DW VCB-1 of 3

Take Two

Detectives Daniel Wagner & Milton Norris question Dylan Ward. Sketch courtest of William Hennessy, courtroomart.com

Dylan Ward’s first police interview from the night of Robert’s murder was managed by Detectives Daniel Wagner and Milton Norris.  It was played in court on day six of the obstruction trial, May 25.  Wagner was laconic, rocking back in his chair, eyes firmly fixed on his subject, while Norris played the street-smart cop, mostly to type.

Wagner kicked off the interrogation noting his concern that he wasn’t getting the straight story.  “I’m troubled.  Very troubled.  I have to be honest and fair with you.  I don’t believe we’re getting the truth here.”

More, and the full video, after the jump. Wagner departed midway through and handed off the duties to his partner.  Ward with his legs and arms crossed sat relatively emotionless throughout the first portion and set the scene.  “Robert is just a friend, a casual friend.  We were just doing him a favor by letting him stay there..”

Responding to a question if he saw any blood on his housemate/partner Joe Price, Ward said, “I never got close enough to Joe to notice blood…”

Was Zaborsky lying in his interviews? Is Ward lying too?   We may never know, but there appeared to be some obvious shading of the truth by Norris.   About 27 minutes in, he tells Ward, “We talked to a couple of folks, a couple of your neighbors… and just so happened to be up.  They told us they didn’t see anybody climbing the fence, jumping into the yard.  They didn’t see anybody climbing the fence, leaving the yard.”

Maybe the MPD would’ve been better off had they actually talked to neighbors instead of blowing smoke with the three suspects.  Next door neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. Thomas testified that they were not interviewed by MPD until three weeks after the murder.  Hey, what’s the big rush, right?

The interview transcript is here.  Roll tape.

Dylan Ward MPD Interrogation Video 1 – Time: 00:51

227 comments for “DW VCB-1 of 3

  1. TT
    08/03/2010 at 12:15 PM

    Oh no, not the spider on light, not again. A person has been murdered in your home and you mention this….If my memory serves me, does Joe mention the spider as well? Geez, yep these guys are telling the truth.

    • TT
      08/03/2010 at 3:14 PM

      Joe Price, who said he inspected it up close, characterized it as a bug. Dylan Ward, who did not examine the creature, thought it was a spider.

  2. Readee
    08/03/2010 at 1:09 PM

    Hi guys, I have been following this case for three months now and what always bothered me is this spider thing that appears to be soooo important to DW and JP to mention it after their guest was killed in the house.

    I was thinking about it a lot and the only explanation for something like that, to not only remember but also emphasis so much, is that they came up with that story only to justify their exit through the back door that evening in the case that someone(witness) has seen them. What might have happened in the kitchen I don’t know but I assume that something was going on already down there, shortly after Robert entered that house. I am sorry for any grammar mistakes as English is my second language.

  3. alternateguy
    08/03/2010 at 1:27 PM

    Bloggers reading my postings know that I tend to see believability in the defendants responses. I truly looked forward to seeing the first video of DW here. All that I can say is that his demeanor, appearance and voice, strike me as being exactly as I had imagined them to be from reading the transcripts. (And that fact seems weird to me.)(Never met the man before.)

    Occasional dovetailing of details, such as the spider, impresses me as being exactly what one would expect to come from separate accounts of the same evening. Yeah, maybe I’m failing to see the truth here, but that’s how things strike me. I look forward to hearing all of your various your impressions from seeing this video.

    • Bill 2
      08/03/2010 at 4:34 PM

      “Bloggers reading my postings know that I tend to see believability in the defendants responses..”

      No, that’s not true. You tend to stretch believability by altering and changing the known responses of the trio. You stated, “Victor even comments that his life will never be the same, due to the fact that his young friend has died.” People visiting here for the first time, have no idea that you created that by combining a few of Victor’s words with your imaginative scenario. It’s always nice to have people give opinions and offer imaginative options to consider, but you seem to have a need to take facts and twist them around to suit your elaborate scenarios. I’ll admit that I doubted your believability from the minute you wrote that you were outta here, during your early visits to the site.

      • alternateguy
        08/03/2010 at 6:10 PM

        Bill 2,

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

        Here I did combine two separate statements made by Victor, although he never did actually use the word young, (Of course Robert was young.) He did, try to communicate the fact (Sorry, Idea.) that his feelings were influenced by the fact that a friend had died that night.

        Which part was my imagined scenario? Believing that Victor had explained these feelings when he made the comment about his life being changed? I think that if I had been in my home and had awakened to see a house-guest lying there murdered, it would certainly be a life changing experience for me. Something I’d NEVER get out of my mind.

        Yet some folks on the site seem convinced that Victor’s statement somehow reveals that he has knowledge of all that was to come. His loss of income, etc. etc. That’s creating a false scenario to my way of thinking. I tend to look for the simplest explanations for things, not the most complicated.

        See what happens when you get suspicious of someone’s believability? You begin to see them as fact twisters, apparently trying to mislead new visitors.

        I’ve seen how some of you treat those on this site who have alternative views of the company line. Some of your regular posters feel that they have to be VERY apologetic if they suggest that any of “the trio’s” actions or words seem believable to them.

        Read these blogs, and you’ll see that this is the case.

        • 08/03/2010 at 6:22 PM

          Watching the video, I feel very conflicted. They both seem very believable. I just can’t get past the semen…. and the needle marks…. and the cleaned up scene.

          • Bruce
            08/03/2010 at 6:43 PM

            Hi Ellen:

            I’m with you completely. I am dumbfounded.

            Last night, I was thinking: well Dylan had to have done it, it is the only thing that could possibly make sense. But then I was thinking: but how and why?, and then I moved to Joe and went through the same thing. But, But, But…..

            I am giving Victor a pass right now, but that may be the exact wrong thing to do!

            It is the craziest set of facts and circumstances I have ever come across.

            And always, with me regarding this death of a wonderful person, its the semen. I think the needle marks and clean-up are less of a problem for me, as I can imagine explanations there. It is the semen. It just won’t go away.

            Take care, Bruce

            • Jeana
              08/03/2010 at 11:24 PM

              Ellen is right that the semen is the unexplained issue – the elephant in the room so to speak. That’s the major factor that drives the sexual-assault-gone-wrong theory and makes all the other SEX (sorry, Bruce!) and drug evidence compelling – the polyamorous relationship, the sex toys, the BDSM, Joe’s reputed drug problem and so on. The sexual assault theory seems to make the most sense.

              But, as I’ve posted previously, what I can’t get around is the timeframe. Was less than an hour and a half sufficient time to drug Robert, wait for the drug to take effect, commit the assault (which most posters don’t appear to believe was an assault with intent to commit injury, but one intended purely for the pleasure of the assaulters and, therefore, probably more time-consuming), come to the realization that Robert had been overdosed (or recognize that he was awakening too soon and then making the decision to kill him), go to the kitchen and/or Dylan’s closet to get the knife, stab Robert three times, clear away the sex toys, dress and perhaps even shower the body, make or straighten the bed (it was reportedly barely rumpled), clean up all the blood (even though the testing was flawed and, therefore, of no evidentiary value, it did indicate a dispersion of blood around the room), come up with a cover story (the intruder), go downstairs to unlock the door so investigators would find it ajar, and then, ultimately and horribly, wait for Robert to bleed to death before making the 911 call? Even if, as some have surmised, Victor played no role in the murder, but merely stumbled upon the aftermath, his scream necessitating the 911 call (the real plan having been to get the body out of the house), I just can’t get my mind around the timeframe.

              • chilaw79
                08/04/2010 at 5:11 PM

                I don’t know enough about illegal drugs to comment about how quickly they could work, but I think anesthetic drugs work quickly. I do think this all could have occurred within an hour and fifteen minutes if two or more people participated.

                Just as a scenario: assume something was put in Robert’s water and he quickly became unconscious. Two people take him upstairs, undress him, and change him into the clothes he was found wearing. Something goes wrong and Robert appears to be dead. This is where the crazy part comes in. To cover up the apparent (or actual) death, it is decided to stab Robert to make it appear an intruder is responsible. The downstairs door is left unlocked. How long does this all take? If Robert is dead when he is stabbed, how much blood would there be?

                • 08/04/2010 at 8:38 PM

                  Would “they” want him clothed in a Wm and Mary t shirt if he were to be featured in a porn movie? I’m asking cause maybe yes, maybe no or maybe it was a detail that wasn’t considered. Since Joe is so keen on W&M, I suspect its t shirt would have totemic power to him.

                  • carolina
                    08/04/2010 at 9:52 PM

                    Oh but a straight college boy would bring in a pretty penny. Add the Asian kink and I’m sure it would have been a hit on EyeCandy.

              • carolina
                08/04/2010 at 6:57 PM

                I think you would be amazed at what three people can do in 30 minutes when their lives are at stake.

          • alternateguy
            08/03/2010 at 7:00 PM


            Yes, I think that the seamen thing is something that few seem to want to talk about or even think about. I suspect, however, that it is really in the back of everyone’s mind and probably influences most posters.

            My alternate view of this, may be thin, but here goes.

            If you look it up on the Internet, you’ll see that postmortem ejaculation for male victims of sudden traumatic death, such as by hanging, gunshot and presumably stabbing, is far from an unknown phenomena.

            I read that the judge herself isn’t clear at exactly what point it happened, but she does say that the EMT cut off Robert’s underwear. Now, I can see how, since Robert was lying face up, the EMT would have cut through, the underwear on both the right and left sides at the leg openings. Then wouldn’t one have to pull the underwear off by either reaching under the body or pulling from the front? I have no idea which, of course. However, if the underwear contained seamen, then pulling it off from behind, can easily explain how it reached the anis. From there, could careless probing have transferred some inside?

            The judge said that following removal from the victim, the underwear was turned over to the police. I haven’t seen any report of what, if anything, was found upon exanimation of the underwear shorts. If they weren’t in fact examined, that would not only seem to me to be a HUGE failing on the authorities part, but a suspicious one to boot.

            Just some thoughts from my logic-seeking mind.

            • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
              08/03/2010 at 8:42 PM

              Umm….it’s “semen.” Not seamen. Those are sailors. Not to be confused with little men in boats. That’s a whole different story.

              • Bill 2
                08/03/2010 at 8:49 PM

                I’ve seen a lot of seamen in underwear – along with a few Marines.

                • altenateguy
                  08/03/2010 at 10:56 PM

                  CD in DC and Bill 2

                  So, you guys discount a whole rather interesting observation and make a joke of it because my spell checker fails to pick up on a misspelled word?

                  I see how it goes on this site.

                  • Bruce
                    08/03/2010 at 11:03 PM

                    Hang in there, alte.

                    Don’t you be leaving me alone in here!

                    • altenateguy
                      08/03/2010 at 11:06 PM


                      Guess I wont.

                  • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                    08/04/2010 at 10:30 AM

                    oh, boo hoo.

                    learn to TAKE a joke.

                  • carolina
                    08/04/2010 at 6:59 PM

                    Get over yourself, son. If the site is so ridiculous, we’ll see about getting you a refund. Oh, wait…

                • Deb
                  08/04/2010 at 9:11 PM

                  Ok, that got me to laugh out loud!

              • Clio
                08/03/2010 at 8:56 PM

                Perhaps, CD, but not always. Recall the quaint sea chantey: “It’s not queer if done once off the pier.”

                • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                  08/03/2010 at 9:04 PM

                  only queer when at the pier? LOL those naughty seamen.

            • carolina
              08/04/2010 at 7:00 PM

              The semen was IN his anus. Not on. IN. Splain that one to me, Lucy.

          • Banshee
            08/03/2010 at 7:27 PM

            Yes. Relying only on the videos that have been posted (three Victors and one Dylan), I do see them as believable. I don’t naturally read into them many of the interpretations that have been made w/r/t body language, lack of or feigned emotion, and the like.

            However, I/we DO have additional information – some referred to by Ellen, above, and, with that information in mind, I find myself horrified at how easy it would be/is for me to accept the interviews as genuine.

            On a separate note, I was struck by the poor quality of the interviewing/ questioning. Did it strike any of you to be as predictable and worn (and obviously ineffective) as it did me? I’m a layperson; they’re professionals. Yet I kept wanting to give them advice on demeanor, tone, content. They were so far off. I, naively, expected much more sophisticated stuff for dealing with intelligent, informed individuals. This was our nation’s capital in 2006, but it felt like bad 1950’s TV. They need new writers.

