DW VCB Part 2 of 3

The Waiting Game

Dylan Ward’s first interview with MPD detectives at Anacostia’s Violent Crimes Branch ran about an hour and a half.  We continue the screening here with and additional thirty minutes.

Dylan Ward mug shot

The session starts with Ward and his inquisitor, Detective Milton Norris taking a break and exiting the room.   Ward returns a few minutes later and retakes the hot seat. 

While waiting for Norris to return we see Ward sipping water,  shifting around in his chair, crossing and uncrossing his legs, hands folded then head in hands.  All the while the tape continues to roll and record while the MPD let’s Ward sit and stew.  Body language experts may have a field day with this portion.

Twenty-eight minutes later, Norris cracks open the door and talks to his subject from the hallway.  Ward says that at some point he needs to call his office to explain his unanticipated absence from work.  Norris admits there is a “problem with the other two guys” and that he and his colleagues are trying to figure out what to do. 

We assume that Norris and his fellow detectives Waid, Wagner, Russell-Brown and Kasual are shuttling to and fro between the three interrogation rooms.  Norris wanders off then reappears minutes later with Wagner and Kasul in tow for a brief four-way.

The session ends abruptly and the final portion will air in the coming days. 

The transcript of the session is here (page 45).  The Late, Late Show continues after the jump.

Dylan Ward MPD Interrogation Video 2 – Time: 00:37

410 comments for “DW VCB Part 2 of 3

  1. Rich
    08/05/2010 at 11:20 AM

    Here’s a New One!

    Now, I could do a, “Keyowrd Search,” and read the dozens of arguments and comments made over the past few years on this site, but, I do not seem to remember anything ever being tossed around.

    Has there been any discussion about someone providing RW a, “Date Drug,” (or, whatever, it’s called) while they were having water/wine down in the kitchen upon RW’s arrival?

    Could RW been slipped some kind of, “Mickey,” Before any of the events occurring which would have slowed him down/incapacitated him and being more open to sex play.

    Or, possibly, knocking him out and and being available to the boyz to abuse?

    Just wondering. Could answer how Semen got on or in the Anus? Unless, Robert consensually was open to play out of curiosity. Not suggesting, he was a, “Motivated Homosexual,” just curious having known Joe for so long.

    A thought.

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

      There has been a lot of discussion on this topic. There are discussions of ecstacy, ketamine, and a whole host of other potential drugs, including an analysis of which drugs could have been placed in water (Robert apparently did not drink alcohol) or injected through one or more of the unexplained puncture wounds.

      • Rich
        08/05/2010 at 12:47 PM

        I certainly knew of all the, “Drug,” discussion.

        Just didn’t know it was associated with slipping something in RW’s water upon his arrival.

        Thanks for the clarification.

    • AnnaZed
      08/05/2010 at 12:26 PM

      It is my own belief that Robert was incapacitated within minutes of entering Swann Street either as you suggest by a “mickey” or by someone (probably Dylan) coming up behind him and injecting him in his neck (where one of the premortem puncture wounds was found).

      • former crackho
        08/06/2010 at 9:11 AM

        Its been my opinion from the very start, too. And it hasn’t changed. I think perhaps some G in his water, and then the K.

        • des
          08/06/2010 at 10:59 AM

          agreed fch.

      • Liam
        08/06/2010 at 8:11 PM

        gamma hydroxy-buteric acid (GHB)

        this colorless, odorless, tasteless chemical has become one of the most dangerous illicit drugs of abuse today. The drug is a central nervous system (CNS) depressant at low doses, and has the curious effects of reducing anxiety and producing euphoria and relaxation, sedating the recipient. The drug also is naturally present in the body and has a short half-life, making detection of ingested drug difficult (S. D. Ferrara et al., Journal of Pharmacology and Biomedical Analysis, 11:6, 483-487, 1993).

        Because of these properties, the drug has been abused through surreptitious administration to unsuspecting users in a variety of settings, including college parties and bars. The drug has thus become known as one of the “date rape” drugs, used to disable women who have unknowingly ingested the drug in a product they otherwise intended to consume.

        The drug has risks beyond unintended disinhibition, however. The drug can cause unconsciousness, respiratory depression, bradycardia, nausea, vomiting, seizures and coma, and has been linked to over 60 deaths. The severity of symptoms and the duration of action are dose dependent and can be affected by the presence of other CNS depressants.

        Recently, male perpetrators who mixed the drug in the drinks of unsuspecting females were convicted of involuntary manslaughter in the death of one 15-year-old recipient who died as a result (“Justice, with tears,” Schmitt et al., Detroit Free Press, Mar. 15, 2000).

        The dangers of such results are an inherent property of the drug, and one that makes its illicit use particularly dangerous. The drug has a very steep dose-response curve. A 1-gram dose for a 150-pound person provides a low degree of effect, causing a sense of euphoria and loss of inhibitions (Leonard, 1999; Galloway, 2000). However, a 2.5-gram dose to the same individual can lead to coma (ibid.). Higher doses can result in death.

