Screen Gems

The Camera Never Lies

While we work to determine next steps and the plan for the out months and what will no doubt be a glacial civil case schedule, there is at least one final task related to the criminal trial: archiving the exhibits, transcripts and documents that were introduced.

A smiling Joe Price leaves the Moultrie Courthouse folling Judge Leibovitz' acquital of him and his (former?) housemates

Joe Price at the Moultrie Courthouse. Judge Leibovitz acquitted him and his (former?) housemates

It’s bound to be a laborious process and a key task will involve uploading the videotaped interrogations of the three former defendants from the night of Robert’s murder. 

Portions were released to the media shortly after Judge Lynn Leibovitz’ gavel fell on Tuesday afternoon and although they were scattered across several news sites, many readers had the chance to see them. 

For those who did not, here are the links of the two Washington  Post pages that have the brief video streams from that evening.

The video quality of these clips is better than what courtroom observers saw when they introduced in open session.  The C-SPAN pedigree dictates that we post them in their entirely after we obtain the complete set.  After the jump, more crappy video from the WMRW Shaky-Cam: The Lost Episodes

Sights and scenes from the Moultrie Courthouse plaza following Judge Leibovitz’ verdict:

317 comments for “Screen Gems

  1. cinnamon
    07/01/2010 at 10:31 AM

    Ugh, that smirk.

    • Clio
      07/01/2010 at 10:38 AM

      Double ugh, those glasses. He looks like Senator Mitch McConnell’s long-lost brother.

      • curiousdc
        07/01/2010 at 10:40 AM

        I hope the civil trial jurors get a chance to see the pics and footage of these smiling creeps.

        • Tim
          07/01/2010 at 11:42 AM

          I’m sure it’s been mentioned before, but Joe’s weight gain is what’s usually referred to in Hollywood as the “Clean Fifteen.”

          • Carolina
            07/01/2010 at 4:35 PM

            Ha! I said that, too, only I think it’s more like 20. We need a new rhyme.

            • QQS
              07/02/2010 at 1:41 AM

              Should be the Guilty Fifteen

      • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
        07/01/2010 at 11:58 AM

        Those and Dylan’s white “Casey Anthony” shades get a big goose egg from this fashionista. LOL

      • Carolina
        07/01/2010 at 4:37 PM

        Or Mitch’s long lost Army buddy.

    • Bill
      07/01/2010 at 1:34 PM

      I don’t understand how so many people see a smirk on JP’s face. Isn’t it just a smile? Does a “smirk” make a judgment about his internal dialogue which, of course, is unknown? Further, why wouldn’t he smile after the verdict?

      There is so much group-think on this site. It doesn’t surprise me that so many people were so stunned, angry and ready to blame because of the judge’s verdict. In my opinion, objectivity went away a long time ago.

      Now I realize that these comments are unpopular and will result in a tidal way of personal attacks and criticism, but if that is the price for candid comments, so be it.

      • curiousdc
        07/01/2010 at 1:49 PM

        I don’t know, because it’s tacky and insensitive behavior?

        • Bill
          07/01/2010 at 1:52 PM

          But that assumes an intention behind his smile which is conjecture.

          • curiousdc
            07/01/2010 at 2:00 PM

            the look of someone who knows that they’ve just gotten away with murder

            • Bill
              07/01/2010 at 2:06 PM

              But isn’t that your assumptions about his inner dialogue?

              • curiousdc
                07/01/2010 at 2:10 PM

                Any thoughts about what he could have been thinking?

              • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                07/01/2010 at 2:55 PM

                Get it a grip. Your ass-kissing is getting old.

                • curiousdc
                  07/01/2010 at 2:59 PM

                  was that msg. for me or bill?

                  • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                    07/01/2010 at 3:47 PM

                    Bill! Sorry curiousdc….I should have added Bill’s name.

                    Heavens no it’s not for you!

                    • evilone
                      07/01/2010 at 5:02 PM

                      Thanks CD! I should have paid closer attention to the direction of the arrows!

                • Bill
                  07/01/2010 at 4:01 PM

                  LOL – whose “ass” am I kissing? My comments were reflective, but as I expected, there would be knee-jerk criticism. Let me make a recommendation, why not consider my question before just responding?

                  • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                    07/01/2010 at 4:03 PM

                    Bill, you’re so smart. I wish I were like you.

                    • Kathleen
                      07/01/2010 at 9:46 PM

                      Well, you called it, Bill. Opinions that don’t conform attract uncalled for attacks. Of course, the defendants would smile after their acquittals. In what universe is that a sign of anything but relief.

      • KiKi
        07/01/2010 at 2:32 PM

        Bill – If you have not seen it yet check out the movie Idiocracy with Luke Wilson.

      • NoMore
        07/02/2010 at 12:04 PM

        Like most everyone I believe the defendents were involved with what happened to Robert. How? To what extent? I seriously doubt we’ll ever know. But putting that aside, Bill’s comment on the groupthink exhibited by the majority of regular commenters on this site is dead on the money. I never observed a better example in the real world.

        I don’t blame those regulars for being angry and for using this forum to share their disgust, nor do I see anything wrong with Bill pointing out what is glaringly obvious.

  2. evilone
    07/01/2010 at 10:36 AM

    My evil fantasy of the day is as follows: I’m envisioning the fat-faced Joe Price as a balloon that I pop with a pin and then gleefully watch as he deflates, zipping through the air.

    • Anon. in Arlington
      07/01/2010 at 12:50 PM

      far far far away up in the air… only to burn up in the atmosphere with bits and pieces falling to earth – I like that too evilone!

  3. Kate
    07/01/2010 at 10:36 AM

    T-h-r-e-e-e C-h-e-e-r-r-s f-o-o-r …… Shaky-Cam!!

    Many thanks, gents,

    Everyone milling about rather aimlessly reminds me of “Waiting for Godot” – with a much, much larger cast.

    • Bea
      07/01/2010 at 1:23 PM

      I needed some shaky-cam today. Rough morning.

      • Kate
        07/01/2010 at 1:26 PM

        Sorry to hear that, Bea –

        Hope the afternoon gets brighter and better.

    • Ivan
      07/02/2010 at 8:53 AM

      or cows looking for some shade.

  4. cat
    07/01/2010 at 10:37 AM


  5. ccf
    07/01/2010 at 10:41 AM

    Although I believe that the threesome literally got away with murder (so far), I’m not going to be as harsh in my opinion of their smirks as most do here. Imagine going through their ordeal for four years and finally a favorable verdict (not exonerated), I would let them smirk a little before the next phase — the civil trial.

    • cinnamon
      07/01/2010 at 10:59 AM

      I understand what you are saying and I’m sure they are relieved that they aren’t headed to the slammer (yet?) but their friend was still murdered. I think he could have saved his glee for a moment away from the courthouse…especially since we heard that Kathy Wone had just run from the courtroom in tears.

      • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
        07/01/2010 at 12:05 PM

        I would think some amount of shame would linger in their hearts and minds, but….I guess not.

        I go home in a bad mood if my boss says “good job” but next time can you [fill in the blank]. I can’t imagine hearing “not guilty” [but I know you or someone else in that house murdered a man]. That would put a pall on my day.

        • KKinCA
          07/01/2010 at 12:33 PM

          CD – As I recall the verdict, to continue your sentence in brackets: [but I know you or someone else in that house murdered a man AND ALL OF YOU KNOW WHO THE MURDERER IS]. Shame on them. A killer is walking free in this world.

        • DW
          07/01/2010 at 12:50 PM

          You need a conscience to feel shame….

          • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
            07/01/2010 at 2:56 PM


        • slwapo
          07/01/2010 at 12:52 PM

          I guess they’re smiling because the Judge said she thought they did it, but still acquitted them. Kinda like they won the lottery – the odds were against them, yet they still won.

          They also know they’ve just gotten past the toughest part, so nobody’s gonna talk, never. I know chances are much higher that they will lose the civil case, but did the Goldmans ever have much luck collecting from OJ?

          And the fact that the Judge stated in her ruling that she thought they were guilty, well, I don’t think that means much. These guys can just move to another state and find jobs. Not all employers do background checks, and even if they do, they will only see that they were found not guilty. They aren’t going to bother to read the actual ruling. Besides, how many “Joe Prices” and “Dylan Wards” are there in this country?

          • curiousdc
            07/01/2010 at 1:05 PM

            Oh no, rest assured, there is no way the trouple will escape the past unless they enter into a witness protection program. Besides, they’re ALL OVER the internets.

            • Daphne
              07/01/2010 at 2:28 PM

              And I suspect some people might make it their personal mission to make sure their past follows them wherever they go.

          • Alice
            07/01/2010 at 1:20 PM

            A quick google search for Joe Price has this website as the second result. All a future employer needs is a little curiosity to find out about Joe.

          • Kjkeefe
            07/01/2010 at 1:31 PM

            Actually, the Goldmans did collect on OJ. After what he had to pay in child support, all his other income was garnished, leaving him living hand to mouth, hiding assets. That’s what drove his need for the return of the memorabelia objects that he went into that Vegas Hotel room with a gun to get, which led his a** to jail. The civil judgment hurt OJ big time.

            • Daphne
              07/01/2010 at 2:31 PM

              That’s right. A judgment could result in tax returns being garnished, social security, any wages, inheritances, etc, etc. It’s not jail, but they could be paying the rest of their lives.

            • mstewrt
              07/01/2010 at 2:36 PM

              He’ll do a book and movie deal then do a Polanski

              • Bill Orange
                07/01/2010 at 8:35 PM

                Polanski is ultimately going to be hauled back to the US and thrown in prison, unless he manages to pull a Ken Lay and drop dead before then. And when dropping dead is considered your best legal move, I’d say you’re in a pretty bad situation.

                • Carolina
                  07/01/2010 at 8:39 PM

                  Thank you for my laugh of the day.

                • Greta
                  07/01/2010 at 9:16 PM

                  Hilarious!! I love it!

                • mstewrt
                  07/01/2010 at 10:12 PM

                  35 years later, compartmentalize your guilt, and have an otherwise quality life. What the hell, better than most.

          • bigfatmike
            07/01/2010 at 6:42 PM

            ‘nobody’s gonna talk, never’

            You remark that they will never talk. You may be right. But I have to wonder. Part of their silence has to do with the ‘force of family.’ But some believe that Dylan has already left, he just has not walked out the door…yet.

            What happens if the trouple is reduced to a couple. What happens if the couple is futher reduced to three individuals.

            Doesn’t the killer then have to live for the rest of his life wondering if one of the other two might let something slip through by way of:

            Jealous rage
            Drug induced paranoia
            Tell all book or
            Plain carelessness.

            And don’t the other two have to wonder exactly how far one who has already murdered will go to keep the secrete.

            If the three break apart, it would seem that the situation would be very volatile, with the potential for lots of excitement.

            What do you think the probability is that the three hang together in a mutually supportive relationship?

            If they break up, what is the probability that someone talks.

            • Bill Orange
              07/01/2010 at 7:04 PM

              “If they break up, what is the probability that someone talks.”

              I think it’s far more likely that one or two of them end up dead of an “accidental” drug overdose.

              • Greta
                07/01/2010 at 9:18 PM

                My thoughts exactly! I think Karma will get them –tell-tale heart or Dorian Gray-style…I’ll take an OJ or Ken Lay ending too.

                • mstewrt
                  07/02/2010 at 8:10 AM

                  Could be a Patricia Highsmith Tom Ripley playout as well. Other miscreants who made thier way through their guilty lives – Robert Vesco, Idi Amin, Marc Rich (note: don’t mention to current AG).

