VZ VCB-3 of 3

The Lost Episode

The first look we had of Victor Zaborsky’s final interview at the Violent Crimes Branch was on May 26, day seven of the trial.  Transcipts of this twenty minute session were never released so we were caught by surprise when the tape was screened in Judge Lynn Leibovitz’ courtroom.  Detective Brian Kasul batted cleanup for the MPD squad and took the game right to Zaborsky, all but calling him a liar, repeatedly.  The headline that day was Kasul doing his best to rattle Zaborsky, “You will not last in DC jail.  Those boys will eat you alive.”

Kasul was relentless. “Victor, you’re not being honest… there are things you’re holding back…  I don’t think you’re telling us the whole truth about what happened… there’s three people in the house, you, Joe and Dylan.  One of you killed him.”  

Zaborsky sat slumped in the chair.  Kasul started the session on the other side of the table in the cramped interrogation room. 

By the time it was over, Kasul was knee-to-knee and almost face-to-face with his suspect, peppering him constantly.  At one point, Zaborsky, almost pleading for Kasul to believe him said, “A friend of ours died tonight,” before the detective brusquely cut him off, and shot back, “A friend of yours was MURDERED tonight!  He didn’t DIE.  He didnt JUST DIE.  He was MURDERED and somebody stabbed him with a knife from that kitchen.  And YOU know who that someone was.” 

Kasul banged him up pretty badly and confidently said, ” Somebody’s getting charged with murder.  Somebody’s getting charged with this murder…  as far as murder cases go, this is one of the easy ones.  There’s nothing complicated about this.  All the pieces are there.  It’s just a question of putting them together.”

Almost four years to the day later, it’s obvious Kasul was wrong.  Dead wrong.  But no one can argue that Zaborsky wasn’t telling the truth when, near the end of the session, said,  “My life will never be the same. ”  And neither was the Wone family’s.  Wone.  Zaborsky managed to mispronounce that night.  It rhymes with Swann, Victor.  The clip follows.

Next week: While the Discovery Channel reprises ‘Shark Week,’ we debut ‘Ward Week. ‘

-posted by Craig

Victor Zaborsky MPD Interrogation Video 3 – Time: 00:26

212 comments for “VZ VCB-3 of 3

  1. Bea
    07/30/2010 at 2:06 PM

    I would not have wanted to be sitting in Victor’s chair. I think he must’ve been fairly numb by then but still. His words are carefully chosen that everything thing he’d said was the truth AND that technically the facts were correct to the best of his knowledge. That’s not the same as “I’ve told you everything I know.”

    I think he’d honed his senses to accept his ‘truth’ of the facts that evening, and he was hanging desperately to the fact that he did not EXACTLY know what had occurred. My guess is that Joe said “there’s no time and I’ll fill you in later but here are the talking points – and understand that the cops will say we’ve turned and we’ve failed the polygraph but just don’t cave.”

    Hindsight is twenty-twenty, but I think the only way he might have broken is if he’d been told that Joe acknowledged he WASN’T upstairs with him and that he could vouch for Dylan not being the killer because he was with Dylan. THAT might have resonated with Victor – that Joe was most concerned about Dylan AND that he’d left Victor and his story out to hang in the wind. He might have stumbled and the cracks in the foundation may have allowed the detective to ‘get in’.

    The comment that his ‘life will never be the same’ was his only “mistake” – it’s quite telling, shorthand for saying that they both knew that he’d made his decision. Pathetic.

  2. CDinDC (Boycott BP)
    07/30/2010 at 2:19 PM

    How can he sleep? His “friend” was just murdered.

    • Clio
      07/31/2010 at 11:47 AM

      Victor didn’t consider Robert his friend — remember Joe’s not-so-friendly reminder of “Isn’t he our friend?” at the house.

      And, revealingly, he mispronounced “Wone”, showing the depths of that friendship from Team Price’s perspective. Now, I might have expected that slip of the tongue from a colleague of Lisa G., but not from someone who had feted the Wones recently at his own home.

  3. CDinDC (Boycott BP)
    07/30/2010 at 2:33 PM

    This jumps out at me…..at 8:10, Victor says “I can’t believe that there was any kind of fight because I would have heard a fight.”

    He’s expresses everything with such certainty….but this comment shows a degree of doubt.

    • Bea
      07/30/2010 at 3:01 PM

      The part which sticks out to me (besides all the hedging words that he’s told only the truth but never says ‘the whole truth’ or ‘everything I know’) comes at 9:30 on the counter. When the detective is pushing that he doesn’t “know” what the others did, he says “I have no reason to understand…believe that Joe or Dylan were angry at Robert” (something close to that). No reason to believe is quite different from the way he started the sentence – I have no reason to ‘understand’.

      I’m guessing that there was a lot about Joe and Dylan’s “fun” that Victor didn’t ‘understand’ – and that he hones in on that they wouldn’t have been angry or fighting with Robert, leaving out the more obvious discussion of whether there were sexual activities underway (including a possible assault).

      And CD – agree – I think with the comment you noted, he’s very careful to say he didn’t hear a ‘fight’ – but is thinking fist-fight (or trying to). What he heard at the beginning (I think) was sex – and then struggle of some kind – but if one is used to hearing BDSM from another floor, I wonder how long he waited and listened before deciding it had to be investigated.

      • chilaw79
        07/31/2010 at 3:33 PM

        I agree that Victor is being defensive. Although he could not possibly have seen any interaction by or among Dylan, Joe, and Robert (given Victor’s admission that Victor did not see Robert until he saw Robert lying on the guest bed), Victor tries very hard not to implicate Dylan or Joe in any way in Robert’s murder.

        He seems to provide at least a partial alibi for Joe and says he cannot believe that either Joe or Dylan had anything to do with Robert’s death.

  4. Susan
    07/30/2010 at 8:52 PM

    I didn’t listen to the entire tape yet, but here’s what all of a sudden stands out to me: I know JP was a take-charge kind of guy in his household, and likely did a lot of delegating, but from everything I’ve read here he likes to be the center of events, and is take-charge. So why does he send VZ back upstairs to call 911.

    I think the point is made that he was hysterical “so Joe told me..” but that is the part that stands out to me. Hysterical and annoying at the moment–tell him to go back upstairs. YOU call 911. Don’t you want to say–hey there’s a knife in him (or on him depending on which story you decide to go with) What Do I Do? Don’t you want to be right there hearing the 911 operator and her instructions first-hand? And why don’t you check on your other housemate/lover Dylan W. AND get his help at the same time? That moment–where he sends VZ out of the room and decides to be alone with Robert Wone, that part stands out.

    • chilaw79
      07/30/2010 at 11:25 PM

      Sending Victor upstairs to call 911 seems very strange. My understanding of the evidence is that the guest room had a phone. While there could be an argument about touching anything within an obvious crime scene, it is hard to believe an intruder would have used the phone. It seems much more like Joe wanted Victor to stop screaming and get away from the guest room.

      Not seeing whether Dylan (or Sarah) was OK is the other red flag. I would want to account for everyone in the house. Even if I was scared, I would at least call out to them and report 911 had been called.

      I know that different people react differently to trauma, but the strange handling of the 911 call and the failure to determine that everyone who was (or could be) in the house was OK speaks volumes to me.

      • susan
        07/31/2010 at 12:18 AM

        I agree. And it’s too quiet in the background of that 911 call when V is around JP and D. Ward. The one thing I think VZ is not being 100% about is following JP’s instructions during the 911 call.

        And both VZ and DW mention being “worried”–that was DW’s word, odd word to use, about the intruder still being around. If I thought someone who had put three murderous stab wounds in my house guest was still around I would not be walking btw floors or standing in a doorway or sitting on a bed with an open door. I’d be bolted in the room and use both phones or how ever many were around to make sure I had connections going to the outside world. I’d prob. open the window and scream out there too. I’d not be out and open and vulnerable. If I thought a murderous intruder was still in my home.

        • Clio
          08/01/2010 at 2:03 PM

          Again, why would two non-lawyers use the lawyerly weasel words of “worried” and “intruder”? One may be “worried” about the meager response to one’s alt dot bomb personal, but, if a real stranger was lurking in one’s house at night, one would be “terrified”, not just “worried”.

      • carolina
        08/01/2010 at 2:37 PM

        I have to say, if I’d been in Joe’s place and Victor was screaming like an 11 year old girl, I’d have sent him upstairs as well. No, actually, I’d have thrown him out, bodily if necessary.

  5. Liam
    07/30/2010 at 9:01 PM

    I think Victor handled this last interrogation very well (and, I don’t mean that as an endorsement of scheming to avoid murder charges).

    But he stuck with his story. Every attempt to get him to change his story or to turn on his “family” was met by staunch denial of any other possible scenario, that is, other than the one he had previously described.

    And finally, he said that was all he had to say. If there were further questions he wanted an attorney.

    Not bad. Not bad at all.

    • Ivan
      08/03/2010 at 8:29 AM

      I agree.

  6. chilaw79
    07/30/2010 at 11:14 PM

    The one police interrogation tactic from Victor’s interview I find thoroughly disgusting is the implied threat of prison rape. The mere idea of prison is frightening enough. If anything, this type of threat would make me much less likely to cooperate with police.
    Under the circumstances, Victor’s invocation of his right to counsel is not surprising. I wonder if gentler interrogation would have led to more information from Victor and kept him talking.

    Is it clear this interview occurred after the meeting outside the station between Joe and Victor? It would not surprise me if Joe suggested that Victor invoke his right to counsel.

    The other thing that strikes me is that Victor does not provide an alibi for Dylan, just a character reference. This is consistent with the facts as Victor recites them.

    • Clio
      07/31/2010 at 12:09 PM

      Chilaw, I think that, even if the interrogation happened over martinis at the Mayflower, Kasul was not going to get any confession or breakdown that night. To me, Kasul’s verbose dramatics were not “disgusting” or “counter-productive”: they were futile in the face of a well-orchestrated (however impromptu) conspiracy of three or four. Victor may have admitted that his life would never be the same, but he was determined not to be “eaten alive” in prison. So, damn the torpedoes and stick to the party line, no matter what!

      Editors, is Detective Kasul still on the “very active” investigation?

      • chilaw79
        07/31/2010 at 2:38 PM


        You are probably correct in observing that nothing that Kasul said would shake Victor at that point. I still don’t like threats of violence by the police.

        On a separate note, aren’t martinis at the Mayflower a bit passe?

        • Clio
          07/31/2010 at 3:12 PM

          Perhaps, Chilaw, but they never go out of style, especially with the right person. Just ask Governor Spitzer, now a program host on Lisa G.’s CNN.

          Superficial musing: do most “witnesses” wear shorts to their close-ups? I would have thought that Victor (the classiest of the Swann Street Three) would have donned at least chinos to such a serious invitation.

          Last, do most detectives follow Kasul’s way of almost getting in the witnesses’ face? On tape, Brian does seem more annoying than threatening, and, if you turn off the sound, his hair and weight make him look like a good drag king, to me, with only the size of his hands and his hairy forearms giving him away. In other words, Victor did not and would never “buy” Kasul’s implied doom, and he was too tired to be sad or scared, as Bea has noted, by that point to care.

          • chilaw79
            07/31/2010 at 3:19 PM

            The Mayflower has seen better days and so has Governor Spitzer (although he seems to have landed on his feet).

            It was a hot night in August in DC so perhaps shorts were not out of the question, although I am not sure what is appropriate attire for the Violent Crimes Bureau in Anacostia.

            • Kate
              08/01/2010 at 10:39 AM

              Clio and Chilaw – great dialogue!

              At least the Swann gents weren’t sportin’ trousers slung so low that their underpants … and other parts were on vivd display. (except for Joe earlier in the evening.)

              I heard on NPR yesterday that a Judge has ruled that wearing pants slung way below your arse is protected under the 1st Ammendment – you know, that freedom of expression sorta stuff. As the Judge put it, “freedom to make a fool of yourself.”


              • Kate
                08/01/2010 at 10:40 AM

                Oops, make that 1st Amendment!

    • carolina
      08/01/2010 at 2:44 PM

      It is disgusting in that it happens, but it does and it is something that would cross the mind of anyone who is facing a possible prison term. I don’t think the detective needed to remind him, but I also didn’t see it as a threat.

      At the same time, perhaps Kasul had gotten the impression that Victor was adept at avoiding unpleasant thoughts and wanted to lay out a picture of the possibilities in Victor’s future. Better to look at the harsh realities before deciding whose lifeboat is going to float.

  7. susan
    07/31/2010 at 12:07 AM

    It’s easy to be a backseat driver, but I can’t help but feel that if the investigator spoke less there’d be opportunity for VZ to speak more. V also comes across as pretty credible to me.

    I wonder why the detective didn’t ask about drugs in the house, in general, general usage, and point blank ask if there might have been the possibility of other visitors that night.

    One other thought re the sounds or alleged sounds from R. Wone: Ward described them as like a “high-pitched scream or laugh.” That’s either an exact or pretty near exact quote. That is a lot diff. than a low grunt.

    On another note, an article about Ward and Hinton’s friend P. Dernbach mentions the latters friendship with a fortune teller in Taiwan, who he says “has the gift.” Maybe someone will hire him to help solve this crime. Quote from and link to the article below.
    Making his fortune

    ‘Maurice’ is a tarot card reader to the stars, who has made a name for himself on TV, here and in China

    By Yu Sen-lun
    Sunday, Jul 20, 2003, Page 18


    “He has the gift. And the contents of his readings are very solid,” said Peter Dernbach, of legal firm Winkler Partners, who has known Maurice as a friend since his college years.

    “I would not probably pay that much for a tarot card reading. But the value of such a reading lies in the hearts of the person asking. They are willing to pay because they think it’s helpful for them,” Dernbach said. “Besides, Maurice is a very balanced person. He knows what he can do or what he can’t.”

    • Clio
      07/31/2010 at 12:22 PM

      Remember, Susan, that, while Maurice has “the gift”, only Dyl has “magic”, at least according to Culuket. I do find myself liking the deliciously handsome Mr. Dernbach more and more, but I do wish he had never met Mr. Ward.

      Much more significant, though, is the lack of drug use questions to Victor. Susan, I agree with you about this lacunae in Kasul’s questioning. The sex angle threw the detectives off from pursuing the drug angle: drat!

      • susan
        08/01/2010 at 11:21 PM

        I still wonder about The Tempest, Clio (the New Yorker article on Shakespeare and his hypothetical dying words). Prospero had “the magic,” too, and slaves as well. And there’s Antonio who talks about stabbing a brother in his sleep.

        Re interview three, it seems that detective spent so much time talking and repeating himself. He didn’t really add more questions or attack the line of questioning from different angles.

    • chilaw79
      07/31/2010 at 2:52 PM

      As Susan (I think) has noted, Peter Dernbach attended the same law school as Joe Price and worked at Arent Fox.

      • susan
        08/01/2010 at 11:22 PM

        And, Chilaw, he’s based in Taiwan, where his friend D. Ward lived for a time. And, he’s Facebook friends with L.Hinton, M. Price’s ex. So lots of connections to this family, it seems.

    • carolina
      08/01/2010 at 2:46 PM

      Remember, though, that the previous interviews had been low key and velvet gloves. They’d gotten nowhere. I can see why they’d come in swinging, as it was likely to be the final time they’d get a shot without an attorney present.