        • carolina
          08/06/2010 at 9:31 PM

          But there was a tox screen done for G. It had to be something else.

          • Liam
            08/06/2010 at 10:59 PM

            I didn’t know that they had screened for it, but, interestingly, the excerpt above was taken from a patent directed to a method for testing for GHB in a person. Apparently it is not easy to detect.

            • Liam
              08/06/2010 at 11:05 PM

              And, if they can screw up the test for blood at the scene (Ashley’s reagent, regarding which I’ve heard nobody state that the test is difficult to administer), why would I have faith in the results of a test for a substance that is apparently difficult to detect.

              Ahhh, but that is the nature of this case…no easy answers.

              • carolina
                08/07/2010 at 8:39 AM

                The difference is that one test was in the hands of the MPD, the other in a competent lab.

                The Reagent was not administered incorrectly, by the way, but was the wrong choice for the surfaces on which it was used.

                • AnnaZed
                  08/07/2010 at 9:50 PM

                  I wish that I had a link that lays out exactly what did happen with the Reagent. Either I never had it or I lost track of it, but I am still not entirely clear about this particular monumental fuck-up.

                  • carolina
                    08/08/2010 at 3:19 PM

                    AZ, I believe I read it on this site.

                • Liam
                  08/08/2010 at 12:27 AM

                  I understand your point regarding the results of the test for GHB may be more reliable because a private lab did the screening.

                  However, I have an interesting (true) story about “competent labs”.

                  A friend of mine from years ago, who obtained a degree in chemistry from UVA and is now a successful patent attorney, worked in a private lab after graduation from UVA.

                  He told me a story about a time when the lab mixed up the results of two AIDS tests (this was back in the 80s). One test was positive, the other negative. The two people whose tests were switched were informed of the wrong results. Eventually it was straightened out, but people at the lab were fired, including my friend.

                  And, I should share a quote from a doctor friend of mine “you’d be surprised at the amount of malpractice that occurs at hospitals.”

                  I guess the problem when tox screen tests don’t find anything, yet you suspect the victim was drugged, is that you just don’t know whether the test was not performed properly or the test wasn’t for the right substance. With a negative test result, we’ll never know.

              • Cat from Cleveland
                08/07/2010 at 2:32 PM

                Can someone direct me to the document that addresses this? I’d like to know more about the blood testing. The only reference I’ve seen is in one of the motion in limines where the parties discussed the FBI report that indicated the original tests showing the presence of blood was a false positive. The briefs cite the FBI report as stating no blood evidence was found anywhere, and no blood or cleaning agents were found in any of the drains. I’m sure there is more information somewhere?

          • chilaw79
            08/06/2010 at 11:08 PM

            Based upon the reading I have done on this topic, GHB is difficult to detect in an ER setting or in toxicology testing because the drug is metabolized very quickly. A test done as little as 12 hours later may not detect the drug.

            I do not know if the attempts made to save Robert’s life at the hospital would make discovery any easier.

            Although it is a massive invasion of Robert’s privacy, the medical records associated with his hospital stay may contain important information. I do know that the federal laws governing medical privacy do not apply in criminal investigations and I assume Kathy Wone may wave any residual rights to privacy that Robert may have.

            • carolina
              08/08/2010 at 8:46 AM

              That metabolism would cease at death, am I not correct?

              • chilaw79
                08/08/2010 at 1:12 PM

                I am not a toxicologist. My reading suggests that metabolization does not stop at death. Ability to detect toxins is highly dependent on “guessing right” in deciding what tests to do, doing them within appropriate time frames, using blood or tissues from the best places, and depends a lot on the toxin for which tests are run.

                My own feeling is that we attribute too much certainty to scientific testing when it is highly dependent on human factors. Every high-profile criminal trial these days seems to feature dueling experts who take the same evidence and interpret it in very different ways and/or criticize the manner in which the evidence was collected, preserved, or (in some cases) altered.

                • carolina
                  08/08/2010 at 3:21 PM

                  Yes, that certainly is a compelling argument. In truth, it is surprising we know anything at all with enough certainty to convict anyone.

                  • chilaw79
                    08/08/2010 at 8:44 PM

                    One of the beauties of the jury system is that juries assess credibility (including the credibility of experts) and view the facts through their own life experiences. The judges sort out the law and the lawyers try to present their cases in ways a jury will understand.

                    The phenomenon of dueling experts does not exist for a broad group of criminal defendants; it is only those who are well to do (or have wealthy parents) who can afford all the bells and whistles.

    • Ivan
      08/05/2010 at 2:08 PM

      I’m an innocent. What is a “mickey”?

      • chilaw79
        08/05/2010 at 2:13 PM

        A drink that has been drugged is often referred to as a “mickey” or you say someone “slipped me a mickey.”

        I am not sure what the derivation is, but the phrase has been around for a long time (certainly since the days of Jimmy Cagney and Humphrey Bogart, but if I explain them to you, you are much younger than I imagine).