                  • Clio
                    07/02/2010 at 6:11 PM

                    Yet, unfortunately,they could also enjoy a quiet exile, like that of Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany in the Netherlands after World War I.

        • uva2
          07/01/2010 at 10:53 PM

          I’m quite sure JP doesn’t care one whit that the judge–and so many others–think exactly that about him. Narcissism at its finest.

    • Nick
      07/01/2010 at 12:41 PM

      Even if they’re innocent, their friend is still dead. What’s to smile about?

  6. NYer
    07/01/2010 at 10:56 AM

    Why are comments closed for “Scarlet Letter”- I’ve seen up to 800 posts on others…

    Anyway, I wanted to respond further to Daphne’s comment on JP and the DC bar. It is suggested on the DC Bar site that attorneys should report professional misconduct to the bar. My take on it is if you are part of the DC bar, there’d nothing to stop you from filing a report with the Office of Bar Counsel.Here is the relevant text:

    Rule 8.3—Reporting Professional Misconduct

    (a) A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate professional authority.

    • Craig
      07/01/2010 at 11:35 AM

      NYer – Maybe I closed the comments over there a little too early. They got tough and skinny to read on my end. They’re back open so have at it.

    • KV
      07/01/2010 at 11:53 AM

      . . . and often extends to moral turpitude? That’s pretty wide open.

      • NYer
        07/01/2010 at 1:50 PM

        True. But I could still see in 2011 some investigatory journalist looking into this sort of thing, writing a piece on “Swann Street defendants, One Year After Acquittal.” One natural question that would be addressed: Is JP still practicing law? And if so, has the bar looked into the question whether he should be reprimanded or suspended in some way?

  7. krf
    07/01/2010 at 12:05 PM

    obviously the death of his friend and the stress of the last four years hasn’t taken a toll on him at all…

    • curiousdc
      07/01/2010 at 1:59 PM

      Joe’s got more chins than the Chinese phonebook…

      • Friend of Rob
        07/01/2010 at 4:41 PM

        Who knew a gay professional living in D.C. could look like such a dork.

        • Carolina
          07/01/2010 at 5:00 PM

          But a free dork. That’s the galling part.

          • evilone
            07/01/2010 at 5:05 PM

            Yes Carolina but he’s soon to be put through the media wringer again, not to mention he will almost assuredly be completely bankrupt after the next trial

            • Carolina
              07/01/2010 at 5:07 PM

              And for that, I am smiling.

        • susan
          07/01/2010 at 8:02 PM

          I have to say that the three guys look like fairly regular guys to me, not bad looking, they sound pleasant.

          They sound pleasant. I had to wonder if DW and VZ took tranquilizers at some point. Or if that’s exhaustion. But one (this one, anyway) doesn’t get the feeling that a murder just transpired feet away from them in their own home just hours before.

          I have to say, too, that the fact that they look and sound so normal is interesting, as are the comments by some that they know these guys and they just wouldn’t commit a crime.

          I think of the murderer in Errol Morris’s “The Thin Blue Line” and how the guy just doesn’t “look” or “sound” like a murderer.

          I also think of the recent news of the Dating Game murderer. You can see the video of the Dating Game episode with this guy. He murdered many and assaulted many. I watched that video many times but just couldn’t see “it” whatever that evil it is. I didn’t see it.

          I think about the Gore’s and how many of their close friends thought they were a happy couple and everyone was “shocked” by the announcement of their separation.

          Then there are all those more righteous-than-thou “religious” or “family-values” individuals (Ted Haggerty, Newt Gingrich, Jim Bakker, etc., etc., etc., etc.) who are not who they seem.

          For all these reasons, and the fact that you can see a movie or read a book over and again and learn new things and see new perspectives, this case continues to rivet me. I’m sure others feel the same way.

          • MarkF
            07/02/2010 at 1:05 AM

            Susan, I know what you mean about not seeing the murderous heart. Some people show it, others don’t and those latter ones are the really scary ones.

            I know one of the latter kinds very well. I detailed a lot of it on another thread, so no need to go over it again. But I can help you to spot a sociopath based on what I’ve learned first hand and through reading.

            1.) They are usually very popular, even unusually popular people. They are natural born stars, the center of attention. They are well liked.

            2.) They are hyper busy, never resting for long, always craving some new adventure. (because they have no emotions, no inner life, they need outside stimulation)

            3.) They are intelligent but shallow. They are capable of elaborate, complicated scams, but you won’t get much deep out of them about philosophy, politics, art, religion, etc.

            4.) They are habitual liars. They lie even when they know that you know that they are lying.

            5.) The are promiscuous.

            6.) They control the people closest to them. That can be anything from a cult lead who severs the family ties of the cult members, to a person who in social settings always gets the last word, and who always keeps everyone waiting, habitually breaks plans, and never keeps social commitments.

            7.) They hurt the people who are closest to them.

            8.) But they almost never get in trouble, they can talk their way out of anything. They have an almost mystical ability to charm their way out of any bad behavior, leaving everyone wondering why they forgave them.

            9.) They are emotionally cold. This doesn’t mean that they can’t show emotion in some cases. These are the kind who can be close to someone one minute (and show it) and the next minute stab that person in the back. And then explain it all away. They can treat people they hate with kindness and can treat people they like terribly.

            10.) Most importantly…they just think differently than the rest of us. This is how they get away with it all. For example, if I’m mad at someone I show it. I act mad, I don’t treat them nicely. The anger shows in my voice, and in my demeanor. And I don’t like to be mad. It bothers me inside, it agitates me and that inner state can be seen by those closest to me. This is called “having a conscience.”

            And if someone likes me, they treat me well and have a regard for me. With normal people the outside behavior is an indicator of how they feel. We infer a person’s attitude base on how they treat us. With a sociopath that does not apply. They don’t have a conscience. They can treat us terribly and show no inner turmoil. We get confusing signals from them. Their apologies come easily and seem they sincere. A normal person would either explain WHY we were mad, or would give us subtle clues that we STILL were mad. A sociopath won’t explain why they hurt you (because they have no reason other than sadism) and they certainly give of no clues that they feel bad about it. So we assume everything’s OK. Then they do it again. And again, they seem to normal that we assume all the best from them. And it never ends.

            Sorry, if this is long. I’ve been through this myself and you wouldn’t believe how these people can operate until you’ve been through it yourself.

            Key thing…they don’t think like we do, and they get away with murder (literally and figuratively) because since they have no ability to feel guilt, we judge them as innocent.

  8. AnnaZed
    07/01/2010 at 12:12 PM

    Ha, ha, ha ~ at least you are on the right coast shakycam. Hollywood material that is not. I like the last two people walking by saying “She said it was 20 minutes.” followed by “She’s a liar.” I wonder what they were talking about!

  9. xxx
    07/01/2010 at 12:40 PM

    Help please.

    Who is being shown in each of these clips?

    • galoon
      07/01/2010 at 3:34 PM

      Well, we know who the cute one with the red hair is…:)

      • DonnaH
        07/01/2010 at 4:10 PM

        Yes, but the rest? I’d love to know, too–

        • Carolina
          07/01/2010 at 4:44 PM

          I had my sights on that one by the barrier posts in the last clip.

      • xxx
        07/01/2010 at 5:04 PM

        Sorry I am so clueless, but I don’t even know who the red head is.

        • DonnaH
          07/01/2010 at 5:49 PM

          No need to apologize–that’s Bernard Grimm, Joe’s attorney.

          • DonnaH
            07/01/2010 at 5:55 PM

            Oops, I’m wrong–Grimm is also redheaded but no beard (and balder). Don’t know who this is, either.

            • slwapo
              07/01/2010 at 5:57 PM

              I think he meant the redhead in the white top and black dress. At least that’s the one I’m wondering about!

              • DonnaH
                07/01/2010 at 6:04 PM

                Definitely not Bernard Grimm, then–

                • Carolina
                  07/01/2010 at 6:11 PM

                  Are you sure, Donna? 🙂

                  • DonnaH
                    07/01/2010 at 6:22 PM

                    You caught me jumping to conclusions, Caroline!

                    Should never rule out “magic” transformations–

                    • DonnaH
                      07/01/2010 at 6:26 PM

                      Carolina, of course.

                      More tea.

                    • Carolina
                      07/01/2010 at 6:28 PM

                      I was pretty excited for a minute. Bernie in drag would have lifted my spirits tremendously.

        • 07/01/2010 at 5:57 PM

          The “cute redhead” is our own DOUG.

          • DonnaH
            07/01/2010 at 6:13 PM

            Thanks!–Great to put a face with the name of one of our terrific eds. Is anyone else from the WMRW team in these clips?

            • Clio
              07/04/2010 at 7:49 PM

              Gloria, I agree: Doug’s lush eyelashes, in particular, make you want to listen to his every word. Now back to waiting for the real fireworks … XO for now, Clio.

            • NYer
              07/04/2010 at 8:06 PM

              wow…don’t you people use Facebook? Doug runs WMRW there, you can’t miss him.

      • slwapo
        07/01/2010 at 5:06 PM

        Who is she?

  10. Daphne
    07/01/2010 at 1:14 PM

    “Although a lawyer is personally answerable to the entire criminal law, a lawyer should be professionally answerable only for offenses that indicate lack of those characteristics relevant to law practice. Offenses involving violence, dishonesty, breach of trust, or serious interference with the administration of justice are in that category. A pattern of repeated offenses, even ones of minor significance when considered separately, can indicate indifference to legal obligation.”

  11. Daphne
    07/01/2010 at 1:15 PM

    I should add that lawyers hate disbarring other lawyers. We’re almost as bad as doctors. Or cops.

  12. Laura
    07/01/2010 at 1:26 PM

    I have been reading this site for over a year now and following the case from afar since I moved to the London area last summer. I’ve recently been without Internet service for three weeks (as a result of a house move and the lovely – cough, cough – customer service one can expect from UK service providers! I feel so badly for Kathy Wone and Robert’s family but I take a large measure of comfort in knowing that these three will never again have the comfortable, carefree lives they had before.

    This will follow them to their own graves. They may never see the inside of a prison or pay a dime to Kathy, but they are already paying and will continue to pay a huge price in the loss of their social and economic standing, the loss of respect from many of their friends and colleagues, etc. We may never know what happened that night but I wouldn’t want to be any of them and have to live with what they know and are not saying, what they DID and are not confessing to. I will continue to stay engaged and follow the civil suit and hope for some small measure of justice and the truth.

    • Kjkeefe
      07/01/2010 at 1:48 PM

      These guys ARE likely to pay lots of money to Kathy. Aren’t Joe and Victor both lawyers? Once she gets a judgement, she will be able to garnish their wages, for years and years if that’s what it takes. They won’t be able to hide their income. The other one way be able to. These aren’t indigent street thugs. They have assests and income that her lawyers will get a grip on.

      • Carolina
        07/01/2010 at 4:48 PM

        Joe is the only lawyer, and you have to practice to get paid. Their home in FL is protected under the FL Homestead Law. They do have a condo in DC, which I would bet has a deep lein on it to pay legal fees. I imagine it will be some time before Kathy sees a dime, should she win. Fortunately, I doubt she cares much about the cash value of a conviction.

  13. Michael
    07/01/2010 at 1:46 PM

    It’s funny – I imagine the stabbing motions made by the detective during Price’s interrogation were quite similar to those Price made towards Kathy Wone.

    Also, Victor didn’t really get emotional until the detective asked if Dylan killed Robert.

