminal trial, this is a far more even match-up now. I might even say that Messrs. Grim, Schertler, Spagnoletti, and Connolly are going to more than meet their match when going up against Covington.

      • Bill Orange
        06/29/2010 at 7:40 PM

        I don’t think it’s going to play out that way. I don’ think they’re going to bother mounting much of a defense. I think they’re all going to invoke their fifth amendment rights, let the jury rule against them, and then head to Florida (or out of the country) for the rest of their lives.

        • FORWFCB
          06/29/2010 at 7:46 PM

          Bill Orange:

          No disagreement on what would be the
          “smart play” by the defendants but will Joe’s ego let him do that??? That said, Joe’s wallet or that of Dr. Ward may override Joe’s ego.

        • DavidM
          06/29/2010 at 8:18 PM

          I predict and will work to make sure they will never be able to run far enough. Robert Wone’s name and what happened to him in their house will follow them where ever they go.

        • Pete McLeanVa
          06/29/2010 at 9:50 PM

          Bill O, where out of the country? Peru?

          • Clio
            06/30/2010 at 12:11 AM

            I would still guess Miami Shores, of course — a country away from Aunt Marcia’s McLean, Virginia in taste and culture!

            Cuba is also a wonderful place of exile for “victims” of/fugitives from American justice: ola Fidel!

        • slwapo
          06/30/2010 at 1:42 AM

          “and then head to Florida (or out of the country) for the rest of their lives.”

          Can you or someone else please explain this Florida thing? Someone else mentioned something about their house in Florida being some sort of money shelter?

      • Bill 2
        06/29/2010 at 7:52 PM

        “Messrs. Grim, Schertler, Spagnoletti, and Connolly are going to more than meet their match”

        Can the trio afford them for this trial? I didn’t realize that they had already been retained for the civil trial. Dr. Ward had better get back to the West Coast to earn a few more dollers for this round.

        • Bea
          06/29/2010 at 8:19 PM

          These men are not representing them in the civil action (and they wouldn’t, as they are criminal defense attorneys). The lawyers were disclosed when the defendants moved for a suspension pending outcome of the criminal trial – but whether they will continue to be able to afford them is another question entirely. Since Price will have difficulty getting legal work (should consider Go! Mama! Go! with brother Michael) perhaps he will handle this one himself.

          • Jonathan
            06/29/2010 at 9:56 PM

            Joe is not welcome at go mama go! Neither are the other two. That was a vile thing to say, Bea and not in keeping with your other posts. Yes, I have been following this site since the start but have held my tongue until now. I am no friend of the three murderers and have not kept my opinion hidden from Michael, either.

            • curiousdc
              06/29/2010 at 10:24 PM

              Oh really, then why would that store continue to employ that trashy criminal Michael Price?

              • Jonathan
                06/29/2010 at 11:26 PM

                Curious – its not “that” store, its MY store. Michael’s past, or even his connection to Joe, were not known to me at the time I hired him a year and a half ago. He’s done nothing since to warrant being fired, let alone being the creature that is portrayed on this site, based on nothing but SPECULATION. It is very frustrating to have this crime go unpunished, even when it is clear that one or more of the threesome are guilty. Flinging poo like frustrated baboons is easy to do and gives some satisfaction, but will not get us any closer to justice. Michael’s bad history is not proof of any involvement in or knowledge of the crimes comitted by Joe, Victor and Dylan. I’m not here to satisfy your bloodlust.

                • curiousdc
                  06/30/2010 at 7:21 AM

                  Michael Price is a shady character and poor
                  judgement on your part for hiring him. Would you
                  trust him wtih the keys to your house?

            • Bea
              06/29/2010 at 10:27 PM

              Jonathan, my sincere apologies. I didn’t mean to disparage your business, nor store clerks in general, but was (poorly) executing a joke about Joe’s future. It’s always good to hear that people around the defendants’ family members have been honest with them about their sense of things.

              I’m sure I’m not the only one who would like very much to know your sense of Michael Price. The Judge seemed to have NO sense of him having been the murderer, and I have some sense that Joe was scapegoating him during police interrogation (even as he’d called him for a ride). My guess is that it’s not easy to be Joe Price’s younger brother – or it didn’t use to be.

              Again, apologies.