  8. alternateguy
    07/31/2010 at 4:16 PM

    Upon seeing all of the videotaped interrogations of Victor, I have the strong impression that he was being as truthful and as forthcoming as he knows how to be. The tough third interrogation is simply a typical tough guy attempt to rattle him. Telling lies such as that they knew positively that there could have been no intruder, something that they couldn’t have possible ruled out so early in the investigation. And there’s the suggestions that the other defendants had told different stories than he had. Typical police tactics.

    Victor’s demeanor throughout the interview is exactly as one would expect from an innocent gay guy under those circumstances. Of course he is nervous and frightened. Who wouldn’t be? It’s obvious that he is being questioned as a suspect. Those who suggest that he is convincing up until questions concerning the screams, and those who site body language, as an indication of his covering up from that point, lose me.

    In my opinion, Victor’s reactions while recalling the screams and his first sighting of a mortally wounded Robert, are just as you would expect. He reaches for his stomach and his body and face as if hoping to deflect such searing and recent memories. There is no way that the horror of the situation is lost on him. Of course his demeanor is going to change from his discussion about watering the plants.

    As far as the two defendants having slightly different memories of the sounds that woke them up, that is very understandable. Upon being awakened from a sleep, audio memories can be very different between people. The mind can even imagine sounds that weren’t there. It does seem evident that whatever sounds awakened the two; the urgency of what they had heard and were hearing wasn’t lost on them. Of course all of the vocal sounds didn’t have to have come from the victim. His attacker might have contributed a grunt or two or even a maniacal laugh.

    A big thing is made over the fact that Joe and Victor didn’t hear someone hastening down the stairs at that point. However, had they been lying about the situation, why not say that they heard someone descending the stairs? My thought is that having been awakened from sleep, they would have been making some sort of noise themselves communicating between themselves, “What the!…Did you hear that? Someone’s in trouble. Was that in the house? Come on!” Their recollections may be of a rather fast reaction in springing awake and running to the door. But upon being aroused from sleep, wouldn’t it stand to reason that their reactions might have been slower in motion than they recall? And in the event that they themselves were making sounds of their own, couldn’t someone have stealthily descended the stairs? Particularly in view of the fact that they, themselves were soon clattering down the upper flight of stairs. Victor’s recollection that he thought he might have heard the door exit chimes while he was screaming and Joe’s not hearing same, sounds like something suggesting a likely happening rather than a put up story.

    A lot is being made of the fact that Joe asked during the 911 call what the time was. In fact the whole call seems to support the idea that they want help for Robert and they want it now! They didn’t ask for police, they asked for an ambulance. And when precious minutes seemed to be dragging by, Joe asked victor to ask what the time was. That’s a polite way of saying, “Don’t you guys take a half-hour getting here either.” The time marker was, perhaps of no importance; the reminder that time was flying by, was all-importaint.

    • Clio
      07/31/2010 at 4:45 PM

      Welcome back, alt! I agree with you that “typical” police tactics did not always work in this unconventional case. What kind of approach then would have elicited more information?

      How “searing” was the sight of the stabbed Robert upon Victor? He screamed, but the passion behind that scream is not conveyed in the interviews. From these tapes, “searing” is not the word that I would use.

      The entire 911 call is a performance, to me, and asking for the time is a part of a Culuket-inspired legal defense, already evolving just as Mr. Wone lay dead.

    • Tarfunk
      07/31/2010 at 9:09 PM

      The 911 operator states with no equivocation and no confusion that the time is “23:54”, after which she immediately rephrases it in 12-hour time as “11:54”. “11:54” in no way sounds like “11:43,” and I find it hard to believe that the time stamp these guys seemed to attach themselves to was a mishearing. If you’re concerned about when the paramedics are coming you ask “When will they get here?” or “How much longer before they get here?” What good is asking for the time in and of itself? Whatever good it did, it was no “reminder that time was flying by.”

      I don’t believe anyone has ever mentioned anything about the 911 operator on this site. I wonder if asked, if she would think anything about that call were unusual.

    • Kate
      08/01/2010 at 9:45 AM

      Altguy – I have listened and listened and listened again to Victor’s interviews and I must agree with your assessment. In my humble opinion, Victor seems to be as you described.

      His efforts in the second interview to more fully describe the “scream” or “grunts” that he heard – including his attempt to recreate the sounds (that was pretty searing to me) – appear to be a genuine effort to provide as much information as he can … to tell the truth, HIS truth of HIS experiences.

      What I find most telling about Victor is his behavior during the many, many minutes he was left alone at the end of the second interview. In his stunned quietude, I sense a mind replaying the events of the evening in order to make some sense of what happened. A sigh at the end of a period of silence in concentration. The eye and face rubbing to stay alert. A burp to ease an understandably upset stomach. Even his repeated checking of the clock at the end of the tape seem quite natural – “how much longer?”

      I realize all of the above may be projection on my part, but it seems believable behavior for an exhausted and shocked man who has been a partial witness to an unthinkable horror in his own home.

      Reading the transcripts vs. viewing the actual footage has made a big difference to me. I continue to rethink and rework the evidence, as we all do.

      I look forward to the Ward and Price interviews, especially those periods when they are alone.

      Many thanks and regards, Editors,

      • Kate
        08/01/2010 at 10:06 AM

        I forgot to add that I continue to have problems with certain factoids in the Victor interviews and will continue to rework and rethink – this process is greatly aided by the observations of fellow posters.

        Many thanks to all,

      • chilaw79
        08/01/2010 at 12:15 PM


        I agree that seeing and hearing the interviews is a lot different than reading the transcripts. I also have a lot of empathy for Victor, who is to me the most sympathetic of the three defendants. My opinion is colored by the fact that Victor seems to have vocal defenders. He obviously is a good friend to many people who have formed their own opinions of him. Much of what he says rings true to me.

      • carolina
        08/01/2010 at 2:49 PM

        I will have to agree here. I don’t think he lied so much as avoided the truth.

        • Kate
          08/02/2010 at 10:51 AM

          Yes, Carolina – there are some nebulous moments in Victor’s testimony that I’m still working through. Perhaps he simply doesn’t know … or doesn’t want to know.

          At the moment, I’m thinking of a great line from the film “A Few Good Men”:

          “You can’t handle the truth.”

          As Bea pointed out, he works diligently not to implicate his beloved Joe or Dylan, for that matter. While this seems quite natural for a spouse to be protective, I can’t get away from the sense that Victor has a tinge of fear of what he does not know for certain. Possibly a projection on my part, but the sense is there, notwithstanding.

          • Jeana
            08/02/2010 at 6:26 PM

            Kate –

            You have perfectly summed up my own impression of Victor, and the movie line is spot on!

            Like many other posters, I have formed the opinion that Victor is probably the least culpable of the three and therefore was the least knowledgeable at the time of his interview as to the cause of Robert’s death.

            I share your sense of his fearfulness, but would speculate that it’s more than a ‘tinge.’ His remark that his life will never be the same is, in my opinion, a direct (and probably unintended) expression of that fear.

            Victor appears to be an ‘avoider’ who has failed to confront the truth of his relationship with Joe, the presence of Dylan in their lives, Joe’s downward spiral into increasingly risky behavior, and now, perhaps, his suspicion that Joe and/or Dylan may have committed murder – probably hoping against hope that it was accidental rather than intentional.

            • Kate
              08/03/2010 at 8:53 AM

              Yes, Jeana – Victor’s fear was probably more than a tinge. I wonder if that fear isn’t still there, four years later? Or has it been buried so deeply, it’s dormant?


              • Jeana
                08/03/2010 at 9:27 AM

                Oh, I think it’s still there, Kate, and perhaps growing. Think about what he has most likely learned since that nite that he may not have known before: that Dylan is the love of Joe’s life, that Dylan intended to supplant him as Joe’s life partner, Joe’s affairs, ‘Culuket’, to say nothing of all of the, albeit flawed and disputed, forensic evidence. Victor’s continued allegiance to Joe and Dylan may now be nothing more than self-preservation.

    • chilaw79
      08/01/2010 at 2:43 PM

      The ambulance arrived while Victor was still on the phone with the 911 operator–total time from beginning to call to arrival of ambulance was six minutes.

  9. alternateguy
    07/31/2010 at 5:42 PM


    Others have suggested that Victor changes his demeanor and shows nervousness as soon as he starts to describe the discovery of the victim. And that, they suggest, is suspicious and likely comes from his untruthful answers. You suggest, on the other hand, that he doesn’t show enough passion in describing the scene. I see him as trying to control his emotions concerning what he saw, but almost failing to do so.

    I go along with those who say that Joe would obviously know that the exact timing of the 911 call was on record and asking about the time wouldn’t have had any affect on that record whatsoever. Asking about the time is, however, an indication that he wanted the ambulance ASAP and, being a lawyer, he might have wanted a check on just how long the response time was going to be. We’ve all heard stories of ambulances taking forever to arrive.

    • Clio
      07/31/2010 at 7:39 PM

      For me, both his nervousness and guardedness revolves around “my life will never be the same” than any concern about, or “searing” images from, Robert’s murder. That, to me, is at best a conserving, defensive posture around Joe and Dyl, one that demands the withholding of the most damaging information.

      And, Joe’s even odder demeanor at the scene did not indicate concern over the responsiveness of the emergency workers. And, ambulances in 2006 taking forever? No. In 1976? Maybe.

      • Bea
        07/31/2010 at 7:55 PM

        Even if Victor knew next to nothing, he knew that whatever “it” was involved his beloved Joe and, to me, he spent the night deflecting anything which spoke badly of Joe. “My life will never be the same” was the one clear view that he thought Joe would be arrested (and possibly him as an accomplice) but he was damned sure NOT going to be the reason Joe was going down. I don’t think that night that he really thought HE would be arrested – he saw himself as defending Joe. To me, especially if he knew very little, this would have been excusable had he recanted and told what he knew – now HIS life as public pariah WILL never be the same as a result. He could still be living in a toney neighborhood and having lovely cocktail parties as he spent his days as a respected marketing exec – and while he was aging, he was aging far better than Joe, he’d likely have found a nice partner (who treated him far better, by the way).

        Victor the fool. Joe played him perfectly.

        • Kate
          08/01/2010 at 9:54 AM

          Bea, as always, your assessments provide depth and intelligent insight – quite plausible psychological subtext to the complex dynamics within the Swann Street household.

          I agree, Joe certainly knows how to play Victor, again and again and again.


    • Josh
      07/31/2010 at 10:30 PM

      Alt, on this point you make no sense. If one’s concern is that one’s friend’s life is bleeding away by the minute, one doesn’t seek a “polite,” indirect way of encouraging the ambulance to hurry. Rather, one would yell angrily or hysterically. Also, if Joe’s concern was to lay the groundwork to make an issue of the response time, then his lawyerly knowledge that the “exact timing . . . was on record” would obviate asking the 911 operator what time it is.

      But the bigger flaw in your argument in defense of Victor’s credibility is the point that Susan made immediately after one of the earlier parts of VZ’s interrogation film. He insisted that he glanced in the room and saw things so fleetingly that he was confused about whether or not he saw a knife. Whether he did or not, neither version can be reconciled with his having said to the 911 operator “I think they have one of our knives.” This thought, according to what he told the detective, could not have come from his own observation. Ergo, it must have been something told to him by one of the other trouple.

      Perforce, his sincere-sounding claim not to have concerted his story with the others collapses. Joe did not merely tell him to “call 911.” He (or much less likely, Dylan) briefed him and told him what to say to the 911 operator. So much for their concern about Robert’s life bleeding away. And so much for any possible construction on this that holds that Victor is telling the truth. It is indisputable that he is lying or withholding. The only thing up for intelligent debate is how much.

      • altenateguy
        08/01/2010 at 12:04 AM


        I’ve never met Joe, but he sure doesn’t sound like someone who is going to go way out of control during an emergency situation and begin yelling either angrily or hysterically. While you or I might behave that way, that doesn’t sound like the way Joe would conduct himself, from what I’ve been reading. He sounds like a person with a lot of self-control.

        His actions were precise and were apparently directed towards helping and getting help for his injured friend ASAP. If Victor started to get hysterical, Joe handled he and the situation about as quickly and precisely as one could. Sent the hysterical Victor upstairs to get the phone so that he could attend to Robert.

        I’ll look forward to seeing his video of the interrogation. What I’m suggesting is that his lawyerly asking the time, was a way of putting the 911 operator, who he wasn’t in direct contact with, by the way, on notice that they were aware of the response time. Not, perhaps, a really well thought out action on Joe’s part, but more logical than yelling and screaming. Thought of this way, Joe’s actions might suggest that he is caring above all about getting quick help Robert. This, in spite of the fact that he may very well perceive that Robert is beyond help, he demands quick help nevertheless. In a cool, controlled and efficient manner.

        And Victor, by the way was told by Joe that Robert had been stabbed, so who knows where Victor came up with “…one of our knives.” Joe might have said that to him. Hardly sounds like a big conspiracy to me. As a matter of fact, none of the various statements sound at all well coordinated to me. Nevertheless they do tend to dovetail.

        • Bill 2
          08/01/2010 at 12:57 AM

          altenateguy, I’m truly amazed at the way you can read the machinations of that household. One thing has me wondering, though. It seems that you envision Joe sending “the hysterical Victor upstairs to get the phone so that he(Joe) could attend to Robert.”

          Is it not possible, altenateguy, that Joe wanted Victor out of the way so that he could get one additional precise stab into Robert? Does that possibility not exist in any way, shape or form?

          • alternateguy
            08/01/2010 at 9:28 AM

            Bill 2,

            You’re wild speculation is possible, of course, just not at all probable.

        • chilaw79
          08/01/2010 at 1:02 AM

          If Joe was so concerned about Robert, why wasn’t he continuing to apply pressure to the wound as instructed by the 911 operator? The EMTs said Joe was just sitting on the bed when they arrived.

          Why be coy about telling the 911 operator to send an ambulance as quickly as possible if you think your friend is dying? Why be a smartass and ask the time?

          Why not ask for police, if as the defendants allege, an intruder stabbed Robert and might still be in the house?

          There’s cool and then there is cold.

          • alternateguy
            08/01/2010 at 10:16 AM


            Joe was right there with Robert until the EMT came into the room. The EMT said that he was “…just sitting there…” Did he straighten up and cease applying pressure as the rather suspicious EMT came in the room? We don’t know. We do know, by all accounts, that blood wasn’t flowing out at that point. That Robert’s body appeared lifeless.

            Your use of the words “Coy” and “Smartass” suggest your pre-judgment. Joe was not on the phone with 911, but he had clearly stressed the need an ambulance right away. His intent to get quick help for Robert seemed his singular focus. A failure to ask also for police, how is that being cold? Or even suspicious in any way?

            Besides, they had told the 911 operator that there might be an intruder who had stabbed Robert. So you’re going to fault someone for not specifically asking for police when their clear focus is in getting help for Robert?

            Asking for the time, seems a rather human thing to do as well, given the circumstances. Hardly an action suggesting some orchestrated plot.

            • Josh
              08/01/2010 at 11:38 AM

              Alt: “Asking for the time, seems a rather human thing to do.”
              Well, yes, no other species do that.

            • Bill Orange
              08/01/2010 at 12:31 PM

              Please keep in mind that Dylan Ward said that he never saw Joe Price applying pressure to the body, either, which suggests that Joe Price stopped applying pressure (if he ever applied pressure in the first place) to Wone’s wounds well before the EMTs arrived.

            • Clio
              08/01/2010 at 1:41 PM

              Or, Joe may have been using the time of the 911 call to finish the cleanup with Dyl; most important, he may have needed to know the time in order to send off the unknown bagman with the sheets, cameras, etc.