        • alternateguy
          08/05/2010 at 2:20 PM

          I think it’s short for Mickey Finn, sounds Irish to me. I seem to recall that, upon waking up from a Mickey, one can find himself enslaved, either on a ship, or in the military.

          • chilaw79
            08/05/2010 at 2:26 PM

            Humphrey Bogart is “slipped a mickey” in The Maltese Falcon and ends up unconscious (face down) on the floor.

            Cagney probably was too cagey to be “slipped a mickey.”

      • chilaw79
        08/05/2010 at 2:19 PM

        Looked it up: the term often is thought to refer to a Chicago bartender named Mickey Finn who was alleged to have put knockout drops in drinks served to customers (particularly those who did not tip well).

        The term currently could refer to what are commonly referred to as “date rape” drugs such as GBH and rohypnol.

        • Rich
          08/05/2010 at 2:29 PM

          I Just LOVE this website.

          It’s called, “Who Murdered Robert Wone,” yet we research the term of art, “Mickey.”

          We do digress here.

          I’m surprised in all of the discussion pertaining to RW’s, “Underwear,” no one on this blog has questioned:

          Boxers versus Briefs?

          Or, did I miss that one?

          Yes, someone said, “Briefs,” but, Robert’s generation wore, “Boxers.”

          • chilaw79
            08/05/2010 at 2:41 PM

            The possibility that Robert was “slipped a mickey” is a potential explanation for why he did not defend himself while being stabbed.

            I plead guilty to digression, but not to irrelevance.

            • Rich
              08/05/2010 at 3:04 PM

              Dear ChiLaw:

              In all this time, I would never consider any of your comments, “Irrelevant.”

              A click ot two off of center, but, NOT, Irrelevant.

            • Ivan
              08/06/2010 at 7:54 AM

              I appreciated it chilaw. Never heard the term before. I assume GBH and rohypnol are controlled substances?

              • LegallyConfused
                08/06/2010 at 9:18 AM

                Yes GHB and Rohypnol are on DEA’s list of controlled substances.
                GHB is a Sch. I (most controlled). Sch. I drugs have no legal medical use in the US, and, cannot be legally prescribed. Other Sch. I drugs are heroin, cocaine, PCP, etc.

                Rohypnol is a Sch. IV drug, and can be legally prescribed for insomnia and other sleep disorders.

                Of course, it is illegal to give any controlled substance, or any Rx drug, to any person for whom it has not been prescribed.

              • chilaw79
                08/06/2010 at 9:27 AM

                GHB (I inverted the letters earlier) and rohypnol, along with ketamine, are illegal when used in non-medical settings.

                GHB is distributed in liquid form and can readily be mixed with a fluid. It has a slightly salty taste (according to published reports) but when mixed with juice or alcohol is not readily detectable. GHB can be used with other drugs. Ketamine can be injected. The DEA website has a lot of information if you are interested.

                The so-called “date rape” drugs are widely available, are not easily detected, and can cause a coma or respiratory distress. The drugs render the victim unable to resist a sexual assault and leave the victim with little or no memory of events.

                It is difficult to determine the proper dose of GHB, according to various websites. It sounds like it would be easy to overdose.

  2. alternateguy
    08/05/2010 at 12:22 PM

    DW’s dead-time behavior, like Victors, almost seems to me to be like that of teen-agers called on the carpet outside the principals office. Either guilty or innocent, not very confortable.

    • Michael
      08/05/2010 at 12:52 PM

      alternateguy, I completely agree with you! Dylan is just nervous about the cops finding drugs in their house; not about how a guest had been _mysteriously_ murdered there.

      Poor, innocent Dylan.

      • Clio
        08/05/2010 at 7:51 PM

        Yes, Dyl is just a “witness” here, but a “witness” to what?

        Looking at Mr. Ward with those shorts and legs and hearing that prissy voice, it is very hard to imagine him/her as a killer or as an accessory to murder. Yet if real women can and do kill, then gay men of a certain manner and temperament can and do so as well.

      • chilaw79
        08/05/2010 at 9:21 PM

        I sense the satire button is on, but I could be wrong.

    • Deb
      08/06/2010 at 8:58 PM

      Sitting that long in those chairs that late at night — anyone would fidget I think.

      His fidgets become a bit more pronounced after Norris says there is a problem with the other two guys.

      It appeared as if he wanted to rock, but knew he was being taped and stopped himself short.

  3. Bea
    08/05/2010 at 4:54 PM

    Seeing the “Mickey” discussions, it’s worthwhile to correct a wrong statement about the semen. It was not only found in/on Robert’s anus but in his rectum, which is several inches inside his body. Not easily transferred there (at least not casually so).

    As for Dylan, is anyone else surprised that there appeared not to be any tears or emotional outbursts as it relates to finding a dead friend – and not ‘quietly and cleanly’ so but a stabbing victim? It’s a shock to the system, and one that would tend to creep up out of nowhere. Perhaps it’s just a coincidence that any individual crying jags were not caught on camera – but Victor did cry several times during the trial, so why never that night?