              • Jonathan
                06/29/2010 at 11:30 PM

                Thank you, Bea. For now I’ll limit myself to what I said above in response to curious but I’ll add that I would not have hired him had I realized who he was. But, having been a fairly reliable employee since, I’m not about to fire him just to feel good. Justice will be done, but not by dumping on Michael.

                • Clio
                  06/30/2010 at 12:27 AM

                  Thanks, Jonathan, I agree with you. I would much rather see Michael employed rather than being idle — one can only imagine what he would do if he did not have a job or two!

                • Bea
                  06/30/2010 at 12:30 AM

                  Jonathan, thanks for giving me a ‘pass’ for my gaffe. I do feel foolish. And I am glad to hear that you’re hanging in there with Michael Price.

                  • Carolina
                    06/30/2010 at 1:07 AM

                    Isn’t it sad that an employer would have more supportive things to say about Michael than his own brother?

      • curiousdc
        06/29/2010 at 8:25 PM

        The reply is much appreciated and at least there’s some consolation in knowing that the boys won’t be resting easy this summer.

        Kathy, if you are reading these posts, I hope you find some comfort in knowing that you have so many supporters.

      • Liam
        06/29/2010 at 8:36 PM

        First, Messrs. Grimm, Schertler, Spagnoletti and Connolly can more than hold their own going up against Covington and Burling. The attorneys that the defendants hired are some of the best in the DC area, and probably some of the best in the country.

        But, the prosecution more than held their own against this “dream team” of lawyers. They just didn’t have the evidence.

        My point is that the evidence (along with the standard of proof) is going to dictate the outcome, not that one side is more special in their abilities than the other.

        And, the civil trial is a slam dunk.

        • chilaw79
          06/29/2010 at 11:00 PM

          Just remember that the last person that used that “slam dunk” terminology (outside the context of a basketball game) ended up getting the United States involved in a war that did not need to be waged.

          I thought about using the same words earlier and caught myself.

          While the civil case is subject to a lower standard of proof and the defendants and Judge Leibowitz have burned some bridges of defense, I am sure Joe Price will not go quietly in the civil case.

        • tassojunior
          06/29/2010 at 11:05 PM

          Yesterday I predicted this as a slam-dunk.

  32. 06/29/2010 at 7:11 PM

    It also bears mentioning …

    The person whose analysis of the trial turned out to be spot-on in the end was no one on this site, but rather Harry Jaffe of Washingtonian magazine. And he achieved this without having to spend his every waking hour obsessively thinking about the case, as well as without a “reporting team” and dozens of self-anointed “expert analysts” to help him out.

    Score: Old Media 1, Bloggers O.

    • Corgivet
      06/29/2010 at 7:46 PM

      How do you know Harry wasn’t obsessing about the case??
      You are an idiot

    • weaver
      06/29/2010 at 8:01 PM

      I can not defend this judge in any way! No intruder is PROOF that they are guilty of obstruction! They should have been charged with MURDER! She did not “have” to rule the way she did, I don’t respect her at all. Her ruling doesn’t even make sense! NO INTRUDER = GUILTY, period. It makes me sick that some legal BS took over basic common sense, they are guilty as sin and everybody knows it!

      This verdict makes me sick and I hope those sick scumbags rot in hell.

      • sophia
        06/29/2010 at 9:18 PM

        I agree that no intruder = she knows one or all of them were involved–and, ergo, co-conspirators–and she sure sounded like she held that opinion beyond a reasonable doubt–but she says she can’t convict even one defendant if she can’t implicate all three of them. She’s indicating that they chose the correct strategy in sticking together, as they probably knew she would have to rule in their favor based on this “math problem.” But she expresses enough doubt about each defendant in her comments such that we know that she is not finding them “innocent,” so I doubt her opinion offers complete solace to the defendants even as it allows them to live freely in terms of space–if not conscience.

        To put her ruling in perspective, I think she tries to express her anguish, although judiciously tempered. And, remember, this is not a murder trial, and much of the overwhelming circumstantial evidence was not allowed. The civil trial will be different.

        Justice will out. May Robert Wone forever rest in peace, and may Mrs. Wone and the Wone family find comfort in knowing that Robert was a decent and honorable man.

    • She did it
      06/29/2010 at 8:11 PM

      oops, daring Nate. i predicted this result weeks ago when i saw the government’s thin evidence (but not thin witnesses). i never thought the defendants needed to put on a defense (not that they put on much of one).