              Vic may have been afraid to go downstairs with a husband like that on the loose, but the reassuring presence of the authorities made him step in line with Culuket and his “theory”.

            • Craig
              08/01/2010 at 2:05 PM

              alt.guy: Asking the time on a 911 call even caught the dipatcher off guard. “What time is it now,?” she replied.

              The EMT’s testimony is quite clear; Price was not administering aide when the first responder came into the room and was behaving curiously according to the veteran.

              And lastly, Price was an Eagle Scout, supposedly trained in life-saving techniques including CPR and there is no evidence he performed any. There was one single spot of blood on his middle finger according to his statements.

              That’s only a small number of elements that don’t add up. How many more incongruities do you need to fashion the slightest bit of skepticism?

            • chilaw79
              08/01/2010 at 3:09 PM

              The EMT did not testify that Joe was applying pressure to the wounds when he arrived.

              The failure of Victor and Joe to determine whether Joe and Sarah were OK is still unexplained. Although Joe says he thought Sarah might have come home, Victor does not mention any attempt to make sure Sarah was OK. Dylan ultimately appeared unscathed so that failure is less suspect.

              It is not clear how Victor can state on the 911 call that the back door was left unlocked. Had he or Joe been downstairs or was the back door left unlocked for a reason?

              I am stating my personal opinion, based on the criminal trial testimony, some of which I heard in person, and all of which I followed closely. You may have other sources of information that give you a fuller picture. You are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. If I misstate the facts, correct me.

        • Bea
          08/01/2010 at 4:15 AM

          Altguy, by all accounts Joe was a highly volatile individual so I disagree that he had a “lot” of self control in the manner in which you intend it. Asking the time in order to request that the dispatcher tell the ambulance to ‘hurry’ is a pretty obtuse method. Just by watching the excerpts of the interrogation videos, Joe is by far the most agitated, animated, and belligerent of the three – not one likely to toss arcane suggestions to a dispatcher. Too, I disagree that asking the time is demanding help “in a cool, controlled and efficient manner” – 911 dispatchers simply don’t have the time or inclination to parse through verbal gymnastics. Frankly, after all the many times the many people here have parsed through these words, I believe this is the first time ANY person has suggested this theory (hardly “efficient”).

          If Joe yelled out to Victor that “they” used one of their knives, why not yell out that he’d stopped breathing? We know from the defense team’s experts that Robert was dead well before the 911 call ended. Better yet, why not try CPR? It wouldn’t have worked, but wouldn’t you (or anyone) give it a shot?

          From Joe’s behavior (not doing CPR or any ‘life-saving measures’ according to Dylan) it certainly seems that Joe knew Robert was already dead. That he didn’t have Victor tell the dispatcher this info is a true head-scratcher. It’s interesting that when the dispatcher does try to get information about whether Robert WAS breathing, Victor is not forthcoming (same with whether he was conscious – but at least he directly answered). Joe the Eagle Scout would have done CPR (hell, I haven’t had CPR training but I know enough to TRY).

          If Robert was alive, I would have expected to hear things like “he is breathing but it’s becoming more labored” or “his heartbeat is becoming more faint” – things about Robert’s condition. I would have expected Joe (or anyone) to rip open Robert’s shirt to get an idea what happened to be able to know MORE about how to help. That Joe claimed to have pulled up his shirt enough to know he’d been stabbed (presumably saw the stomach wound) yet stopped and checked only for a pulse just never rang true. Of course that Joe pulled a knife from Robert’s chest but forgot to mention it is absurd (and absurd that he’d do so without a towel handy).

          Final thought: the Judge found it ‘highly likely’ that Joe pulled the knife from Robert’s chest. Taking Victor at his word that he didn’t know if he saw the knife the first time he saw Robert (the ambiguity noted AFTER the “Mercedes meeting”), he did state that when he did see the knife it was lying up against Robert’s body or on Robert’s body to the side.

          It didn’t strike me until now that Joe must’ve first pulled the knife from Robert’s chest and laid it ‘up against’ Robert’s body or on his body AND THEN LATER picked it up again and put it on the nightstand. OR it didn’t happen that way at all.

          • alternateguy
            08/01/2010 at 11:24 AM


            Being volatile or controlled, depending on the circumstances would seem a handy trait to have. Some folks can make that happen. (Not me.)

            NO WAY would anyone apply CPR to a multiple stab to the chest victim. Particularly if the 911 operator suggested otherwise! Failure to respond to questions concerning is he breathing could, just possibly, come from not being sure, not wanting to accept reality, or not wanting to be saying OK, he’s dead. Joe obviously wanted to get the professionals there ASAP and from all we know, he did work to make that happen.

            The judge also suggested that the act of pulling the knife out and then not admitting it, was not necessarily a sign of guilt, but could a compulsive act of someone not later wanting to admit their foolishness.

            Yes, I’ve considered that Joe likely pulled the knife out and immediately thought “Stupid! Stupid!” He also likely took a swipe at the knife handle as if to wipe off his fingerprints, but later thought that was stupid as well.

            He surely wouldn’t be ’t the first person to pull a knife out of a stabbing victim, particularly a friend. That’s a very human immediate reaction. He also then likely remembered hearing that doing so can be the wrong thing to do, and not knowing what the doctors would find, decided to clam up about his actions. If he did all of this, it doesn’t make him guilty of the murder. But it explains a lot.

            Yeah, I’m still playing the devil’s advocate. But someone’s got to do it.

            • Josh
              08/01/2010 at 11:44 AM

              Alt, you cannot all in one conversation tell us that:
              “Joe . . . . sounds like a person with a lot of self-control. His actions were precise . . . . Joe handled . . . the situation about as quickly and precisely as one could.”
              And then tell us:
              “Joe likely pulled the knife out and immediately thought ‘Stupid! Stupid!’ He also likely took a swipe at the knife handle as if to wipe off his fingerprints, but later thought that was stupid as well. . . . That’s a very human immediate reaction.”
              You’ve offered us two mutually contradictory portraits of Joe. You have to pick one or the other.

              • alternateguy
                08/01/2010 at 12:01 PM


                I’m saying that Joe would have acted within seconds of finding his very good friend stabbed. One can have a lot of control, but never total control. It is prestine thinking to believe that things are only either black or white.

            • Bill 2
              08/01/2010 at 12:11 PM

              “I’m still playing the devil’s advocate. But someone’s got to do it.”

              You’re absolutely right. Let’s play some more.

              What was the real purpose of the 911 phone call, alternateguy? Was the purpose to get help for Robert or was the purpose to create an alibi for three people?

              As you mention, alternateguy, there’s “NO WAY” that Joe should have done CPR, but why is there NO indication that he applied pressure to stop any flow of blood? Where are any towels to show he was doing that? Why did nobody see him doing ANYTHING to help Robert?

              And continuing your devil’s advocate playtime, can you explain how Victor would claim to be fearful of an intruder, yet not ask for police to protect the still living members of the household? Could the reason that there was no request for that protection be the result of already knowing that there really was no intruder?

              Having served in wartime battle situations, I can assure you that people can deal with multiple emergencies at the same time. In the situation at Swann Street there was a 911 request for an ambulance. Anyone fearful for their life and the well-being of others in the household would naturally ask for IMMEDIATE police help along with an ambulance. It seems a request for police wasn’t considered necessary. Why?

              Why didn’t Joe tell Victor to ask for police following the request for an ambulance? Why didn’t anyone check to see if Dylan was still breathing or stabbed to death in his bed? Why didn’t anyone shout to Dylan? Why didn’t Dylan shout to Victor to tell him to get cops there, too? Did Dylan also realize there was no intruder?

              • alternateguy
                08/01/2010 at 1:49 PM

                Bill 2,

                Come on now, wartime battle situations? They called 911 and told the operator what was going on. The result was multiple police, ambulance even fire trucks descending on their home. They did say that they thought an intruder had come into the house and had done a stabbing. Yet you find it suspicious that they didn’t specifically ask for the police? I’d say that that’s cutting a pretty fine point. When you speak to a 911 operator, it’s she, not you, who determines what to send.

                I do look forward to seeing the tapes. From the transcript I believe that Dylan explains himself rather convincingly. Wakes up groggy from sleep, slow to understand what’s happening, doesn’t know how to react. Sounds rather plausible to me. Not a story that one would make up if one were making up a story.

                • Bill 2
                  08/01/2010 at 2:06 PM

                  You are correct in saying the 911 person determines what to send. You are TOTALLY avoiding the fact that anyone in that situation would ask for police protection.

                  You also avoid the fact that nobody checked on Dylan.

                  You also avoid the fact that THREE people claim an intruder came into their house and NONE of them suggested that cops were needed immediately.

                  Your devil’s advocate game keeps falling apart because you won’t play fair. You want to create a scenario, attribute your own creative quotes as facts then ramble on to something else when you’re called on it.

                  Why didn’t Joe and Victor attempt to find out if Dylan was safe from the knife of an intruder? Is it because they already knew there was no intruder?

                  Let’s get on with your devil’s advocate game, alternateguy. Please answer some questions instead of trying to adjust and change the facts to your scenarios. It’s your idea to play this game.

                  • alternateguy
                    08/01/2010 at 5:05 PM

                    Bill 2

                    “You are TOTALLY avoiding the fact that anyone in that situation would ask for police protection.”

                    Where did you get that “fact?” Sounds mighty like an assumption to me. And you sound like you are faulting them for not thinking first of their personal safety. At the same time, they do tell the 911 operator that there may be an intruder.

                    “You also avoid the fact that nobody checked on Dylan.”

                    Which of the two of them were supposed to be doing that? The one attending to Robert or the one on the phone to 911? By all accounts, Dylan very soon appeared in the room. Are you saying that they were at fault for not stopping what they were doing and checking for Others?

                    “You also avoid the fact that THREE people claim an intruder came into their house and NONE of them suggested that cops were needed.”
                    TWO seemed to be considering that it must have been an intruder during the 911 call and clearly stated that fact. . They told the 911 operator this. Dylan was both confused and late on the scene, so how would he have been part of the 911 call? It is down-right silly to keep saying that it is a “fact” that they should have specifically asked for cops, when the Calvary was obviously on the way.

                    “Your devil’s advocate game keeps falling apart because you won’t play fair. You want to create a scenario, attribute your own creative quotes as facts then ramble on to something else when you’re called on it.”

                    Not rambling on here. Addressing your “facts” one by one. Your “facts, by the way, don’t seem very creative to me. You are mouthing ideas that have been repeated over and over and over on this site. Ideas, which I don’t see as being very factual, based on what recorded testimony I’ve read.

                    Then, How DARE I question these clear facts of yours?

                • carolina
                  08/01/2010 at 8:32 PM

                  It’s not that he didn’t think to ask for the police. He was asked if he wanted them and he declined.

                  • Bill 2
                    08/01/2010 at 8:49 PM

                    Thanks, carolina. I had forgotten that. They made so many little blunders in trying to establish their scenario that it’s easy to forget some of them.

                    • carolina
                      08/02/2010 at 6:38 PM

                      You’ll note Altguy has no reply to this inconvenient fact.

                  • alternateguy
                    08/03/2010 at 11:00 AM


                    Where did you get the idea that Victor DECLINED wanting the police?

                    I have been trying to find the 911 transcript or recording, do you know where it is?

                    In the prosecutors statement it is stated that when Victor was asked if he wanted police, fire or ambulance, “…he asked only for an ambulance.”

                    I suspect that that’s more than a bit misleading. If in fact, he didn’t actually say the words “ONLY an ambulance.”

                    Without his having said those words, the prosecutor should have stated, “He asked for an ambulance.” Typical miss-leading words from a prosecutor, I’m guessing.

                    He was asked to call for an ambulance, according to the interrogations, and he did this.

                    Without reading the transcript of the 911 call, I’m only guessing that Victor never used the words, “We only want an ambulance.”

                    If that turns out to be the case, then you see how misleading the prosecutors words can become. By the time it gets to you, it’s morphed into “Victor declined wanting the police.”

                    • Bill 2
                      08/03/2010 at 11:34 AM

                      Someone here stated, “Victor even comments that his life will never be the same, due to the fact that his young friend has died.”

                      Typical miss-leading words, don’t you think?

            • Bill Orange
              08/01/2010 at 12:35 PM

              “Joe obviously wanted to get the professionals there ASAP and from all we know, he did work to make that happen.”

              That’s not quite accurate. We have testimony from the next-door neighbor suggesting a delay in calling 911.

              • alternateguy
                08/01/2010 at 12:51 PM

                Bill Orange,

                A witness who reconstructs a time line based on an overheard TV show perceived to be going on in the next room, is hardly real credible. At least the judge didn’t seem to think so.

                • Clio
                  08/01/2010 at 1:31 PM

                  Here we go again! “Doubting the Thomases” must be a defense staple as well as one of Lynn’s biggest blunders. They heard what they heard: why would they make something like that up?

                  • alternateguy
                    08/01/2010 at 1:42 PM

                    Being wrong about something and making it up are too different things.

            • Bea
              08/01/2010 at 12:43 PM

              Altguy, if my friend STOPS breathing under my watch I will begin breathing for him. Joe performed no life-saving measures. Why? Because, in my estimation, he knew he was dead. Joe loves playing the hero, so he’d certainly have tried if only to make himself look good.

              No one touches a knife and then wipes the knife clean of prints EXCEPT CRIMINALS. I will give you that he could have touched the knife – but not then wiping the knife. And in any event, why tell during interrogations that he’d touched the knife and that they’d find his prints? I think you have the sequence wrong – he wiped the knife and then picked up the knife in a manner one uses to move an object.

              Again, why did he pull it from Robert’s chest then place it on the bed/against Robert where Victor saw it and THEN move it to the nightstand? I’m curious as to the devil’s advocate theory there.

              I think the devil’s advocate thing is helpful too and appreciate it – helps convince me that alternate theories don’t make sense and it would have had to have been Night of the 100 Coincidences and Odd Behaviors for these men not to be guilty. I find myself extending the ‘what if’ after seeing Victor’s interview (do believe he’s lying but that he doesn’t know yet what really happened) so it’s good to put all these inconsistencies and inaccuracies in context of how many leaps of faith one would have to go through to believe the story the men presented.

              • susan
                08/01/2010 at 11:03 PM


                That summarizes it: Night of 100 Coincidences!

                • Clio
                  08/02/2010 at 9:31 PM

                  OMG, Susan, that title sounds and probably reads like a supermarket fantasy novel, or, worse, an unfinished work by Djuna Barnes. At any rate, very few are “buying” it anymore.

                  • susan
                    08/02/2010 at 9:44 PM

                    It’s Bea’s creation, Clio. The full title she has is “Night of 100 Coincidences and Odd Behaviors.” Maybe it will make it into the civil trial

                    • Clio
                      08/02/2010 at 10:04 PM

                      A hat tip to Bea, as always. That title could be the If We Did It of this case.

            • carolina
              08/03/2010 at 7:45 PM

              Apparently the EMTs disagree with you about CPR to multiple chest wounds.

        • Clio
          08/01/2010 at 10:40 AM

          “He sounds like a person with a lot of self-control.” Why then did Dyl at first think that Joe and Vic were fighting? Why then would drugs be found in the house? Why then would he and Dyl need “thirds” such as Mr. Hixson? Self-control or out of control, that is the question!

          Lawyerly prudence would be appropriate, Alt, in that dire situation, only if you were guilty of something. The self-control that you sense may be Joe trying his hardest to come down after a “ket” high.