    I’d have expected at least a few angry emotion-fueled “we need to get these bastards who did this” as well. I’ve not been in this kind of situation but have watched a few crime witnesses (in addition to criminals) in my early time after law school. Not all, but a good number of family members questioned (who weren’t even present) regarding a loved one being beaten made more than one reference that they planned to ‘get their hands on the SOB’.

    When it was non-family members, perhaps less vindictiveness but still some sense of being on the same team as the police, having the same goal. I know these guys claim to know very little, but it still strikes me that there’d be some soul searching and hand wringing over what they might have overlooked – I realize too that they’ve already decided that they are suspects, but I’m fairly sure I’d be saying “let’s ‘clear’ me quickly so you can get to the real job at hand” and spilling my guts – did I see anything when the door opened? Did I remember if Robert said anything about taking a cab or walking? That I was pretty sure Robert went directly to bed – that I didn’t hear him go downstairs to let anyone in, etc.

    • carolina
      08/05/2010 at 8:28 PM

      Even if there were no emotion filled declarations that the culprit must be captured, you would at least expect them to get pissed off that the cops are acting like they did it. I think I would have. “WTF are you doing asking me these questions over again? Go look for something that is going to catch the right guy!”

      But that’s just me. Maybe it’s normal to passively recount hosing down your steaks.

    • chilaw79
      08/05/2010 at 9:40 PM


      Is it possible that the flat affect of Dylan is a product of mixing a “sleep aid” and alcohol (the wine consumed with the steak dinner)?
      The reading I did on Unisom (the sleep aid Victor used) and on Lunesta both say they should not be taken with alcohol. (I am not saying that Dylan took Lunesta (although this was discussed on this blog at one point), but Victor does say that Dylan used a “sleep aid.”)

      Do we know which “sleep aid” Dylan used?

      • susan
        08/05/2010 at 10:01 PM

        Hi Chilaw,

        One of the guys said they didn’t even finish the bottle of wine, that they had a glass each during dinner. They didn’t go to bed after dinner so I don’t think much wine would have been in their system by the time they said they retired for the evening.

      • carolina
        08/08/2010 at 8:44 PM

        Lunesta was prescribed to him. One would assume that if he said he took one, that would be it.

    • des
      08/06/2010 at 10:58 AM

      exactly bea.
      i would think instead of just relating the “story” of what happened, they would be actually trying to think while they were being questioned. trying to remember anything that was overlooked or forgotten. going over what happened in their mind. there seems to be none of that – just statement upon statement of what happened and i have no idea besides what i’ve just told you and i didn’t do it and i can’t believe the other two didn’t either and oh yes there was a spider.
      i would be racking my brain trying to remember the smallest detail, in the effort to aid the investigation. they seem to be in denial denial denial mode.

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

        Des & Bea:

        Both of you, in my opinion, seem to want the Swann 3 to be “Supermen” at their police interviews.

        The police were in control in these interviews, and shooting questions to the Swann 3, to which they were to answer.

        The police were in the power position, and the Swann 3 were definitely in the weak position, in a police station, with “hard type” police detectives who were showing hostility to them, hitting them with many questions.

        This wasn’t a free for all stream of consciousness type of setting.

        I can understand your opinions, just strongly disagree, based upon my view of the tapes and trying to apply just a little bit of reasonable “benefit of a doubt.”

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

          Hey Bruce, I appreciate your opposite view, but having a little experience in this area (dealing with witnesses in criminal cases) it is bizarre to me that not one of the three men seems to be “on Robert’s side” with the police.

          • alternateguy
            08/08/2010 at 9:09 PM


            I think there is a slim chance you may be wrong about no one being on Robert’s side.

            At one point I recall that upon being asked about Robert’s comming over that night, Joe responded something like, “No one wishes more than me, that he didn’t!”

            They all seemed to feel the horror of what happened, and that, as I see it, is being on Robert’s side. When they express statments to the fact that this is the worst nignt of their lives or that their lives will never be the same again, you might ASSUME that they say that because
            the poliece are giving a hard time, or because they are guilty.

            But you might also consider that, just maybe, they are saying these things, due to the horrible death of Robert. And as innocent men, they might expect the police to understand that, just a little.

            ‘Course if they are guilty, as you seem to know they are, that wouldn’t apply.

            • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
              08/08/2010 at 9:33 PM

              Altguy, you should work in a pretzel factory. You can twist anything.

    • Deb
      08/06/2010 at 9:07 PM

      With Dylan, the lack of emotion seems like detachment. He appears to be lacking emotion — even feigned emotion — entirely.

      Victor seemed overwhelmed. We know he was tremendously upset on the 911 call, and it did, indeed, seem genuine.

      When that kind of anxious adrenaline rush occurs, there is a calm after the storm. Couple that with exhaustion, and a person can fall into a kind of mechanical state, which is both physical and emotional in its genesis, the emotional aspect being that you turn off the bad stuff and focus on the process at hand. (Victor is probably totally PTSD at this point.)

      Also with Victor, he did not seem to lack emotion entirely. We know that at the point he ends his interview and says he either wants to leave or have a lawyer he is visibly shaking — whether caused by anger, fear, whatever, we know he “feels” something because he is physically reacting to it.