      • Liam
        06/29/2010 at 8:57 PM

        Yes “She did it” yes. I am right there with you. Toward the close of the prosecution’s case, I was stated that they hadn’t proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt (BARD). Not that the prosecution didn’t do a good job, they just didn’t have the right cards to win the hand.

  33. Sandra Renee Hicks
    06/29/2010 at 7:13 PM

    Reply to Spike who posted at 6:10 today, June 29, 2010:

    Your comment:
    “Then maybe God should’ve done something about it.”

    You are misinformed if you believe that GOD is not in the equation. Justice is not always swift or administered in ways that we desire.

    In the Holy Bible, in the book of Exodus, numerous plagues occurred before the wicked king Pharaoh was drowned in the Red sea while the Israelites walked through that same Red sea on dry ground.

    In the book of Genesis, Noah built the ark and entered it with his family – the people outside the ark perished. No doubt, it was a lengthy process for Noah to build that ark. People certainly mocked him. They were not mocking when Noah and his family were safely in the ark when the rain came….

    Of recent times, Jaycee Dugard was held prisoner for 18 years. Justice for her was certainly not swift.

    Joran van der Sloot was recently arrested for murder in Peru. He is highly suspected of murdering Natalie Holloway about five years ago.

    Justice was not swift in any of the above cases. Justice is a certainty…when sovereign GOD decides.

    We reap what we sow – no exceptions.

    Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
    (Galatians 6:7)

    Judgment will be delivered…stay tuned….

    • Carolina
      06/30/2010 at 1:09 AM

      You’re starting to freak me out a little here.

  34. Cali
    06/29/2010 at 7:18 PM

    Dear Mrs. Wone.
    I am so so sorry for your loss and the verdict.

    I believe an unknown 4th person was involved. Someone powerful and someone with loads of money.

    One day it will come out.

    The verdict sucks, however I hope it leads to a huge verdict in the civil trial, and sucks the money out of the 3 defendants forever.

    • Bill
      06/29/2010 at 8:17 PM

      Interesting theory regarding a fourth person. Do you have any further ideas you’d like to share? As the case is presented, it doesn’t make sense.

  35. Meto
    06/29/2010 at 7:18 PM

    Nate:

    You exaggerate. There were several on this site (myself included mid-day yesterday) who predicted this outcome. Moreover, Jaffe did not predict the Judge’s rulings on major findings of fact that should leave no supporter of the defendants without taking a major pause and perhaps even reconsider what actually happened. The judge’s ruling was justified. She is a good judge. But as others have said, I think it is a fair interpretation of her decision that she found that one or more of the defendants are morally culpable even if not legally so.

    Respectfully,

    Meto

  36. josephina
    06/29/2010 at 7:23 PM

    I remember the day the OJ verdict was rendered. I was walking to an online edit session at “Empire Video” with my co-workers…and they were all so sure he would fry. Justice would triumph, it was so obvious. And me, well, I didn’t really say much, but I don’t have much faith in this country’s ability to do right. We all sat around a TV monitor that was temporarily hooked up to the TV instead of our precious commercial. Not guilty. Not guilty. I looked around at the slack jawed faces around me. I was not among them. Don’t things like this happen all the time I thought? Yesterday I heard that BP is using technology from 1968 to clean up the oil spill in the gulf. They spent zero dollars figuring out how to clean up the inevitable mistake even as they forged ahead to where no one has drilled before. We live in a messed up, barbaric world. I think it’s rare that we ever see true justice, I think it’s rare that we, as a society, do the right thing. Someone else needs to suffer, maybe die and then perhaps, if we are lucky, these criminals will actually get punished. Our barbaric world.

    • Carolina
      06/29/2010 at 8:32 PM

      What is that saying? A society gets the justice it deserves? Had Simi Valley not turned it’s face from justice, OJ may have gone to jail for murder.

  37. Cali
    06/29/2010 at 7:26 PM

    The judge was appointed by George Bush. His legacy continues.

    • Carolina
      06/29/2010 at 8:13 PM

      This is unfair. In every case, someone is going to be disappointed with the verdict. While I think she moved “reasonable doubt” into a very, very remote territory, she also had to evaluate which of the three did what. That’s fairly impossible without one of them flipping.

      The prosecution gave her the best of what they had been handed, and she weighed it according to the law as she interpreted it. She could use common sense to say that one of them was guilty, but without being able to say which, she had to let them all go free.