            • Jeana
              08/03/2010 at 7:41 PM

              Banshee –

              I agree with your assessment of the interviewers. Their demeanor, tone, and lack of skill is raw meat for a good defense attorney. We have a number of lawyers on this site, but I’d also be interested in hearing from current or former police detectives as to how they might have conducted these interviews and, in particular, what follow-up questions they might have asked.

              • Clio
                08/03/2010 at 9:08 PM

                Yes, Wagner and Norris sucked, and not in a good way. This video should be used to instruct newbies on how NOT to question a witness/suspect of any background. It also suggests the need for mandatory “gay studies/sociology” training for current detectives: who knew that detectives still thought that gay and really straight men led such segregated lives!

                • Jeana
                  08/03/2010 at 10:38 PM

                  Definitely to the gay studies/sociology training. As Gloria notes below, the failure to explore these men’s relationship was a missed opportunity. Seems the big, bad interrogators may have been afraid of what their dainty little hetero ears might be exposed to!

                  • chilaw79
                    08/03/2010 at 11:23 PM

                    On the whole, I think the fact that police interrogators in the Violent Crimes Bureau are not used to interrogating gays and lesbians is a good thing. The lack of sensitivity or good sense to question gay men about their relationships definitely hurt this case.

                    The DC Police are more likely to see gays and lesbians as crime victims rather than offenders. In my opinion, the police missed a number of opportunities to ask questions that might have produced more light on this case.

                    On the other hand, I do not think six hours of cooperation by the defendants was enough. Maybe their lawyers provided additional information (for example, it is known Schertler made the 911 call on the later burglary), but all of it went through the prism of viewing Victor, Dylan and Joe as potential suspects.

                    It is also my view that the defendants did not have any illusions that they were potential suspects from the time the original 911 call was made on August 2, 2006. Whether that was based on one or more of the defendants participating in Robert’s death or any other criminal acts remains an open question for me.

            • 08/03/2010 at 9:14 PM

              Wholehearted agreement, having commented on this in VZ 2/3. I wrote (but did not get popular support for my observation): “It does not appear the detective in tape #1 has any notable interviewing skills. Soooo amateur. He seemed to go all “politically correct” in not pursuing questions about the relationship among the 3 — although that was CLEARLY a critical angle to pursue…. So many missed opportunities in questioning.”

              Jeana (below): I have no background as a detective but am a trained and experienced interviewer. I have been squirming while listening to the various detectives’ “styles” through the videotapes (so far) and having read the transcripts earlier. It looks so ad hoc. On the other hand, to their credit, the cops are paying attention to what they are being told and are mostly not interrupting when they should not. I’ll give them that. Cathy Lanier (of the high popularity rating): Re-evaluate your department’s training curriculum for interviewing techniques and/or make the test of skills mastery tougher!

              • Jeana
                08/03/2010 at 10:44 PM

                Thanks, Gloria, for your insights. I hadn’t credited the absence of interruption as attentiveness. Afraid I would have botched it badly by jumping in and asking for details and explanations!

                There was one unfortunate interruption, though. I believe it was early in Victor’s first interview when he was asked about Dylan’s place in the household. If memory serves, Victor said something to the effect that, “Dylan’s not an equal partner, but we’re trying….” The interviewer interrupted at that point and basically said we don’t need to go there. Kind of sounded like don’t tell me something I really don’t want to know!

                • 08/03/2010 at 11:29 PM

                  Bingo, Jeana. That’s exactly the point in the transcript that sent me over the edge. LOST opportunity. I think the cops’ only purpose was to get a confession, by turning one against the other, not to get meaningful information that they could then pursue in tedious followup. My intuition is that they stereotyped these gay men as prone to histrionic meltdowns who would spill all under tough guy (but ham handed) badgering. So no need for subtle, strategic questioning — just bully and the guys would cave. Nope, didn’t happen.

            • carolina
              08/04/2010 at 7:03 PM

              What kind of sane, intelligent person would put themselves on the streets of DC? They couldn’t pay most people enough.

        • Bill Orange
          08/03/2010 at 7:18 PM

          “See what happens when you get suspicious of someone’s believability?”

          Generally speaking, if someone is stabbed to death in your guest bedroom, I’m going to be a bit suspicious of your believability. If I subsequently find out that you withheld critical information from the police (i.e., that someone with a history of both drug use and violence had the keys and security codes to the house), I’m going to be even more suspicious.

        • Bill 2
          08/03/2010 at 7:36 PM

          “Here I did combine two separate statements made by Victor, although he never did actually use the word young, (Of course Robert was young.) He did, try to communicate the fact (Sorry, Idea.) that his feelings were influenced by the fact that a friend had died that night.”

          No! No! No! YOU claim he tried to communicate that. Because YOU could not prove it, YOU CREATED a scenario by taking two separate statements OUT OF CONTEXT and putting them together. You manipulated his statements so it would APPEAR that he felt “his life will never be the same, due to the fact that his young friend has died.”

          He never said that. He never communicated that. YOU said it. YOU communicated it.

          He could have meant many, many, many other things for why his life will never be the same.

          For example:

          1. because he feels guilt over what happened in the guest room.

          2. because he now has a mismatched set of sheets due to the cleanup of blood all over the guest room.

          3. because he knows someone in his household is a killer

          4. because he felt he had to lie to police

          5. because he would never get a good night’s sleep in the murder house

          Let’s hear your next round of baloney, alternateguy. You’re on!

          • alternateguy
            08/03/2010 at 7:48 PM

            Bill 2,

            Methinks thou doth protest too much.

            • Bruce
              08/03/2010 at 7:55 PM

              Getting awfully loud in here, istn’t it?

            • Bill 2
              08/03/2010 at 11:19 PM

              Damn right I protest when someone changes and twists factual information to put forth a lie. Working on a history project I found that an assistant thought an interviewee too dull so she got creative with the quotations. Luckily I heard part of the interview and knew she was creating bullcrap just like you do. She was gone from that project by morning.

              It’s great when people present ideas and possibilities of what could have happened in Swann Street, but don’t attempt to change known facts and published quotes from the parties involved as a way to push your agenda or your scenario because you’ll end up being caught in another lie.

  4. TT
    08/03/2010 at 1:28 PM

    Hmmm, dovetailing of details, whatever…

    • carolina
      08/04/2010 at 7:05 PM

      Yes, get a few details to match in the few minutes before the EMTs arrive and apparently you’re completely believable.

  5. alternateguy
    08/03/2010 at 1:32 PM

    OCCASIONAL, dovetailing.

    • carolina
      08/04/2010 at 7:06 PM

      Altguy, do you know how replies in a blog work? You seem to start a new post for every reply. Not being difficult, I was just wondering if it was intentional.

      • alternateguy
        08/04/2010 at 7:20 PM

        I read your blog and hit reply, which opens up a window where I enter my reply. Am I missing Something? I do reply to different bloggers, so things tend to jump around a bit.

        • carolina
          08/04/2010 at 7:50 PM

          Very strange! PC or Mac? Explorer or Firefox?

          • Deb
            08/04/2010 at 9:16 PM

            You are feeding his argument. Going all petty over junk like this emphasizes the point he was making that sometimes folks here ain’t so sweet if opinions differ.

            If we all just stick with what we believe courteously, maybe the collection of thoughts will reveal some new insight.


            • carolina
              08/04/2010 at 9:58 PM

              What the heck are you talking about? I’m curious about what makes a pop up materialize when he replies, which causes his posts to begin a whole new thread.

              Now if you’d courteously explain what you mean, I’ll courteously reply. As for Altguy, he’s entitled to post his opinions and I am entitled to ask him to verify or justify, just as he is entitled to ask of me.

              • Deb
                08/04/2010 at 10:44 PM


                Maybe it’s the curse of the typed word. There seemed an antagonistic tone in your responses to AltGuy. He had said he feels that “non-mainstream thinkers” are ridiculed, mocked, etc. To me, there didn’t seem any thoughtful benefit to pointing out that his responses sometimes start a whole new thread. It came across to me as goading, which would support his argument of pettiness toward the alternative thinkers.

                If that was not how it was intended, my apologies.

                • carolina
                  08/05/2010 at 3:50 PM

                  Apology accepted, it was in no way goading him. It’s hard for me to follow his arguments when each one seems to start a whole new thread. I don’t think there’s a darn thing wrong with him asking questions, but I’d like to follow along so I can ask some back 🙂

  6. David
    08/03/2010 at 1:40 PM

    An interesting aspect I picked up on watching the Dylan’s video is he certainly doesn’t sound or act distraught, yet when Joe picked him up and they returned to Cosi, Dylan said he was too distraught to enter Cosi and have brunch with the rest of the crew. Interesting change in behavior.

    Second, Dylan, like Victor, says that Robert is just a casual friend and that he doesn’t know much about him, but then goes on to say many details about Robert — new job at Radio Free Asia, he knows that Joe and Robert re-started Club 13, and other details. Those details seem to indicate that more conversation was going about Robert than Dylan was letting onto.

    David, co-ed

    • Bill Orange
      08/03/2010 at 7:19 PM

      My guess is that Joe tore Dylan’s head off in the car about taking the polygraph, and that’s why he didn’t want to go into Cosi.

      • Clio
        08/03/2010 at 8:14 PM

        Yes, that makes sense, Bill O.

        David, Dyl also knew about Robert’s predecessor at his job being less than a people person. Can that assessment be verified with the staff at RFA?

        On tape, Mr. Ward seems much more a brunette in 2006 than a blonde. And, he did not yet have that Florida tan. And, those dreadful shorts and the camera angle made him very hippy, meaning that they made his hips look larger than they probably were. And, his precise, soft-spoken Pacific Northwest accent with the ditzy hand movements and crossed legs are usually not associated with hardcore BDSM tops. So, given these visuals, the cops smelled weakness, as I think Deb observed earlier, and an easy confession: boy, were they wrong!

        At any rate, his alleged paralysis in this crisis — sitting on the sofa, a complete cypher/bystander — still could dovetail with the scenario that Dyl and Joe did the murder, and Joe and Vic covered it up with the 911 performance.

        Finally, he at first does not know what Joe wears to bed and then he suddenly does and, in this installment, he does not reveal the intimacies of the household. We’re all just friends, and Robert is just a casual friend … who just happened to die in our home tonight. Yikes!

        • AnnaZed
          08/03/2010 at 11:23 PM

          Heavens yes, butter wouldn’t melt in that man’s mouth. Not broken up I would say.

          Also, previously (and snarkily) I mentioned being surprised by Dylan’s womanly hips, and I don’t think it’s the shorts and camera angle. Curious I would say, not sparkly cat material at all from the looks of him. He must have hidden talents.

          • carolina
            08/04/2010 at 7:09 PM

            Those chicken legs ought never see shorts unless he’s at the beach. Just sayin’.

    • carolina
      08/04/2010 at 7:08 PM

      Perhaps “casual friend” is Swann shorthand for “Have not slept with.”

    • Deb
      08/04/2010 at 9:23 PM

      I noticed that too, but discarded it on my end only because this is all I have seen of Dylan.

      So I’m guessing that, assuming you’ve seen all of the footage, it stays equally frigid throughout?

      Strikes me as personality disordered from this one segment.

  7. Bea
    08/03/2010 at 1:58 PM

    The interview with Dylan makes Victor look good in comparison. Dylan does just about every DISTANCING move in the book and uses typical deflection language (“I’m not hiding anything”; “as far as I know”) employed by LYING people. To me, he’s lying from the beginning – and not very well. Classic arms crossed, and when he opens arms, he crosses his legs; his gestures are calculated yet don’t “fit” the comments; uses ambiguous language. It’s no surprise that he did not pass the polygraph.

    Particular problem areas to me: heard “high pitched scream or laugh” where Joe heard “low breathy grunts”. Victor FIRST heard screams then changed it to low grunts. Dylan sees Robert and sits on the couch. Grown men are unwilling to band together and ‘go downstairs’. Dylan recalls Joe telling him “a couple of days ago” that Robert was visiting – odd that Victor didn’t know. Could see the door was unlocked from stairwell; remembers and tells many same extraneous details yet says specifically “we hardly talked” when sitting downstairs.