      Dylan hasn’t gotten there. At least not yet. Will he ever? Is he capable?

  4. mw
    08/05/2010 at 4:54 PM

    All of these scenerios about drugging and such still make no sense to me. It makes no sense that educated professionals would think they’d get away with that. And stabbing him to cover up an accidential drugging overdose seems like a ridiculous plan too. Disposing of the body make a million times more sense, and I don’t believe that Victor’s scream would have changed that obvious solution.

    Thinking more simply:

    Dylan (or even Victor) somehow got the idea that Joe was into Robert. Maybe there was a three’s company-esque misunderstood sexual innuendo of some type. Dylan kills Robert in a violent rage

    • carolina
      08/05/2010 at 8:30 PM

      And yet the man is dead, with Xylene in his system and semen in his rectum. Dylan doesn’t look like he could break a sweat if he was running. I can’t see a murderous rage.

      • chilaw79
        08/05/2010 at 11:29 PM

        There is nothing about Robert’s stab wounds that screams “murderous rage” to me. The wounds are precise, almost surgical in nature. There are three stab wounds, at least two of which would have been fatal within short order (assuming Robert was not dead already). The stab wounds of Robert look like they could have been done by someone with the detachment of a surgeon.

        Having represented someone who stabbed someone in a rage, the autopsy photos of Robert looked nothing like those of the victim of a man who really was in a rage when he stabbed his girlfriend 27 times, before murdering a couple of policemen. (I did not represent him in the criminal case, for which he received the death penalty.)

        • susan
          08/06/2010 at 12:15 AM

          You know, it seemed like when Victor Z. was making the sound of what he said he heard, he did about three hasty intakes of breath. Not exhales but inhales. Can anyone remember that? I can’t remember which tape that was on. But they were three quick breaths if I recall correctly. I thought that was odd. 1. I can’t see how he could have heard something like that, like the sound he made, if he was asleep and had already taken a sleep drug. 2. Why, like JP previously, did he seem to emulate stabbings? When he heard it, wouldn’t he have not known what it was?


          • alternateguy
            08/06/2010 at 12:33 AM


            I think that I recall that Victor said that a scream woke he and Joe up. They weren’t really sure if it came from inside the house and went to the door. Then, hearing additional sounds which were clearly from downstairs, they rushed downstairs. Maybe the intakes of breath were what Victor heard at the door.

        • Deb
          08/06/2010 at 9:09 PM

          We’ve seen autopsy photos? Anyone want to point me in the direction, or, as me Ma used to say, must I work for myself?

          • chilaw79
            08/06/2010 at 11:10 PM

            I was in the courtroom one day when the autopsy photos were displayed. I felt awful for Kathy Wone.

        • carolina
          08/06/2010 at 9:43 PM

          I agree entirely; this was exactly the point I was making. Dylan hardly seems the “violent rage” type.

          • 08/06/2010 at 11:55 PM

            DW hardly seems the BDSM type (to me) either, and yet ….. And JP savored the excitement factor that DW brought to the relationship (which eludes my observations of him, on tape and in person). Plus one does not need to be (and in fact probably could/should not be) in a “violent rage” to inflict the puncture marks and stab wounds. Like Chilaw79 said …. as always, so well.

            • carolina
              08/07/2010 at 8:55 AM

              In agreement with all of this. I was rebutting the claim that Dylan did this in a murderous rage. Nothing about this says “rage” to me.

              Dylan’s cool as a cucumber, which is pretty much what you’d want in a Dom–control, detachment, careful observation. He would not be the first top who got into the scene to observe others (subs) feel what s/he cannot.

              Remember that he had How To manuals with passages highlighted. Just as he was once a chef and a children’s author, (a ballerina? fireman? circus acrobat?) I think S&M topcat was simply a role into which he placed himself because he was wanted to be closer to Joe. God knows why, but he clearly did. And like his other incarnations, he was growing bored with it and was ready to move on.

              • 08/07/2010 at 11:52 AM

                “.. wanted to be closer to Joe. God knows why…”

                This is a good opening (on a lovely Sat. afternoon when we all should be outside) to ask for help on something bothering me, i.e., understanding Joe’s attraction (both males and females, as lovers or friends or associates). I saw him in person (in the courtoom and hallway); I saw his taped Wm & Mary alum interview; read the Anacostia interrogation (which was dreadful compared to ZP and DW), have read what’s been submitted from those who knew him, etc., but I am baffled. What is his attraction, the lure? I’m less interested in the sexual angle since I don’t have the foggiest (nor am I curious) about his tastes. I have heard of his charisma, but I just cannot find it at all. I do “get” Victor — he could have been a (loyal) friend of mine, long talks, both serious and fun. Dishing the dirt. But Joe? He seems so downright boring. Someone — help!! (DW is, and always has been, otherworldly to me.)

                • alternateguy
                  08/07/2010 at 12:01 PM


                  Yes I SHOULD be outside, or at least getting a number of tasks done today.