      That is the basic foundation of our legal system, and sometimes it seems like it makes a mockery of justice, but let me ask you this. If you were innocent and your two buddies were guilty, how much time are you willing to spend in jail so that the guilty were brought to justice?

      • Bill
        06/29/2010 at 8:18 PM

        Well, that was a very rational, considered response!

        • Carolina
          06/29/2010 at 8:28 PM

          You’d be shocked to know I voted “All Acquitted” in the poll. I believe most of us who had seen evidence ruled inadmissible or tainted recognized that the burden of proof was going to be hard for the prosecution to meet. We also had the problem of assigning guilt to the right party with little or no direct evidence.

          But all that aside, do I think one or more played a role in Robert’s demise? I think exactly what the judge thinks.

          • Bill
            06/29/2010 at 9:18 PM

            I stand corrected!

  38. WhatACase
    06/29/2010 at 7:50 PM

    Come on guys, ease up on the judge. She proved herself to be serious and extremely competent (and as I recall it, the defense was none too happy to have drawn a law-and-order type judge). She called it as she saw it—she didn’t say the defendants were innocent–in fact, she went to extraordinary lengths to note their probably guilt. But the reasonable doubt standard is an extremely tough one, and she did her job.

    the civil suit is a whole new ballgame. Let’s get on with it.

  39. TT
    06/29/2010 at 7:54 PM

    Bea, please explain…….sparkly kitty I get. I have respected everything you have posted. I am at a lost for words……..

    • Bea
      06/29/2010 at 8:14 PM

      Hey TT, my long-winded post is in the ‘older comments’ part. Ping me if you want me to expound on any particular part more.

      The gist is that much as I believe the defendants to be guilty, I do respect the Judge acquitting them because of a lacking as to “evidentiary certainty” even though she believes them to be guilty as to “moral certainty”. She didn’t need to write the lengthy opinion, and I have to give her props for having taken the time to ensure that the defendants cannot claim that they were framed – the ‘stink’ of guilt follows them even after today. It’s not a guilty verdict, of course, and I can’t truly imagine what Kathy Wone is going through – I know what a blow I felt as a total outsider. But while these men are “not guilty” that is far from innocence, as the Judge so clearly stated.

      • Carolina
        06/30/2010 at 1:11 AM

        She may as well have sent them out the door of Moultrie with a red M on their lapels.

  40. David
    06/29/2010 at 8:03 PM

    My thoughts may not fit with the advocacy nature of most here. I followed the case closely and always felt that there was a weak case for conviction. The prosecution medical experts and timeline evidence were weak and I felt the chance of a conviction was slight. On the other hand, I felt that a jury might well convict so the defense was wise to opt for a bench trial.

    That being said, there were some interesting things in the judge’s order.

    First, the judge pointed out that on consistency of story, the defendants were damned if they did and damned if they didn’t. If their stories were consistent, the prosecution argued that it was an obvious conspiracy and if they were inconsistent, the prosecution argued that that was a sign of guilt. Although she didn’t say it specifically, my feeling was that she was gently chiding the prosecution for arguing both sides of the street.

    Second, the judge said that she believed the killer was known to the defendants, but she carefully did not say that defendants knew who the killer was. To do the latter, she would have to reference specific evidence, to do the former she only had to reference her belief that there was not a case for an intruder.

    • Carolina
      06/29/2010 at 8:17 PM

      I disagree about the consistency/inconsistency dilemma. When you have three people citing BMW step stools, intruders and 11:43, it’s reasonable to believe these were not independent invention.

      If the same person tells three or four different stories, one of them has to be a lie, assuming he doesn’t live in parallel universes.

      • Liam
        06/29/2010 at 8:47 PM

        “When you have three people citing BMW step stools, intruders and 11:43, it’s reasonable to believe these were not independent invention.”

        Or is it reasonable to believe that they all experienced the same thing? Therein lies the catch. Without conclusive evidence (or evidence that establishes “evidentiary certainty”), one way or the other, it’s not good enough to convict.

        • Carolina
          06/29/2010 at 8:56 PM

          It might be reasonable if they had a hive mind. I would give them the turn of phrase “an intruder broke in.” I’d be considerably more skeptical if all three came up with a scenario in which an intruder used the Beemer to get over the fence. I’d lose faith when they all parroted the wrong time, to the minute.