          Alt, you may be right about “our” knife. But, why was the staged knife there, then? It was one of their knives, but which one? And, of course, Joe knew it was one of the household’s knives in part because he may have used it/them himself.

        • carolina
          08/01/2010 at 8:31 PM

          So concerned for his dear friend that he didn’t bother to apply pressure with a towel?

        • mia
          08/02/2010 at 3:04 AM

          To have his own porn photos stored in the company computer doesn’t quite match the definition of self control.

  10. Eagle
    07/31/2010 at 9:44 PM

    What is telling to me is the fact that none of the three being questioned, express any curiosity or puzzlement or alarm or wonder or even surprise or upset that within a few short hours before, someone has been suddenly brutally murdered in their front room den.
    Very weird.

  11. altenateguy
    08/01/2010 at 12:25 AM


    What interviews have you been reading and watching? They all express curiosity, puzzlement, alarm and wonder as well as shock throughout the interrigations. Perhaps not to a degree that would satisfy you, but it’s there. None of them upset? Victor even comments that his life will never be the same, due to the fact that his young friend has died. They are in shock and shaking. What more can you want?

    • Bill 2
      08/01/2010 at 1:09 AM

      I’ve seen the “life will never be the same” phrase many times over. This is the first time I’ve seen it connected to “due to the fact that his young friend has died.”

      Did he actually speak that connection?

      I assumed he felt his life would never be the same because he was now involved in a murder case. I certainly don’t see him describing Robert as his “young friend” and Joe even seemed to remind him, at one point, that Robert was their friend, not just Joe’s friend.

      • Clio
        08/01/2010 at 6:22 AM

        Victor seems very tired (understandably after traveling from Denver), and he gets up to stretch at the beginning of Part 3. But he never “is in shock and shaking”, and certainly not at the thought of Robert’s murder.

        This nonchalance or seeming indifference leads me to believe that this was not the first time that Victor had to cover for one of his boys’ escapades: there may have been previous attempts at sedated/seduced “thirds” that did not require paramedics and police.

        • 08/01/2010 at 6:17 PM

          Victor shaking. The detective commented to Victor during the interrogation that he was shaking. I could not see Victor shaking on the videotape, but the angle and distance of the videotape recorder don’t offer a closeup. Probably Victor’s hands were shaking. I’d take the detective at his word on that observation.

          • Clio
            08/01/2010 at 6:38 PM

            Interesting, Gloria. I must have missed that comment from the detective. When exactly does this comment happen during the clip?

            • 08/01/2010 at 7:02 PM

              Part 3, 14:17 on the running counter. “You’re sitting here shaking.” Before “I’m reading your body language.”

              • Clio
                08/01/2010 at 7:17 PM

                Thanks. So, he was really upset after all, and this was after the “calming” Mercedes conference. That does change my view of Victor’s callousness a little bit, but the primary reason for the shaking was still probably not Robert.

          • carolina
            08/01/2010 at 8:46 PM

            My hands would shake, too, if I’d been on a business trip, flown home to what seems to have been a cool reception, dosed myself on Unisom and Sudafed and then tried to stay up all night.

            In other words, I’m not completely certain he was shaking because Robert Wone was dead.

        • Eagle
          08/01/2010 at 11:46 PM

          About the last paragraph: I agree.
          This is not the first time what ever happened happened and it is quite logical to think Victor has scurried to cover before. Previous attempts at sedate/seduced thirds that did not require public safety intervention comes to mind, just like you proposed.
          This whole postmortem process by the three housemates was just too synchronized, too smooth, too cool not to have happened before. IMHO of course.

      • alternateguy
        08/01/2010 at 11:33 AM

        Victor did, in the third interview, remind the interviewer that his friend had died that night. The dumb cop shouted back, “he didn’t die, he was murdered.” But Victor was clearly expressing the fact that he was upset by the death of a friend.

        • Bill 2
          08/01/2010 at 1:13 PM

          I don’t understand your version of devil’s advocate rules, alternateguy.

          You stated, “Victor even comments that his life will never be the same, due to the fact that his young friend has died.” Where did he state that specific connection? Is it something he actually stated or is it something YOU imagine he meant to say?

          When asked about it, you replied with a totally different version stating, “Victor did, in the third interview, remind the interviewer that his friend had died that night.”

          It makes things very difficult to follow the real history of events if your devil’s advocate game is going to include your own very creative quotations that never existed in real life.

          Expressing thoughts on what may have happened are no problem; we do that all the time. But if you’re going to state “possibilities” as “facts,” or create your own scenario and claim it’s proven or factual, that’s not always helpful and doesn’t fit the spirit of devil’s advocate.

        • Clio
          08/01/2010 at 1:16 PM

          Why is the cop “dumb” for stating the obvious there? Kasul can easily be criticized for his less-than-subtle jabs, but the use of that verb in that sentence was/is most appropriate.

          Victor notes the “death” of Robert as if he were commenting on a competition on Project Runway. And, it took till the third interview, after the Mercedes meeting, to do so. Any upset feelings that Ma’am may have had came from the realization that his life of privilege may be coming to an end, a realization that still really has not happened for Mr. Zaborsky. Miami, here we come!

        • carolina
          08/01/2010 at 8:47 PM

          Why was he dumb for confronting Victor with the ugly truth?

        • Eagle
          08/01/2010 at 11:52 PM

          The cop was not dumb: the facts are the facts. Robert did not just die. He was murdered. If Victor showed any indication that he was upset about it, I’ll eat my hat. His statement was nothing more than observant of a fact when he stated in a minimizing way that Robert had “died”. In fact, Victor shows a lack of dealing with reality. No shock.
          No nothing but a statement of fact-and that understated.
          Without correction by the detective, no honest conversation could have occurred.

      • carolina
        08/01/2010 at 8:42 PM

        He doesn’t even pronounce Robert’s name correctly. I doubt his life would have been forever changed had Robert been run down by a taxi.

    • Eagle
      08/01/2010 at 11:30 AM

      Victor’s expressing that life will never be the same for him is just a fact. Duh.
      And.. he does nothing to help resolve the situation and make life better for himself in the future.
      Do you see Victor soliciting any help from the police to solve this murder and make his life more respectable? Nope.
      Look at the body language, listen to the words e.g., the lack of any ideas or curiosity or puzzlement about how a horrendous event happened in their house only a few brief hours before this questioning. “I don’t know how this could have happened?” No.
      Do you hear any responsibility on their part, e.g., how this could have been avoided? How could we have gotten to Robert faster to help him? Concern that this will change the Wone’s life forever and it happened in our house? Expressions of horror for what happened to Robert and what he meant to Joe (allegedly) as a friend?Nope.
      As a group, they are sticking to the same idea. It is really an alibi. Yes, the intruder is their alibi. They express no other puzzlement, alarm for the neighborhood, curiosity about alternative ideas as to how this could have happened, regret for the fact that they door was left unlocked, concern for the last minutes and horror which happened to of their guest or sorrow for Robert’s loss. Do they solicit the police help in solving this terrible event that happened to them so it can be resolved and justice dispensed and the matter cleared up for them and their reputations? No such thing.
      Give me a break.

      • alternateguy
        08/01/2010 at 11:51 AM


        When the police ask you questions, you answer them. They quite willingly did. They are clearly being treated as suspects. Where is there room for chit-chat? They all express their desire for the police to find the truth, as well as their belief that the truth will come out. So not expressing concern about their reputations is a failing on their part?

        Now, YOU give ME a break.

        • Bill Orange
          08/01/2010 at 12:42 PM

          “When the police ask you questions, you answer them. They quite willingly did.”

          Again, this isn’t accurate. No one disclosed to the police that Michael Price had both a key and the security codes for the house. That’s a pretty big omission.

          • alternateguy
            08/01/2010 at 1:19 PM

            Bill Orange,

            The police didn’t ask who all had keys.

            • Bill Orange
              08/01/2010 at 3:00 PM

              They asked Joe on camera, but that’ll be in an upcoming interview.

              I suspect that they asked Victor before the tape started rolling, but I obviously can’t know that for sure. When someone is killed in a locked home, the obvious question is, “Who had the keys?” I would also guess that the police asked questions along the lines of, “Who do you think could have done this?” Remember, the videotaping didn’t start until after the first round of interviews (which was, in my opinion, one of the MANY major errors the police made that night).

            • carolina
              08/01/2010 at 8:48 PM

              Oh yes, they did.

        • Bea
          08/01/2010 at 12:57 PM

          Altguy, the detective in the final interview tells Victor what seems the most logical – one of you three did this, and you sure don’t seem like the killer, so don’t let this go so far as to completely implicate yourself.

          Eagle is right – the defendants would have seen this as an opportunity to help find the killer. Have you talked to This Neighbor who stays up late? Did you check Sarah’s doors to see if the killer came through her apartment? Not a single suggestion except “the script” version.

          The only possible “intruder” (as the Judge said) was a known intruder. A trick or Michael, neither of whom the trio would have risked a life in prison for. Realistically the only way I see the possibility of NONE of these defendants being involved in Robert’s murder is if Joe wrongly assumed Dylan did it and Dylan wrongly assumed Joe did it (while the trick left) and the ‘other’ cleaned the scene or performed some ‘finish him off’ act to protect the beloved. Frankly, that is just too far fetched – and still means one of them murdered Robert; I wonder how the trouple’s supporters can even live with the bare minimum of truth, that Joe Price let Robert stop breathing as he sat next to him and not even try to breathe for him.

          • Bruce
            08/01/2010 at 1:13 PM

            Wow, Bea:

            Pretty strong stuff. Can’t someone disagree with your theories or conclusions without taking their own lives?

            You have seen my postings. While I would not call myself a “trouple supporter,” I am trying to review the evidence objectively, with at least a bit of reasonable “benefit of a doubt.” Does that make me an Enemy of WKRW?

            Of course, I am a defense attorney with whatever bias you would apply to that.

            I don’t know CPR and wouldn’t try it on someone, even in an emergency, because my my ignorance in that regard might make the horrible situation worse. Further, is there any evidence that CPR would have saved Robert from the horrible injuries he suffered?

            I know that last question is a bit off-point, but before anyone goes killing themselves by disagreeing with you, they might want to know that.

            Can we really apply medical procedures and standards to a non-doctor?

            I know that Robert Wone was murdered, like everyone else. I am still confounded by all the mysteries in this case.

            I am not trying to suppress your opinions in any way, but can we leave off the death suggestions?

            • Bill 2
              08/01/2010 at 1:37 PM

              “I don’t know CPR and wouldn’t try it on someone, even in an emergency.”

              I find that amazing. I took CPR lessons before they were called CPR. I think they started as “Red Cross Lifesaving” for Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts, swim class at the community pool, Catholic elementary school, public high school, state university, military (over and over and over), federal government and state government. Every time the American Red Cross set new standards, I would end up in another class – and, no, it was not voluntary. I don’t think I know anyone who has never taken a CPR class. I just assume that it’s part of everyone’s life.

              Bruce, I hope you could at least do the Heimlich Maneuver if a friend suddenly began to choke on a piece of food.

              • Bill 2
                08/01/2010 at 1:46 PM

                One more thing — what you learn in a Red Cross class can save your own life. When I got shot (2 bullets through me), the Red Cross training immediately kicked in. No thoughts of “OMG, what do I do?” With total calm I phoned for help, explained the situation, and then calmly applied pressure to the entrance and exit wounds to stop the flow of blood (not a lot – small bullets). Bruce, you and everyone reading this should take a CPR course. They are only a few hours in an evening or weekend and are free.

                • Bruce
                  08/01/2010 at 2:01 PM


                  Your recommendation is a very good one, and I will personally try to take a basic CPR course.


                  • Eagle
                    08/02/2010 at 12:03 AM

                    And when you do take the course,
                    have confidence in the Heimlich Maneuver.
                    I was faced with trying it one time and honest to pete, that piece of chicken
                    came popping out like I had launched a missle. Very simple and very rewarding. I probably saved a life.
                    And I am a small person, too. The victim was much larger than I but in great distress.

              • Bruce
                08/01/2010 at 1:58 PM

                Hi Bill2:

                Doesn’t CPR require applying downward pressures on the chest, along with breathing in the mouth?

                Would it be correct CPR procedure to do that in this case with Robert Wone’s chest wounds? Could it cause further heart and lung injuries?

                Any medical people on here that can help with this?

                Sorry for my current ignorance on CPR. You know, your post did jog my memory a bit. I was a lifeguard many many many (did I say many?)years ago, when I had the body for it, and I must have had CPR training, but, again, I am sorry, it is now pretty gone from me? How many breaths? How many pressures on the chest?

                Again, sorry, but can’t accept your opinion that CPR is a “part of everyone’s life.”

                • Bill 2
                  08/01/2010 at 2:15 PM

                  Those classes cover more than just the breathing techniques. They cover stopping of bleeding and immobilizing injured body parts. You learn not to give CPR until something is done about bleeding. You also learn the Heimlich Maneuver. Please consider spending an evening or two in a Red Cross class.

                • chilaw79
                  08/01/2010 at 2:58 PM

                  The testimony in the criminal case was that CPR was performed during the ambulance trip from Swann Street to the hospital. Apparently, the trained EMT/firefighters thought it appropriate.

                  • Bruce
                    08/01/2010 at 3:29 PM

                    Hi Chilaw:

                    Good point! But I’m not quite sure that CPR with an equipped ambulance is the same thing as CPR without equipment.

                    However, since I have already shown my ignorance on CPR, I will say no more on the topic.

                    Again, I’m hoping that someone in the medical field can help us on this.

                    • chilaw79
                      08/01/2010 at 3:53 PM


                      Sadly, I think it is more likely than not that Robert was dead before 911 was called.

            • Bea
              08/01/2010 at 5:18 PM

              Death suggestions? Huh?

              Yes, I think one or more of the defendants caused Robert’s death, and that shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. If my friend stops breathing, I’m going to try to breathe for him since the ambulance is on the way. I think 99% of ordinary adults (and a very large percentage of children) would try to do the same.

              • Bruce
                08/01/2010 at 5:28 PM


                For context:

                “I wonder how the trouple’s supporters can even live with the bare minimum of truth…..”

                and my post was mostly toungue in cheek.

                Best regards, Bea.

                • Bruce
                  08/01/2010 at 5:48 PM


                  Bye the bye, Bea, We are somewhat similar: I think it more probable then not that one or more of the 3 murdered Robert Wone.

                  Your posts suggest a moral certainty in that regard.

                  That’s the big difference between us, as I see it. But you may be right and you have every right to express your opinion in these United States of America.

                  You may be right about the number of people that would do CPR, but with a lot of people (in my opinion, only) not knowing exactly how to do CPR, and pressing on his already severely damaged chest probably causing even more damage (in my opinion, only), it may have done nothing to help, and maybe have harmed (my opinion, only) him further.

                  I tend to agree with Chilaw that, sadly, it is probably more likely than not that Robert was dead before the 911 call (my opinion, and maybe Chilaw’s, only).

                  I guess, Bea, that I was just taken aback by the sterness of your last few lines in your longer post above in this regard.

                  It signified (maybe to me, only), a moral certitude and aspersion (seemingly unfair, probably to me only)upon others that I can’t quite grasp in this complicated case.

                  • Bea
                    08/01/2010 at 6:33 PM

                    We are good, Bruce. In rereading my words, I can see the interpretation which was fairly damning to all who ‘believed’ and that wasn’t my intention. I meant the ones who won’t consider the alternatives, particularly the Lisa Goddards of the world.