    Either Victor is a better liar or he didn’t know nearly as much as Dylan did when they were interviewed. He seemed not to care at all that someone had been murdered – and as pointed out above, quite strangely he was distraught only afterward (was the police questioning more traumatic than seeing a murdered friend?).

    I know the polygraph is accurate only roughly 80% of the time (some say 70%). I think it was accurate this time (though it’s possible that the results were ‘inconclusive’ – just know the defense fought to keep out the results, unlikely if he ‘passed’). Too, there was no standard procedure of offering up a ‘passed’ outside polygraph.

    • Bruce
      08/03/2010 at 5:29 PM


      Taking a short break from my homework! You end your first paragraph with the flat statement: “It’s no surprise that he did not pass the polygraph.” I went: “What The F!”

      Later, in the same post, you say that it may have been “inconclusive,” which is not failing the polygraph. Which is it? And why do you assume it was a fail?

      Conciseness fails us! People could see your post, or skim the beginning only, and thereafter think Dylan failed. That would not necessarily be the truth, would it?

      Where are you finding this polygraph stuff? I would like to see it. If it was “inconclusive,” I can see the defense fighting to keep it out. I would. Do we have any transcripts, motions in limine, rulings or reports as to the polygraph? Help!

      Your friend,


      • Bea
        08/03/2010 at 7:09 PM

        Hey Bruce,

        I don’t know if the Defense filed its Motion to Exclude Polygraph Results or if it’s available (here or elsewhere). The prosecution knew that the judge would exclude (as all judges do) so the Motion was rendered moot.

        I do assume that the polygraph was ‘failed’ because of the Motion to Exclude. Obviously if Dylan passed it, they’d WANT it in – at least in front of the judge since they likely knew by then that she’d be hearing the case. I’m not sure if they’d been so wrapped up if the results were inconclusive since the prosecution would never really consider putting ‘inconclusive’ in front of a judge.

        I will look to see if the document is available – if so, we can put it to bed. But I stand by my post that in all likelihood Dylan Ward failed the polygraph based on what has been written.

        Now get back to your homework. Has ANY person claiming to know Joe come on here to say he wasn’t a drug user? For full disclosure, I do recall that he was not known as a drug user during his W&M days, and one Arent Fox co-worker said that he wouldn’t be in the position to know or not, that they weren’t close and he only saw him from time-to-time (relying on memory). You’d think that with all the people who are Joe’s friends who read here – many of whom have posted – that one person would’ve said “he was my close friend for years, and while I saw others do drugs, Joe never did.” Hasn’t happened.

        So I do put stock in the prosecutor’s statement that Joe was a drug user and possible distributor, that a tab of ecstasy was found (usually not sold in singles except ones used on the spot), that drug dogs sniffed two places where drugs had been kept, that several unrelated people have posted that he was a drug user (more than one claimed he had a serious problem). Your turn on that score.

        • Bill Orange
          08/03/2010 at 7:22 PM

          I don’t recall anyone at W&M ever saying that Joe was a drug user. It wasn’t really a hotbed of drug use. Anyone who used anything more than marijuana was pretty discreet about it.

          • Bea
            08/03/2010 at 7:29 PM

            Bill O, that’s what I said, that NO ONE who knew him in his W&M days said he was a drug user – wanted to make sure that caveat was noted. It’s post W&M where we have heard of his drug use/drug problem (depending on who posted).

      • Bill Orange
        08/03/2010 at 7:12 PM

        I think that all we know about Dylan Ward’s polygraph is that one was administered to him. Most of us assume that he didn’t do very well, in light of the fact that he was subsequently indicting for multiple felonies. He was also the first of the three to be indicted.

        • Bea
          08/03/2010 at 7:30 PM

          I searched the site and found nothing other than the Defense filed a Motion to Exclude Polygraph but I don’t think I’ve read the actual document. Maybe the Eds will recall??

      • Bea
        08/03/2010 at 8:25 PM

        Bruce, hon, too it’s an accurate statement that Dylan did not pass the polygraph whether he failed it or it was inconclusive. If he’d passed, there would not have been any move from the defense to suppress. Simple.

        I think back to all the relatively famous criminal cases – most good defense lawyers in a case where most evidence is circumstantial will have their clients take independently conducted polygraphs in order to convince the police that their client is, in fact, telling the truth. It’s not admissible, but if the defendant can pass and there’s no crystal clear evidence, the police and DA will give it more thought. I would love to know if the defendants here tried to pass any – my guess is that it was tried IF the defense counsel believed they were telling the truth.

        To the other legal beagles: would this be discoverable in a civil trial? I guess it’s a question of whether it can lead to admissible evidence . . .

        • Jeana
          08/03/2010 at 10:58 PM

          Been there done that in my former criminal defense practice. Also sweated thru a case where my client insisted on taking a police polygraph, over my strong advisory objection, to “prove” his innocence – and gave a huge sigh of relief when he “passed.” I don’t have a legal basis to answer your question about discoverability in a civil case, but I really doubt it since they’re inadmissible as evidence.

    • AnnaZed
      08/03/2010 at 11:27 PM

      “…Either Victor is a better liar or he didn’t know nearly as much as Dylan did when they were interviewed.”

      I’ll take “b,” Victor did not have quite as much to conceal as Dylan.

    • carolina
      08/04/2010 at 7:13 PM

      And again, Bea, Dylan’s father is a cardiacsurgeonnottobeconfusedwithacardiologist. Wouldn’t one assume he’d have *some* lifesaving skills?

      • Clio
        08/04/2010 at 9:34 PM

        Yes, but apparently Dyl did not want to break a nail or a sweat in the cover-up phase of the evening’s events. So, he sat on a couch: do no harm, right?

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

          If it was “first, do no harm,” I believe he was screwed before he hit the couch.

  8. alternateguy
    08/03/2010 at 2:56 PM


    Having once been the victim of a false polygraph and knowing how police can accuse you, based on the junk science of body language, I question your faith in these. (Everything was dropped, thank God)

    “odd that Victor didn’t know.”

    Wasn’t he out of town?

    “Grown men are unwilling to band together and ‘go downstairs’”

    Spare me! What would you have had them do? Drop the Robert/ambulance-call thing?

    “Could see the door was unlocked from stairwell;”

    I thought that he said that he made that observation after he had gone downstairs following the police arrival. Am I wrong?

    “…yet says specifically “we hardly talked”

    Well, I would think that recalling the shocking sound that they woke up to, could well be the one thing that they would have talked about. After comparing notes, that might well have caused Victor to re-think his half-asleep recollection of the sound that woke him up. Doesn’t sound like a big thing to me, what difference does it make if they did or did not remember hearing exactly the same thing?

    “…quite strangely he was distraught only afterward.”

    Doesn’t seem strange to me that he could have been going on an adrenalin rush, during the third degrees, and later been on a big let-down when asked to casually go into a restaurant. I, myself, wondered how the others could eat their brunch.

    OK, now dump on me.

    • Bea
      08/03/2010 at 5:26 PM

      Altguy, not feeling the need to dump on you. I’ve done some reading on psychological reviews of statement/interview forensic analysis and I wrote what stuck out to me. I am not an expert by any means.

      You can take my individual comments and attack them all you want – I think the whole is more important. Dylan doesn’t strike me as being honest or forthcoming, nor really concerned that someone was murdered in his home. He’s certainly (in this first taped interview) not helpful – no mention of something like ‘I know you have to rule us out, but things which strike me as possible are. . .” yet all the while has arms crossed, uses purposely vague and ambiguous wording.

      I didn’t say all polygraphs are accurate but that my guess, based on his answers and body language, particularly in the context of the far-fetched story, is that the polygraph WAS accurate in this case. In this interview he’d not yet taken the polygraph.

      He says he sees the unlocked door from the stairwell as they are going downstairs – all three give him credit for this though Victor tells the 911 dispatcher the same thing earlier.

      We disagree about behavior. I think it’s odd that he sits on the sofa if he’s really frightened. He doesn’t mention being frightened as to why he stayed in his room (though he ‘gets’ this by hearing Victor’s account, apparently). Odd to me that he has so little reaction to the questions about why the burglar didn’t go into HIS room, among other things.

      You’re right that I may be crazy, but if he’s legitimately concerned that Sarah Morgan might come home (whether to run into the murderer or the cops) then I would think most adults would at least THINK about going downstairs. Or how about calling her cell to see if she’s okay? It’s like that Joe and Victor didn’t check on Dylan immediately – people don’t behave this way.

      • alternateguy
        08/03/2010 at 6:21 PM


        You do make some good points.

        Bea, did I say you were crazy? I’ve NEVER thought that. A bet of a zealot, perhaps. But who isn’t?

        • Bea
          08/03/2010 at 7:01 PM

          Touche. I’ve been known to get on my high horse from time to time. I believe I’ve seen you out riding too! 🙂

      • TT
        08/03/2010 at 7:28 PM

        So agree. Joe, Victor and Dylan act very strange to say the least. I can not imagine being awaken and finding out that a guest in my home that I shared with (my partner and his partner) was “injured” or even “murdered” in my living space, while I was asleep. Please, Dylan’s testimony, does not make sense. Especially, reading it then listening to it. No one, Joe or Victor, run down the stairs, knowing, from their interviews, something is wrong, terribly wrong, to check on Robert…give me a break, and Dylan is in the next room. Sleeping on…

    • TT
      08/03/2010 at 7:48 PM

      Why, why, did not one of the trio do anything to help Robert?

    • carolina
      08/04/2010 at 7:19 PM

      You are completely wrong in calling body language “junk science.” In countries such as Israel, air safety experts rely on it to weed out possible terrorists. They are far more successful using these techniques than we are with our laptops in bins and bare feet.

    • Deb
      08/04/2010 at 9:29 PM

      He said you could see the vertical position of the doorlock from upstairs, looking through the balustrades. (Is that the right word? The banister thingies?)

  9. Bill 2
    08/03/2010 at 4:14 PM

    Before there is any analysis of Dylan’s performance, we should remember that this is a man who is involved in BDSM activities. Why remember that? Because it involves role playing. IOW, acting! Like other crafts with which he’s been involved, Dylan has textbooks and has studied. He underlined important passages.

    This VCB tape doesn’t involve just some person off the street who happened upon a murder victim. This tape involves an actor. Between the time of Robert’s death and the time this tape began, this actor had time to talk to his fellow-actor/director, Joe. Here and there, in the rush to “save” Robert and get him out of the house and to the hospital, we have to consider that the actors had time to work out a script that would include the dovetailing of details that could impress someone not familiar with their backgrounds and the special consequences that their acting and role playing background could have on their statements.

    • Bruce
      08/03/2010 at 5:38 PM

      Wow, Bill 2:

      Jeez, now its: they are all actors, and actors act, so you can’t trust a word of any actor who acts, because they are acting, because that’s what they do, they act.

      And Joe is not only an actor who acts but, prey tell, a director (!), and we all know directors lie because they are directing, and direcing involves actors, who act, because they are acting when they are directed. The lying scum!

      • Bill 2
        08/03/2010 at 7:16 PM

        “we all know directors lie”

        I didn’t know that. You’re certainly giving us something new to consider. It’s not something “we all know” because I sure didn’t know that. Thanks for providing that info, Bruce.

        How interesting that you can take thoughts of considering that two people involved in this drama happen to have an interest in role playing (acting), and now you want to imply that they could be “lying scum.” That’s quite a jump, but it’s aways nice to consider the possibilities that various people have to offer. Thanks.

        • Bruce
          08/03/2010 at 7:53 PM

          I think we can both agree that Dylan wins the Oscar for worst supporting actor in shorts.

          • Clio
            08/03/2010 at 8:24 PM

            But, Bruce, even with Dyl as perhaps just a “service top”, I cannot imagine this precious children’s lit author, as interviewed in Anacostia, in a harness: now, that would be acting against type!

          • Bill 2
            08/03/2010 at 8:43 PM

            Bruce, you’re making this very difficult. As much as I dislike the shorts in this video production, I have to disagree about him being a “supporting actor.” The detectives can easily be viewed as supporting actors or even listed as “also:” but I think it’s Dylan Ward who has one of the lead roles in the drama.

      • AnnaZed
        08/03/2010 at 11:47 PM

        For much of history actors have been refused burial on consecrated ground, maybe there is something to that.

        just sayin’

      • carolina
        08/04/2010 at 7:20 PM

        Hey Bruce, look at Dylan’s history. He falls into a role with every new incarnation.