          • Liam
            06/29/2010 at 9:10 PM

            About that wrong time, I read that the 911 operator said 23:54, which is 11:54. So, Victor translates that into 11:43. There’s a “4′ and “3” in there an he heard wrong and translated wrong. So what? People do it all the time. Did you ever play telephone?

            • cinnamon
              06/29/2010 at 9:23 PM

              I was confused about his as well, but this is my understanding now. Joe asked Victor to ask the operator what time it is. Victor does and relays the correct 11:54 time to Joe. This is heard on the 911 call. Later when they are on the sofa, the time is being discussed again and it is at this point that they make the mistake and say 11:43. My question is, why are they discussing the damn time at that point? The EMTs are there, the police are there and it looks like their friend is dead and they are discussing the time? Why?
              Have you ever been in an accident or had something horrible happen? Time is not what comes to mind. In fact, you lose all sense of time. The thing that they should be talking about is finding the “intruder” not worrying about the time.

              That’s my take anyway.

  41. She did it
    06/29/2010 at 8:06 PM

    a big shout out to clio and cd who made me smile many times over with their unmatched wit. bea, learned a hell of a lot from you.

    when the trial started, i asked where is the beef. many answered, the lack of blood is the beef. did the judge deal with this issue? i read opinion (rushed) earlier, do not recall the explanation.

    wonderful job, editors – write a book!!!!!

    • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
      06/29/2010 at 11:55 PM

      Hugs to SDI. 😀 Ditto, doll.

  42. Southern Lurker
    06/29/2010 at 8:33 PM

    has anyone seen the videos on the Post site? All three defendants are there, being interrogated. Ward’s is the least sure. Price and Z. – I might give them a pass.

    • Carolina
      06/29/2010 at 8:35 PM

      I am afraid I would puke.

      • Southern Lurker
        06/29/2010 at 8:51 PM

        Please go watch. I’d be interested in what you think.

        • Bea
          06/29/2010 at 8:57 PM

          They are interesting. Much as I’d imagined, with Dylan playing dumb and Joe talking in an animated fashion as if he’s likely to talk his way out of it. Victor looks pathetic as he tries to ‘reword’ after the “Mercedes meeting” to call the screams “breathy grunts” to align with Joe’s.

          • Southern Lurker
            06/29/2010 at 9:01 PM

            But he played dumb so badly.

            • Bea
              06/29/2010 at 9:47 PM

              Agree that Dylan is the worst actor of the bunch. When I read his interrogation transcripts, I thought he came off the “best” of the three. In watching them, and mind you none are “helpful” to them, it’s Dylan’s tone and body language that sticks out as just plain not telling the truth. Might as well have folded his arms across his chest. Victor looks like a frail flower trying to stay upright, while Joe looks like he’s just so damned put out that he has to tell these idiots one more time that he’s a great guy. The nerve.

    • Doug
      06/29/2010 at 8:48 PM

      G&P – You’re referencing the wrong links. Southern Lurker is referring to the voluntary statements the defendants made at the VCB – videos we will be posting soon. You’re thinking of the videos we produced. And don’t be fooled. We’re well aware of copyright law – I’m a journalist – and have everything we need.
      Nice try.
      -Doug, co-editor

      • Gilt and Partners
        06/29/2010 at 9:02 PM

        Nice try? For what? Expressing concerns over copyright infringement?

        You are quite the amateur for someone calling herself a “journalist”.

        Well, I assure you, I will be contacting YouTube and Echo & The Bunnymen.

        We’ll see how long your videos stay up.

        • Lee
          06/29/2010 at 9:14 PM

          What’s your problem? Where does all this righteous anger come from? Did you just come from a revival meeting?

        • Clio
          06/29/2010 at 9:41 PM

          Let the petty reprisals begin, shall we? Just when I had thought that trouple supporters could not be so small, they never fail to disappoint. The gloating, the crocodile tears, the patronizing bitchiness without the wit are all very much part of a tres chic, Mercedes type of tea party. Kiki, pass me the Earl Grey, please — thanks, Culuket.

          I wonder if apologists such as Bill want “a show trial” for the Editors and their collaborators, or do they want frontier justice for our little band of citizen-pundits? Dr. Bill Orange (no apologist for Team Price, except maybe for Lisa G.) has wisely counseled against violence against Team Price: I trust that he also extends that sermon to Team Price’s possible (physical, legal, verbal)attacks on alleged members of Team Wone.

          • Bill
            06/29/2010 at 11:09 PM

            Your personal attack on me is tacky but true to form.