                  I hate to say this, since someone I’m close to is a friend of Joes, But I’ve observed in life that people do tend to faun over those who have money.

                  • chilaw79
                    08/07/2010 at 2:14 PM

                    Money, power, intellect–they all can be alluring to certain people. From student government to gay and lesbian causes, Joe put himself in a place of prominence. A partner in a prominent DC law firm is a catch for any man (or woman).

                    • alternateguy
                      08/07/2010 at 2:48 PM


                      How true,

                      How true!

                      One to
                      brush up to, as so many do.

                  • 08/07/2010 at 5:37 PM

                    Alt: Could you ask your friend (or did your friend already tell you) about Joe’s positive qualities that make him friend-worthy? Since rich, smart and (moderately) powerful people are a dime a dozen in DC, that explanation isn’t enough. I’m not asking a “gotcha” question and certainly nothing to do with culpability. But it would help me maintain objectivity and balance if I were to have information as to his good qualities and especially what makes him special (in a good way) from his loyal friends, i.e., those still sticking around and who I presume are rich, smart and (moderately) powerful too. Thank you for trying.

                    • alternateguy
                      08/07/2010 at 5:56 PM


                      Can’t really ask since he does not know I followthis site.

                      He’s a bit tramatized by all of the publicity.

                      But I do know for a fact that Joe offersfreely to help people and seems to be no big snob.

                    • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                      08/07/2010 at 8:39 PM

                      GLoria, I hope you aren’t thinking Joe is “moderatly” powerful. He is so not powerful at any level.

                • carolina
                  08/08/2010 at 8:54 AM

                  Gloria, I could understand Joe’s attraction more if he were a straight man. From what I have seen, straight women are much more forgiving of physical shortfalls if there is something else to compensate. He was rich, powerful, politically active and had excellent taste in his home and autos. I’ve know people to fall for far less.

                  He may also be one of those people who can pull out all the stops to make someone feel as if they are the center of the universe, even if he is only doing this to manipulate. Again, lots of people have woken up in the morning to realize they just spent 15 years with a bullshitter.

                  Or maybe he just has a really large penis.

                  • Clio
                    08/08/2010 at 8:57 PM

                    Carolina, perish that last thought!

                    If that were the case, though, surely he would have boasted about that bounty on alt dot bomb.

    • Liam
      08/05/2010 at 10:20 PM

      I fail to see how disposing of the body makes “a million times more sense”.

      Let’s assume that Joe and Dylan had learned from previous exploits and/or other people they know that drugging a person with, e.g., GHB or the like, makes them both compliant and unable to remember anything. Let’s also assume that they messed up somehow in administering the drug and RW died.

      What then? I suppose they could put the body in their car (hoping nobody sees them), take it to a spot somewhere and dump it (again, hoping nobody sees them), hope not to leave any of their DNA evidence on the body as they dump it, hope that they clean their car of all of RW’s DNA evidence, hope that people believe their explanation that RW either (1) just got up and left in the middle of the night and was killed after he just got up and left, or (2) a Ninja dragged him out of the house and killed him; hope that the medical examiner couldn’t detect the 11:00 death time (if the body is found quickly); hope that RW’s wife doesn’t say “Why would he leave the townhouse and end up dead? He was supposed to have breakfast and discuss business matters with Joe the next morning.”

      The dumping of the body would have raised twice as many questions as the intruder theory has.

      • mia
        08/07/2010 at 2:35 AM

        It was late in the night. Just take a look of the pictures of the house, see how close the building are to each other. Some one would notice if they started a car and esp. after victor’s scream.

    • alternateguy
      08/05/2010 at 11:29 PM


      I agree, makes no sense. One thing I’m wondering about is Robert’s mouth guard. Joe may have been an old college friend, but was he ever close enough to know the details of how or even if the mouth guard was used? That’s kind of a personal thing that might be only know by Robert’s wife. If they had drugged Robert and then killed him, how did they think and know how to properly install the mouth guard. Not impossible, of course, but seems almost too smooth under the circumstances.

      • susan
        08/06/2010 at 12:09 AM


        Seems like it would be hard to open a jaw to put in a mouth guard. I suppose it’s possible.

        • carolina
          08/06/2010 at 9:44 PM

          Why would it be difficult? Rigor hadn’t set in when the EMTs arrived.

          • Deb
            08/06/2010 at 10:58 PM

            Rigor usually opens the jaw for you.

            • carolina
              08/07/2010 at 8:57 AM

              So dead or alive, it wouldn’t be hard.

  5. 08/05/2010 at 6:07 PM

    Maybe RW was in on playing with the electrostim stuff, and an accident happened, and in order to protect his reputation, family, wife, etc. they did the stabbing to make it look like an intruder. Maybe that is why they are solidly sticking with the story, to “protect” their friend? I mean, that is just as ridiculous as any other theory.

    • mw
      08/05/2010 at 6:10 PM

      Allowing the possibility of Wone being involved in SOMETHING at that house opens the door up to dozens of other realistic possibilities, including that one. All of those, to me, are a lot more believable than these guys deciding to sexually assault their friend and not think this might make their lives complicated.