                    I don’t have moral certainty that the defendants murdered Robert Wone, but I do have moral certainty that they each know more than they’ve told, and I strongly suspect that Joe and possibly Dylan were involved with the murder in an active sense. I don’t think Victor had anything to do with his death – and that Robert was likely dead by the time he learned anything (though he may not have been told that Robert was dead).

                    I enjoy your posts and like seeing different perspectives. I guess I am frustrated by Altguy as much I much frustrate him. No worries on that either.

                    • Bruce
                      08/01/2010 at 6:36 PM

                      Peace + Love and sorry if I was harsh.


                    • Jeana
                      08/01/2010 at 6:59 PM

                      Bea and Bruce – I’m pleased that you two have made up. LOL You both rank highly among my favorite posters to this site.

            • carolina
              08/01/2010 at 8:52 PM

              I think Joe the Eagle Scout could have performed CPR.

              As for “death suggestions,” I think you are just a tad literal.

              • Bruce
                08/02/2010 at 10:28 AM


                You are right. “Death suggestions” was a bit over the top, and certainly ridiculously literal.

                A bit tongue in cheek and a bit serious, I was mostly making a bit of fun of Bea’s post earlier which said, at the end:

                “I wonder how the trouple’s supporters can even live with the bare minimum of truth, that Joe Price let Robert stop breathing as he sat next to him and not even try to breathe for him.”

                Which seemed to me, at least, to be a bit Joan Crawford.

                I looked at “even live with” from that paragraph and ran off at the mouth with “taking one’s life” and “death suggestions” in my post.

                I was having a boring Sunday afternoon, and Bea’s post sort of tickled me.
                I realize the silliness of the whole thing, and Bea and I are good, and the world goes round and round.


          • 08/01/2010 at 6:36 PM

            A tiny detail about the neighbors: Some place (I cannot find it — not in the transcripts of Joe’s interrogations at Anacostia which I just reread, looking for the reference), Joe referred to the walls of the row houses being thin enough that they hear the next door neighbor’s baby. I assume that would be 1511 Swann, since the (elderly) Thomases live in 1507. 1511 is the Ingram house — that of the turtle sandbox (thus, a small child) that the housekeeper testified had been bashed in. She worked in the daytime. I know pater Ingram was out of town (which is why the housekeeper returned to check on the house the day after Robert’s murder. I do not know (but assume) that the Ingram house was empty that night, so no one would have been there to hear noises in 1509. Which house (1511 or 1507) shares a wall with the guestroom in 1509?

            • Jeana
              08/01/2010 at 6:57 PM

              Interesting, isn’t it, that the house next door would be empty on the same nite that Sarah was (possibly) sent away and Victor was not expected to be at home.

              • carolina
                08/01/2010 at 8:54 PM

                Absolutely total coincidence, I’m sure.

                There should be a font to denote sarcasm.

            • Kate
              08/02/2010 at 6:32 PM

              Hi Gloria – I believe both houses share a wall with the guestroom/office. It appears to run the entire width of the front elevation.

              Hope that is helpful … I’m going off to check the pix to make sure!


        • Eagle
          08/01/2010 at 7:23 PM

          What you describe as “chit-chat” is the emotional and cognitive reactions which one would expect from someone who has just experienced a violent trauma in his house. None of those were ever present. Not ever.
          Victor’s reactions appear to be disciplined and calculated and knowing.. Frankly, why would he have the reactions that one would expect of someone experiencing a trauma of unknown origin if he already knew what had happened?
          He would not have those expected reactions if he already knew what happened.
          The intruder is his alibi and there was no intruder. Not even a
          scintilla of evidence of an intruder.
          He doesn’t need to be concerned with a mystery. He already knows the answer.

          • carolina
            08/01/2010 at 8:55 PM

            Did the three men go back to the house that morning?

          • alternateguy
            08/02/2010 at 11:42 AM


            Maybe you would expect more display of emotion from some someone under the circumstances, but I expect that if there had been such a wailing and gnashing of teeth, on Victor’s part, you would have jumpped on this as being even more proof of deception.

            Under the circumstances Victor’s barely controlled show of emotion comes across as very believable to me. He is, after all, not talking to his therapist, but trying very hard to answer the police’s questions, starting with, “What do you remember?”

            Without a good night’s sleep, by the way, which Victor is NOT going to have, some of his memory of genre details of his day are likely going to be forgotten. Not knowing what is or is not important, he proceeds to document what he remembers starting with his return home.

            But if you already know that he knows what is or is not important, then his inclusion of extraneous detail, would just be an act, as you seem to know it is.

            Your analysis of the TV interview seems based on your assumption that you know, beyond all doubt, that there was no intruder. That Victor knew that there was no intruder, and further that he knew what had, in fact, taken place.

            Since you already know that Victor was lying. OF COURSE his testimony is not to be believed. So, why don’t we all see that? Just dense, I guess.

            • Eagle
              08/02/2010 at 4:06 PM

              Are you sure you are not a Congressman?
              You are really good at pointing the finger at the messengers.
              I think it is quite apparent where you stand.
              Well- stand there.
              Toodleloo kangeroo.

              • alternateguy
                08/02/2010 at 5:10 PM

                Likewise, I’m sure.

    • Robert H
      08/01/2010 at 8:48 PM

      Like the detective said Victor’s friend didn’t just “die” he was “murdered”…and there was no sadness, no tears from Victor whatsoever. He could of been reading from a script from what I saw of the 3 interviews. How come Vic and his buddies knew the “murderer” had left the house right after they awoke to the so-called screams?

      • alternateguy
        08/02/2010 at 12:30 PM

        o Robert H
        “Like the detective said Victor’s friend didn’t just “die” he was “murdered”…and there was no sadness, no tears from Victor whatsoever. He could of been reading from a script from what I saw of the 3 interviews. How come Vic and his buddies knew the “murderer” had left the house right after they awoke to the so-called screams?”

        Funny, but when I heard Victor say that they had just had a friend die that night, it sounded like he was on the verge of tears. I’m quite familiar with play-acting, and I perceived absolutely no script-reading or mouthed lines here whatsoever.

        Where did you get the idea that Victor and friends knew that the murderer left the house? Victor did say that he thought that he heard the door chime about the time that he himself was screaming. And yet Victor was afraid to even go downstairs and open the door until he saw out the window that help was actually arriving.

        • Bill 2
          08/02/2010 at 12:39 PM

          “And yet Victor was afraid to even go downstairs”

          How do you know that he was afraid? You keep creating “facts” from what could very well be fiction. If he already knew that there was no intruder (Don’t forget the judge said there was NO intruder.), there was no reason to be afraid. If he “said” he was afraid, you can state that, but you absolutely do not have any way of knowing that he was afraid. Sorry for having to point out how your stated facts are fiction, but I’m just joining your version of your game of devil’s advocate.

          • alternateguy
            08/02/2010 at 1:02 PM

            Bill 2,

            How do I know he was afraid? Of course I can’t, any more than others can know that he wasn’t. He said that he was. And not having the Judge’s words to assure him at the time, perhaps he was. If, on the other hand we know that he was lying about thinking that there might be an intruder in the house, then we know that he was lying. Simple.

            Those that know he was lying, know that he was lying. But, I for one, am not yet convinced that he was. I just haven’t seen any solid evidence to the fact, and I see much illogic in arguments disputing these guys testimony.

            If the judge, in her wisdom, knows for a fact that there was no possible intruder, that’s not to say that any or all of the defendants could have known that fact at the time they gave their testimony. Unless, of course they knew otherwise, which is speculation no matter how you look at it.

            • Bill 2
              08/02/2010 at 1:44 PM

              It doesn’t matter who knows he was lying or not, what matters is that YOU claimed “Victor was afraid.”

              As in your past elaborate scenarios, you are making claims you can’t prove. You are passing it off as a “fact” that he was afraid. You didn’t say he “claimed to be afraid.” You stated factually that “Victor was afraid.” Stop twisting your observations into facts. Try to go with the truth of what was actually stated or what we know to be a fact. If you want to play your devil’s advocate game, it does no good to create fiction and pretend that it is factual.

              • alternateguy
                08/02/2010 at 1:52 PM

                Sorry, Bill 2

                I just assumed that, since I was talking about V’s testamoney, a reader would know what I was referring to. In the future, I’ll try to be more precise.

  12. susan
    08/01/2010 at 1:25 AM

    VZ seems sincere, but one thing he said, however honestly or not, he cannot verify. He said that none of them talked beforehand or arranged their stories. But he was sent away for the 911 call, and according to his own testimony, when he went back downstairs, Dylan Ward was in the doorway of RW’s room. There was a convo. that had to have happened that he missed. Surely, DW didn’t come out of his room go to RW’s room, see Joe Price, stand there and say nothing at all with JP saying nothing back until Victor Z. was back on the scene. That is just one thing VZ cannot be “100% sure” of.

    • Bea
      08/01/2010 at 3:43 AM

      Agree, Susan. As Josh noted above, too, while he claimed that he wasn’t sure if he saw the knife the first time he saw Robert, he “immediately” went upstairs at Joe’s instruction, and he distinctly told the 911 dispatcher that “we think they had one of our knives.”

      Even if he relayed this info to the dispatcher after he went downstairs again and saw the knife, it seems implausible that he’d identify the knife from across the room (he never got close to Robert’s body). If he DID identify the knife from across the room, then why say “we think” it was one of their knives? This from a man who could barely force himself to look at Robert.

      • Clio
        08/01/2010 at 6:07 AM

        And, what was Mr. Ward really doing in the background? Finishing off his article for tips on how to lay out a dead body? Taking yet another shower for the arrival of Diane Durham? His sleeping pill certainly could not have been that powerful as to render him a total bystander in the evening’s events.

        To really be a dom means that the sub(s) has/have to trust the dom completely. Yet, in this crisis, the household’s titular dom could not be entrusted with anything, at least according to Joe’s official story.

      • carolina
        08/01/2010 at 8:57 PM

        More importantly, if Victor saw the knife, why would he indicate the intruder still had it?

    • carolina
      08/01/2010 at 8:58 PM

      If they didn’t confer, how could they have both given the wrong time stamp? Especially if we want to stick our heads in the sand and believe Joe’s claim that he never asked the time.

  13. Jeana
    08/01/2010 at 1:52 PM

    Some points to consider – random thoughts, really – on V’s interiews. They do not present a cohesive theory and are sometimes contradictory, but that’s what trials are for.

    1. Why in the world, in the first interview, would V answer the interrogator’s initial question, “Can you just go ahead and tell me what you remeber about what happened tonight?” with a rambling, detailed account of the trouple’s early evening activities commencing with his return from Denver, the comings and goings, the showers, the plumbing problems, the plant watering, dinner, the television-watching, the cable TV issue, etc., etc.? Were I the interrogator, my suspicion would be immediately aroused. I cannot imagine anyone in V’s situation answering that initial question with anything that occurred prior to finding Rober in distress. All detail would be erased by that discovery, only to be recovered, if at all, later in the interview through specific and follow-up questions such as: what time did you go to bed, did you go right to sleep, what were you watching on TV, did you take any medications, who else was in the house and where were they, what time did Robert arrive, what did you hear and when did you hear it, etc., etc. V’s lengthy answer and all its irrelevant (at that point) detail leads me to beleive that the trouple got their “story” together long before the Anacostia interrogations. Why were these seemingly innocuous details so important to them? Perhaps in order to cover up the fractures in the relationships, to put forward a picture of a normal, tension-free, family evening, and to account for the unusual water usage in case anybody checked the water meter.

    2. In the second interview, V answers the same question in the same way with the same (or similar) details. That kind of repetitive, detail rich story-telling is highly suspect.

    3. Other posters have pointed to the contrast between V’s hysteria (high-pitched voice, paning, seeming panic) while talking to the 911 dispatcher and his more controlled demeanor when repeating her questions about Robert’s condition to J. Frankly, I don’t find anything suspect in that contrast. I believe that 911 dispatchers are trained to defuse hysteria by asking specific questions and directing the caller to take actions in order to focus them on the reason for the call rather than their reactions to it.

    4. J tells V to ask the 911 dispatcher for the time and both J and V get it wrong in their interrogations. There could be an innocent explanation for this. If J really doesn’t know what time it us, he may be trying to determine how much time had elapsed between going to bed and the attack on Robert. He could even have seen the clock in the guest room and, being stunned at how little time had elapsed between those two events, wanted verification of the time. In this scenario, it was the range of time between the two events that was important to him, not the exact time given by the dispatcher. So J gets it wrong, repeats it to V who was too hysterical to remember the dispatcher’s words and, therefore, repeats what J told him to the interrogator.

    5. D’s apparent absence from the scene until V’s second foray downsstairs. This is one that screams out to me. If V (and presumably J) heard the screams/grunts from their third floor bedroom, why did D not hear from right across the hall? Even if he was too frightened to come out of his room immediately, he surely would have done so upon hearing J’s and V’s voices. Was he stoned, busy, or out of the house? Could that chime V heard have been D going out or coming back in? Did J send D downstairs to let someone out or to open the back door so that investigators would find it ‘ajar’? There has to be a reason why J, in particular, wasn’t checking on D’s welfare when D was, presumably, the love of his life.

    • Liam
      08/01/2010 at 4:43 PM

      I too thought his rambling, detailed account of every seemingly extraneous detail of the whole evening was very strange.

      I tried to rationalize it as maybe that’s the way he is. As an “Ad Man”, maybe he likes to express himself in detail.

      However, I’ve been told by other posters that J and D (or at least J) share similar extraneous details during their interrogations, which supports the theory that their stories were rehearsed or pre-planned.

      I have not read the transcripts of the other interrogations and I don’t want to. I want to hear it and the intonation of their voices, and I want to see it and their body language.

    • Clio
      08/01/2010 at 7:11 PM

      Jeana, I had never thought of the entire, detailed, and pre-murder narrative, their “forest”, as suspicious before your post; I was more suspicious of the individual “trees” of the gym, the steaks, the phone call about the kids, watering the plants, Project Runway, etc. Thanks for that insight, which takes us out of the weeds.

      Also, Dyl as complete bystander after murder makes no sense to me, too: he answered the door for Robert, engaged in small talk, went to bed, and then checked out literally until the police arrived?

      • carolina
        08/01/2010 at 9:01 PM

        And his father is a doctor. You’d think he’d be capable of basic lifesaving techniques, wouldn’t you?

      • susan
        08/01/2010 at 11:40 PM

        Clio, he also checked out when he went back into his room when police came. An odd time, with a murdered man, police and paramedics in the home, to retire to one’s bedroom. Maybe he was checking on something.

        • Bill Orange
          08/01/2010 at 11:55 PM

          He could have been putting his knife case on a high shelf. Or he could’ve just been getting out of the way. Who knows? I confess that I really don’t “get” Dylan at all. My gut tells me that he wasn’t really stupid enough to think that he was going to replace Victor, even though it seems pretty clear that Joe was infatuated with Dylan. He seems to approach things with a sort of clinical detachment: He highlights S&M manuals. He seems unfazed by the dead body in down the hall. He is totally unaffected by Princess Sparkle Kitty. I really don’t understand what makes him tick.

          • Eagle
            08/02/2010 at 12:12 AM

            Bill Orange:
            As my mother used to say: “he hasn’t got all his buttons.”

          • 08/02/2010 at 12:44 AM

            And he was about the only one at the trial seemingly unfazed by the “torture” his mother was going through in testifying about the knife. She was an emotional wreck, trying so hard to be truthful but knowing her testimony could help/hurt her son. Most of us in the courtroom were squirming with discomfort, even not knowing her.