  10. 08/03/2010 at 9:37 PM

    Polygraphs: I know Dylan took a polygraph test that day (having had to wait around for the FBI guy to be roused) and that Joe had agreed to take a polygraph but it didn’t happen. However, I cannot remember anything about a polygraph raised with Victor (and I cannot BEAR to plow through his tapes or transcripts again). If I’m right and polygraphy was not considered for Victor, what did the cops know THEN that would have made them think Victor was not culpable, while the other two were? We, with the benefit of thousands of subsequently gained facts and speculations, can make a case for the exceptionality of Victor (vis a vis the other two), but what could the cops have known on August 3 in that regard? As for Dylan, if there is any one I’ve ever seen who could fool a polygraph test, he’s IT.

    Seeming truthfulness: While I learned from these cops how NOT to conduct a probing interview that has any likelihood of uncovering meaningful information, what I HAVE learned, from Victor and Dylan, is how to be an interviewee as a suspect in a murder case. I sure hope I’ll never NEED this modeling behavior, but I have to hand it to Victor and Dylan. I don’t know who, exactly, is culpable and of what, but props to the boys for holding up, i.e., sticking to their story and keeping their cool, under all that badgering (as amateur as it was).

    • chilaw79
      08/03/2010 at 11:31 PM

      There is nothing in the transcripts or tapes of Victor’s interviews about taking a polygraph. That does not mean that he was not asked, but I do not recall any evidence Victor actually took a polygraph. Joe was asked, but I would infer he said no.

      Dylan apparently took a polygraph (apparently because he was not permitted to call his parents and Joe did not send in a lawyer). The results are not stated, but I do think it is a fair inference Dylan either failed or the results were inconclusive (i.e., he did not “pass”).

      I do not think the polygraph results would be admissible in the civil case. I don’t think the science is rigorous enough, but I have not researched this point.

      • 08/03/2010 at 11:48 PM

        My question is less about the legalisms or accuracy of polygraphy than about why Victor was not asked to take a polygraph (i.e., determined to be less culpable) while the other two were asked to do so and on the tape (irrespective of whether they did or the results). And, more broadly, in the interviews, it seemed to me that the cops had already, despite sketchy info available at that time, hypothesized that Victor was not (as) directly implicated as the other two. Why? What did they know (or suppose) at that time in the investigation? I feel the same way but that’s only after having read, heard or seen so much to differentiate VZ from JP and DW. On Aug 3, the MPD had little information available.

        • chilaw79
          08/04/2010 at 10:01 AM

          One thing I think the interviews reveal is that the police are guided by gut instincts. For whatever reason, Victor seemed more believable to the police than Dylan or Joe. I think a big part of that is that the interviews all elicited the information that Victor did not see Robert until Victor saw Robert stabbed on the bed. The only part of the interview where the police really give Victor a hard time is when Victor says that neither Joe or Dylan could have done it.

          The same thing is true on this site. I think the vast majority of people (even though they do not know any of the defendants) are more inclined to believe Victor.

      • carolina
        08/04/2010 at 7:24 PM

        Joe agreed to take the polygraph, but later got miffed at the treatment he received at VCB and refused.

        • Deb
          08/04/2010 at 9:34 PM

          Ah, the “that’s because you . . . ” defense.

          • carolina
            08/04/2010 at 10:05 PM

            That’s about right, Deb. I don’t think he ever intended to take it, but said yes knowing he could easily get offended (real or faked, makes no difference) and refuse.

  11. susan
    08/03/2010 at 11:42 PM

    I’m still digesting DW’s testimony, but for the most part he comes across believable to me. Maybe I’m suggestible, maybe not. I think there is so much that goes into reading a person, including actually knowing that person and I don’t have that advantage (or disadvantage, depending on one’s view).

    One thing stood out: Early in the interrogation/interview, the cop presents the bizarre scenario–person climbs fence, comes in stabs RW, etc., and DW instead of responding to how bizarre that scenario is, goes back to the earlier topic of a possible relationship with JP and RW. This is early in the video. The suggestion of the relationship comes up again at the end. But I just found it odd that he didn’t respond to what the detective said.

    The other general thought re DW is that he just sounds so anticlimactic and passive in his statements. Is it fatigue? Is it from repeating the story many times that night? Or is he just really oddly passive, as Gloria mentioned he appeared in the courtroom?

    Also, still wonder about who actually was in the doorway when DW and VZ see each other. It seems that their respective testimonies might conflict on that.

    Also, of course, there is the not very credible reaction to a potential intruder in the house. Again, it doesn’t sound very credible to just sit around upstairs if you think someone who brutally murdered your guest might be hanging out downstairs. Worried about Sarah M.? Grab your cell, barricade yourself in your room, and call her.

    My greatest reaction was to the colossal ineptitude of the police. Incredible! The cop mentions TWICE that they talked to the neighbors. Didn’t he get a clue from his own words, like: Talk to the neighbors. What fools. Yes, fools. MPD if you are reading–you screwed up!!!!! In more ways than one. Then, at another point towards the end, in asking about RW, DW is saying something and adding a “but” and the cop interrupts him! Unbelievable! How can you expect to hear anything of use, DC detectives/cops/police if you do all the talking and interrupt? And finally, it really makes no sense to me to only have large, straight homophobic-type men doing all the interrogations. Not helpful.

    Those are my two (maybe four) cents. I will likely have more as I listen again to that tape.

    • Craig
      08/04/2010 at 11:12 AM

      Susan: Wouldn’t a credible reaction for Ward (to finding a friend murdered in the home) be to grab the remaining knife from the cutlery set in his room for protection? The serving fork too for that matter?

      Shawn: If there was a post-morten ejaculation, Robert’s underwear would’ve tested positive for semen. And if that was the case, we would’ve heard that by now.

      • susan
        08/04/2010 at 9:10 PM

        Hi Craig,

        Grabbing a knife would be a credible reaction to suspecting a possible murderer remained lurking in your house, as would what I wrote: barricading oneself in one’s room. Sounds like we both agree that sitting on a couch doesn’t seem like the norm.

        BTW, where was that couch? Was it in the same room with RW? Have to wonder too, about JP. Wasn’t he just sitting there in the room with RW with the door open?

        • Clio
          08/04/2010 at 9:54 PM

          But Susan and Craig, was the couch especially plush and comfortable? If so, then doing absolutely nothing while “a casual friend” lay mortally wounded in the next room does sound remotely plausible, and, yes, the Brooklyn Bridge is still up for sale.

          Yet, doing nothing and being “stiff” with fear does sound plausible, if you were (or assisted) the murderer and you could not believe what you had just done. Again, as with trophy wife Vic, the whole story is not being told!

  12. Matt
    08/04/2010 at 12:42 AM

    Alternate Guy, a/k/a joe price a/k/a a friend of Joe Price is a disgusting little freak and should be paid no mind.

    • Bruce
      08/04/2010 at 11:31 AM

      Example of anyone can say anything on an anonymous blog, and they DO. Thanks, editors.

  13. shawn
    08/04/2010 at 4:56 AM

    Wow, I had to stop watching the tape, because the cops did such a horrible job interviewing DW, “That’s just not something a straight guy would do.” I hope the police are very upset that because of their own narrow minded views they probably did more to make the suspects shut up and then anything else. I feel so bad the Wone family, the cops messed up bad. I would hope none of my non gay friends would not have a second thought about staying with me over night.

    RE: The clean up, someone or some people that have OCD or as mentioned OCPD, would be expert at cleaning and could do it very quickly.

    RE: The semen, if it is possible for ejaculation to happen after death, why was this not the original thought by the doctor performing the autopsy and instead of sexual assualt.

    Robert seems like a great guy so in his honor I will donate to the memorial fund. I hope the truth does come to light to give the Wones a sense of peace.

    • Rich
      08/04/2010 at 5:05 PM

      “The semen, if it is possible for ejaculation to happen after death, why was this not the original thought by the doctor performing the autopsy and instead of sexual assualt.”

      I’ve been on this one for years…

      How does it land on or in the Anus if voided after death.

      It bascally, rolls down the leg.


      • carolina
        08/04/2010 at 7:28 PM

        And how does it get inside? How does it NOT end up on the underwear?

        • alternateguy
          08/04/2010 at 7:43 PM


          Good question. Apparently from what I’ve read, there is some confusion if the underwear, after being cut off by the EMTs and being turned over to the police, was ever tested. The autopsy report states that the semen was found in the area of the genitalia as well as on an in the anis. It’s my guess that during the removal of the underwear by the EMT, it could have been spread around. Inside? Perhaps careless probing?

          • carolina
            08/04/2010 at 7:49 PM

            You have to go very far out on that limb to assume “careless probing.” By whom? An EMT? “Hey, let’s finger this guy’s ass to see if he’s still alive”? Certainly not the doctor performing the autopsy. She would have done the swab before anything else was poked up there.

            • alternateguy
              08/04/2010 at 8:06 PM


              That may seem far out on a limb, but compaired to some of the sex play theories I’ve been reading?

              • carolina
                08/04/2010 at 10:08 PM

                Dude, how much do you know about BDSM and internet pornography? Because to be truly honest with you, none of those theories are too awfully far-fetched. And ask yourself this: Why were they not in the DC scene? Why was no playmat found? Where was all the photo equipment? How would it all tie into this?

          • AnnaZed
            08/04/2010 at 7:57 PM


            Ben! we have all missed you so much.

        • Liam
          08/04/2010 at 8:47 PM

          I’m just going to just say this point blank. I cannot imagine a way in which semen could end up **inside** the anus of a person who has “voided” as a result of the natural process of passing away. If it was there, it got there unnaturally.

          So if, in fact, this evidence is true (not just a misreporting of semen around that area) I don’t know why this wasn’t significant evidence.

          • carolina
            08/04/2010 at 10:10 PM

            The results of the assault kit are in the autopsy. It was not brought into evidence because the prosecution dropped the sexual assault charges to concentrate on conspiracy.

      • alternateguy
        08/04/2010 at 7:34 PM

        Not if one is flat on their back.

        • chilaw79
          08/04/2010 at 7:41 PM

          I still don’t understand how the semen gets from the front to the rear, especially if there is no motility. Please explain how you think this happened.

          • alternateguy
            08/04/2010 at 8:02 PM


            My theory of a possibility stems from the fact, as mentioned by the judge, that the EMTs cut off Roberts underwear, and presumably shorts, at some point. She said that she wasn’t sure at which point that happened, but she did have information that said underwear was turned over to the police. Whether or if it was ever tested, I have no idea.

            However in thinking about the process of cutting off the underwear of a victim, lying on his back, it seems to me that they would have had to cut the fabric at two places from the leg openings to the waste band. Then the removal would have occurred by either pulling the underwear from under the victim from either the front or the back. If they reached beneath the body and pulled it out from underneath that could account for semen being smeared towards the anis area. Of course, not being an EMT, I perhaps don’t know what I’m talking about.

            • AnnaZed
              08/04/2010 at 8:14 PM

              “…waste band…”

              Maybe you’re not Ben, not even he is that stupid. Where you home schooled?

              • alternateguy
                08/04/2010 at 8:16 PM

                There you go again.

                • AnnaZed
                  08/04/2010 at 8:21 PM

                  Yes there I go again calling you an idiot. That’s not a typo.

                  Have you sorted out the whole anus/rectum thing yet? I did post a link to a picture for you.

                  • carolina
                    08/04/2010 at 10:12 PM

                    “There you go again…” Either Reagan has risen from the grave, god forbid, or Bill (just Bill, not O or 2) has a cohort.

              • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                08/04/2010 at 9:11 PM

                I “hart” AnnaZed. LOL

            • susan
              08/04/2010 at 9:16 PM

              I hate to join this unsavory, but relevant, line of convo., but I believe it was not “smeared” in the area, alt; it was “inside.”

              • carolina
                08/04/2010 at 10:13 PM

                Susan, your beliefs are correct. Semen was, however, found “around” the genitals as well.

                • susan
                  08/04/2010 at 10:27 PM

                  Thanks for clarification, Carolina.

            • Deb
              08/04/2010 at 10:53 PM

              They just cut it and leave it. It’s not so much a “removal” as an unwrapping. They just cut it open and leave it lying there. They may roll a person off of cut clothing to access wounds, treatment points, etc., but they never actually take the time to “remove” the clothing they cut.