      • chilaw79
        08/05/2010 at 6:24 PM

        Don’t you think that losing your home, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on lawyers, and being arrested would constitute sufficient incentive to tell the truth, particularly about a man who both Victor and Dylan refer to as a “casual friend”? If it was an accident, why not admit it?

        Stabbing Robert to cover up a sex romp gone bad is just not believable to me, especially since prompt medical intervention (prior to the stabbing) might have saved Robert’s life. If Robert was stabbed in these circumstances, it is clearly murder and a failure to provide medical care.

        • Bea
          08/05/2010 at 8:33 PM

          I agree with both in the sense that the defendants think that what happened was an ‘accident’ (putting aside whether or not Robert consented – I don’t, but let’s forget that part). I think that they did not intend to kill Robert when he arrived but had some shady-fun plans in store. And then either they thought Robert was dead OR the buzz wore off and they realized that Robert was likely to press charges (or at least TELL them he was beyond pissed at what they’d done) and thus made a deliberate decision to murder him.

          I don’t know WHO was in on this, or WHO stabbed him to death, but considering all evidence, the time frame, etc., this is the most logical of the possibilities in my mind – far more logical than a ninja assassin. What I DON’T agree with is the comment that the trio was ‘saving Robert’s reputation’ – that makes no sense to me. Surely the trio knows by now that Kathy Wone is suffering from NOT knowing what happened – and regardless of ‘consent’ someone murdered him in cold blood as anyone would check for a pulse and get him emergency medical assistance if an ‘accident’ rendered him unconscious.

          Nearly every oddity can be reasoned in this scenario – and I still don’t think Victor knew anything until he came downstairs and Robert was already dead.

          • Deb
            08/06/2010 at 9:16 PM

            I continue to wish there was more info about what Robert and Joe planned to discuss at breakfast. We know it was IP related, we know they planned to discuss it at breakfast, we know Joe left some sort of literature on the counter for Robert to read.

            Given what we’ve learned of Joe’s personality, I can’t shake the feeling that Robert may have declined Joe’s help and Joe snapped.

            I don’t think that Joe would engage in any kind of passionate rage, given what we know about his personality. I think Joe’s rage would be quiet, methodical and deliberate.

        • carolina
          08/05/2010 at 8:37 PM

          What he said!

        • alternateguy
          08/05/2010 at 8:58 PM


          I agree, makes no sense. Less sense than the ninja theory if you ask me.

          On the other hand, getting back to the defense argument that the standard rape tests are not proven to be reliable when used on males and are subject to false positives, if that were so in this case, then the whole rape gone bad scenario falls apart, leaving us back at square one.

          • chilaw79
            08/05/2010 at 9:27 PM

            The defense argument is only one part of the story; there probably is a scientific argument against it.

            I am not qualified to argue the point, but I assume there are experts who are. The fact that the test is in wide use suggests the manufacturer of the test and other experts could be brought to bear.

            I assume part of the issue is that sexual assaults on men are rarely reported (let alone prosecuted).

          • Bill 2
            08/05/2010 at 9:43 PM

            “leaving us back at square one.”

            I’ve contacted CNN, Reuters, and Andrew Morton. They’ll want a statement from you in the morning. They’re all shocked to learn that we’re back at square one.

            • alternateguy
              08/05/2010 at 11:18 PM

              Don’t bother, Bill 2, I think that they’ve already heard the results of the trial.

          • carolina
            08/06/2010 at 9:48 PM

            It’s as reliable on males as it is on females, and this is the same argument made against rape victims by every defense attorney determined to get their client off at any expense.

      • mia
        08/07/2010 at 2:41 AM

        Well, people do stupid things, even smart people. or may I say, especially smart people, because they thought they could always get away from it. Ever heard of the Leopold and Loeb case?

        • carolina
          08/07/2010 at 8:59 AM

          Or Enron, or Bernie Madoff, or…

    • carolina
      08/05/2010 at 8:31 PM

      And you think they’d keep that quiet? They’d spend a million dollars and risk jail for a “casual friend’s” reputation?

      • Deb
        08/06/2010 at 11:00 PM

        Carolina from the three-point line . . . SWISH!

        Amen, sistah, sistah.

        • carolina
          08/07/2010 at 9:03 AM

          Honestly, I’m not deluded, am I? I am very loyal and protective of my friends, and I can say with no embarrassment that I would not give up my car, let alone my home and career to protect a friend’s indiscretion. I don’t think that puts me in some rarefied section of the population, but maybe I’m wrong.

          • Deb
            08/07/2010 at 12:08 PM

            Not at all.

  6. Robert H
    08/05/2010 at 7:43 PM

    I have suggested several times that this murder was the result and most likely an “accident”…after either a consensual or at least unconscious sexual encounter with RW and the rest of these men. The confusing part is that if they had slipped RW a Mickey,or injected him with something, why wouldn’t it have come to light after an autopsy?