            He — the reason for her having been called by the Defense from her home on the West Coast to testify in a criminal trial about her son — looked on with “clinical detachment.” I watched his every muscle throughout. But most of us were convinced he was the main culprit UNTIL we saw the video of his first recorded interrogation and then we flipped, persuaded by his apparent truthfulness. Well, this coming week, we’ll focus on Dylan, courtesy of Craig, Michael, David and Doug, our guides through the thicket.

            • Bill 2
              08/02/2010 at 11:38 AM

              Don’t forget that BDSM involves role playing. It’s easy to view Dylan’s “apparent truthfulness” as another role that he’s playing for a police audience.

              Joe Price is the other person involved in BDSM. Anything he says on the tapes can also be looked upon as more role playing.

              In the performance art of Joe and Dylan, we can assume that Joe doubles as the director when off camera.

              Neither Joe nor Dylan provides us with an Oscar-winning performance and their script contains a lot of holes. Still, their role playing has held off any serious charges from the bumbling DC police for four years. If Margaret Truman were still with us, she could be taking notes for “Murder on Swann Street” to add to her series of DC murder mysteries.

          • Bruce
            08/02/2010 at 10:38 AM

            Your a good girl, Princess Sprarkle Kitty, good girl, yes you’re daddy’s very good girl….

            • Clio
              08/02/2010 at 9:45 PM

              LOL! Bruce, you’d make a great writer for Hallmark — they may be looking for that very kind of niche doggerel.

              I wonder if the trouple are still sending cards to each other, or do their attorneys have to screen such sentiments these days?

    • Bill 2
      08/01/2010 at 7:38 PM

      “D’s apparent absence from the scene until V’s second foray downstairs. This is one that screams out to me.”

      Jeana – You really hit it out of the ballpark with this one. The neighbors should have heard Joe and/or Victor screaming, “DYLAN! ARE YOU OKAY? WHERE ARE YOU DYLAN? HELP US, DYLAN!” All three men, in their testimony, should have been reporting that. They apparently didn’t even consider it. Why? The answer would have to be: Because they knew there was no danger to Dylan posed by any intruder.

      When there is real danger present, and a nearby loved one is unaccounted for, you don’t let a moment pass before you find out if he/she is okay. It’s obvious that they already knew that, unlike Robert, Dylan did not have a knife in his chest.

      • Jeana
        08/01/2010 at 7:54 PM

        The neighbors may not have been at home – according to Gloria’s post a bit earlier this evening. Still, that doesn’t negate the fact that neither Joe nor Victor – among all the detail they gave about their movements – never expressed any concern for Dylan nor any efforts to check on his welfare.

        • Bill 2
          08/01/2010 at 8:09 PM

          The neighbors on the other side were home. The man said he heard one scream. IF there had really been an intruder, the neighbors should have heard Joe or Victor yelling to Dylan.

  14. alternateguy
    08/01/2010 at 2:15 PM


    Good points you make. It’s easy to be suspicious here.

    I feel that Victor’s telling the whole thing from the beginning can come from the fact that he truly fails to understand all that has happened and is trying to make sense of it. He sounds very much like a guy who wants the detectives to make sense of it.

    His suggestions that his friends are not guilty can be coming from a very deep conviction. If someone were to suggest that your close family member was guilty of murder, wouldn’t your reaction be “No, Impossible? Of course, if these guys aren’t what they say they are, then we can read anything else into it that we want.

    • Jeana
      08/01/2010 at 3:23 PM

      alternate guy –

      I’d find your first premise moe persuasive had these details come out later in the interview. But, to me, the fact that his answer began with the evening’s timeline and all he extraneous detail (much of which took place hours before the shocking event that was the subject of the interview)smacks of a rehearsed story. It gives the appearance of the interviewee getting the whole story line out before he starts to forget the talking points.

      I’ll concede your second point, however, I think it’s of little significance to the truth-determining process that none of the three would or could admit – at the time of the interviews that night – to the possibility that either of the others was capable of murder. We don’t know whether any of them may be having second thoughts.

      • Bill Orange
        08/01/2010 at 7:25 PM

        Again, keep in mind that the videos only cover the last part of the interrogation. Giving Victor the benefit of the doubt, he may be starting from the beginning and giving all of the details simply because he was asked for all of these things in the previous interviews that evening.

        I tend to agree with Bea about Victor’s interviews. I think he’s telling the truth most of the time, but I don’t think he’s telling ALL of the truth.

        • Jeana
          08/01/2010 at 8:11 PM

          Oops! I hadn’t read your post on the pre-video questioning before I posted. Still, hearing V’s narratve of his version of the evening’s activities – and putting that up against all the other pieces of evidence (the e-mail suggesting ‘playtime’ while V is away, V’s early return from Denver, J failing to wait for him at the gym, V not waiting up to greet Robert, J’s more-than-just-sex relationship with Dylan, etc.) leads me to believe that the three were engaging in a concerted effort to deflect attention from the tensions in their relationships with seemingly innocuous detail – to say nothing of the water usage issue (which I admit I’m a bit hung up on!)

          • carolina
            08/01/2010 at 9:07 PM

            If someone asked me to tell them what happened that night, I would not assume they wanted to hear about the gym or the steaks. I may have said, “I was exhausted, I watched some TV and took a Unisom and a Sudafed and woke up to disturbing sounds” and then think anyone would care about the details of the evening before Robert arrived unless I was making a timeline.

            • carolina
              08/01/2010 at 9:08 PM

              Sorry, kitty-edit. I meant to say, …and then take it from the point of waking up. I wouldn’t think anyone…

            • Bill Orange
              08/01/2010 at 11:43 PM

              It really could go either way. The detectives may very well have asked him earlier to detail everything he did from the time he arrived home that night. Alternatively, the three could have planned to simply tell the truth, in excruciating detail, about everything that happened that night EXCEPT for a few key things.

              • Bea
                08/02/2010 at 1:42 AM

                I agree that Victor was told to tell the story he knew with the exception that Joe was present with him when he heard the scream and then ANY of the discussion plus adding the intruder thing. Less complicated to keep with the facts (though not the emotions or brouhaha that may have been circling).

                Still think occasionally about Victor’s statements that he and Joe paused in the doorway to listen before deciding to go downstairs – again, because Victor was behind Joe, he wouldn’t know the reason for the pause (let alone to have it match completely – wouldn’t he just have said that he’d paused, not provided the exact statement Joe claimed was his reasoning?).

                • Clio
                  08/02/2010 at 5:45 AM

                  Getting the story right was critically important for the Triple Alliance. Why then would Joe give “that dirty look” to Dyl rather than to Vic, after the police had arrived? Had he not had the face time with Dyl as he had had with Vic in putting together the cover story details?

  15. Clio
    08/01/2010 at 7:49 PM

    There have been 105 comments and counting on this Friday post in high summer, little over one month after Lynn’s “cold comfort” and little over one month before Brook’s event, and almost four years after Robert’s murder: “the flies and assorted pests”, I am afraid, Joe, are still swarming on the Island.

  16. EricFormerlyNewbie
    08/02/2010 at 10:01 AM

    re: extensive thread involving Alt, Bruce and others about the willingness of the trouple to assist the police or not.

    what stands out is this: the catch 22 comment. Joe Price tells a friend that he wishes he could tell the police everything that he knew but can not for fear of getting arrested.

    Well, Joe, you were acquitted of conspiracy, tampering and obstruction and double jeopardy applies. Where are you now in assisting the police? The only reason not to help is that you committed the murder or are still covering for the murderer. Solving this case restores credibility in the face of the judges comments. It surely would help in the civil case. Oh, and by the way, bring closure to the Wone family.

    For some reason I don’t see Joe ever helping the police “find the real killer”. To me, that refutes any notion that Joe has had nothing but Robert’s concern in mind from the start.

    • Bruce
      08/02/2010 at 11:10 AM


      You set forth compelling reasons for Joe to come forward to the police now.

      Yet, everything the Swann 3 did and said when they voluntarily went to the police station the night of the murder and spoke for hours upon hours without legal representation, every word, every sentence, every attempt to clarify, every look, every touch of the face, every bit of clothing worn, everything everything everything was chopped, sliced, diced, and fileted and served as virtually the entire case of the prosecution against them in the criminal case.

      I’m not saying that Joe shouldn’t speak to the police now if he can help out. I truly wish all of them would give more info as to what they know, including who murdered Robert Wone, even if it were one or more of them. Unless one or more of them do, we may never know the answers everyone wants.

      I’m just saying: don’t expect it, unless Joe is the total idiot that we all know he is not. The City has indicated that they have an open file on murder charges. Hello!!!

      After the transposition of their statements into virtually the entire criminal case against them, shouldn’t we all finally put to bed speculation and fantasies as to whether the Swann 3 should talk now to the police, and what their failure to do so, means? There are headier issues to examine in this case.

      Certainly, you have every right to use the absence of anything said to the police now to refute any notion that Joe has or ever has had any concern for Robert Wone and his family and friends, and this blog is all about such discussions and back and forth.

      In my view, however, considering that the criminal trial and evidence all came from the words and appearances they used when speaking to the police before, it’s just not worth going down that road of inquiry.

      Sadly, neither Mrs. Wone nor the police should expect any help from the Swann 3 now.


      • EricFormerlyNewbie
        08/02/2010 at 11:39 AM

        Agree 100%. I am certainly not making a plea or a case for any of the three to talk to the police. Not going to happen. I was jumping in late to the devil’s advocate discussion about the 3’s behavior during and immediately after the crime. I do not believe, given the affidavit, testimony or otherwise that behavior and response was motivated by doing everything possible to save Robert’s life. I simply can not believe that line of reasoning.

  17. sixdegrees
    08/02/2010 at 1:43 PM

    I discovered this site shortly after the verdict and have been reading it–and much of the previous posts and commentary–ever since. Thanks to the editors for this heroic effort and thanks to the many posters whose comments have helped make sense of happened four years ago tonight. There can be no other conclusion that the three have colluded in covering up what happened, including that at least one person was directly involved with Robert’s death, and that there was massive tampering with the crime scene. Some thoughts:

    In listening to VZ’s tapes, I keep thinking about him describing Robert as “a casual friend.” But Robert was Joe’s long time college friend–perhaps casual to VZ or DW–but not Joe. I think this was a deliberate attempt to distance themselves but especially Joe, from Robert. (Joe reminded VZ at the house that he was “our friend,” ie I didn’t have any special connection to him.) This would also fit with a scenario that involved saying that they really didn’t know Robert or what he was up to–trying to leave open the idea that this might have been a hit on Robert. Of course, this would not stand up to any kind of scrutiny by the police, but in the time the were together before the police arrived, it might have seemed a plausible explanation to Joe for the “intruder” as Joe is desperately orchestrating their response.

    The scenario several commenters have put forth of Joe and/or Dylan (and maybe a fourth person who left with evidence)drugging and paralyzing Robert in order to violate him, thinking him dead, panic, stabbing, the cover up etc. is the only explanation that makes sense of all the evidence.

    I have gone around and around about how someone could do something like that to a friend, or at least allow it to be done, and I think the explanation is that Joe thrived on risk–the pornography on his work computer,his double life with Dylan. And he seems desperate to please Dylan.

    In another thread, there was discussion of why Joe made it official with Dylan. I believe that Joe entered into a partnership with VZ as another and important brick in his wall of upstanding citizen–professional, father, civil rights activist, committed, now partner–that hid his relationship to DW and all that that involved.

  18. Bruce
    08/02/2010 at 3:46 PM

    Hi sixdegrees:

    Your opinions seem as thoughtful and possible as any in this blog on this convoluted case. Welcome.

    You bring up the “he’s Joe’s friend” business, and that has also struck me as somewhat odd, but not particularly important in my view.

    Especially Dylan, but also Victor, in the transcribed statements, refer to Robert Wone as being “Joe’s friend,” as opposed to being necessarily their friends. But this seems pretty natural to me, since both Victor and Dylan did not have the history or association with Robert Wone that Joe did.

    I did not take it as any expression that they didn’t like Robert, just that the one he had the biggest connection with was Joe.

    Obviously, Victor went to Robert’s wedding with Joe, and they all got together occasionally before the murder, with Robert’s birthday party being put on by the Swann 3, going to visit Robert’s wife after her operation, going to Robert’s wife’s home after the murder, etc.

    Joe was a pallbearer and the others weren’t. It was Joe with all the history with Robert. The others seemed to like Robert and engaged in activities with Robert and his wife.

    It struck me from the transcript of Dylan’s statements to the police that Dylan was a little pissed off that he had to go down and open the door when Robert rang the doorbell that night. Again, he’s Joe’s friend and Joe should answer the bell. Maybe this is evidence of a tiff, who knows? But it just does not smell like murder or crimes of passion to me.

    Anyone who has lived with anyone, particularly anyone who has lived with 2 other people, have tiffs and little disagreements. It has happened with me many times. We are human and we have good moods and bad moods.

    Some here have suggested that Victor going to bed early, not seeing Robert before the murder (that we know), and going around the house and front yard watering plants that night suggests he was pissed off at the others, but I don’t see it. Maybe he watered them every Wednesday night. Maybe they had been watered by the others while he was gone, and he did it out of habit? Who knows? Who cares?

    Simply stated, if we take out the “sex part” of the relationships, and I don’t even know where to begin there, it seemed that each led a pretty independent life, and seemed to get along pretty well for three human beings under the same roof. They all seemed to like each other as “friends” at least.

    Absolutely none of that aspect of their lives really influences me or strikes me as anything contributing to…..murder, rape or crimes of passion against Robert, particularly when you consider that none of them had any type of arrest record or even brushes with the law (as far as we know).

    Beware of people saying “they’ve done this before,” there were crimes by Dylan in Thailand, etc. Its all imaginations gone wild.

    There are enough fascinating factors in this case from what we DO KNOW, that we don’t have to clutter it up with things that are mere fantasies of imagination.

    Best regards, Bruce

    I’m not saying one or more of them didn’t do it, I’m just saying that the real mysteries of motivation are overwhelming to me, and nothing about their lives,

    • Bruce
      08/02/2010 at 3:50 PM

      forget about anything in my post above after “Best regards, Bruce.” I must have a ghost in my computer.


    • alternateguy
      08/02/2010 at 5:16 PM


      VERY well said, Bruce.

    • Bill Orange
      08/02/2010 at 5:22 PM

      “Simply stated, if we take out the “sex part” of the relationships, and I don’t even know where to begin there, it seemed that each led a pretty independent life, and seemed to get along pretty well for three human beings under the same roof.”

      That’s one hell of a big “if”, particularly when sexual jealousy is a pretty big motivator for crimes of passion.

      And while I agree that we don’t know for sure that Victor was pissed off, I know that if I came home early from a business trip and found out that my partner had (a) canceled one of my cable channels and (b) invited someone over to spend the night without even mentioning it to me, I would be more than a little irritated. (And if I had to ask my partner’s mistress where my partner was, and then I later had to ask him who was going to be spending the night, I would be seething, but I think Victor’s tolerance for that kind of crap is a lot higher than mine is.)

      • sixdegrees
        08/02/2010 at 6:19 PM

        It is impossible to take out “the sex part” of these relationships. These relationships were all about sex and were the driving factor behind what happened to Robert that night, and to the cover up.