    Dylan said he left his room because he heard Joe and Victor screaming. Odd that the neighbors only heard one scream…

    I don’t even know why I’m still analyzing evidence. Feels like a futile effort. No comment on a message board will ever bring Robert’s killer to justice. Well, none of my comments, anyway.

    I never knew Robert, but I feel connected to his life after reading so much about his death. I’m going to write/record a song in memoriam. I’ll post it here when it’s done.

    • DonnaH
      07/01/2010 at 4:55 PM

      Thanks for that observation about Victor not getting emotional until he was asked if Dylan killed Robert. And BadShoes recently (Simmering Cauldron) made the interesting remark that someone with a lot of experience meat cutting, “a cook perhaps,” might subconsciously be able to judge the force necessary to make a clean wound. –That said, I do think that if Dylan did the actual stabbing, it was most likely at Joe’s instigation. And I also think it most likely that they would have believed Robert was already dead from an OD at the time. If that’s the case, the revelations of the autopsy must have been staggering for them, and likely bound them even more tightly together.

      • Carolina
        07/01/2010 at 4:59 PM

        Not just a cook, a trained chef with a cardiac surgeon for a papa.

    • Three Strikes
      07/01/2010 at 8:15 PM

      Yes, do that, Michael. A song would be welcome.

  14. Ex-AF
    07/01/2010 at 1:53 PM

    It has been reported Attorney Joe Price is bankrupt and unemployed. Has he been disbarred in the District of Columbia and Virginia? Was he admitted to the bar elsewhere? Just curious, thanks.

    • curiousdc
      07/01/2010 at 2:52 PM

      I don’t see how Price can be bankrupt. According to records, he still owns property in DC and Florida. As for the bar, it looks like there’s a lot of interest to have him disbarred but it hasn’t happened yet.

      • Carolina
        07/01/2010 at 4:50 PM

        He’s upside down on that FL home and probably the DC condo is tapped to the hilt for legal fees. I’m sure he owes far more than he has in assets. And that, my friends, is what they call Bankruptcy.

        • bigfatmike
          07/01/2010 at 7:49 PM

          I am not challenging you point, you are essentially correct. But I believe what we have now is called insolvency. Bankruptcy comes later after a court proceeding. There used to be at least two different ways to go bankrupt. But there were a lot of changes made a few years ago.

          Can you imagine Joe required to attend a class on the use of credit and budgeting just to make sure that he does not get in any more trouble?

          Do you think that thoughtful consideration of his financial position will keep him on the straight and narrow?

          • Carolina
            07/01/2010 at 8:19 PM

            You’re right, I was being flippant with the use of the term bankruptcy, but it’s easy to see that’s where they’ll head. The Bush administration did take pains to leave the nation with reformed bankruptcy laws, but I’m still pretty sure Joe’s going to be broke, even before Kathy’s done with him. I can easily see him allowing foreclosure on the homes, as well.

            • Wulfila
              07/01/2010 at 9:40 PM

              Just curious re bankruptcy laws and civil judgments. If Kathy wins, and they inevitably declare bankruptcy, does that ever wipe clean their debt from a civil judgment? I am guessing not, or that would be an easy way out (relatively speaking). Does a civil judgment haunt them forever? (I am hoping…)

              • chilaw79
                07/01/2010 at 10:43 PM

                Although I am sure there are exceptions and I am not a bankruptcy lawyer, tort claims generally are not dischargable in bankruptcy.

                • Hoya Loya
                  07/01/2010 at 11:52 PM

                  Yep. Bankruptcy Code Section 523(a)(6).

  15. PaulVincent
    07/01/2010 at 2:04 PM

    Well, Volokh,com now has an interesting thread about the case:

    • Bea
      07/01/2010 at 7:10 PM

      Chilaw – this is the stuff you were looking at. The pundits seem to think it’s a no-go.

      • chilaw79
        07/01/2010 at 10:46 PM

        My research suggests the commentators on the Volokh blog are correct. However, if there is a loophole to be found, I think Covington can find it.

    • Tribe97
      07/01/2010 at 9:26 PM

      That’s consistent with my understanding of collateral estoppel – – to me, the judge’s statements, while interesting and telling, were not essential to the judgment and therefore are, at best, dicta, and not enough to constitute estoppel, although I’m sure it will be argued regardless.

  16. Alex
    07/01/2010 at 3:39 PM

    Bill, it is human to make conjecture and assumptions about what someone is thinking. If you don’t like the comments being made, click off the website. There are passionate emotions on both sides, and people come here to vent. Stop trying to change people’s thought processes.

    • Jackie
      07/01/2010 at 4:18 PM

      Thank you Alex for responding to that. There a couple of these self-appointed thought police on here.

      • Carolina
        07/01/2010 at 4:52 PM

        Big gap between asking someone to back up their jabber than telling them not to think. In fact, it’s the opposite. Asking someone to think about what they’re saying is the point of discourse. Otherwise, one may as well talk to one’s self.

        • Alex
          07/01/2010 at 5:01 PM

          I understand that, Carolina. But there is a gap between delving into someone’s mind and asking a question for “gotcha” purposes. I didn’t get the impression that Bill was genuinely interested in why someone felt the way they did. But that’s just me.

          • Carolina
            07/01/2010 at 5:06 PM

            Oh I know what you were meaning, Alex. Bill is– well, Bill’s Bill. He brings up very good points, most of which we don’t want to hear but should. If he’d bring those points up a little more gently, it would be a lot more effective.

            • mw
              07/01/2010 at 6:04 PM

              I think the issue is expressed offensiveness with anyone that disagrees with him. Anyone with a different viewpoint is part of the “cyber lynch mob”.

              • Carolina
                07/01/2010 at 6:15 PM

                Yes, exactly what you said. Thank you.

              • Bill
                07/01/2010 at 6:19 PM

                As I have stated above, what you see as “offensiveness,” I see as a mob, group-think mentality. We can’t learn anything unless you we develop the capacity to look at things anew.

                • curiousdc
                  07/01/2010 at 6:53 PM

                  Well, on the subject of looking at things anew, do let us know how you view the circumstances of Wone’s murder.

                  For many of us, it is clear that Robert was murdered inside a full house, in a short amount of time, and with no evidence of an intruder. Can’t think of any other realistic scenarios.

                • Carolina
                  07/01/2010 at 8:20 PM

                  Bill, how many people have to view the evidence and agree before they become a mob?

                • bigfatmike
                  07/02/2010 at 3:43 PM

                  ” I see as a mob, group-think mentality. ”


                  I always appreciate your comments for their thoughtfulness and rigor. But I frequently disagree with you, especially in this case.

                  ‘Group think’ is useful as a concept, in part, because in highlights situations when a group is so invested in their conclusion that they

                  Do not incorporate contradictory evidence
                  Do not consider alternative interpretations
                  Draw inappropriate or illogical inferences.

                  Certainly we may find evidence of that on this board, as we might find in any large group. But I cannot agree that most or even a significant portion of this board are simply going along with pre-ordained conclusions.

                  To the contrary it seems to me that there has been a real attempt by readers of this board to ferret out every publicly available fact.

                  And many alternative scenarios, hypothesis, interpretations have been suggested, and evaluated.

                  As for illogical inference, if you have not noticed quite a few individuals on this site are, well, sticklers for precision.

                  Rather than group think, I believe we have a very different phenomenon.

                  Bill, I believe the vast majority understand and support the related concepts of ‘not guilty’, and ‘proof beyond a reasonable doubt’.

                  But we also recognize, as sometimes you do not seem to, that ‘not guilty’ is not synonymous innocent. We understand that ‘not guilty’ does not mean absolved, or vindicated.

                  The judge in her decision made a point of discussing at least three levels of legal belief. The highest was ‘proof beyond a shadow of a doubt’ and the lowest was ‘preponderance of the evidence’.

                  There is real, substantial evidence to suggest that these three are guilty of serious crimes. Most of us also acknowledge that there is not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore under our system we must decide ‘not guilty’.

                  In addition the judge in her opinion mentioned the ‘problem of three’. We have real significant evidence to suggest that one of the three is in fact the murderer. It is not unreasonable to suppose that if only one of the three had been in the house that night, then that one would have been charged with murder and very possible convicted.

                  Bill, when you use a term like group think you suggest that people have no basis for their beliefs. Nothing could be further from the truth.

                  There is real evidence to suggest that these three are bad, that they have committed serious crimes and that at least one of them has yet to be charged with even more terrible crimes.

                  Bill, what you call group think, I believe is more reasonably recognized as individuals being convinced by compelling evidence.

                  But Bill, keep you comments coming. I for one really appreciate your demand for rigorous thinking and you alternative interpretations.

    • Bill
      07/01/2010 at 6:08 PM

      Interesting response Alex, but I think I’ll just continue voicing my opinion and ask challenging questions. But, thanks for your advice anyway.

    • Bill
      07/01/2010 at 6:22 PM

      If you – like others – are so intent on only have people who reflect your own opinions then just have the editors turn this site into a private, password-protected community. Then your membership can only reflect your opinions.

  17. NoUnderstanding
    07/01/2010 at 4:17 PM

    Right about the time the trial began, I became familiar with the case. I had been out of the area for some time and had been completely unaware of what happened. I worked with Victor several years ago. So it was with particular fascination and incredible discomfort that I have read the site as much and as often as possible. I know it’s been said before, but I found Victor to be as kind and honest and sincere as anyone I have ever worked alongside.

    Our relationship was professional but certainly friendly. And had you asked, he would have been someone I felt was completely reliable and a person you would want in your corner if you were ever in trouble. So everything I read here leaves me baffled and so very sad. I simply cannot align the horror that clearly happened in that home to Robert Wone with the Victor I knew. By the same token, I simply cannot believe that all three of the men have said everything they know. Bizarre, seemingly inexplicable events happen every day. But to not say what you know under these circumstances is unforgiveable. This case, and Victor’s involvement, will haunt me for a very long time. My thanks to the editors and the commenters who tried to make sense of it all.

    • Carolina
      07/01/2010 at 4:54 PM

      I think you hit on the important part of Victor’s involvement:

      “And had you asked, he would have been someone I felt was completely reliable and a person you would want in your corner if you were ever in trouble.”

      That’s his problem, right there.

      • NoUnderstanding
        07/01/2010 at 5:21 PM

        Yes, sadly that appears to be true. I just can’t believe he would so lose his moral center in his loyalty to his partner.

        • Carolina
          07/01/2010 at 6:21 PM

          People have done much worse things for love.

          Another thing to consider: Suppose Victor went along in the heat of the moment, not having time to consider all that was happening. Once he began to hear Joe tell V 2.0 and 2.1, he was already in the mix.

          Sure, he could have broken ranks, but he lacked the strength, the definitive knowledge or the evidence to do so.

          He’s not blameless. He’s not a victim. But I don’t believe he is a murderer and I would *like* to believe that given more time and information before he made his statement, things may have been different.

          Of course, some people still believe OJ was innocent, so what I think may be equally blind.

        • Three Strikes
          07/01/2010 at 8:30 PM

          Very sad, NU. I have mentioned seeing Victor’s parents at the courthouse before, and my thoughts return to them constantly.
          The many comments on this blog about how the defendants will be paying forever are only partially true.
          Victor’s modest-looking parents are paying too…and that, I find rather outrageous.

          • Carolina
            07/01/2010 at 8:37 PM

            You would think he would have given that some thought.

          • galoon
            07/01/2010 at 8:58 PM

            Yeah, and shame on Victor for that.

          • Craig
            07/02/2010 at 12:15 AM

            Modest-looking and elderly. They mortgaged their home.