              • alternateguy
                08/05/2010 at 10:18 AM


                Thanks, that makes sense.

      • Deb
        08/04/2010 at 9:41 PM

        I haven’t been as concerned over the semen as a lot of others have been simply because the coroner found no other indication of sexual assault.

        The semen could have been there since 20 minutes before he left home in Oakton that morning . . .

        It does not sound like it occurred post mortem however. If the sphincter became sufficiently relaxed for it to just run on in there, you would think physical examination at autopsy would include some mention of an unusually relaxed anus.

        • Bruce
          08/04/2010 at 9:49 PM

          In reading over the autopsy, there is no specific mention of an examination of the anus.

          Apparently it was determined by the criminal judge that the D.O. doing the autopsy was not qualified, pursuant to a rule in DC, to testify. I think I am correct on that.

          Why in the world would the powers that be allow a D.O. who is not qualified to testify in the DC criminal courts, do the autopsy? Incredible bungling!

          Does anyone know if the same or similar rule of exclusion would apply to the civil court trial? Probably not, but it would be interesting to know.

          • carolina
            08/04/2010 at 10:15 PM

            Wrong, Bruce. Completely, totally.

          • Deb
            08/04/2010 at 10:56 PM

            She testified pretty well, actually.

          • Craig
            08/05/2010 at 12:56 PM

            You need to do your homework Bruce. M.E. Doc Lois G. was qualified by the Court to testify as an expert in forensic pathology on day three of the trial.

  14. chilaw79
    08/04/2010 at 9:12 AM

    My personal view thus far is that Victor is the most believable of the three (based on the transcripts and the tapes I have seen). Whether out of pique, exhaustion, or foreboding, I don’t think Victor was a witness to Robert’s death.

    Dylan just seems curiously detached. I find his knowledge of Robert to be inconsistent with his statements that Robert was just a casual friend, but I do not know if that is because Joe talked about Robert or because Dylan had some interest in Robert. Dylan seems to be more involved in the actual events, despite relatively obvious attempts to place him away from Robert’s body.

    • Deb
      08/04/2010 at 11:06 PM

      Curiously detached.


      What I found so odd is that he offered nothing to qualify his fear. I have been terrified a couple of times in my life. One of them I can talk about because it’s kind of silly — sort of.

      On the “rim walk” at Grand Canyon, I got SO scared that I could not move. Other hikers had to help get me off the edge because I literally could not move.

      Norris, not the best interviewer, does manage to ask at one point for Dylan to explain what he was feeling and Dylan just leaves it at I didn’t know what to think, I was so scared all I could do was just sit on the couch, etc.

      Well, if Norris asked me “what were you feeling on that rim walk”,I’d immediately launch into the lack of spit in my mouth, my inability to talk, my racing heart, my legs shaking so badly I figured they’d catapult me over the side, etc. You can’t help it. When something terrifies you, you have qualifiable symptoms of that terror.

      But Dylan remained curiously detached.

      What did you feel, Dylan? Is it fear I felt? Is that what they call it?

  15. alternateguy
    08/04/2010 at 10:36 AM


    “RE: The semen, if it is possible for ejaculation to happen after death, why was this not the original thought by the doctor performing the autopsy and instead of sexual assualt.”

    From what I’ve read on the net, it’s not only possible, but also widely known. I think that the problem may be that upon autopsy, it’s almost impossible to tell exactly when the event occurred. I have the same question that you ask. Why wasn’t this possibility mentioned in the autopsy report? Just one more thing that seems REAL funny to me. (And I don’t mean funny ha ha.)

    • carolina
      08/04/2010 at 7:29 PM

      You’re not answering the key questions here. How did the semen get inside his anus, not on or around as you claim? How did it end up NOT being on his briefs?

      • AnnaZed
        08/04/2010 at 7:54 PM

        Jebus! This post is landing at random and is not intended as an indictment of you Carolina my love, but I’ve been flipping in and out of this conversation for hours waiting for someone who knows the facts to point out that Robert’s own seminal fluid wasn’t found in Roberts anus but in his rectum, big difference.

        Here’s a handy diagram:


        The rectum is way up there dude, not a place where anything gets accidentally displaced when changing one’s clothes. Something lubricated with Robert’s own semen penetrated very far into his anus reaching deep inside of his person into the rectal cavity; that my friends is a medical certainty.

        That stuff about semen voiding after death may explain the semen on his thigh but not this, and that stuff about postmortem seminal fluid migration was extrapolated from a tiny minuscule lone study (not otherwise supported anywhere in medical literature, I know I researched it ~ I READ the damn thing) of a small number of extremely decayed corpses of 20 or more days decomposition, and even that study didn’t categorically say that semen or seminal fluid could magically end up in a decedent’s rectum even after considerable decay. The defense did their job by tossing it out there assuming that no one would read it and no one would understand it and it worked because people still mention it here.

        Let me speak slowly and elucidate: it.has.no.relevance.to.this.case.

        So, for the new kids who have sprouted recently and who seem to feel that some of us who have been on this site for a long time are close minded; please explain to me how this occurred. Please be mindful of the laws of physics when formulating your response.

        • chilaw79
          08/04/2010 at 8:02 PM

          Thanks for the diagram.

          I think a lot of us use medical terms informally, but the medical examiner and AnnaZed do not.

          For those of you who want to read the study, a link is posted below.

        • chilaw79
          08/04/2010 at 8:31 PM

          The defense stated that seminal fluid was found on the thighs, genitals, rectum, and anal cavity.

          The defense advanced a number of theories, including post-mortem leaking, cross-contamination, and whether the test used (the Seratec PSA test kit) created too many false positives when used on males (as opposed to findings of seminal fluids in female rectums where the test is considered authoritative).

          It is not clear whether Judge Liebowitz credited any of these theories, but she did not allow evidence of sexual assault in the trial. The government did not try to introduce the evidence which was cited in a notice of uncharged conduct (perhaps anticipating an argument that the seminal fluids got there consensually).

          • alternateguy
            08/04/2010 at 8:36 PM


            Thanks, that sure helps my understanding. Things don’t seem quite as freaky as they were becoming before.

          • Bruce
            08/04/2010 at 9:38 PM

            What’s interesting to me is that the same issue will come up at the civil trial.

            If the evidence of sexual assault was not strong enough to be allowed into evidence in the criminal trial, it does not mean that it will be excluded in the civil trial.

            But I expect the same arguments will be made about reliability, possible contamination, etc. Could be one of the toughest decisions for the trial judge.

            Is it possible that Mrs. Wone’ attorneys may not want the case to include the semen and sexual assault evidence?

            I know that sounds crazy at first blush, but if the judge kept it out of the criminal trial there was probably good reason for the exclusion from a criminal law stand point that the defense can make a lot of hay about at the civil trial.

            The Wone’s attorneys have the NO intruder evidence and only the 4 of them in the house that night.

            They would like to show motive, and the sexual assault would surely play into that, but even many of us on this blog just can’t make sense of the sexual assault, including the time line, etc., and it just may befuddle a civil jury also.

            If the judge in the civil case allows the sexual assault evidence in, she will also likely allow the defense to attack it in any way they can, making a real side show to challenge the jury, and make them question the plaintiff’s case.

            Just a thought, and probably a crazy one at that.

            • chilaw79
              08/04/2010 at 10:42 PM


              The way I read it, the prosecution simply decided not to put on any evidence relating to sexual assault. I do not see how it would have been relevant to the obstruction of justice, tampering, or conspiracy charges, especially since there was sufficient seminal fluid for testing purposes.

              Plaintiff’s counsel probably has to explore this issue and I do not see how there will not be discovery to determine whether a sexual assault was contemplated, attempted, or carried out.

              I don’t think the judge made a decision one way or the other.

              • Bruce
                08/05/2010 at 11:10 AM

                Hi Chilaw:

                Do you mean “insufficient” in second to last line of first paragraph? Just trying to understand, not being critical.

                The “seminal fluid” you mention, is this what was found in the rectum? I’m sorry, but I thought that was tested and shown to be Robert Wone’s. I may be getting stuff mixed up, sorry.

                • chilaw79
                  08/05/2010 at 11:54 AM

                  The FBI tested fluid found on Robert’s thighs, genitalia, anal area, and rectum and found it was Robert’s. Seminal fluid and semen are the same thing (as opposed to sperm or spermatoza). There was enough fluid to test.

                  I think this is getting mixed up.

                  As you and I (I think) agree, there is so much evidence of an assault (e.g., stab wounds) that showing a sexual assault may not be necessary. In any event, I don’t think Robert died from a sexual assault. He either died from a drug overdose or from the stabbing (after either being stabbed in his sleep or while incapacitated in some way).

            • chilaw79
              08/04/2010 at 11:04 PM

              I do tend to agree that a sexual assault may be a bit of a side show, since murder trumps sexual assault any day.

              The missing piece here is motive: why would one or more of the defendants do this or cover up for someone they know? Sex often is a motive for murder so I think it needs to be explored. Perhaps, the defendants engage in a cover-up because Robert is just a “casual friend,” and the murderer is more important to them. Money or financial gain is not an apparent motive for Robert’s murder, but this probably needs to be explored. I am sure the case has not been a financial boon to the defendants.

              I tend to think the murder was not premeditated, but there is really no evidence to support that conclusion. It is just a guess.

              Discovery in the civil case is going to be important given the lack of testimony by the defendants and the nature of the crime. As you say, the strongest evidence is Robert’s dead body, no convincing evidence of an intruder, a bloody knife, and three defendants in the same home at the time of the murder. They all clearly place themselves at Swann Street at the time of the murder and despite a strong criminal defense team fail to present convincing evidence of an intruder.

              Couple that with a lower standard of proof and the negative inferences that can be drawn if the defendants do not testify and I am not sure evidence of a sexual assault is necessary. I do think the jury will want to know why this happened and that is the big question. I doubt the defendants will answer it.

              • Bill 2
                08/05/2010 at 3:31 AM

                It’s possible that neither murder nor sexual assault were motives in this case. To me, it seems that porn may have been the driving force at the beginning of Robert’s visit. Digital porn photos and video of an Asian male who is not aware that he is being photographed with various BDSM appliances could have escalated to a point beyond what had been planned and finally into murder.

                What is it that points to porn as the original motive? The absence of all digital photo equipment in a household where photography is obviously an important element.

        • Deb
          08/04/2010 at 9:44 PM

          I’ve had seminal fluid accidentally crawl it’s way to my uterus a couple of times.

          • AnnaZed
            08/05/2010 at 11:21 AM

            Actually, no you you haven’t; sperm yes (the “swimmers,” seminal fluid no; the base fluid itself does not migrate, the sperm do.

            • chilaw79
              08/05/2010 at 11:57 AM


              You are such a stickler, but I agree that sperm are motile (and seminal fluid is not).

              • AnnaZed
                08/05/2010 at 12:07 PM

                Well, I’m only splitting this particular hair because my memory of it is (though now I can’t locate the reference) is that Robert’s seminal fluid was conspicuously lacking in sperm. That would be what is colloquially known as “sperm count.” A man who has had a vasectomy (and I am not saying that Robert had had one) would have no sperm count at all present in his seminal fluid. Some men have very little for all sorts of reasons that don’t necessarily indicate illness. I expected though that if the sexual assault and inexplicable presence of seminal fluid (but not sperm) in Robert’s rectum were tabled at trail that both sides would start to make some sort of hay out of this, though I don’t know what it would be. My point is that while sperm certainly does migrate (I know, I am a mother) seminal fluid does not. So, were the defense try to posit that the fluid “swam upstream” as it were (which they didn’t) it would be medically impossible.

                • carolina
                  08/05/2010 at 4:03 PM

                  Kathy Wone had Lupus and was advised not to have children. Robert was alright with that. It would make sense if he had a vasectomy to avoid accidental pregnancy and the dilemmas that may have caused.

        • carolina
          08/04/2010 at 10:19 PM

          You are 100% correct. I was misusing the terms. And as you say, it does not lend itself to casual semen deposits.

          The newbies, just like new graduates, like to think that they have the stuff and the old-timers are idiots. They don’t realize that we got to our current opinions not by simply deciding we thought the three guilty, but because the evidence doesn’t really stack any other way.