        • Bruce
          08/02/2010 at 7:07 PM


          What information do you have that “these relationships were all about sex?” Please explain that to me. Do you have information we don’t have? Is your relationship with your significant other all about sex sex sex? Is it because they are gay that it is sexy time hoochi coochi sex sex sex?

          Was it “sexy time” around the clock on Swann St.? Did they have no considerations but sex sex sex sex sex? Explain to me how you determined that, if you get a chance, please. And….SEX!

          • sixdegrees
            08/02/2010 at 7:28 PM

            For heaven’s sake, of course it’s not because they are gay that it’s all about sex. And no, it wasn’t sex all the time (I suppose) at Swann Street. But you cannot read an account of what is known about JP and DW’s realtionship and JP an VZ’s relationship, and the forensic evidence and talk about taking the “sex part” out.

          • Jeana
            08/02/2010 at 7:54 PM

            Whoa, Bruce! Take it easy, buddy! LOL

            To put it in psychobabble terms, I think there was a lot of ‘sexual tension’ in the trouple’s relationship. Maybe not sex, sex, sex, but certainly tension, tension, tension!

            No less so if this were a hetero married couple with wife or hubby having a live-in lover to satisfy an urge that the spouse couldn’t or wouldn’t.

            What makes it relevant is Joe’s e-mail (or maybe it was the ‘Sparkly Cat’ card) to Dylan indicating his desire for a ‘third’ and his suggestion that this take place while Victor is away. That leads to the speculation that Robert was the intended, involuntary ‘third.’

            I, too, am having trouble connecting all the dots. What stumps me is the timeline. It’s clear that Robert arrived at Swann no earlier than 10:30 p.m. and within less than a hour and a half lay bleeding from stab wounds in the Swann St. guest room. That just doesn’t fit a silent, stealthy intruder who breaks in shortly after the lights go out and makes a clean get-away, leaving no trace behind, before anyone is awakened. Nor does it fit incapacitation by drug, sexual assault, stabbing, and a massive clean-up before the EMT’s arrive. I have no idea what really happened within that narrow timeframe.

            • Bea
              08/02/2010 at 8:36 PM

              Total non sequitur:

              I have watched too many “Friends” reruns, because everytime I read “Sparkly Cat” it’s to the tune of Phoebe’s “Smelly Cat”:

              Sparkly Cat, Sparkly Cat
              What have they been feeding you?
              Sparkly Cat, Sparkly Cat
              It’s not your fault . . .

          • Clio
            08/02/2010 at 9:25 PM

            Well, Bruce, I think that it was a lack of thrills/thirds that contributed to the preconditions for the murder. Certainly, the sex life of Joe and Vic may not have been that satisfactory: why move in the mistress three years into a marriage? The sex life of Joe and Dyl must have been more fun for Joe than for Dyl: who highlights an S&M manual!

            Furthermore, Joe and Dyl were looking for thirds, but all they could attract was a neighbor across-the-street and his trick. Add street drugs found in the house, a toy chest of intimate implements that did not get used much, and they still could not get any satisfaction. Burnt steaks, crappy plumbing, and missing their kids’ big events, not to mention cold showers and no sex — just part of an evening’s events at the convent that the defendants want us to believe was Swann.

            And, now after the disastrous consequences of their now-four-year-old escapade, they all never will get any satisfaction, sexual or otherwise, even with the possible scenario of Lil Dyl as a successful (if middle-aged) bodyworker for the elderly and infirm, whether in DC or in southern Florida.

            • susan
              08/02/2010 at 9:40 PM

              You made me laugh with that post, Clio (who highlights an S&M manual? crappy plumbing, etc.) while painting what sounds like an accurate portrait of that household that evening. I wonder though, if JP might not have highlighted that manual himself and given it to DW.

      • Bruce
        08/02/2010 at 6:40 PM

        Hey Bill O:

        I agree with you that there were certainly indications from which one can smell some “tiffs” between or among the Swann 3 the night of the murder.

        My problem is looking at them singularly, or cumulatively, they just don’t add up in any combination to crimes of passion, rape or murder, in my opinion, from persons with no history (that we know, I agree). They all seem like law-abiding citizens.

        I know I am being Pollyanna here as to drugs, but five things as to the issue of drugs:

        (1) there was apparently nothing found to arrest them on (I realize Dylan had something in his room);

        (2) the stories we hear on this blog about alleged drug use of Joe are all highly suspicious to me, it being very easy to say anything you want on a blog;

        (3) I’m not saying that Joe could not be a drug abuser because he was a partner in a high profile litigation firm, I just think that it would be very difficult to do so if he was the crazy assed druggie that some people paint him;

        (4) there was apparently no evidence of any bad drug use by the Swann 3 found by the long police investigation after the murder (I know, that we know of); and

        (5) most important, I may be wrong, but I don’t think that anyone on this blog has indicated in any manner that they believe any of the Swann 3 were on, or acting as if they were on, drugs, during the police statements taken immediately after the murder (I realize we have more to see).

        Your saying that it is a big “if” to take out the component of the sex arrangements and proclivities of the Swann 3, is certainly true. I guess we really can’t ignore it, but is that the answer to our questions? I’m trying to put the pieces together but I am still stuck.

        As far as I know, they were not doing anything illegal in their relationships, were they? It appears that between the Swann 3 it was all consensual. Where does bias end and objective reasoning start in this regard, when we view the sexual relationships?

        Their relationship and sexual proclivities are certainly foreign, strange, and maybe a bit frightening to most people, probably to 90% of straight people, and probably many gay people, too. But, really, where is the connection between that and rape and murder? Someone please explain that to me, I am really at a loss to understand it.

        Is someone who is gay more likely to rape or murder someone? No. Are 3 gay people living together with what many would consider a strange sexual arrangement between them, more likely to contemplate or engage in rape or murder? I don’t think so. Are those same persons, or a combination of them, engaging in consensual BDSM activities more likely to rape and/or murder someone, or clean up a crime scene? Someone explain that one to me. Is it common sense I am missing?

        One of my (many) problems as to the Wone murder is that I am trying to cut out the cr…bull and look at the real issues in this case that seem to have some basis in fact, and are not premised on pure fantasy, speculation or bias.

        Could the rape, murder and/or cover-up have been a drug crazed sex ramped hootenanny (sp?) on Swann Street? Yes, I guess so, but I need more. I think there is something awful tempting about going down that lurid road and basking in it. It is fun and dangerous, and we can ascribe horrible things to people that we don’t know and probably never will.

        And yet, we know Robert Wone was murdered, and we know that his own semen was found in his body. We know that he didn’t struggle. Look, I don’t blame anyone for taking whatever position or opinions they have. That is why this blog is so interesting.

        I just am having a real hard time connecting the dots on this one. The dots keep moving or disappearing and there is nothing to connect them to.

        In a way I am jealous of those who “know” what happened in their minds and have a moral certitude or certainty about it. I don’t think I will ever get there on the evidence we now have…but maybe I can be convinced otherwise as I am trying to keep an open mind.

        • Bill Orange
          08/02/2010 at 7:26 PM

          I agree that there is very little (known) solid evidence of drug use by any of the three. If such evidence exists, I expect the civil trial to reveal it. I think that many people here simply ASSUME that drugs were involved, because it makes it easier to understand how Robert Wone could have ended up stabbed to death by one of the three.

          As to whether or not a gay person, or three people in an unconventional relationship, or people who are into BDSM are more likely than others to commit rape or murder, I think you’re asking the wrong question. These three men were not investigated because they were gay, or because they were in an unconventional relationship, or because they were into BDSM. They were investigated because a young man was stabbed to death in their guest bedroom, and the autopsy suggested that there was almost no movement during the attack. The so-called “prurient” details about the three men all come up as a result of questions that are raised by the dead body in the guest bedroom. Could there have been some sort of sexual tension between the one of defendants and the victim? Yes, the defendants were all gay.

          Would the defendants have even considered trying to have sex with someone outside of their relationship? Yes, they had an open relationship and even advertised for sex partners on the internet. Did the defendants have any experience in immobilizing people that could explain the lack of movement during the attack? Yes, two of them were into BDSM, and there were restraints found in the house. Have the defendants ever done anything to suggest that they would interfere with a police investigation? Yes, they delayed reporting the burglary of their house two months later, because they suspected (correctly) that Joe’s brother was involved. Was there any tension between the defendants on the night in question?

          Probably, as one of them (Dylan) had confided to Victor’s best friend that Joe was possibly going to dump Victor and take up with Dylan, and Victor’s behavior that night strikes many of us as somewhat odd. (This will almost certainly be addressed in the civil trial.) Were there any other factors that could have potentially caused one of the defendants to “go off”? We think so, although as far as I know, it didn’t come up in the criminal trial. Joe was reportedly trying to convince Robert to get involved in some sort of business proposition, and Robert was supposedly going to tell him, “No.” (Again, this will likely come out in the civil trial.)

        • Bill 2
          08/02/2010 at 7:43 PM

          While the tiffs, looking at them singularly, or cumulatively, don’t add up in any combination to crimes of passion, rape or murder, they point to an unease about goings on in the house on that particular night. Now, you take that unease and couple it with Joe’s e-mail to Dylan about staging some type of event while Victor is away, you get a different focus. Victor was supposed to be away that night, thus that e-mail points us in the direction that something may have been planned that they don’t want Victor to know about. Don’t you agree to that possibility?

          Next, there’s the downstairs neighbor. She takes her toothbrush and leaves to watch TV at the home of two other men. Does that add a bit more reason to think that plans are afoot or do you think that’s just a coincidence?

          Just looking at tiffs doesn’t point to murder and mayhem, but looking at tiffs in view of a few other things can point to the possibility of some type of “game” that went wrong – a game planned for Victor’s absence.

          • Bea
            08/02/2010 at 8:33 PM

            Agree. Too, in addition to several commenters claiming to know of Joe’s drug use, and finding an Ecstasy tab and the drug-sniffing dogs having revealed ‘hits’, we also have a US Attorney claiming in open court that Joe was involved not only in drug use but drug distribution at one point – perhaps that evidence evaporated or (more likely) it was deemed not sufficiently probative in this matter. Does that prove drug use that night by Dylan and Joe? No, not “prove” but I suspect there was a drug pick-up when Joe was allegedly at the gym (and Michael Price missed the class – Michael of the drug and burglary charges).

            I don’t discount the commenters here who claim to know Joe and know of his drug use. There have been a number from different areas of his life – including a reported go-go boy who said Joe offered him drugs to go home with him. If true, together these speak of a man out of control (including getting loaded at Arent Fox firm functions). My knowledge of the gay male drug scene from friends is a bit dated, but it certainly wasn’t so out of the realm to believe. And ANYONE (law partner or not) can find themselves in a mess even if they started fully “in control” and just “dabbling.”

            I’m not saying the drug use was any excuse for the night, just that it seems in keeping with some of the decisions apparently made that night. Even if the men had nothing to do with the murder but ran around the house getting rid of drugs does not give them a pass on getting Robert immediately help and telling cops all they know – and I genuinely doubt that that’s the extent of the culpability.

            If even one tab of ecstacy was found, then drugs were not foreign to these guys. Or at least not to the ‘party’ duo – a tab of X is not like a bottle of wine kept in the pantry in case someone wants a glass.

            • susan
              08/02/2010 at 9:34 PM

              My thoughts are that when they used, it was for their three-ways or game playing. I don’t think either JP or DW was new to a “third.” That seems ridiculous. DW was giving full body-his full body (according to his ad) massages to others. And JP was on Alt.com. I’m sure the hesitancy in that Sparkly Cat (Smelly Cat) note was due to introducing a third into their established dom-sub relationship.

            • Bruce
              08/02/2010 at 9:47 PM

              Hi Bea:

              I searched the site as to ecstacy, and it appeared that the police did a drug search and found one ecstacy tab, in Dylan’s room. My guess is that if you asked 100 gay guys in a metropolitan area between the ages of 20 and 35, that go out to clubs or bars at all, quite a few would say, like Ms. Peggy Lee, “Is that all there is, my friend?”

              Sorry, I really am speculating here, and apologize to any gay men in metropolitan areas that go out to clubs and are between 20 and 35.

              As to US attorney Kishner (sp?), it is my understanding that he said that Joe had “possessed or distributed” drugs, and there is a big difference between the two, but as you say, it looks like that evidence may have “evaporated,” at least it has not seen the light of day except on this blog. Do we have access to the motions in limine in the criminal case? Any “real” evidence supporting that attorney?

              I don’t agree with you about implications of one person in the house having one tablet of ecstacy. Although I have never used it, it is my understanding from people that do, that it is a drug used for “special occasions, and a drug traditionally not known to provoke violence, but actually the exact opposite. On ecstacy, you are more likely to kiss someone or touch their face, not murder them. It is not like pot at all. Is there any evidence that the Swann 3 were drug tested the night of the murder? Why wouldn’t the cops do that?

              Bea, you know I respect your opinions, but sheesh, I can’t believe that you would put one ounce of value on anonymous “reported go-go boys, “etc., who may have posted, or told a friend of a friend of a friend…. All of us know that anyone can say anything anonymously on the internet, and many do, including people playing “games” and those with agendas.

              Again, no one on this blog, to my knowledge, has suggested that they thought any one of the Swann 3 was under any influence of drugs when interviewed by the police immediately after the murder. What we have seen of the videos compels the opposite conclusion. If the police had suggested even a 5% chance of that, there would have been testing.

              You make good points, but I remain baffled. And….SEX!

              Best regards.


              • Bruce
                08/02/2010 at 9:52 PM

                To clarify my previous post, when I said “It’s not like pot at all,” I didn’t mean to say that pot makes you want to murder (1). What I meant to say was that ecstacy is not a commonly “use around the house” type of drug like pot.

                • Clio
                  08/02/2010 at 10:42 PM

                  How is pot a routine household staple, Bruce?

                  And, what are you trying to tell us here: one ought to stop smoking that stuff in part because one will be less sympathetic to Team Price? Just a thought.

                  • Bruce
                    08/03/2010 at 1:02 AM


                    Sorry to pop your bubble, Clio, but millions of people in the US use or have used pot.

                    It is the most common non-prescription illegal drug. Not condoning it, mind you.

                    Pot is something one can use by oneself, and many do, just to get high or relieve stress. Again, not condoning or promoting it.

                    Ecstacy is not that kind of drug, to my knowledge. It is primarily used for intimacy with another person, and not just to get “high.”

                    Both are illegal and both can be abused.

                    Maybe instead of taking your suggestion, I should try pot; it might give me the moral certainty you seem to have in this case: “Two of the defendants admitted to over-the-counter drug use that night.” Oh, good God in Heaven! Alert the media! Thye must be guilty 🙂

                    Best regards.

                • carolina
                  08/03/2010 at 7:58 PM

                  I would suggest you hit up a few S&M scenes if you think e isn’t used anywhere but dance clubs.

              • Clio
                08/02/2010 at 10:22 PM

                Why would Dyl have a tab of Ecstasy in his room? Most thirty-something gay men would not have that stuff anywhere near them, Bruce!

                And, two of the defendants admitted to over-the-counter drug use that night.

                And, Joe and Dyl’s strange behavior (immediately after the police arrive) suggests some emotional or judgmental impairment that was probably linked to the use of ketamine or its latest equivalent.

              • Bea
                08/02/2010 at 10:55 PM

                Bruce, these men were pushing forty (and Victor was over 40) and, in my experience, if you have one tab of ecstasy in your drawer, it’s because 9 or 19 are gone already (most buy in 10 or 20 unless one is AT the club and then it doesn’t go home with you). My guess is that the X was simply forgotten while the men tossed the drugs.