            • onreflection
              07/02/2010 at 1:25 AM

              if it is actually true (it seems so incredible, so awful, if true, so selfish by VX to allow that) then it is worth a whole thread

              how about a thread on the PARENTS???

            • Carolina
              07/02/2010 at 7:34 AM

              As someone whose parents would piss on him to put out a fire, this made my choke up for many, many reasons.

          • curiousdc
            07/02/2010 at 7:15 AM

            What a shame the parents or anyone else in the Zaborsky family couldn’t intervene in some manner. I can’t imagine that any of them would have found the trouple’s relationship to be stable and healthy.

            • Bill 2
              07/02/2010 at 8:50 AM

              Victor’s parents recently told someone at the court house that they’re glad the trial didn’t make the newspapers in the area where they live.

              It’s my opinion, that if the story did make their local papers, it might result in some of their close friends or other relatives talking some sense to them. They need to realize the seriousness of the situation Victor is still in. They should demand that he get far away from the other two or they’ll cut off future money for lawyers.

              It’s not as simple as their son withholding important information about a crime. It’s the fact that if someone knows the identity of a killer, their life is in danger. The killer isn’t going to confess, but he can never be sure if someone else will get upset over some minor hurt and then go to the police to reveal what he really knows about the murder. The killer has gotten away with murder for four years. Will he trust others to keep his secret forever?

              • curiousdc
                07/02/2010 at 10:22 AM

                well said, wonder if anyone has found out exactly where they reside
                in Pennsylvania

  18. Alex
    07/01/2010 at 4:19 PM

    LOL Bill criticizes people on this site and when they respond in kind,u he claims he’s a victim of criticism. That’s brilliant, Bill, but also pathetic.

    • Bill
      07/01/2010 at 6:35 PM

      Alex — I assure you, I am definitely not a victim!

      • Daphne
        07/01/2010 at 7:17 PM

        Bill, I am curious. Like a poster asked above, what do you think happened at 1509 Swan?

    • curiousdc
      07/02/2010 at 7:18 AM

      He criticizes and then won’t follow-up or defend his arguments when challenged.

  19. cjh78
    07/01/2010 at 4:49 PM

    Can anyone confirm if the guy in the last video is Scott Hixson? I am referring to the guy in the navy suit with a lighter blue shirt underneath the sports jacket.

    • Carolina
      07/01/2010 at 4:55 PM

      Oh shit, please, tell me it isn’t. I retract my earlier statement if it is.

    • Michael
      07/01/2010 at 6:01 PM

      The gentleman in the navy suit is Mark Segrave, from WTOP radio and television news. The two in the opening of the video are reporters for The Legal Times, Mike Scarcella and I believe,Jeff Jeffrey. Shaky cam was simply capturing the scene outside the courthouse at the moment.

      -Michael, co-editor

      • 310 Observer
        07/01/2010 at 6:29 PM

        The female reporter interviewing Doug in the second video is Elizabeth Jia from WUSA (Channel 9 News)

        • DonnaH
          07/01/2010 at 7:12 PM

          Thanks, Michael and 310 O!

  20. cole
    07/01/2010 at 4:53 PM

    Dear All:
    I find the presumption of guilt on the part of many of those who comment troubling. I suggest watching “Twelve Angry Men.” Also, for your reading pleasure, I quote below from the Washington Post concerning another murder where many assumed guilt, the reaction of the prime suspect seemed suspicious, the police botched the investigation, and most thought justice would never be done. Justice was served and the crime was solved, but not before an innocent person’s life and career was ruined because of a presumption of guilt and a collection of circumstantial evidence.

    “The murder of Chandra Levy remains Washington’s most famous unsolved crime. Many people, including police and prosecutors, suspected that a congressman was responsible. But a year-long Washington Post investigation reveals new information showing that critical leads were ignored and the killer may never be brought to justice.”


    • Carolina
      07/01/2010 at 4:57 PM

      There’s not much comparison to the Levy case, Cole. She was jogging in a public park and for a very long time, her body was missing.

      Robert’s body was found in the house of the defendants, and even the judge didn’t think there was an intruder.

      It’s not apples to oranges, but it’s certainly tangelos to clementines.

    • cjh78
      07/01/2010 at 5:03 PM

      I don’t think the government has enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to convict Ingmar Guandique of Chandra’s murder. It’s a good probably that he was the murderer, but I think the government is making a huge mistake taking this case on.

      • Liam
        07/01/2010 at 6:33 PM

        Ahhh, but the accused in the Chandra Levy case does not have a million dollar defense team.

    • can'tstopreading
      07/01/2010 at 6:43 PM

      I’ve often thought of paralells between this and the Chandra Levy case while reading the trial coverage. The crime was very different, but I agree with Cole that the presumption of guilt resulted in a completely botched investigation and the case remained (remains?) unsolved for years. The fact that MPD did such a crappy job investigating Wone’s homicide is why we are where we are. The MPD gave the prosecutors very little with which to work. I have to commend the prosecutors for pulling together the little available evidence; they did the best job they could with what they had. Good thing Guandique could not keep his trap shut, that’s all we can hope for in this case.

    • chilaw79
      07/01/2010 at 8:44 PM


      I agree that the defendants in a criminal case should enjoy the presumption of evidence, particularly from the prosecutors and the judge or jury. The police are supposed to find or eliminate suspects, turn their evidence over to the prosecutor, and the prosecutor determines whether there is enough evidence to pursue a case.

      The judge determined the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable juror to find the defendants guilty of the crimes alleged (other than tampering with evidence as to Dylan Ward and Victor Zaborsky). The judge then determined the evidence was insufficient to support a guilty verdict because she did not believe the evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt the crimes alleged.

      The police and the prosecutors did not produce sufficient evidence to convict. Part of the fault for that lays with the police–particularly as it relates to the blood evidence–and in not building a better relationship with the defendants. Part of it may be that evidence was lost because the body was moved to the hospital since there was a very remote possibility Mr. Wone could be resuscitated. I can’t blame anyone for trying to save Robert’s life.

      I accept the court’s verdict on obstruction of justice, tampering with evidence, and conspiracy.

      I do want the murderer to be arrested, tried, and convicted. I do not think the DC Police Department or the prosecutor’s office should drop the case.

      I hope Kathy Wone can find some answers in her civil action.

      • Liam
        07/02/2010 at 1:46 AM

        “The judge determined the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable juror to find the defendants guilty of the crimes alleged (other than tampering with evidence as to Dylan Ward and Victor Zaborsky).”

        You have to add to the above after “juror” the words “looking at the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution.”

        The law does NOT want to stop the trial (at that point) if it’s close. The law does want to stop the trial at that point if, even after looking at the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (which is NOT how the evidence is looked at when rendering the ultimate verdict), the defendants are still considered NOT guilty.

      • Jo
        07/02/2010 at 4:19 AM

        “Part of it may be that evidence was lost because the body was moved to the hospital since there was a very remote possibility Mr. Wone could be resuscitated.”

        That’s an interesting point. I recall the EMT said that he was not allowed to pronounce someone dead although Robert appeared to have been dead for some time (pulseless, pale, cold to the touch, etc). So what was EMT’s protocol for deciding whether to transport a victim to the hospital or just wait for the coroner to arrive at the crime scene?

        The killer(s) got very lucky that the efforts to resuscitate Robert might have tainted the evidence in this case. Had Robert’s body been left at the crime scene, the outcome of this trial would probably look very different.

        • chilaw79
          07/02/2010 at 9:21 AM

          I have no idea what the protocol is.

          In the cases I see on television (which is my primary source of information on this, since I have never seen a murder victim in situ), the body stays put until the medical examiner arrives and then the crack CSI team looks at the evidence.

          As I said, given the fact that Victor had at least implied that Robert Wone was still breathing and that pressure was being applied to his wounds, I cannot say the EMTs did the wrong thing here. I think all of us are aware that many individuals who appear dead are revived.

          However, there may have been evidence that was lost as a result of transporting Robert Wone’s body to the hospital. It also makes it much more difficult to determine how the body appeared at the time of the stabbing, when puncture wounds occurred, and it definitely may have impacted determining where blood loss occurred. Photos could have been taken at the scene and evidence more carefully recovered.

    • Wulfila
      07/01/2010 at 10:07 PM

      Cole, here’s the thing. If this were August, 2006, you would be correct. But it’s not. It’s nearly 4 years after the fact. And a lot of facts have come out since then. Many of us who are friends of the family involved (the victim’s family, that is), as well as other people who care, have been closely watching events unfold for nearly 4 years. That is certainly enough time to come to your own conclusions based on the facts (juries often have only a few days of trial and deliberations, yet they come to conclusions quite fast).

      I remember being appalled at the time I heard about this murder. I did think it somewhat suspicious that such a thing could happen in a full house at a fairly early hour (when most would surely be awake). But I didn’t really think much more about it until I read the police affidavit. Whether you believe it all or not, something obviously seemed terribly wrong. And as more facts came to light, and more theories to think about on this site, I eventually came to my own conclusions, as have most people on this site.

      Just think about it. If it was an “unknown intruder”, there are basically 2 options. 1. a burglar who didn’t act like a burglar and steal when no one was home or when s/he was sure everyone was in bed, and even more preposterous, didn’t steal a single thing, when there were electronics, wallets, watches, to be had (without hurting anyone), or 2. a killer, who didn’t think enough in advance to bring a murder weapon with him/her. I guess they just hoped everyone would be asleep at 11:30 and that there would be murder weapons galore at his/her disposal in the house. And someone who targeted Robert specifically (since they skipped Dylan’s room, which was much closer). How anyone can HONESTLY believe either of these scenario’s is beyond me. People keep asking Ben Franklin and Bill “What do you think happened?” Yet the silence is deafening.

      The judge is not stupid–this wasn’t her first time at the rodeo by any shot. She knows the trio know what really happened. But because our laws are meant to protect the innocent she felt she could not convict. But she made her feelings quite clear in her findings.

      Do we all know what happened? No. But after nearly 4 years of rehashing fact and theory, it’s plain to see that the trio knows what happened, whether any of them participated or not (I can’t imagine a scenario where at least one did not participate, but hey, I am open to your ideas of a logical scenario–PLEASE.)

      • Nelly
        07/01/2010 at 10:11 PM

        Even BenFranklin thought Dylan was the murderer, and that he killed Robert while being a Lunesta zombie.

      • curiousdc
        07/01/2010 at 10:19 PM

        perfect summary

      • susan
        07/01/2010 at 10:25 PM

        If 2 above, the intruder/killer would have to have had xray vision and a time machine as well as the ability to become a vapour seeing as how he/she/it/they were able to see which room Robert Wone was sleeping in, when he went to sleep in that narrow time frame, and was able to do it with nary a sound (being vaporous). Also, of course, the back door was unlocked and the spectrous individual found its way around the house and even wiped off the knife when done murdering, placing it ever so nicely on the table with no drops of blood, etc. And on and on and on.

      • Carolina
        07/02/2010 at 7:39 AM

        Thank you. Thank you so very much.

  21. Rich
    07/01/2010 at 4:59 PM

    The murder trial will happen!

    Like OJ, Joe Price’s arrogance and cockiness will get the best of him.

    Joe will break the law again, this time for something minor. Whatever the infraction, they will try him for murder!!

    Senior posters: over the next day, I may ask for your help. I’m thinking of filing a complaint with the authorities to disbar Ron Machen (US Attorney) or Krischner (Homocide division) for failing to prosecute this correctly.

    I will need your “legalese” and talking points to complete the paperwork.

    • Carolina
      07/01/2010 at 5:03 PM

      Rich, I don’t think that murder trial is going to happen. I also don’t think you can blame Kirschner for not having the evidence needed. Yeah, I think he sucked, but I don’t think anyone could have done much more with this.