  16. Bruce
    08/04/2010 at 11:27 AM

    The semen issue in this case is probably the most perplexing for me, in trying to make sense of the murder. Craig, one of our esteemed editors, suggests that if semen had been on Mr. Wone’s underwear, we would know about it. But, correct me if I am wrong, isn’t there some controversy over that underwear and whether it was examined or tested? Do we know for a fact whether it was tested for blood or semen?

    Also, this “post-mortem ejaculation, clothes removal” theory may, and probably will, come to nothing, but it is this type of “out of the box” thinking that could really explain some things in this convoluted case. Don’t we have any MDs on here??????

    As to why would a doctor doing the autopsy not put in his report this possibility? Well, there are a number of reasons. First and foremost, it may not be a medically acceptable conclusion for an autopsy report, and may not be any type of real medical possiblity in the case. Second, autopsy mistakes or wrong conclusions are not unusual. Doctors are human.

    What other medical opinions from the autopsy report suggest sexual activity of Robert Wone. Sorry to go in to this, but if Robert had never had anal sex, and he was anally raped or had anal intercourse the night of the murder, the examination should have found irritation, inflammation, possible blood, etc. in the “nether regions.” Is there such evidence?

    So, the question for me, as to whether I really want to spend time thhinking ro researching on the “post-mortem ejaculation theory” is really the answer to that question. If there is no such other evidence of sexual activity or assault, I think it is at least worth pursuing. My opinion, only.


    • chilaw79
      08/04/2010 at 12:33 PM

      My own personal view is that Robert did not undress himself and was redressed in the clothes he was wearing when he was found (shorts, underwear, and a W & M t-shirt). The evidence I would cite for this is that the clothes he had worn to the office (which one of the Radio Free Asia folks described as being typical lawyer garb–white shirt, tie, etc.) were found lying on the floor and not folded in the manner Robert usually used.

      I don’t really want to spend my time thinking or researching about post-mortem ejaculation either. However, I think the study cited by the defendants does not cover a substantial number of individuals (36 in total) and does not make enough of a distinction about state of decomposition.

      I don’t think there is a lot of evidence of sexual assault, but there is plenty of evidence of assault–three stab wounds, at least two of which would have been fatal in and of themselves.

      The other evidence of assault is the presence of xylenes in the toxicology findings. My understanding is that these could be the product of an inhalant or an injected substance.

      Then, there are the unexplained puncture wounds which may be evidence of an injection of some substance. The xylenes, puncture wounds, and lack of evidence of any struggle by Robert suggest Robert was drugged in some manner.

      Finally, there are the contents of Dylan’s closet, Joe’s apparent interest in BDSM, and the various e-mails suggesting interest in a “third.” It could be that Robert involuntarily became the third.

      Plaintiff’s counsel would be remiss if they did not examine these potential theories in discovery. (Defense counsel could look at whether Robert was consenting, but given Joe’s statements that Robert was “as straight as a ruler,” I think this could backfire.)

      • Bruce
        08/04/2010 at 2:01 PM


        Whoa Nelly!

        You say:

        “…I think the study cited by the defendants does not cover a substantial number of individuals (36 in total) and does not make enough of a distinction about state of decomposition.”

        What exactly are you talking about??????

        What study?
        Where can we read this study?
        What citation by what defendants, when and where?
        Was this an argument made by any expert at the criminal trial?
        Were there motions in limine in this regard?
        What the heck are you talking about????????

        By the way, can anyone point me to the autopsy report; I can’t find it anywhere on this site.

        Lots of questions, thanks for the answers.


        • Bruce
          08/04/2010 at 2:06 PM



          You say:

          “I don’t think there is a lot of evidence of sexual assault.”

          What is there except, excuse me, the “semen in the anus?” Is there anything else at all???????
          Even teensy weensy? The “[not] a lot of” really bothers me, sorry.

          Your friend, Bruce

          • chilaw79
            08/04/2010 at 4:05 PM

            Isn’t semen in the anus enough for you? I agree that tearing or bruising might constitute evidence if present, but there is no suggestion it was present.

            The BDSM equipment, the knife (which may be evidence of sharp play), the possible use of drugs, or other evidence of lack of consciousness by Robert prior to the knife attack may be evidence of sexual assault or an attempted sexual assault.

            I don’t know what other evidence may be out there since most of the evidence was not presented in the criminal trial.

        • Jeana
          08/04/2010 at 2:22 PM

          Bruce –

          FYI, even though discoverable and admissible in evidence, autopsy reports are not public information. They are generally sealed and any that I have seen contain a specific admonition against photocopying.

          • Craig
            08/04/2010 at 3:56 PM

            The autopsy report may have been sealed and on super double secret probation, but then we got a hold of it.

            • Jeana
              08/04/2010 at 8:04 PM

              Craig –

              Wow! Y’all are amazing! I stand corrected.

              Had I discovered this website a few days earlier, I’d have seen the autopsy report. I’m still trying to catch up to the level of knowledge exhibited by other posters. I joined the site about mid-way thru the trial and have spent way more time here than I have to spare – as I’m sure many others do as well.

              That you and your fellow editors have dedicated so much time, effort, and commitment to the search for justice is truly a tribute to Robert Wone.

          • carolina
            08/04/2010 at 10:21 PM

            There’s been a copy here since it was released, and it includes the drawings.

        • chilaw79
          08/04/2010 at 4:43 PM


          This is the link to the study from Finland (and I misremembered, it was 39 men, not 36). I would mention that there is no discussion in the report of all the areas where semen (or seminal fluid) was found.

          There also is a discussion of sexual assault in the prosecution’s notice of uncharged conduct. The evidence is discussed there. I simply quantified it (in my opinion) as “not a lot.” I wish Former Sex Crimes Prosecutor were still commenting.

          There was no trial testimony on the sexual assault issue so there was no expert testimony on the issue.

          • carolina
            08/04/2010 at 10:23 PM

            I wish she were, as well. It’s ridiculous that she was run off– and not be the “Guilty Zealots” either.

            • chilaw79
              08/04/2010 at 10:51 PM

              Having someone with expertise in prosecuting sex crimes would be terrific.

      • Jeana
        08/04/2010 at 2:17 PM

        ChiLaw –

        I don’t disagree with any of the points you make, but if you have a moment could you take a brief look at my rambling late nite post above (responding to the Ellen-Bruce discussion re the presence of semen) and help me out with the timeline issue? If you’re saying (and maybe you’re not) that no sexual assault occurred, then what was the motive? Thanks in advance – I value your opinion.

        • Bill 2
          08/04/2010 at 2:36 PM

          Jeana, if I may interject, perhaps we could view the lack of some physical evidence as pointing to a motive. Police found no cameras nor video equipment. We know for certain that Joe had an interest in porn photography. He had porn photos of himself on his office computer. The lack of digital camera equipment in the house may be significent in this case.

          • Jeana
            08/04/2010 at 3:19 PM

            Thanks, Bill 2. I, too, find the absence of photo equipment strange in light of Joe’s known proclivities. I’m probably using the term ‘sexual assault’ loosely, being aware that one theory is that the planned activity may have been a “photo shoot” rather than rape. I certainly don’t mean to suggest that the absence of positive evidence proves or disproves anything. The removal or hiding of camera equipment adds yet another activity that would have had to occur within that brief time span between Robert’s arrival and the 911 call, and it’s that timespan that’s messing with my head!

          • carolina
            08/04/2010 at 10:24 PM

            Don’t forget his side business, EyeCandy.com was porn.

        • chilaw79
          08/04/2010 at 4:08 PM

          The study was cited in the defendants’ successful motion in limine (if I remember correctly). A link to the study is reported somewhere on this site (don’t mean to be cryptic and I will try to find it for you later). I read the report.

          The autopsy report is on this site, too. You can find a copy in the post on the medical examiner’s testimony.

        • chilaw79
          08/04/2010 at 4:47 PM

          I am not saying no sexual assault occurred. I am just saying there is not a lot of evidence of it. The semen/seminal fluid is the best evidence available (in my view) followed by the lack of a defensive response from Robert and the presence of xylenes as reported in the FBI toxicology report.

          I think sexual assault may have been an objective, but I think something went wrong, and a more serious crime (homicide) was committed to cover it up.

          • Jeana
            08/04/2010 at 8:35 PM

            Thanks, ChiLaw, for your responses both here and to my late nite ramblings. I agree that the presence of semen and the other evidence you cite supports the sexual assault theory – and I get Carolina’s point about the adrenaline rush aiding in the cover-up. But it just seems like so much had to happen in such a short time.

            I only hope the investigators employed by the civil attorneys do a better job than the MPD, and that counsel for Kathy Wone will present a solid, convincing theory of their case.

            • chilaw79
              08/05/2010 at 10:21 AM


              One final thought from me: it is clear Robert arrived at Swann Street and was stabbed between 10:30 pm and midnight on August 2, 2006. Whoever did it had only that narrow window of time in which to accomplish the task, whether it was one (or more) of the defendants or an intruder.

              It is not clear whether Robert was conscious, unconscious, or sleeping when he was stabbed. If you believe Dylan, Robert also took a shower during this time period and Dylan prepared for bed and read. Joe and Victor prepared to watch television, Joe did something to restore the ability to watch Bravo, and Victor and Joe prepared for bed. Presumably, this means that lights were on at Swann Street until eleven o’clock or perhaps a bit later. This leaves an even narrower window for the stabbing.

              • carolina
                08/05/2010 at 4:10 PM

                I think it’s very clear that Robert could not have moved and the stab wounds be so precise. I think we can rule out conscious, unless conscious but incapacitated is an option.

                The shower thing puzzles me. Wouldn’t Robert have washed his hair? There’s not mention or evidence of his hair being wet. If he’d used anything but a towel to dry it, someone would have heard that.

                • David
                  08/05/2010 at 4:26 PM


                  Good point on Robert’s hair being wet/not being wet, which made me wonder if he did take a shower, wouldn’t there have been a chance that some of his hair would have been found in the shower? Nothing has been discussed on that point either.

                  David, co-ed.

                  • chilaw79
                    08/05/2010 at 5:17 PM

                    The only thing we know on this score is that the towels in the guest room were neatly folded. This suggests to me that Robert did not shower at all.

    • carolina
      08/04/2010 at 7:32 PM

      Why are you referring to the doctor as “he”? If you’ve read the case, you’d know “he” lacks a penis, Bruce.

      There is no issue with the testing of the underwear, only the tee shirt. And a man may ejaculate at death (he did not die immediately so that makes this a much weaker premise), but the result seldom ends up INSIDE the man’s rectum.

  17. alternate guy
    08/04/2010 at 1:17 PM

    chilaw 79,

    “My own personal view is that Robert did not undress himself and was redressed in the clothes he was wearing when he was found (shorts, underwear, and a W & M t-shirt). The evidence I would cite for this is that the clothes he had worn to the office (which one of the Radio Free Asia folks described as being typical lawyer garb–white shirt, tie, etc.) were found lying on the floor and not folded in the manner Robert usually used.”

    I had read on this blog or elsewhere, comments to the fact that Robert Wone’s clothes were dumped on the floor, and that was said to be unlike his usual neat habits.

    Then, much to my surprise, I read a couple of days ago, something called “Affidavit in support of an Arrest Warrant” which was Dylan Ward’s arrest warrant. There under the heading, THE SCENE, I read the following words:

    “Mr Wone was clad in a gray “William and Mary” t shirt, gym shorts and underwear, with his other clothes folded neatly and placed on a table at the foot of the bed.”

    Whoa! No wonder this whole case seems perplexing.

    • Bruce
      08/04/2010 at 2:10 PM

      Great catch, Alte.

    • chilaw79
      08/04/2010 at 4:34 PM

      The issue of whether Robert’s clothes were dumped on the floor or folded neatly is one that bothered me so I have read up on it. I found testimony from a colleague at Radio Free Asia about his wearing a white shirt and tie during his studio visit.

      The trial testimony is the clothes Robert had been wearing were strewn on the floor in the guest room. I don’t know why the affidavit differs in that regard, although perhaps it refers to the clothes Robert intended to wear the next day.

      Much was made during the trial of Robert’s fastidious habits. His wife testified at length and Kirschner said a lot about this during his opening.

      • carolina
        08/04/2010 at 7:34 PM

        It was my understanding that his fresh clothes were folded on the table. Not that ones he had been wearing, which were dumped on the floor, but those he intended to wear the following day.