            • Craig
              06/29/2010 at 11:15 PM

              Bill: Now you’re just wasting bandwidth. You’ve been whining all day and it’s truely gotten tiresome. This is not about you.

            • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
              06/29/2010 at 11:50 PM

              I’ve been wanting to say this all day……Bill? Shut your f-ing pie hole.

              Goodnight all.

        • Doug
          06/29/2010 at 10:12 PM

          Good luck

        • Doug
          06/29/2010 at 10:27 PM

          Oh, and the editors have a long standing policy of only allowing one ‘name’ for each user. You have violated this policy, which has been clearly stated time and again. As well as now.
          -Doug, co-editor

        • Craig
          06/29/2010 at 10:34 PM

          Echo can be reached here: getbent@gopissuparope.com Twit.

        • Carolina
          06/29/2010 at 11:26 PM

          Little victories for little men. Congratulations.

        • AnnaZed
          06/30/2010 at 1:13 AM

          With so few laughs today the image of you feverishly firing off an outraged email to Echo and the Bunnymen amuses me.

  43. Carolina
    06/29/2010 at 8:34 PM

    Because the server keeps crashing? You seem to be coming in loud and clear now. Is this your first post-conviction case?

  44. LRN
    06/29/2010 at 8:39 PM

    I’m so pissed. I’ll say cuz no one else will. Glenn K was always the weakest link. Not the evidence. RIP Robert.

  45. NYer
    06/29/2010 at 8:49 PM

    Now that the defendants are off the hook- how strong would a case be for them to claim that that these posts on WMRW going forward are defamatory?

    This has been a great blog; it would be a shame if Joe Price can get an injunction against it…

    • Carolina
      06/29/2010 at 8:51 PM

      They’re not off the hook for anything but the charges at this trial. It’s also not illegal to discuss public information and form personal opinions. Sorry.

    • Southern Lurker
      06/29/2010 at 8:52 PM

      I’m wondering about the mullah. How are they going to keep body and soul together. A book? Would they?

      • Carolina
        06/29/2010 at 9:01 PM

        Would they? I don’t think there’s much they wouldn’t.

    • Bea
      06/29/2010 at 8:55 PM

      I think the WMRW site is a protected forum. While those of us who post should not make ridiculous salacious accusations, especially anything cloaked as “fact”, I think it bodes well for us to be able to discuss the facts of this case on an ongoing basis since the Judge stated that while she did not find the men guilty with “evidentiary certainty” of “beyond a reasonable doubt” she FOUND that there was no intruder and stated that she believed with “moral certainty” that the defendants were guilty. All of our opinions are our opinions, and properly communicated, should not be a problem. I don’t see Joe getting an injunction.

      • NYer
        06/29/2010 at 9:20 PM

        Good point Bea. On a separate note– I have serious trouble with the judge’s choice of words here (“moral certainty”). One of the famous definitions of reasonable doubt states in part that RD “is that state of the case, which… leaves the minds of jurors in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction, to a *moral certainty,* of the truth of the charge.” [Emphasis mine]
        If she believed with “moral certainty” that they were guilty, she should not have acquitted them. Unless we’re back to the whole inability to say who is guilty so we turn them all free. Which I disagree with; if all there stories agreed, as far as I’m concerned they all obstructed justice…

        • Carolina
          06/29/2010 at 11:05 PM

          I will freely admit I’m not as well read in the law as many others, but I don’t feel that was why she acquitted. I think it was more than likely based on her inability to assign guilt to the individual without direct evidence against that particular defendant.

      • Bill Orange
        06/29/2010 at 10:02 PM

        I’m with Bea. I think that the judge’s opinion pretty much wiped out any chance of a successful civil suit by the defendants against just about anybody. They’ll never win a any sort of malicious prosecution case, nor will they win a defamation case. Frankly, I think their best chance would be going against the judge herself, for writing such a damning opinion while still finding them “not guilty” on all charges. And I don’t think they have a prayer in hell of winning that, either.

        • EX Swann
          06/29/2010 at 11:14 PM

          I imagine the defense team(s) rather quickly air-kissed the boys out of their offices and then headed home for a long bath …

          • Carolina
            06/29/2010 at 11:58 PM

            I’d think think they needed to be put in dry dock and scraped.

  46. EX Swann
    06/29/2010 at 8:55 PM

    Only have time to skim at the moment … 16 hour workday here.