      If you wanted to nail him on something, I’d be looking at Tasso (or was it Bill)’s links.

    • Alex
      07/01/2010 at 5:03 PM

      Are you serious about filing a complaint? The investigation was botched in many ways, which didn’t help the prosecution’s case.

    • cjh78
      07/01/2010 at 5:04 PM

      This is nonsense. Go protest MPD’s failure to investigate properly.

      • Bill
        07/01/2010 at 5:13 PM

        I agree with you. Attacking Machen or Krischner is misplaced. Go after the MPD

        • Cecily
          07/01/2010 at 5:22 PM

          Didn’t Kirsner get some award midway thru the trial about being a good prosecutor? I knew that was an ominous sign then. This trial was so important he should have waited until he had won this case before celebrating how awesome he thinks he is.

          • NYer
            07/01/2010 at 5:44 PM

            Craig had found this link.

            Thankfully he didn’t accept the award *during* the trial. But others on the 9/11/09 post had speculated that his absence that day may have negatively impacted the case to some degree.

    • evilone
      07/01/2010 at 5:45 PM

      Rich–forget Kirschner, why don’t you file a complaint to have Joe Price disbarred?

      • Bill
        07/01/2010 at 6:39 PM

        On what grounds? Because the judge wrote mean and unflattering things and made conjecture about him in her opinion? I don’t think there is anything here to support his being disbarred. If he is found guilty in the civil trial, that may be another matter.

        • curiousdc
          07/01/2010 at 7:11 PM

          If previous posters are correct, moral turpitude is taken into consideration. Given that Price is dishonest and immoral, he’d be a candidate for disbarrment, no? Wouldn’t the Liebowitz’s final judgement be taken into account? Seriously Bill, it doesn’t sound like she finds Price to be a particularly honest or moral individual.

        • Bill Orange
          07/01/2010 at 7:20 PM

          “On what grounds? Because the judge wrote mean and unflattering things and made conjecture about him in her opinion?”

          Yes, because of that. A sitting judge wrote, “I am persuaded by all of this evidence that Mr. Price very likely tampered with and altered the murder weapon, and that he lied about his conduct in this regard to police with obstructive purpose, although I conclude that I cannot fairly find this beyond a reasonable doubt.”

          The question is, what is the standard of proof for disbarment? If it’s “beyond a reasonable doubt”, then I would say Joe Price probably does not merit disbarment. On the other hand, if the standard is merely “very likely”, then the procedure for disbarment should probably be initiated.

          • Bill
            07/01/2010 at 8:23 PM

            I think the key phrase is “very likely.” But this language is not definitive. If it represents a “beyond reasonable doubt” standard of proof for disbarment, then I agree he is toast.

            But, as someone else posted, aren’t lawyers like doctors almost a medieval guild and as such unlikely to act against their own?

            • Carolina
              07/01/2010 at 8:36 PM

              Yes, and look how many doctors have been allowed to keep their license after multiple actions, some involving death of a patient. And don’t get me started on the ones that drink and walk the hospital halls.

              • galoon
                07/01/2010 at 9:03 PM

                Do lawyers do that too? Drink and walk the halls of justice? Just wondering…

                • Carolina
                  07/02/2010 at 7:42 AM

                  Haha, oh god yes. I can say that from personal experience. My uncle (a former judge) once said there was a local attorney who was only worth his fee if he’d had a three martini lunch. So I guess in his case, it was to the client’s benefit.

                • Daphne
                  07/02/2010 at 8:58 AM

                  There’s a reason they call it “joining the Bar.” 🙂

            • Bill Orange
              07/01/2010 at 8:42 PM

              “But, as someone else posted, aren’t lawyers like doctors almost a medieval guild and as such unlikely to act against their own?”

              Probably, but I’d imagine that the overwhelming majority of lawyers don’t have judicial opinions written about them saying that they “very likely” tampered with evidence in a murder investigation. In a case that is known to be of interest to the current Attorney General.

            • Daphne
              07/01/2010 at 8:46 PM

              Yeah, that was me and it’s absolutely true. Now, if JP grew pot in his backyard…

              • Carolina
                07/01/2010 at 8:49 PM

                It’s funny how life goes, isn’t it?

            • Tribe97
              07/02/2010 at 2:55 AM

              That depends. A fairly recent and high-profile case where a lawyer was disbarred was when Mike Nifong, the Durham County DA who sought to charge the Duke lacrosse players with rape, was disbarred for “a battery of ethics violations” relating to the case. Lawyers aren’t afraid to disbar other lawyers if it is an appropriate sanction.

              Here, I don’t know that JP could or would be disbarred; there has been no conviction of any crime, and the disciplinary committee would probably want something more concrete than suspicions.

              I don’t know that keeping his license will help JP much. The legal job market is still pretty tight. Moreover, as a partner, he would be expected to come in to any firm willing to take him with a fairly substantial book of business. I would be quite surprised if he still had loyal clients willing to move with him. Plus the whole fired for having a massive stash of porn on his work computer thing probably wouldn’t go over well with a potential employer. I would say that, at a minimum, big firm employment is no longer an option for him.

              • Carolina
                07/02/2010 at 7:44 AM

                Do you think it boils down to what makes their profession look bad, as opposed to just the individual attorney?

                Or maybe it’s the things they cannot imagine themselves doing, even once or twice. I would hope most lawyers could say they would not murder a fellow lawyer, much less a friend.

          • Bea
            07/01/2010 at 9:19 PM

            I believe the standard of proof of the administrative bar proceeding would be “clear and convincing evidence.” This is a lesser standard than ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ but whether the Judge’s findings would be used is in question. The findings are appealable to the court.

            One doesn’t have to be a lawyer to file a complain with the bar, so while lawyers may be reluctant to seek this remedy, it’s really wide open about who brings the case to the attention of the bar (sometimes they’re brought based on news reports, for example, if the board wishes to act even on its own).

      • can'tstopreading
        07/01/2010 at 6:45 PM

        Best chance for the Wone family to collect any money is if Joe is NOT disbarred.

        • DonnaH
          07/01/2010 at 7:21 PM

          I don’t think accumulating money is their highest priority in this case.

        • Bill Orange
          07/01/2010 at 7:21 PM

          They’re aren’t doing this for the money.

          • can'tstopreading
            07/01/2010 at 7:24 PM

            Hmmm. Did I say I think they are in it for the money?

            • Bill Orange
              07/01/2010 at 8:43 PM

              No. Did I say that I thought you thought so? 🙂

  22. uva2
    07/01/2010 at 5:29 PM

    Regarding yesterday’s Scarlet Letter…
    I don’t think Joe will honestly give a flying you-know-what about the perception of many that he will forever bear an M and/or an L around his neck.
    He beat the system. He’s been a step ahead since the very night of the murder. He’s had it all figured out. And once the civil trial is over, he’ll be spending the rest of his days lolling in the Florida sunshine. Or the Italian sunshine.

    • curiousdc
      07/01/2010 at 5:48 PM

      UVA2—If Kathy wins the $20 million, then it is highly unlikely that Joe will be luxuriating in FL or Italy.

      • mw
        07/01/2010 at 5:57 PM

        He could hide from the civil judgments in Thailand.

        And doesn’t Florida have super-lax rules about what’s considered “immune” from civil judgments (which is why OJ moved there).

        • Carolina
          07/01/2010 at 6:06 PM

          As has been said at least a thousand times, FL has the Homestead Law, which says a resident cannot lose their home in a civil judgment. That’s about it, but that’s also about all they have, and even that is upside down. There isn’t much for Kathy to get.

      • Liam
        07/01/2010 at 6:40 PM

        This may have been asked (it’s hard to keep up with all the posts), but how would such a 20M judgment be enforced? Specifically, I, of course, understand that the FL home cannot be touched. I don’t know if retirement accounts can be touched. But, let’s suppose Joe et al. are eventually able to cumulatively make 200K a year. What percentage goes toward the judgment? They need some money to survive.

        • curiousdc
          07/01/2010 at 6:57 PM

          Excellent question–can any legal minds give us an example of how these ginormous judgements are enforced?

        • Bea
          07/01/2010 at 7:21 PM

          Garnishment of wages is a percentage of each paycheck and there are usually sliding scales in each jurisdiction. If they didn’t have a ‘plan’ worked out, then Kathy Wone could attach/take any paid off cars titled to the defendants and put liens on all properties. IF there’s equity in the DC condo Joe owns, she might get that. It’s the constant shadow it creates in addition to the actual pay-out that would amount to a rest-of-life situation. There are the ‘personal’ elements, like OJ Simpson having to give up his Heisman Trophy to the Goldman family, and having the Goldmans get all monies from that ill-advised “If I Did It” book.

          Kathy Wone, like the Goldmans, could spend considerable time and effort just following them forever, always looking for additional monies from them (like Dylan’s inheritance – though I’m guessing the Dr. & Mrs. would write him out as a result, or tally these legal expenses as “his share”).

          • curiousdc
            07/01/2010 at 7:41 PM

            Bea, great summary. I’d like to thank those on this site who take the time to answer the numerous questions posed on this site.

            As for Kathy having these guys under her thumb for the forseeable future, I’m cool with that.

            • Laura
              07/02/2010 at 2:02 AM

              Thanks, Bea. Always enjoy reading your wisdom and insight here. I don’t see Kathy as a vindictive person at all, but I hope she follows this through and is there as a constant reminder, even if it’s only through material items, of their transgressions that evening. If she and her legal team can make their lives hell, or at least very uncomfortable, for many years to come, I’m all for that!

          • Carolina
            07/01/2010 at 8:26 PM

            What about a trust, Bea? Can those be attached?

            • chilaw79
              07/01/2010 at 11:50 PM

              It depends on the terms of the trust. A lot of trust agreements have “spendthrift trust” provisions that prevent a beneficiary’s interest from being assigned or alienated.

              • Carolina
                07/02/2010 at 7:46 AM

                That’s what I thought.

          • curiousdc
            07/01/2010 at 10:11 PM

            Hi Bea, what I’m interested in knowing if these settlements hit the defendants where it hurts financially or if it’s just a slap on the wrist. I know the Goldman’s were successful with OJ in terms of making him squirm but some assurance that the trouple would be living in reduced circumstances would represent a small measure of justice to many.

            Joe and Victor have the DC condo, the Florida house, and by all accounts, a BMW and free rent at Marcia’s pad.

            • Bill 2
              07/01/2010 at 10:25 PM

              Regarding the Florida property, that’s safe from a court case if it’s their home. I think they have to be able to show that it is their residence and not just a place for vacations.

              • Carolina
                07/02/2010 at 7:47 AM

                You’re correct, it has to be their main residence, although FL is very flexible on that definition.

              • Carolina
                07/02/2010 at 7:48 AM

                Adding to that, it can sometimes be proven as your main residence if it is the address on your (out of state) bank account.

          • chilaw79
            07/01/2010 at 11:24 PM


            Looking at the bios of the civil lawyers retained by Joe Price and Victor Zaborsky, it may well be that an insurance company is paying defense costs. The civil lawyers are both from the Baltimore area. One does most of his work for insurance companies, including Chubb. The Baltimore firms often are a little more cost efficient for insurers, although it is a bit of a commute from Baltimore or Hunt Valley to D. C.

            Dylan was using his criminal lawyer for the civil action.

            I don’t think the grounds for a continued stay are present so it looks like the civil litigation should move forward.