        • chilaw79
          08/04/2010 at 8:11 PM

          This is one of those instances when it would be better to see the crime scene photos. Based upon the testimony, I think it could be inferred that Robert was not the kind of guy who strews his clothes around a room, especially on the floor.

          Of course, someone who had not lived with him might not know that.

  18. holybull
    08/04/2010 at 1:49 PM

    Re: Interrogators, where are Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld when you need them?

    • Bruce
      08/04/2010 at 1:51 PM

      Alice formally invites you to a tea party at 2:00 pm next Montuesday.

  19. Rich
    08/04/2010 at 2:14 PM

    Going to Wilton Manors!

    Sudenly, I will find myself one mile from JP’s Lauderdale home.

    Anyone have a street address?

    I wanna check out where they will live the remainder of thier lives in LUXURY.

    • LegallyConfused
      08/04/2010 at 6:00 PM


      You are probably closer to 15-20 miles away from JP and VZ’s Florida retreat.
      It’s at 550 NE 94th St, Miami Shores, FL 33138. According to the public Miami-Dade Co. Real Estate tax data base, they qualified for the Homestead exemption. (Under FL law, I believe this means their FL main residence cannot be seized in a civil suit) Their 2009 RE tax was $9,424.57

      Dylan lived in a new condo development at the heart of Wilton Manors for a short period in 2008 before he took up house sitting duties for JP and VZ (and before he was indicted and charged in the criminal case now concluded).

      • Rich
        08/04/2010 at 6:07 PM

        Dear Legally Confused:

        You’re right. I confused my facts.

        Dylan was in the Wilton Manors Condo and the boyz bought in Miami.

        Oh, well.

        Looks like I’ll just hang out at the Gay Beach. 🙂

        • LegallyConfused
          08/04/2010 at 6:30 PM

          Rich, that sounds like a more productive use of your time.

          I’ll be in FLL in Dec., and may take a drive down to Miami Shores if I get a rainy, cloudy day.
          Otherwise, I’ll hang out at A1A & Sebastian, too.

          • Rich
            08/04/2010 at 6:43 PM

            Shame I’ll miss you in December.

            I just learned of the beach address today. Should ave just asked you.

            Any other Must See’s?

            I’ve always done SoBe and this will be a first in FLL.

            • Bill 2
              08/04/2010 at 6:53 PM

              Don’t forget Haulover Beach. It’s part of Haulover County Park. I understand the far northern section of the clothing optional beach is almost exclusively gay. You can google info and map.

              • Clio
                08/04/2010 at 9:39 PM

                Oh no, Bill 2, now the Price Sisters will know about this beach, and they’ll probably be there for “seconds”, “thirds”, and “fourths”. And, it’s not even a Denny’s!

              • Rich
                08/05/2010 at 12:06 AM

                Dear Bill2:

                Thank you for reminding me about Haulover.

                I schlepped the husband there last Christmas.

                He didn’t quite get it.

                I was amused by all the, “Nudies,” with loads of body piercings.

                I found myself asking questions just to educate mtself.

                He was embarrassed.

                We will return in November.

  20. Bruce
    08/04/2010 at 2:26 PM

    Dearest Bea:

    My response to your long missive is at or near the bottom of the posts on VZ VCB-3 of 3.

    Much love,


    • Bea
      08/04/2010 at 3:55 PM

      Bruce, you funny guy.

      So you WON’T believe Joe was a drug user (let alone “had a drug problem”) despite the fact that the prosecutor made a comment in open court, that drug dogs found two ‘hits’, that a tab of x was found (i.e. forgotten about), that people who him from work and clubs said he was a regular drug user (and more than one said he had a ‘drug problem’) YET you find NO SIGNIFICANCE in the fact that not one person says “I know him well now and there’s no way he does drugs.”

      Ridiculous bias much?

      And they had X because someone gave it to them – and they kept it as a souvenir? Seriously, you only buy X in singles at events where you are using there. You don’t deny but say instead it must’ve been a gift. Really? I don’t have friends who think it’s a good idea to give an illegal drug as a gift to a non-user – do you?

      Someone posted yesterday that there had been indications that Joe had an expunged drug charge but I don’t know the truth of it. Maybe Joe’s friends can comment on whether this is a lie (or the truth) when they come on to discuss whether or not he was a drug user/had a drug problem/was a drug distributor in 2006. (With a nod to CDinDC: insert sound of crickets chirping).

      Bruce, I make no bones about my opinions being my opinions – and even that I see things and evaluate things in view of the opinion based on years of reading filings, reports, this blog, talking to others who knew the defendants, etc. What I find silly about your approach is that you seem to take each element suggested by another and find a possible alternative theory (“someone gave Dylan the tab of ecstasy”) and neglect the overall picture created by seeing the big picture. Judge Leibovitz listened to the entire trial and said because of the ‘math problem’ of not knowing who did what, she couldn’t convict under the beyond a reasonable doubt theory BUT she made findings which were and are quite damning to the defendants. There was no unknown intruder. Period.

      No unknown intruder; murdered man found in home. Either one or more of the defendants murdered Robert Wone or they let someone in who did it and they’re covering up. We know Joe was worried that the Luminol would show the blood clean-up evidence (statement to Tara Ragone) but to his excellent luck, the MPD screwed that up. Joe lucked out and the trio, including hapless Victor, stuck closely to the plan to say nothing (and still milking/stirring up sympathy by playing victim; see catch-22 comment to Tara Ragone). Joe was orchestrating this that very first night – didn’t see how crass it was to try to get Kathy Wone to ‘waive her atty client privilege’ to talk to his lawyer about what the cops asked.

      And no big help from Super-Lawyer-Joe in trying to find the real killer – even with all this time on his hands.

      I don’t need to get into the timing issues, the needle marks, the sexual assault, the abject absurdity of the trio’s stories – it was one/more of the trio or someone they knew. It’s a sad statement that I don’t think any of them would put themselves at risk for a 4th person – and for Victor to hold to the story leads me strongly to believe that his beloved was the star of that very dark and tragic play.

      • Bill 2
        08/04/2010 at 4:26 PM

        That info about Joe was in the first DL thread started in August 2006. It could still be accessed two weeks ago but now all those threads are gone. Those threads contained the small amount of online interest in this case for two years until the editors of WMRW brought us this unique forum. (OT: The only thing I ever saved from DL archives is the cinnamon roll shops.)

        • carolina
          08/04/2010 at 7:39 PM

          Also OT: Let’s Roll!

          • Bill 2
            08/04/2010 at 7:52 PM

            LOL When I invented that roll shop, if anyone from DC was reading that thread, they could have realized that Beamer’s shop replaced the Hoover FBI building. It was fun to replace his building with something really tacky.

        • Craig
          08/05/2010 at 12:18 PM

          I may have backdoor links to the old DL threads and archives. Hopefully I find them so I can share. It was an impressive volume.

      • Jackie
        08/04/2010 at 5:03 PM

        Bea, as usual, you stated it all, so succinctly!

      • Bill 2
        08/04/2010 at 5:25 PM

        Way Off Topic — Bea, I hope you’re out right now, spitting on the grave of Prop 8. That’s damn good news from California. Judge Walker’s ruling expressly stated that Prop 8 was not to be enforced.

      • Bruce
        08/04/2010 at 6:27 PM

        Dearest Bea:

        I will stand by my post from last night(at the end or near the end of VZ VCB-3 of 3)which goes point by point questioning and deconstructing your long previous post. I find the “evidence” supporting your speculations to go from strange to stranger. But, that’s just me.

        Here’s my opinion and theory about Ms. Bea: You have reached your decision in this matter, and it is that all of the Swann 3 are guilty of serious criminal acts the night of the murder, including murder by one or more of them. You hold this decision to a point of moral certitude.

        You manipulate every piece of “real” or “fancied” evidence to support your cherished conclusion and ultimate decision. You will NOT be de-railed. There is NO alternative. There can be NO doubt.

        Thus, you manipulate the “real” evidence that the police found one pill of ecstacy to creat “fanciful” evidence to make them all crazy ecstacy abusers, and from there crazy drug monsters.

        The mere suggestion in speculation that this one pill could have been a gift to DW which he keeps in his room tees you off because it doesn’t fit your ultimate decision, which you must preserve, that the Swann 3 were crazed drug addicts and killers.

        You harp gloriously on one attorney saying that Joe was a drug user or abuser, and you ignore another attorney saying the complete opposite, that this is “absolutely false.” Even when there is no “real” evidence to support the crazed drug fiend theory, it must be upheld and promoted. Because it fits.

        I think the most apparent exposing tracks you take that really show “where you are coming from” are:

        (1) your steadfast reliance on anonymous bloggers who can say whatever they please (and do), who claim to have some knowledge of Joe and his drug use. That’s not “real” evidence, that’s “fancied” evidence, but you see it FITS with your ultimate conclusion so it suddenly turns into — shazaam –reliable evidence!

        (2) your steadfast reliance on the supposition that if Joe was not a drug monster that someone who knows him would come on this blog (THIS BLOG!!!!!), and state the negative: that Joe is a boy scout who does not use drugs. That doesn’t even have an iota of evidenciary value or relevance. It is so absurd, along with your reliance on anonymous bloggers being absurd, that it surpasseth all understanding. To me, maybe. Maybe only to me.

        I guess what is most “disappointing” to me is that I thought in a post some time ago, when the topic was job opportunities for the Swann 3, that you told us that you were a managing partner of a law firm. Which means you are or were an attorney. An attorney should know that your “fanciful” evidence and speculations are just that: fanciful.

        You have every right to promote your conclusions and opinions and engage in the delightful conversations on this blog. I will read them with pleasure and interest. Unlike my (perhaps harsh) impression of you, I feel that I can learn things. I have not so fortified my conclusions that I can’t bend a bit.

        While I don’t want to offend anyone’s religion, you remind me of the ultimate “Christian,” that believes absolutely without question with all their soul and heart, and cannot except any deviation, no matter what, including any questioning or interpretion of the Bible.

        God bless them and their moral certitude!

        For me, give me the church that promotes “faith.” Faith is a belief despite doubts. Despite doubts. Some people think that “faith” as opposed to “moral certitude” is actually the “stronger” belief. When Mother Theresa said, near the very end of her life, that she had “doubts,” it was entirely consistent with her life and faith.

        Sorry for the “church lady” talk; sorry we can’t agree on much of anything. But I will look forward to reading your posts; you are consistent and intelligent.

        I am fairly new to the blog, and I am just trying to figure out where the most common writers are “coming from,” for some clarity in understanding their posts. Am I way off base about you? I would like to give you “the benefit of a doubt.”

        • Bea
          08/04/2010 at 8:04 PM

          Dude, seriously, me as Church lady? I am sad for you if you’ve reduced me down to the things you’ve described. Bit of projection, perhaps?

          I don’t want to belabor but let’s try this one more time. I suspect Joe was a drug abuser in 2006. You do not. I’ve pointed to the prosecutor’s statement, the cadaver dogs, the one tab of X, the commenters from different aspects of Joe’s life as validation. I did not rely on but simply noted that yesterday someone posted that in 2008 on Data Lounge (preWMRW) that Joe has been arrested for drugs (records expunged) – don’t know enough to validate this. As for the other items, including some personal discussions with Joe’s former coworkers, I have reached my conclusion that Joe did drugs, and not just a little, in 2006.

          You’ve taken the contrary opinion without ANY evidence – just tried to dissipate the strength of each item I relied on (Dylan getting the tab of x “as a gift” is my favorite). I have pointed out countless times that not a single person who was close to Joe in 2006 has said he WASN’T a serious drug user. I find that meaningful – we’ve had some folks claiming to know him, even well, and some who were highly defensive of him – but not one who say he was maligned by the drug-user status.

          Rather than bash me, why not talk evidence? It’s far more interesting than I am.

          • Bruce
            08/04/2010 at 8:50 PM

            Hi Bea:

            In the previous post to me before the one directly above, (the one I am referring to says “Bea on 08/04/2010 at 3:55 PM”), you suggested that I am looking at the trees and not the forest (“or big picture”).

            I think you are right as to that, and it is probably because I have not been on this blog as long as you have been and the “wierdness” of this case is newer to me. I will keep that in mind.

            In reading over my post I can see how it seems “bashy.” I apologize. It was not my intention to get personal, but I think I did. I didn’t mean to go anywhere but to criticize your post in this blog, certainly don’t know anything else about you.