    Anyone know where there are post-verdict pics/videos of the members of the trouple?

    I miss me some shakey-cam …

    • Bea
      06/29/2010 at 8:58 PM

      I too have fond feelings for shakey-cam. . .

      • Carolina
        06/29/2010 at 9:00 PM

        Like a visual vibrator.

      • Craig
        06/29/2010 at 10:27 PM

        Fox5-WTTG got some good video of the boys leaving Moultrie. Robby Chavez ran after them for comment, Schertler nearly body checked him and Zaborsky’s father appeared pretty bitter. They didn’t seem like a happy bunch. Link not online yet, but it shouldably will surface soon. The story led all afternoon newscasts and probably will again @ 11pm.

      • EX Swann
        06/29/2010 at 10:27 PM

        I know right? Of course now all that seems just a bit like innocence lost …

        I do so admire this judge for her fairness throughout the process and the courage she exhibited today in her decision. I just saw video of Mr. Price’s huge smirk as he was leaving court today … moments after he was essentially deemed a murderer. What a vile excuse for a human being. Sorry in advance for those I offend.

        Bea, I know we will see a much wider range of evidence in the civil trial. Will we ever be privy to the results of Mr. Ward’s polygraph?

    • Doug
      06/29/2010 at 10:21 PM

      EX Swann; we missed Dylan and Victor as they left immediately out the C Street Entrance, although we did get lots of stares as we followed them down the escalators (no cameras allowed) in Moultrie. Still don’t know where Joe exited.
      Wish we had shakey-cam of any of it…
      -Doug, shakey-cam

      • EX Swann
        06/29/2010 at 10:30 PM

        Video of Mr. Price exiting was on FOX 5 and I assume it is on their website as well. Suitable only for those with a strong stomach …

    • chilaw79
      06/29/2010 at 10:32 PM

      Try the local Fox TV station in DC. They had footage of the defendants and their parents leaving the courthouse on foot. The defendants said absolutely nothing, with one lawyer providing a short “No comment” while running interference. One of the parents (I think it was Victor Zaborsky’s mother) expressed sympathy for Kathy Wone. One of the fathers told them to leave them alone.

  47. Southern Lurker
    06/29/2010 at 9:03 PM

    Anyone know if this is going to be featured on any of the cable tabloids?

  48. Corcoran
    06/29/2010 at 9:05 PM

    WaPo has video excerpts of the defendants’ interrogations. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think we only had transcripts before to read? Since I couldn’t attend the trial, this is the first I’m seeing of the interrogations, and the videos really do make them look so much more guilty. Wow. Here’s the link:
    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/crime-scene/from-the-courthouse/video-wone-interrogation-excer.html?hpid=dynamiclead

    • Boltz3000
      06/29/2010 at 10:33 PM

      These video interrogations make the MPD detectives look laughably incompetent. I can’t believe these jokers actually get paid to botch homicide investigations like this. They make the Keystone cops look like Sherlock Holmes. Anyone angry with this verdict should redirect their hostility toward a much deserved target: the DC MPD, particularly the homicide unit.

      • mw
        06/29/2010 at 10:52 PM

        Those investigators were completely outmatched by these guys. What an embarrassing display. They’re probably not use to dealing with more upscale, professional criminals.

    • AnnaZed
      06/30/2010 at 12:58 AM

      Thanks so much for the link.

      Boy, Dylan certainly looked good on paper but when one sees the tape he just gave a truly pathetic performance of his lines while being interrogated. He was so not credible in that little clip that his high school drama teacher should be ashamed. His body language, tone, intonation, cadence, attack and delivery simply scream mendacity. It’s amazing. No wonder Joe was worried about him.

      I also agree with the poster above that the detectives were out of their depth with these articulate well educated men for adversaries.

  49. Corcoran
    06/29/2010 at 9:09 PM

    Over 1000 people have responded to the WaPo poll on the verdict: 80% disagree with the verdict. Yikes. It’s going to be difficult for them to stay in Dupont/Logan, me thinks…

    • EX Swann
      06/29/2010 at 10:11 PM

      They can’t afford Wheaton, much less Dupont. Good riddance!

    • Carolina
      06/29/2010 at 10:16 PM

      I’m still inclined to believe the verdict is correct, AND that they’re guilty of far worse than the charges they walked away from.

      • EX Swann
        06/29/2010 at 10:34 PM

        Agreed!

Comments are closed.