            • Liam
              07/02/2010 at 1:05 AM

              Your observations raise a bunch of questions in my mind, none of which I suppose can be answered because we just don’t have the information, but I’ll pose them anyway.

              I assume that if an insurance company is paying for their (JP and VB) attorneys, it is their homeowner’s insurance. However, it would seem to me that an insurance company would have a huge conflict.

              Specifically, the insurance company pays (something) if it was an accident or an intruder. Whereas, if these guys did it intentionally, the insurance company doesn’t pay. Right?

              So, the insurance company doesn’t want to show that it was an accident or an intruder, because then they have to pay. But if these guys did it, then the insurance company doesn’t have to pay.

              So, I can’t see the homeowner’s insurance lawyers defending them.

              • chilaw79
                07/02/2010 at 9:30 AM

                The policy often requires the insurance company to defend. I think there may be both a homeowner’s insurance policy and an umbrella liability policy.

                It is true that insurers will deny coverage for intentional acts. To determine whether an intentional act has occurred, the insurance company can require a form of deposition called an examination under oath.

                Craig Roswell, who is Price’s attorney, has handled a number of cases for insurance companies that have denied coverage for intentional acts (many of which involve arson).

                Speaking hypothetically, if Dylan committed the murder, the insurance company still could be required to pay Joe Price and Victor Zaborsky (the owners of the home). It is possible the insured also could claim the acts were negligent (e.g., a drug overdose) or that an intruder committed the crime.

                • chilaw79
                  07/02/2010 at 9:58 AM

                  And, of course, if a homeowner leaves a door unlocked and a ninja comes in and kills a sleeping guest, a claim certainly could be made under a homeowners or umbrella liability policy as to the negligent act of leaving the door unlocked in an area where defense attorneys routinely leap over tall fences.

            • Bill Orange
              07/02/2010 at 9:20 AM

              I’ll echo Liam here. If their homeowner’s insurance policy is currently paying for their civil lawyers, I wouldn’t expect that to last. I have a fairly dim view of insurance companies who claim that certain things “aren’t covered”, but this would be one of those rare cases where I think they have a point. And the “standard of proof” that your insurance company will use to screw you over is much, much lower than “beyond a reasonable doubt”. There is now a legal judgement stating that Joe Price (one of the homeowners) “very likely” tampered with evidence in a murder investigation, which is basically one of the charges in the civil suit. They have spent years refusing to cooperate with a police investigation.

              Bottom line: It’s going to be a LOT cheaper for the insurance company to try to weasel out of this contract than it is for the insurance company to pay Joe and Victor’s legal costs.

              • interestedobserver
                07/02/2010 at 9:29 AM

                Bill Orange: The lawyers from Baltimore representing Joe and Victor are the home insurance policy lawyers. That’s the reason Dylan is not represented by them – he was not on the homeowner’s insurance. Although he claims he was “married” to Joe, he legally was not. (Victor, have you pulled your head out of the sand?) I agree with the comments about significant conflicts, but if Joe and Victor get deeper in debt by hiring additional lawyers, I’m all for that…Morally bankrupt already, why not add financially bankrupt to the list???

                • curiousdc
                  07/02/2010 at 10:19 AM

                  how on earth are they going to afford yet another top shelf lawyer?

              • chilaw79
                07/02/2010 at 9:46 AM


                While I agree with your assessment, there is a little DC law on the topic. In Travelers Indem. Co. v. Walburn, 378 F. Supp. 860 (D. D.C., 1974), a homeowner shot and killed a man who was outside his home. The homeowner was convicted of second degree murder and the insurance company successfully got out of covering the homeowner in the wrongful death action following his conviction in criminal court.

                This case also discusses collateral estoppel. However, the murder conviction of the homeowner came before the wrongful death case. It is not clear to me that the insurance company would have been able to avoid coverage if the homeowner had not been convicted of murder.

        • chilaw79
          07/01/2010 at 11:15 PM

          Individual retirement accounts are easier to reach in bankruptcy than an interest under an employer’s pension plan. Whether an individual retirement account can be reached is a state law issue. An employer-sponsored retirement plan is governed by federal law that generally precludes anyone from enforcing a lien (with a few exceptions, like divorce and other favored liens) against the plan. Once benefits are in pay status, the monies are subject to attachment.

  23. Sandra Renee Hicks
    07/01/2010 at 5:41 PM

    Greetings –

    The name “Zabrosky” – does anyone know the origin of said name?
    Polish, German?…

    • curiousdc
      07/01/2010 at 5:48 PM

      probably Polish or Russian

    • Carolina
      07/01/2010 at 6:04 PM

      Okay, I’ll bite. Why?

      • Sandra Renee Hicks
        07/01/2010 at 6:07 PM

        I was interested to know his heritage – roots….

        • Carolina
          07/01/2010 at 6:25 PM

          Yes, that I understand. Why? Simple curiosity or what?

          • Sandra Renee Hicks
            07/01/2010 at 6:58 PM

            Yes, curious….

          • Daphne
            07/01/2010 at 8:48 PM

            Oh you know those Slavs — killers all.
            PS – my last name ends in “ski.”

            • Carolina
              07/01/2010 at 8:52 PM

              So does my partner’s. I’m glad I wasn’t the only one that picked up on that, though usually people assume he’s Jewish.

    • BadShoes
      07/02/2010 at 9:24 AM

      “sky” is an adjective ending in many slavic languages, including Polish and Russian. In this context, it probably means “from Zabor,” Zabor being a village currently in Poland, but part of Germany prior to 1945. The corresponding French construction would be “de Zabor,” or in German “Von Zabor.”

      Give the ethnic cuisinart that is Eastern Europe, a Zaborsky could be Jewish, Polish, or German, with lower probabilities attaching to Russian, Ukrainian, or Czech.

      • Ivan
        07/02/2010 at 3:33 PM

        If you drop the ‘sky’ you get Zabor which rhymes with Gabor as in Zsa Zsa who was Hungarian.

      • AnnaZed
        07/02/2010 at 4:11 PM

        A person can be Jewish and be German, Polish, Lithuanian, American, British, Czech … etc … which is to say that “Jewish” is not a nationality. I don’t think you meant to say that, but some people are still a bit sensitive about distinctions like that.

  24. 07/01/2010 at 6:13 PM

    does anyone know if the people who bought the house on Swann street were told that murder occurred there? Real estate agents in CA have to disclose this information and then usually the house doesnt sell. Not sure about DC real property law in this case.
    Is the house on Swann street occupied now?
    I see photos of it all the time but not sure if anyone is living there.
    Also, does anyone know where in Norther VA 2 of the defendants are living?
    I seem to have seen JP in the Clarendon area a few weeks ago.

    • Carolina
      07/01/2010 at 6:26 PM

      Believe me, they knew. Such things must be disclosed (also the leaky shower), and I believe it was purchased by a real estate speculator who knew the Trouple. Yes, it is occupied.

      • Phil
        07/01/2010 at 7:24 PM

        This isn’t true everywhere. I am pretty sure I read that the guy who bought the house in Silver Spring, MD (and who was murdered in his bedroom), DID NOT know that the house was on the market because the previous owner (and his daughter) were brutally murdered in the house by a random stranger. (The two murders were unrelated). Apparently, Maryland has no law requiring disclosure.

        I suppose I might be mis-remembering this, but, again, I’m pretty sure that’s what I read.

        • susan
          07/01/2010 at 8:14 PM

          No. He did not know that there had been a murder in that house when he bought it. He (and possibly the realtor) actually brought in an exorcist to clear the place of bad vibes after he moved in. It clearly didn’t work. That is a super sad story.

          And it has a connection to This story. The author of the article about WMRW in the May Washington Post article was Neely Tucker. Neely Tucker reported about the first murder in the house and ended up marrying the woman whose daughter was horribly murdered. The monster (masquerading as a human) was caught, tried and arrested -Thank Heavens.

          • susan
            07/01/2010 at 8:17 PM

            The monster-meaning the murderer. Tired typing=some sloppy writing.

            • Phil
              07/01/2010 at 8:32 PM

              He brought the realtor in for the exorcism?? Hmmmm….I’d be pretty pissed at the realtor for not telling me, I don’t think I’d have him/her come along–unless it was at the realtor’s expense in order to make amends…on the other hand, maybe they both knew, and decided to buy anyway (hence the excorcism)?

              Eh, pointless speculation.

          • slwapo
            07/02/2010 at 3:09 AM

            So there’ve been 2 murders at 1509 Swan Street? Crazy.

            • DonnaH
              07/02/2010 at 5:05 AM

              No, they’re talking about a different place, in Maryland; read Phil’s post above.

              • Anon
                07/02/2010 at 4:00 PM

                It is not required under DC real estate law for information about murders or deaths in a home to be included in disclosures. 1509 Swann has been sold twice since the trouple lived there. I don’t know about the first buyers, but the current family had no knowledge of the murder when they bought it.

    • DonnaH
      07/01/2010 at 6:34 PM

      I believe I recall reading a post that the buyers were informed of the murder but chose to buy anyway. Don’t know if it’s currently occupied.

    • curiousdc
      07/01/2010 at 7:21 PM

      hi there, the trouple is at Marcia Zaborsky’s house in McLean. She’s Victor’s aunt. I bet the neighbors are thrilled.

      • Clio
        07/01/2010 at 7:51 PM

        For the Fourth of July, I trust that they have all moved to Miami Shores already — determined to get their lives “back”, “lives that will never be the same”. They’ll need tanning beds and personal trainers to complete their makeovers, but they no longer have the discretionary income to meet these basic requirements for South Beach. Perhaps, six-handed massage might become their moneymaking gimmick, although doing that in one’s forties can be dicey.

        • Carolina
          07/01/2010 at 8:30 PM

          Oh to see Joe strut down Collins in this too tight shirt, thinking he’s still SoBe qualified. Thank you for this image.

          • Anonymous
            07/01/2010 at 8:48 PM

            Its funny — I met Joe in 2002 or so (never close friends and haven’t seen him in at least three or four years) and I really don’t think he looks that different in terms of weight gain. Why did everyone decide he had gained weight? Is it based on old photos or something?

            • Carolina
              07/01/2010 at 8:50 PM

              Did he wear shirts with collars so tight the flesh spilled over?

              Maybe it’s the camera, but he looked significantly better in the interrogation videos.

              • Anonymous
                07/01/2010 at 8:56 PM

                No, and I don’t think his shirt collar looks tight in the photo on here either — maybe its just me. I just don’t think he has gotten noticeably heavier. Isn’t it kind of odd how much conversation on this site has been devoted to “how fat” Sarah and Joe are?

                • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                  07/01/2010 at 9:12 PM

                  No different than what would happen in any bar he walks.

                  don’t hold anyone here to higher standards just because they are here.

                  • Anonymous
                    07/01/2010 at 9:23 PM

                    What? I’m sorry — I don’t understand your comment at all. If Sarah or Joe were to walk into a bar, we would likely call them fat? I guess that may be true. Is that what you meant? I guess it just seems strange to me because we don’t really “see” Sarah and Joe all that much on this website, so it seems weird how many comments are made on their weight. Did not mean to make this a big deal — I just thought it was interesting. Certainly not “holding anyone to a higher standard” (completely lost on how my comment did that to begin with, but at any rate….)

                    • Bill Orange
                      07/01/2010 at 9:31 PM

                      I’ve always thought that the comments against Sarah were over the line. As for Joe, he looks like he’s put on a little weight since college, but not really all that much. I personally don’t have much interest in focusing on, but it really doesn’t bother me if everyone else does.

                    • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                      07/01/2010 at 10:53 PM

                      it’s a waste of time to explain….