            It is clear that we are diametrically opposed in how we view the evidence that we discussed. Neither one of us is going to change the other.

            Live Long and Prosper!


            • Clio
              08/04/2010 at 9:15 PM

              Bruce, it is indeed astonishing that all of your deliberately provocative musings are from a former lifeguard who does not know CPR.

              Accordingly, game, set, match to Bea, our very own Joan Jett of the alleged “Thought Police”!

              Patti forever, of course!

              • Bruce
                08/04/2010 at 9:56 PM


        • KiKi
          08/05/2010 at 12:25 PM


        • 08/25/2010 at 9:59 PM

          Does “…Either one or more of the defendants murdered Robert Wone or they let someone in who did it and they’re covering up. …” SOUND LIKE “…You have reached your decision in this matter, and it is that all of the Swann 3 are guilty of serious criminal acts the night of the murder, including murder by one or more of them. You hold this decision to a point of moral certitude…”?

  21. shawn
    08/04/2010 at 4:01 PM

    RE: The seman I learned recently in some areas of the BDSM community that using one’s own semen as a lubricate can be a practice. Perhaps DW used his electro ejaculator on an incapacitated Mr. Wone and then to enhance the sexual thrill DW used his fingers to play with and insert into Mr. Wone’s anal cavity. This most likely would not show up as sexual assualt.

    DW does show a lot of interest in Mr. Wone in the interviews similar to an obession, which alot of people used to seem close to someone who is out of their reach.

    In the interviews he does seem like a socio path very likeable, very concerned and saying yup there’s enough evidence to show I did it, but not enough to convict me.

  22. Jim
    08/04/2010 at 5:12 PM

    I have been following Robert’s murder for the last four years. I have read this blog every day since the beginning. I was able to go to the court and all along thought that the trouple were guilty. After watching these tapes I am second guessing myself. What if there was an intruder. I am the most embarrassed for the DC police interrogation and homophobia. I am a gay male and most of my male friends are staight. I travel with them (sleep in the same hotel room) and they often stay at my home when they visit DC.
    What if there are innocent?

    • carolina
      08/04/2010 at 7:46 PM

      I am inclined to take people at face value and both DW and VZ seem very believable to me.

      This is why I ignore their demeanor. I have much experience with people who can lie so well that even an eye witness would doubt themselves. So long as they stick to an established story, convince many of its veracity. Repeating it over and over may not make the story true, but you sure will get a lot of folks to believe it is.

    • Deb
      08/04/2010 at 10:26 PM

      I think if there had been an intruder who came in, murdered quickly and left — presumably in a short period of time — there would have been evidence of an intruder.

      Is is possible there was a fifth person in the house? Sure. But would that necessarily mean an intruder?

      I am a straight female. I did not see the police suffering homophobia . . . it was more homoignorance. They assumed a weakness that did not exist. Weakness I think is a common misperception some people have about gay men and women who look like me.

      I think the ignorance shallowed the depth of their investigation because they assumed they’d get a confession. I think they got close with Victor. But then he turned it all off and asked to have the fan turned on. I think it terrified him at the end of his tape 3 how close he was to spilling the beans.

      Right now, for me, it’s Victor’s demeanor at the tail end there that I find extremely compelling. He is having a major “Oh Sh*#” moment at that point.

      But that moment does not a conviction make.

      I agree with you that I don’t really see anything very odd about gay men and straight men having friendships that involve overnights of a non-sexual nature. With most of the people I’ve ever known, sex was the last thing on my mind.

      On the other hand, you do need to understand why the police asked the sexual questions. Most “domestic” murders involve somebody sleeping with somebody else . . . whether its gay, straight, bi, or battery operated.

  23. Rich
    08/04/2010 at 6:48 PM

    Dear Jim:

    Over the past four years, everyone on this blog has changed their minds about this case, several times.

    Every new theory provided, gives you something to think about.

    After 4 years, I now have it down to the, “Enth,” detail.

    I arrived at this thinking from following the comments on this site.

    And, our minds will probably change some more as we go through the Civil Case. New and more information will be provided that the Criminal Case would not allow.

    Wait and see.

    You may wind up entertaining the Ninja Assassin Theory. 🙂

    • Jim
      08/04/2010 at 9:13 PM

      Yes, I have thought about the Ninji Assassin Theory. I still believe that the trouple did it or know the Ninji Assassin:)

  24. susan
    08/04/2010 at 9:43 PM

    I still wonder about M. Price:

    *key to house unreported
    *misses class that night for the first time
    *curses out a cop at R. Wone’s funeral (Aside from potential complicity, where is his respect for time and place? And why was he not charged for that hostile tirade?)
    *Robs the house a few months later
    *Now works two blocks away from the scene of the crime (maybe not significant, but interesting).
    *His lover (Hinton) attends the funeral and writes a personal passage (odd, considering he didn’t know RW)

    Possibly more of those “Night of 100 Coincidences” coined earlier by Bea.

    • Clio
      08/04/2010 at 10:14 PM

      But, Susan, recall what kind of class that Uncle Michael missed — it certainly wasn’t about fashion design!

      Oh, recall that his Manhunt ad indicated shared, extreme tastes in intimate behavior as his older brother. Who knew! Is Michael still single? Probably.

      If I was Gail in that parking lot, I would b-slapped Michael right, if only verbally, then and there for that spiteful, unnecessary outburst. Disgraceful!

      • susan
        08/04/2010 at 10:23 PM

        Hey Clio,

        You are right; more interesting coincidences. Yes, I think that a person could be arrested for cursing out an officer, and I think kind of threatening her, telling her to leave his brother alone. I agree–disgraceful!

    • holybull
      08/05/2010 at 12:22 AM

      Don’t forget about his (M Price) falling off the wagon about the same time as the murder.

      • Ivan
        08/05/2010 at 8:38 AM

        I believe his “fall” took place AFTER the murder. A bit too much of a coincidence IMO.

      • readee
        08/05/2010 at 12:46 PM

        Falling of the wagon??

        • chilaw79
          08/05/2010 at 12:51 PM

          There are reports that Michael Price, who had been going through a period of sobriety, began a binge shortly after the murder of Robert Wone. The night of August 2, 2006 (the night of Robert’s murder) was the first night when Michael missed his phlebotomy class. Prior to that date, he attended the class diligently.

          • readee
            08/05/2010 at 1:06 PM

            Thanks, chilaw79.

            • chilaw79
              08/05/2010 at 5:20 PM

              Of course, yelling at a police officer at a funeral suggests the binge was in full throttle by the time of Robert’s funeral. Whether the binge started on August 2, 2006 (or later) is not clear.

  25. josephina
    08/05/2010 at 1:42 AM

    I think blaming the cops for telling him that they had already interviewed the nieghbors is a cheap shot at the cops. Look, everyone wants a scapegoat about this trial. It’s standard operating procedure for cops to pretend they interviewed someone, or lie about someone to get someone to break. These guys are pros at covering up. Total slimeballs. The smoothest move they made was having no jury. The judge came up with some kind of legalistic arguement and ignored all the intuitive stuff.

    Look at Dylan’s demeanor. I mean, come on, a man has been murdered in your house and you are just this calm with this polite voice like your’re discussing where to eat for dinner? This interview screams guilt and major preparation for the inevitable interrogation. I lay all the blame on the judge’s doorstep for the verdict. What a total crock…

    • Ivan
      08/05/2010 at 8:36 AM

      I agree. I realize it was the middle of the night but there is a definite lack of emotion/excitement/fear about what happened in their house.

    • alternateguy
      08/05/2010 at 2:06 PM


      I agree 100% about the cops just doing their job. Typical grilling. And it is quite legal for them to do this. Lying to a suspect, in any case where a person, if innocent, would know that their statement is untrue, is quite OK..

      My take on the defendants behavior is quite different from yours. I see their reactions as being just what you would expect from innocent men under the circumstances. It’s only when you add outside suppositions that their behavior seems less credible. The defendants fully passed all of the cop’s attempts to rattle them. There turned up no smoking gun or huge flaw between their statements. Some say that their answers seem planned out. I don’t see that at all, unless a HUGE amount of planning and coordination was involved, and where was time for that?

      As far as timing goes, if the defendants had done all of this planning and coordinating and scene setting that’s been suggested, why not just call the cops upon finding Robert’s cold dead body in the morning? Much more believable than the short-time story they came up with. And more time to set up intruder evidence.

      The sleeping Victor coming down the stairs and discovering his buddies in a bloody scene scenario might make some sense, but seems very far-fetched to me. Where was there time to calm Victor down and get him up to speed on the story?

      Of course one might say that they thought that some neighbor could have heard a scream from Robert. But anyone living on Swann Street in the City, knows that one scream in the night is highly unlikely to bring much of a response. And it didn’t.

      Not offering a ninja theory here, but when you’ve lived in the D.C. metro area for many years, one can stumble on some pretty scary stuff. And I mean not coming from the streets.

      • Bill 2
        08/05/2010 at 2:59 PM

        “why not just call the cops upon finding Robert’s cold dead body in the morning?”

        Victor’s scream! A scream that was loud enough to be heard by the neighbors. A scream that could have the cops breaking down the door at any moment to rescue the screamer. Think man! Surely you’ve been here long enough to know that Victor screamed.

        • Bill 2
          08/05/2010 at 3:13 PM

          And while you know the scream did not bring the cops, the trio did not know. They had no idea that no cops were on the way. A scream that was loud enough to be heard by the neighbors is loud enough to panic every person involved in a murder. I did live in DC so I know that there are sometimes loud noises in the night. But there is NO WAY to know that every single person is ignoring those noises. There is no way to know if police have been summoned for the noises.

          Victor’s scream is very important in this murder case but we may never know what exactly caused that specific scream. Was it a scene of bloody gore? Was it somebody stabbing someone else? Was it someone pulling a knife out of someone?

          Victor’s scream – don’t forget it. It probably changed the entire direction of the night.

          • alternateguy
            08/05/2010 at 3:47 PM

            Of course if Victor’s entire story of why he screamed is made up, then what woke him up and why did the murderers let him happen on the scene? So many questions, if we fail to take the suspects at their word.

            • Bill 2
              08/05/2010 at 4:09 PM

              Don’t you think we can take the suspects and neighbors at their word that Victor’s scream did happen?

              Isn’t one scream enough to create a possibility for police to come to the house?

              Isn’t one scream enough to cause a killer to panic?

              As far as your question regarding “why did the murderers let him happen on the scene,” you must have missed the special sale they had on tickets to view the crime scene. It entitled the viewer to a whiff of a fragrance they call Special K.

              • alternateguy
                08/05/2010 at 4:20 PM

                I’m just saying that if they were in Robert’s room stabbing him, and they knew that there was a third party
                in the house, likely to hear something, wouldn’t they have either locked the bedroom door or listened carefull to hear if someone was opening the upstairs door or comming down stairs?

                Special K? Sorry, I don’t follow.

    • susan
      08/05/2010 at 9:32 PM

      That’s fine that the cops said they checked on the neighbors as a ploy to get the guys to talk. What’s not fine is their screw up of waiting three weeks to speak to the neighbors. That was sloppy, that was a screw up. Apparently one of the top DC detectives would agree. I posted an article about this detective a few weeks ago. A relative of hers was murdered and the screwed up that investigation in a similar way–And she says so.

      Ashley’s Regent-More screw up.

      Homophobic stereotypes and comments–same.

      Not cheap shots. You don’t do your job (some cops in this case), expect to be called out on it.

  26. readee
    08/05/2010 at 12:39 PM

    I know that we are all asking ourselves about the motive these men had for killing Robert. I was doing some research today and came across this website. Have a look at it and tell me your thoughts.


    There were so many occasions when someone killed someone from the same household and than just calmly made a cup of coffee and watched TV or dressed up and went out. And they were never violent before! Am I the only one finding Dylan in this profile?

    • susan
      08/05/2010 at 9:40 PM


      How horrifying. This is one of those cases where my waivering on the death penalty takes a sharp swing towards pro. How absolutely evil.

      I cannot say that I find DW in this profile, but I’m only one person.

      • susan
        08/05/2010 at 9:42 PM

        I want to add that maybe someone with greater skills at assessing sociopathologies could assess that. There’s so much to absorb and think about concerning all the theories, evidence, etc.

Comments are closed.