                You’re right that the prosecutor saying Joe used heavily or distributed didn’t show up at trial – doesn’t mean he didn’t say it in open court. Open court means something.

                Guys who worked with Joe at Arent said Joe used heavily. Guys from the clubs and the neighborhood said so too. And the go-go boy story came from an Asian-American Association member (who vouched for the young man). Too, there were discussions about Michael Price showing up at Arent regularly when that sort of thing just isn’t ‘done.’ And the dogs smelled drugs in two places.

                We can ignore each of these things as baseless or we can consider validity in context. Would people you work with and live near say these things of you? I doubt it. Is it possible they are all lies? The Eds. keep track of the IP addresses so while they may all be liars, they are at least DIFFERENT liars, not all one person. Oh, and the prosecutor and the dogs.

                Bruce, I’m pretty okay with responsible recreational drug use – have to be considering my own youthful indiscretions – but if X is the drug one ‘forgets’ about, that doesn’t bode well. And I don’t think they were doing X that night – which is why they didn’t toss it down the toilet.

                We can’t see the mens’ pupils in the videotapes and we don’t know if the detectives thought they were high. They couldn’t have done anything about it anyway. Certainly the excerpts of Joe’s interview show an agitated guy – he could be high for all I know.
                Dylan (Smelly Cat) seems remote and detached in the excerpt I saw. I don’t know if that’s his ordinary personality or if he’s trying to act normal. Lord knows I made it through situations being altered (again – youth) without detection. Adrenaline is one’s friend.

                So, yes, I suspect they (Victor excluded) may well have been high that night – and I’d be surprised if they weren’t drug users based on what’s been reported. I guess I wonder why with all that’s been reported you see them as Boy Scouts where drugs are concerned – we haven’t had a SINGLE person who knows Joe come on here and say he DIDN’T do drugs!

                • Bruce
                  08/03/2010 at 1:13 AM

                  Bea, can we get this correctly? Where did the attorney say that Joe “used heavily?” Are you seeing something I can’t see? I believe it was “possessed or distributed,” which are legal terms with defined meanings. Anyway, it looks like any evidence for that statement, as you say, thereafter evaporated. So, is there any fairness in placing weight on it, when we don’t know exactly what was charged, have no idea what it was based upon, and now has simply gone “poof?”

                  • Bea
                    08/03/2010 at 2:21 AM

                    Bruce, you’re likely right that he did not use the word “heavily” but I believe that he said Joe Price was involved in use AND distribution if memory serves, strongly implying that he was on the radar and not just a occasional user (how else would it reach the prosecutor?).

                    Now, please respond to the rest of my message – unless this response was just a dodge so you don’t have to.

                    FYI, ecstasy is not just used for sex (not sure how “used for sex” wouldn’t be relevant) but too to dance all night at raves and general craziness. That said, I don’t think X is what they were doing that particular night or they’d have remembered to get rid of it.

                    Do read the rest of the post – how many ecstasy tabs one usually buys, the many people who’ve posted about Joe’s drug use from different commenters, and how NO ONE has come on to say that they’ve known Joe and that he’s not a drug user.

                    Looking forward to it! 🙂

                    • carolina
                      08/03/2010 at 8:04 PM

                      Bea, think back to the first DL thread. Wasn’t there someone who stated Joe had been arrested, but not charged for possession with intent? I know I did not dream this. As I recall, someone said it was expunged because it could impact his legal career.

                    • Bea
                      08/03/2010 at 8:15 PM

                      Carolina, I am just not sure enough to say so. But it rings a bell. Anyone?

                  • Craig
                    08/03/2010 at 11:07 AM

                    Here’s the WaPo link where AUSA Kirschner mentions Price’s alleged drug use and merchandizing: “Kirschner said Price told court authorities at the time of his arrest that he had never used drugs. But Kirschner said subsequent investigation determined that Price had either possessed or distributed crystal methamphetamine, cocaine and ecstasy.”

                    And Bruce, if you’re ever inclined to try inhaling, a couple suggestions that I’ve gotten from friends who have – Light an incense, put a towel at the bottom of your dorm room door, then crank this. You may not achieve moral certainty, but you’ll get somewhere. Further. Then call me in the morning, dude. 🙂

              • chilaw79
                08/02/2010 at 11:57 PM


                I think it possible the defendants all will be required to discuss drug use in their depositions (at least during the 2006 time frame). If the defendants simply used drugs for “recreational purposes,” the statute of limitations should have run and the Fifth Amendment should not bar their testimony.

                Similarly, I think the defendants will have to answer questions regarding sex, BDSM, and their relationships (except to the extent this testimony may be subject to domestic partner privilege). Consensual sexual acts are not criminal and do not imply wrongdoing, but the element of risk demonstrated by posting sexual photos on an office computer and using an office e-mail address when advertising on alt.com is an area I would explore if I were plaintiff’s counsel. So is the concept that Dylan and Joe were exploring some plan that created some “fear.”

                • Bruce
                  08/03/2010 at 1:25 AM

                  Hi Chilaw:

                  If I were the plaintiff’s attorney in the civil case, I would certainly want to show the jury evidence of Joe’s computer and e-mail use at work.

                  That sure sounds like rape, murder and cover-up to me!

                  I think the civil case judge, even with the laxed burden of proof, will knock that evidence out in a second or so, upon a motion in limine, and it will not see the light of day in the civil case.

                  Really, what probative evidenciary value does it have other than to simply put Joe Price in a “bad light” with the jury. It does not make it more or less likely that he committed the acts alleged against him in the civil case, and has nothing to do with the Counts of the civil complaint.

                  My opinion only, of course.

                  • chilaw79
                    08/03/2010 at 10:12 AM

                    The probative value would be to explain why there was no evidence of a struggle by Robert when he was being stabbed. Given the presence of xylenes in the toxicology testing and the presence of BDSM devices in Dylan’s room, I think the plaintiff is entitled to explore these issues in discovery. Whether it will make it into trial evidence may depend on whether it is considered more probative or prejudicial.

                    Was Michael Price on a binge on the evening of August 2? Did “tricks” come to Swann Street? Did the defendants know of these potential dangers?

                    The defendants have not been tried for assault (sexual or otherwise), rape, or murder, but plaintiff’s counsel has to evaluate these possibilities. Given the fact that Robert is dead and cannot testify, the facts are all in the control of the defendants and I think a DC civil court will give plaintiff a wide berth in discovery to evaluate these possibilities. Whether this will be true at trial remains to be seen, but, given the lack of a criminal prosecution, the plaintiff should be given some latitude to prove her case and to explore potential theories of the case.

                  • carolina
                    08/03/2010 at 8:06 PM

                    I would certainly think it indicates Joe’s judgment was less than solid.

        • susan
          08/02/2010 at 9:14 PM

          Hey Bruce,

          I don’t think anyone but the murderer or murderers (whoever they may be) and those they might have taken into their confidences have all the dots connected, but I disagree with you about consensual relationships in that house (R. Wone aside). I would guess, I may be wrong, but I’d guess VZ didn’t consent to JP trolling on Alt.dom and maybe having secret relationships on the side. I probably wouldn’t say that DW consented to spending nights alone in bed with JP and VZ upstairs, but tolerated is more likely.

          VZ probably was fed the Kool Aid about it being a “family” but it looks like it was one man gorging at the trough with two others left to the remaining scraps.

          • susan
            08/02/2010 at 9:15 PM

            Re R. Wone, meaning, of course, you don’t think R. Wone being abused was consensual

          • Kate
            08/03/2010 at 8:38 AM

            Susan – I like your assessment of the complex dynamics of Swann Street. Consenting to a situation and tolerating a situation are different, although the differences may be subtle.

            The word picture of Joe “gorging at the trough” reminds me of an old Saturday Night Live sketch about a restaurant where folks “tuck in” face first into long troughs of food … a genuine Pig Out Buffet.


  19. Craig
    08/03/2010 at 11:10 AM

    Bruce: Here’s the WaPo link where AUSA Kirschner mentions Price’s alleged drug use and merchandizing: “Kirschner said Price told court authorities at the time of his arrest that he had never used drugs. But Kirschner said subsequent investigation determined that Price had either possessed or distributed crystal methamphetamine, cocaine and ecstasy.”

    And Bruce, if you’re ever inclined to try inhaling, a couple suggestions that I’ve gotten from friends who have – Light an incense, put a towel at the bottom of your dorm room door, then right-click and crank this. You may not achieve moral certainty, but you’ll get somewhere. Further. Then call me in the morning, dude. 🙂

    • Bruce
      08/03/2010 at 11:20 AM

      Thank you, Craig! Can’t wait to get to the dorm tonight after my physics class. Have a panty raid at 7 pm, but then I can fall into the bliss that forever is …..The Grateful Dead!!!



      • Bea
        08/03/2010 at 11:34 AM

        My experience draws me (primarily) to “Dark Side of the Moon” (and Patti, of course).

        But Bruce, don’t forget to respond to the numbers of X pills one is likely to buy and the number of commenters who claim to know Joe and are willing to say he did NOT do drugs (none).

        • Bruce
          08/03/2010 at 11:54 AM


          Jeez, Mom/Dad, do I really haffta answer all the things in your e-mail? Come on. Jeez! You can’t be real. And Craig just sent me a great tune by The Grateful Dead. Oh, come on! Have to do a lot of homework today, but if I really haffta, I will respond to you tonight. Jeez!


          • Bea
            08/03/2010 at 12:51 PM

            Don’t forget to clean your room, too – I won’t remind you again.

            • Bruce
              08/03/2010 at 9:59 PM

              Ok, Bea:

              I’m home. I’m taking our respected editor Craig’s suggestions. Let’s say I’m “comfortable.” I am grateful for Craig’s supply of tunage of The Grateful, which is playing in the lofty background as I engage in typeage. All is good.

              Okey dokey.

              Spending time trying to find your stupid old post that now—Jeez—I have to respond to cause I said I would. Think I found it, it says “Bea on 8/2/10 at 10:55 PM”, at least on my computer. Can’t figure out how to print it out. Takes 10 minutes to figure that out. Jeez Louise!

              Okey dokey…

              (1) Number of ecstacy pills you think they really had even though only one stupid pill was found in Dylan’s room. You think 9 or 19 are already taken, because you can buy them in 20s. Hmmm. Ok, here’s my answer: Someone gave Dylan an ecstacy pill. He saves it. Why is that less likely than your scenario? Another way of putting that is why is your speculation better than mine? Who do you know or have heard from (not some anonymous go-go dancer, for God’s sake, please!) that says Dylan was an ecstacy freak, possessor or distributor? In my mind, my speculation that it is more likely someone gave Dylan an ecstacy pill, it was in his room, and the dogs and/or police found it, is more reasonable than your speculation. Ha, we’re moving, we’re rolling, we’re moving, come on baby…..

              (2) Joe is a drug monster. Let’s see, the prosecutor said that he “possessed or distributed.” I read on here that Joe’s attorney said in reply: “That’s absolutely false!” I suspect, but do not know, that Joe’s attorney said that in open court. That’s it. Then everything about this goes “poof!” We have two attorneys saying opposite things, and then “poofiness” supreme occurs for a number of years through now. Unless you can point out credible evidence to me on this topic, and you haven’t, in my mind everything about this topic also goes “poof.” Sorry, Charlie. Gosh, Bea, aren’t you an attorney? In my experience, while not by me, a lot of things said in open court end up being “incorrect.” Maybe it was another “Joe Price” for all we know. And, I think my resolution of this issue is more reasonable than yours. So there!

              (3) Everyone says that Joe was a big old drug monster. Here’s my answer: I don’t find your sources credible in the least, and I can’t believe you really do, either. Give me a full name and address or phone number of one of your witnesses, whether at Joe’s work or otherwise. As I mentioned in another post with you, anyone can say anything on an anonymous blog, AND they do. Give me a credible source, and I will change my mind on this, otherwise…. moving on….oh, but I have to confront your argument that more than one anonymous blogger has said that Joe is a drug monster. How do you know there is more than one, since they are anonymous and people can use multiple names? Nah Nah Nah.

              (4) The excerpts of Joe’s police interviews “show an agitated guy–he could be high for all I know.” My answer: And he could be not high for all you know. ‘Nuff said.

              (5) Smelly Cat (Dylan)”seems remote and detached” in the interviews. Sounds like many people on here thought he sounded pretty credible. I can’t parse your perceptions on this. He seemed like he was in “shock” a bit to me, but I ain’t no doctor and neither are you. And THEN she said……..

              (6) We haven’t had a SINGLE (your caps, Bea) person who knows Joe come on here and say he DIDN’T (your caps, Bea)do drugs. I have to confess, I hardly know where to start on this one. It is about the silliest argument, in my opinion, I have heard from you, Dear Bea. Isn’t this a bit like the old: “When did you stop beating your wife?”

              If everytime someone on this blog said something bad or what might be considered “unfair” by a person who knows Joe, about Joe, they responded to “clear the record” for dear old Joe, there would probably be 400 posts on here, and not the 208 we have now. You can’t possibly be serious with this argument. By the way, have you asked anyone who really knows Joe about whether he does drugs or not? If I were someone who knew Joe, and lets even go crazy here –likes Joe — (as if that would be possible), I wouldn’t go within a mile of this blog. This blog has been a haven for Joe haters, with only a few seemingly to not have the moral certainty you do about the Swann 3’s guilt. And those that try to come up with alternative theories that don’t bash Joe, are givin a good heapin of whompin.

              You feeling that there is proof of drug use by the fact that no one counters the mewsing fantastic claims on this blog (by some, not all), with all the ugly bias against him by anonymous bloggers on here (some, not all)is just laughable.

              But of course you are entitled to your crazy opinions, Ms. Bea, and I would bleed profusely to uphold your right to them with my last gagging, gurgling, blood splurting breath.

              You say I treat the Swann 3 like they are “Boy Scouts,” but, dammit, Bea, don’t you know Joe was an Eagle Scout????

              Just kidding. I think by no means they are Boy Scouts. But when it comes to your speculations, I say: “Show me the Beef,” such that your speculations are any less specufantastic than mine.

              Sleep well my Bea, for tomorrow… really truly is….another day.

              Love, Bruce

  20. Bob Newhart
    09/06/2010 at 11:53 PM

    If this was some sort of sex thing gone wrong, which I think is possible, I think the officer’s references to a fight or a crime of jealousy, etc. made it clear to Victor that the others hadn’t talked. I don’t see Victor cracking anyway, he has obviously put up with enough bullshit from Joe and takes all his marching orders, but maybe that was a chance. I think they would all stick to it — the cops’ only hope was to get them to slip up their stories.

  21. Probono
    08/05/2011 at 1:14 AM

    I think each of them stabbed Mr Wone as an expression of their solidarity;as a “family”. Criminals do that, thinking, that the other participants to the crime, will not be able to rat each other out. Three stab wounds, is a little too convenient and unlikely. I think each of them stabbed Mr Wone as an expression of their solidarity as a “family”. Criminals do that, thinking, that the other participants to the crime, will not be able to rat each other out. Three stab wounds, is a little too convenient and unlikely.

    Price and Ward mistakenly believed Mr Wone was dead, when he was not.I think they were afraid of a manslaughter charge and concocted this BS story of the ” bushy haired intruder”. Based on the coroner’s report, it seems possible Mr Wone could have been revived, if he had been taken to the ER, at the first sign of distress. He was digesting his own blood for Christ sake.

Comments are closed.