                  • anonymous
                    07/01/2010 at 11:09 PM

                    @CD: “Waste of time” is completely accurate given this little thread. Ask a simple question (is Joe really fatter, and if so, why do we focus on it?) and the drama/vitriol that comes back (BillO excepted) is unreal. Again, didn’t mean to stir anything up, and so sorry I apparently touched a sore (fat?)spot. Enjoy your evening.

                    • Carolina
                      07/02/2010 at 7:52 AM

                      This first came up soon after the murder. Many assumed that he was getting paunchy because he was no longer using recreational substances, which could include but was not limited to alcohol. Hence, the speculation on the “Clean 15.”

                      Otherwise, yes, you are correct, their weight is irrelevant. (But he *does* need to get measured when he buys shirts again.)

                • curiousdc
                  07/01/2010 at 9:38 PM

                  BTW, if you all think he looks bad now, contemplate Joe Price at UVa circa 1994

                • Clio
                  07/01/2010 at 9:42 PM

                  Anon, there is an obesity epidemic in America — as a nation, we are getting larger, and it’s not healthy or pretty. So, perhaps, that grim context, combined with gay male cultures’ particular aversion to fat people, may be why the discussion of their portliness still continues.

                  Usually, in today’s America, obesity or being just overweight coincides with lack of education and income. But, in the cases of Miss Morgan and Mr. Price, that excuse does not hold much weight.

                  Open and/or joking references to Miss Morgan’s weight have been ruled out by a fellow member of “the Thought Police”; nevertheless, Joe’s alleged weight gain can be judged by the narcissistic standards of the urban gay elites to which he once belonged. He is, hence, being hoisted with his own petard (again) with these kinds of fat jokes. Hope that helps.

                  • Anonymous
                    07/01/2010 at 9:52 PM

                    Sure, that helps immensely. I didn’t know that all gay people had a particular aversion to fat people. And had never thought that education and income kept you think. I am about ten pounds overweight and have a law degree. Perhaps if I got my Ph.D., I could finally lose it! As I said, not sure why my comments merit quite so much angst. By all means, comment away on the weight of all of the players in this. I will start: “Joe looks so puffed up, he reminds me of a baby seal (and not the cute kind)!!!” How is that?

                    • Clio
                      07/01/2010 at 10:10 PM

                      Bravo, anon, and best wishes on your pursuit of a doctorate. Not all gays hate fatties — there are chubbychasers, after all. Don’t despair, dear!

                    • anonymous
                      07/01/2010 at 10:38 PM

                      Clio — No worries ,I will be as thin as this reply before you know it. Also, straight marrieed female, so no need for a “chubbychaser” (another new word for me). I can’t believe you must all dislike Nathan Lane — I think is is fantastic. Here’s to hoping that all of the players in this saga can get as thin as this reply!

                    • ccf
                      07/01/2010 at 11:31 PM

                      Funny that
                      these posts about fatness gets so skinny.

                • Bea
                  07/01/2010 at 11:32 PM

                  I think the originator of “heavy girl” about Sarah came from Joe Price. None of us had seen her (other than court sketches during the trial). And I don’t join in with Joe on calling attention to her weight. Not relevant to me.

                  In looking at the 2006 interrogation tape, and looking at the video of him now, his appearance is noticeably different. And I’ve made nasty comments about how tight his suits were during the videos of earlier hearing (appears he got them let out or bought new ones) and I don’t mind chiding him for the number of chins he’s grown. I don’t like arrogant men and while I don’t “know” that he’s a murderer (I have my opinion, and isn’t good), it sure seems like Judge Leibovitz thought he was likely to have tampered with evidence (as a minimum). She also noted that during the interrogations he did not appear to behave appropriately for a man having just “found” a murdered friend – abrasive, cocky, dismissive.

                  So, yes, I think he looks very different from 2006 and I only hope some of the aging process comes from stress because I think he should have been stressed – if to be believed, his good friend’s murderer is walking the street! He is now fully able to assist the cops (something he “wished” he could do but couldn’t, as he told a friend) but I sincerely doubt he is.

                  Too, there were serious accusations from the prosecution and from people here who knew him that he was into the drug scene. Since he was subjected to drug testing, that abstinence likely contributed to a chin or two.

                  It’s quite immature of me but I don’t care. I don’t do it often, but if someone objects to it, I have to say my piece.

                  • christy love
                    07/02/2010 at 10:02 AM

                    Why do you all keep saying he could assist the cops now? They could still bring murder charges? He’s still (in his mind) in a catch-22.

                    • Bea
                      07/02/2010 at 4:18 PM

                      His comment re CATCH-22 suggested he’d be arrested for obstruction. If he meant murder, then it’s worse than I imagined – what could he tell cops that would make them arrest him for murder?

              • Ivan
                07/02/2010 at 4:23 PM

                His face seems to have become swollen.

    • Three Strikes
      07/01/2010 at 9:46 PM

      Occupants of such a house could be renters…would they necessarily have to be informed before renting?

  25. curiousdc
    07/01/2010 at 6:26 PM

    Anyone know if being disbarred in Washington, DC means you’re disbarred everywhere? Just wondering before the trouple moves to Florida. Apologies in advance if this has been addressed in the past—there’s too much good info on this site!

    • Cat from Cleveland
      07/01/2010 at 7:31 PM

      Most, if not all, states have reciprocity on disciplinary matters. To use Bill Clinton as an example: if he wanted to practice in another state, he’d have to first be licensed in that state. The first (OK, not literally the first) question on an application is whether you have ever been disciplined by another state’s bar. The fact that he was disbarred in AK would prevent him from getting a license in most, if not all, other states. So while he was not disbarred in all states, that is because he was not licensed in all states. Typically, if a lawyer has a licnese in several states and is disbarred in one, the others will pull his ticket as well.

      • curiousdc
        07/01/2010 at 7:42 PM

        thanks Cat

      • susan
        07/01/2010 at 9:20 PM

        Clinton’s license was suspended for five years, and that suspension ended in 2006. Suspension is different from disbarment, isn’t it?

        • Carol
          07/01/2010 at 9:34 PM


    • 310 Observer
      07/02/2010 at 8:36 AM

      Do we know for sure that they’re moving to Florida? (Sorry if this was already discussed/established elsewhere and I missed it).

  26. 07/01/2010 at 6:31 PM

    an attorney is admitted to the bar of each state, ie, DC, VA, MD. disbarment proceedings would have to be instituted in each state where the attorney is admitted.
    I dont believe there is a blanket 50 statewide disbarment proceeding.
    Bill Clinton was disbarred in Arkansas, but not in all 50 states.
    Retired 20 year law firm veteran.


    • curiousdc
      07/01/2010 at 6:58 PM

      thanks elisabethvon for that info!

    • Daphne
      07/01/2010 at 7:13 PM

      But certainly when JP was applying for membership in the FL Bar (where he is not yet a member and would have to sit for the bar since you can’t waive into Florida), he would have to disclose any disciplinary actions by any Bar.

    • Bea
      07/01/2010 at 7:15 PM

      It’s not automatic, and certainly isn’t instantaneous to all states, but if you MOVE to a new state after being disbarred in another, it’s usually the case (in my limited knowledge) that the NEW bar association will render an identical verdict and sanctions in the new state. Knew a guy this happened to in California then Illinois, and the latter was just an ‘old’ state he used to practice in that was notified.

      To TAKE a new bar exam one would have to disclose documents and would not be entitled to sit for the bar if disbarred elsewhere (same if the attorney was suspended for a period of years).

      • Daphne
        07/01/2010 at 7:25 PM

        And, personally, I’d rather put bamboo shoots under my fingernails than ever sit for another bar.

        • Cat from Cleveland
          07/01/2010 at 7:33 PM

          Amen to that!

          • Carol
            07/01/2010 at 7:48 PM


  27. susan
    07/01/2010 at 7:47 PM

    “Wone Case Remains ‘Open and Very Active'” says Metropolitan Police Chief, Cathy Lanier

    • Daphne
      07/01/2010 at 8:23 PM

      Blah blah blah.

      • Carolina
        07/01/2010 at 8:32 PM

        I think they’re four years late and a blah short.

        • Daphne
          07/01/2010 at 8:53 PM


          • vamom
            07/01/2010 at 9:28 PM

            I can only hope if they are working on the investigation into Robert’s murder that they are focusing on Michael Price. Can’t say I know what his exact involvement was, but I assume the prosecution had additional information about him. Why else would they spent so much court time on his movements?

            Missing class for the first time, the BIG bender after the murder, all his other criminal and drug troubles . . . he seems to be the guy to break.

            • Clio
              07/01/2010 at 10:22 PM

              Michael would have been the weakest link, but he’s cleaned up his act since August 2006. His tracks on August 2, 2006 have grown much colder, and the Hinton alibi, however challenged, still stands.

              Cathy Lanier, I notice, has dropped the many “verys” that she used to put before “active”. Is that a good or a bad omen? She is just at one “very” now.

              • susan
                07/01/2010 at 10:30 PM

                I think there is one difference now, than there was four years ago: this website. And its grown in its momentum, and though the criminal trial is over, the “damage”–to the defendants–is done. The murder of Mr. Wone was fairly under the radar before; not now. The Post covered the verdict above the fold. That says something. This site helped to generate worldwide media coverage. More and more people are aware of this sad, sad crime and more and more are concerned for an outcome of justice.

                • Hoya Loya
                  07/01/2010 at 11:55 PM

                  It still lacks MSM coverage outside of DC. Victor’s parents were relieved remember that it had not been covered in PA. If anyone is ever to be pressured into telling what they know that needs to change. Sorry Mrs. Z.

                  • Jo
                    07/02/2010 at 4:43 AM

                    Does anyone know if the Wone’s have considered an ad campaign to increase awareness about this case?

                    It would be great to run ads highlighting the three defendants’ very likely involvement in this horrendous murder (by quoting the judge’s written order), where ever they try to hide.

                    I am sure many people would be happy to contribute to such an ad campaign fund.

                    • Daphne
                      07/02/2010 at 9:07 AM

                      Maybe they can hire VZ’s firm.

      • Prtyboydc
        07/06/2010 at 10:38 PM

        I would imagine that Kathy Lanier has had some very uncomfortable conversations with AG Eric Holder and probably got a good swift kick in the ass after the acquittal

        • susan
          07/06/2010 at 10:48 PM

          C. Lanier was appointed chief of police in 2007, after the crime and the immediate MPD screw ups. I don’t know if she had any oversight role before then over the MPD officers who were involved in that case at the time.

  28. Rick
    07/01/2010 at 8:56 PM

    Question for the “Legal Eagles” here…If the trio was aquitted for tampering, blah, blah, blah…and then they lose the civil trial to Mrs. Wone…could/would one of the trio in the months to come be charged with murder due to new evidence? If they lost the civil trial, wouldn’t that prejudice any future jury?

    I have quickly learned how very little our justice system works in the country, it not something to be proud of!

    • Bea
      07/01/2010 at 9:09 PM

      If there is new evidence the prosecution believes to be sufficient to give them a viable shot at winning a murder conviction against one or more of the defendants, then certainly they can. Whether the civil trial will yield anything remains to be seen, but I doubt it will (one can hope). If there is a murder trial, the jury would likely NOT hear of the civil outcome as it’s not that probative and greatly prejudicial (the standard for making the decision about evidence). Now if one of them turns prosecution witness, whole new ballgame – or if one of the three tell a friend incriminating information about the night, if the camera or towels are ever found, etc., nothing prevents a new criminal trial so long as the charges are not what they’ve been acquitted of.

      • Rick
        07/01/2010 at 9:47 PM

        Thanks Bea…I understand now!

  29. Rick
    07/01/2010 at 8:58 PM

    DUH….I have quickly learned how very little I know about how our justice system works in the US…and it’s not something to be proud of or laugh about!

    • Daphne
      07/01/2010 at 9:15 PM

      Oh, I disagree. It’s not perfect — it’s a human institution run by fallible people — but I think it’s pretty damn good. Or would you prefer sharia? Or the Tudors?

      • Bill Orange
        07/01/2010 at 9:27 PM

        I think Rick meant that he wasn’t proud of the depth of his knowledge of our system, not that he wasn’t proud of the system itself.

      • susan
        07/01/2010 at 9:40 PM

        Probably depends who you ask that question to. I agree with you, overall, but if you asked the people at the Innocence Project or Darryl Hunt (see The Trials of Darryl Hunt, excellent film), you may get a different answer, same as if you asked all the victims of rape and abuse, prejudice, etc. There is Always room for improvement.

        • susan
          07/01/2010 at 9:42 PM

          I meant “rape and abuse, prejudice, etc.” in the prison system and it was in response to Daphne’s post.

          Again, there’s always room for improvement.

        • Daphne
          07/02/2010 at 12:32 AM

          I absolutely agree.

      • Rick
        07/01/2010 at 9:44 PM

        Daphne…I’m not proud of my lack of knowledge of “our” justice system…I didn’t realize how little I did know and understand about judges, courts, and laws until I started reading this blog. I need to read something besides summer “beach” novels!

        • Daphne
          07/02/2010 at 12:33 AM

          Rick – read the beach novels when at the beach. I sure do.

  30. Sandra Renee Hicks
    07/01/2010 at 9:37 PM

    Can someone please help me to better understand Sarah’s overnight with neighbors the night of the murder. Do I have that right? She spent the night with neighbors. Was this a regular habit of hers or was it revealed whether this was the first time.
    It sounds rather peculiar to me. On a weeknight (work next day), why are you spending the night at a neighbor’s. Maybe I am being picky…. help me to understand that equation, please.

    • Three Strikes
      07/01/2010 at 9:54 PM

      It is a perfectly good question, SRH.

    • Bill 2
      07/01/2010 at 10:15 PM

      It wasn’t exactly a next door neighbor. I believe it may have been five or six blocks away – maybe a bit more. I recall reading that she went there by bus. It was said that it was too far for her to walk due to her weight problem. OTOH, I don’t believe that she just happened to be staying elsewhere on a whim. I think she knew that two members of her “family” had very special plans for a guest that night so she left to stay with two other friends.

      • Liam
        07/02/2010 at 12:35 AM

        I also recall reading that she took the bus because it’s not a safe area after dark. Is this true? I am trying to understand why the area is so “dangerous” when it has million dollar townhouses. I mean, you occasionally hear about crime in Georgetown (as you do anywhere), but I don’t think people would consider Georgetown a dangerous area.

        So why is the area of the defendant’s townhouse unsafe?

        • slwapo
          07/02/2010 at 3:00 AM

          I read here that that area isn’t all that unsafe – it’s only when you step inside that it becomes dangerous.

  31. curiousdc
    07/01/2010 at 9:48 PM

    I think the heat needs to be turned up under her…

    If she hasn’t been in contact with the trouple for years then I don’t understand why she wasn’t more forthcoming…

    • susan
      07/01/2010 at 10:02 PM

      Did I read that S. Morgan was an art historian, preservationist? Hot? Cold? What is her livelihood? Does she still live in the city? Thanks.

      • Clio
        07/01/2010 at 10:31 PM

        I thought that, in 2006, Miss Morgan, an art history graduate from Trinity in 1992, worked on Capitol Hill: Editors, did you ever find out whether Congress was in session that week? If Congress was in session, then August 3 was a work day for the basement tenant.

        • Daphne
          07/02/2010 at 12:34 AM

          August in Congress?

          • Clio
            07/02/2010 at 10:47 AM

            I know what you mean, Daphne. Our federal legislators have quite the leisured, aristocratic schedule, don’t they? Congress was especially “out-to-lunch” when Republicans were in power, as in 2006. So, the question remains: was August 3 really a work day for Sarah, Editors?

  32. Sandra Renee Hicks
    07/01/2010 at 10:39 PM

    The whole ball of wax is bizarre –

    – the living arrangements
    – Sarah in the basement…going elsewhere to sleep that night…
    – no wet towels (from showers) found (do I have that right?)
    – no bloody residuals – yet Robert is said to have lost lots of blood – where was it lost?
    – Joe’s family disconnect

    I believe that I read that MPD found something relevant in the dryer. The trio did not have time to run a dryer cycle before the arrival of MPD – or did they? – in my estimation – no.

    Where did all the evidence disappear…?

    If the trio cleaned up blood…where did they put the bloody items? They did not leave the house vicinity (I guess) so what happened to Robert’s wet shower towel? It just went poof?!

    I read where perhaps they put Robert in the bathtub to bleed out…

    I believe that I read somewhere here that the drains were not examined for blood traces.

    In the room where Robert expired…what about that liquid stuff they use to detect blood that is not visible to the naked eye?
    Did they use that? I believe that I read that they did. What were the results?

    What about fingerprinting – was that done? (ref:so called intruder’s)

    Was it ever determined whose sunglasses were on top of the backyard shed?

    In Joe’s interrogation, the detective made the point to Joe that Joe stated that he knew that Dylan and Victor did not kill Robert but he never said that he (Joe) did not do it.

    • Carolina
      07/06/2010 at 8:22 PM

      All of these things have been discussed. Give the search feature a try.

  33. Prtyboydc
    07/02/2010 at 5:16 AM

    This is to Denimmaina (sorry, other posts were closed): I get you and where you’re coming from regarding your innate sense that these three didn’t kill robert and don’t know who did. I am horribly conflicted in this case between what the facts show (and don’t) and what I feel in my heart of hearts about what these three men are capable of (and aren’t). I know one of them reasonably well and years ago would’ve said the same of the remaining two, but haven’t had contact with them recently.

    I can almost get my head around that one or more of the men may know more than they’ve admitted–but not that they have actively tried to derail or otherwise influence the investigation to prevent the perpetrator from being caught. I realize this will sound very strange, but based on what I know of these guys, for me to believe one or more of them killed Robert, I almost have to believe that I could be capable of the same crime which I simply am not.

    • Jo
      07/02/2010 at 5:25 AM

      Drugs can alter minds… especially if panic set in (e.g. in a drugging gone bad scenario).

    • cinnamon
      07/02/2010 at 8:29 AM

      I understand what you are saying and if you are correct that one of the three could not have been capable of murder (IYO) and if it is also correct that there was no intruder, than wouldn’t it mean that they have to know more than what they are telling?

    • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
      07/02/2010 at 8:58 AM


      I think what you and Denimama are feeling is typical of what any relative or close associate of a person that is accused of a heinous crime would feel. It’s quite natural. Doubt. Disbelief. Of course.

      But that feeling doesn’t declare innocence. If a jury took only your strong feelings to heart and disregarded evidence, well, there would be thousands of murderers on the streets. Those thousands of murderers have families, as well, that are struggling with accepting and realizing that their family member COULD or DID commit murder. And they testify under oath and say “oh, he could never do that.”

      Are all murderers truly innocent because a family member feels that way? Of course not.

      • Wulfila
        07/02/2010 at 10:43 AM

        As a “real crime tv” junkie, I have to say, I’ve rarely seen interviews with family and friends of murderers who said “yes, I always thought they were capable of this”. In general, they are just as dumbfounded as the 2 posters here. No one wants to believe a son/daughter/brother/sister/father/mother/friend could do such a horrible thing. But look at any recent nationally known murder (so many recently where husbands killed wives, and mothers killed children). In almost every case, people are shocked that the person was capable of this, and often refuse to believe it. That’s just natural. One of the most striking ones for me was the case of the preacher’s daughter who kidnapped, sexually assaulted, and murdered a female toddler from her neighborhood (sorry, the name eludes me at the moment). People just couldn’t believe she did it. But she did eventually confess.

        If one or more of the trio were my friend, I’d also certainly be skeptical that they were involved, at first. But given all that is known now, I’d have to move beyond denial and realize they know *something*. And if they know something and are not telling what they know, to me, that’s as heinous as being a part of the murder itself. A good man, a husband, a son, a friend, died. He and his family deserve justice and they deserve the truth.

        • Prtyboydc
          07/06/2010 at 7:47 PM

          It’s extremely difficult when what you know in your mind and what you feel in your heart are at odds. Though I will say that while I can see and grasp the damning evidence, my innate desire for these three to be innocent also helps me see much that could exonerate them that others may not.

        • Prtyboydc
          07/06/2010 at 7:52 PM

          I want to make it clear that I do not blindly assume these three are innocent, nor would I ever wish that any of them, if guilty, not be punished.

  34. Rick
    07/02/2010 at 4:42 PM

    In a civil suit, can the defendants request a non-jury trial like the trio did in the criminal trial, or are they stuck with a jury for the civil trial?

    • Ruth
      07/02/2010 at 6:03 PM

      Either party can demand a jury, plaintiff (Kathy) or defendants.

      • Rick
        07/02/2010 at 6:19 PM

        What do you think are the chances that the “trio” will demand a jury this time?

        • Clio
          07/04/2010 at 6:57 PM

          I would guess, as a non-lawyer, that the Three may want to stick with another bench trial, given their Pyrrhic victory last month.

          • Bea
            07/05/2010 at 12:15 AM

            But Kathy Wone will want a jury. Just takes one. She wins.

        • NYer
          07/05/2010 at 4:15 AM

          For some reason I thought the troupe would probably default in the civil trial…wouldn’t you? (i.e, their dismal chances in light of Leibowitz’s daming opinion, litigating against Covington, the lower burden of proof, etc, etc…seems easier to save their energy.)

          • chilaw79
            07/05/2010 at 10:50 AM

            There are three potential problems with that scenario. First, the insurance company may be averse to this (at least without the consent of the insured). Second, Dylan may be entitled to an inheritance at some point in his life. While it may be possible to estate plan around this (with trusts, etc.), at some point, those assets could be vulnerable. Finally, if the amount of the judgment exceeds the insurance coverage, the defendants would face the prospect of having their wages and assets garnished for the rest of their lives, or until the judgment is satisfied.

            None of us know what facts are out there or what any of the defendants may say now that they no longer face criminal charges for obstruction of justice, tampering with evidence, or conspiracy. If I was relatively sure I could not be found to have committed murder, or aided or abetted in a murder, either before or after the fact, then I would not want to be on the hook for civil liability for Robert Wone’s death.

            • NYer
              07/05/2010 at 11:48 AM

              Interesting post, C79. Though I think Dylan definitely stands out from the other two. First of all, I think it would be tough to garnish his wages if he’s working as an online masseuse- much of the income I imagine would be a cash transaction that would be hard to peg down. Second, like you pointed out, it seems that any inheritance bequeathed by the good doctor would be in the form of a trust. However, i doubt he would be left very much, since as I understand it he has several siblings, and I imagine if Doc was footing the legal bill, he might be inclined to leave much to him in the future. But who knows.

              • NYer
                07/05/2010 at 11:50 AM

                (I meant *NOT* be inclined to leave much)

              • Bea
                07/05/2010 at 12:37 PM

                Good points. If the umbrella is for $3-5 Million, then the insurance co. may well NOT agree to enter a default that puts THEIR money on the line. And whether they could default without the insurance money being in play is a big question mark.

Comments are closed.