    • carolina
      08/05/2010 at 8:33 PM

      Because they only did the normal battery of tox screens. A later screen showed Xylene, but because it was found too close to the trial to be included. The defense didn’t have an opportunity to work with the findings.

    • chilaw79
      08/05/2010 at 9:30 PM

      Another issue is that certain drugs that might have been used (e.g., GHB)do not persist in blood or urine for a long time. Any delay in the toxological testing makes detection difficult or impossible, particularly since GBH is found in the body in small quantities naturally.

  7. chilaw79
    08/05/2010 at 9:33 PM

    I don’t know if any of our doctor commentators are around, but I am interested in knowing the answer to the following: certain drug overdoses may cause heart attacks; if someone is stabbed in the heart, would this obliterate physical evidence of a drug-induced heart attack?

  8. susan
    08/05/2010 at 10:56 PM

    The only thing that stands out to me on this tape is when he asks for magazines. It stood out in the transcript, too. Everyone is different. I know I always like to have something to read with me. On the other hand, I’d think that even hours after a murder like that, I would be in some kind of shock and thinking about so many things that I couldn’t focus on a magazine. On the other hand, maybe he requested it as something palliative just to have somewhere else to focus other than on what happened that night.

    • chilaw79
      08/05/2010 at 11:04 PM

      I am still fixated on Dylan asking if he could call his parents.

      • carolina
        08/06/2010 at 9:50 PM

        It worked out well for him, didn’t it? Mommy and daddy save the day. I would bet it’s a pattern to which he is accustomed.

        • chilaw79
          08/08/2010 at 11:44 AM

          Going back to read further on another topic, Sarah Morgan also said that following the VCB interviews, Victor said he also really wanted to speak with his parents.

          • carolina
            08/08/2010 at 3:29 PM

            Perhaps they both wanted to reach out to their parents before they heard it from someone else, but in Dylan’s case, asking the police for his mommy and daddy smelled more like a spoiled rich kid assuming his parents would get him out of yet another scrape.

            And they did.

    • Clio
      08/08/2010 at 9:41 PM

      If I am ever pulled into questioning at the local police station, then I will now insist on having the latest issues of Southern Living and/or Harpers ready for immediate perusal.

      Did they have Vogue there at Anacostia in August 2006, I wonder? Or, I trust that they had everything BUT the newly-designed Newsweek with its tiresome parade of one-paged editorials!

      • susan
        08/08/2010 at 10:13 PM

        Your posts are great, Clio. You really put that magazine request into perspective with this post. I’m sure sitting in a police station for hours after a murder in one’s home is uncomfortable. But then being murdered couldn’t have been a piece of cake either. Like someone (Bea?) else posted here, I think most people would probably use every available minute to think as much as they could to see if they missed anything or if there’s anything more they could tell police. Or maybe they’d try to rest if they were exhausted or meditate. Something appropriate to the gravity of the situation.

    • Bill 2
      08/09/2010 at 11:25 PM

      Susan, I think your last suggestion may be correct – that he needed something else to focus on. When I woke up in a hospital after a traumatic experience, the first thing I asked for was a magazine. It was a prop to keep my mind off the whole experience. “Reader’s Digest” works well – short stories and humor.

  9. shawn
    08/06/2010 at 3:16 AM

    I know there is no play book for grief, but wow, if someone breaks into my house and were to take material things, I would feel very violated and angry. If someone where to break into my house and take my friend’s life, casual friend or more, I would feel enraged. If I had nothing to do with the murder I would not have been calm like the 3 Swann Street house mates I would be yelling at the police turning over chairs saying there were 4 victims that night and the police need to find the person that caused my friend to be the worst victim, and yes I would probably blame myself for thinking I wanted this person to safe in my house.

    I would have called the police the next day and said why have you not interviewed my neighbors and every person within blocks of my home. I would have said to the police at the very least you should have talked to everyone between 1509 Swann Street and Radio Free Asia. I would be very angry the police would not have to worry about calling me in for interview I would have already been in the police station lobby saying why are you not doing more to find out who cut this wonderful person’s life short. If I were not guilty and the police were acting in the manner they did I would have become so frustrated I would have spent money on Private Investigator to do the work the police were not doing.

    Now if I were guilty I would calmly follow a nice pre arranged script that me and the other guilty partners developed. The more you view the tape the more the trio appear to well prepared actors doing some type of improv and they seem to enjoy the game with police, to see how well they can convince and conceal and most importantly stick to the script. Making sure they do not deviate from the script by getting into messy questions such as why are you not trying to find Robert’s F***ing KILLER!!! Instead displaying how they in fact have thought of every detail including a spider on the lamp.

    No accident happened that night, something accidental may have happened, but something really horrible happened for the three to be so tight lipped. If it were an accident, even a terrible accident the community would have forgiven them. Past experience seems to indicate that those most secure in their sexuality do not mind having people in their lives that are from different sexual/relationship orientations, and are open about their friends’ lives with their close families. Those who are insecure about their sexuality and need to sneak away for the night at their friend’s house to do something they don’t want anyone to know about tend to cover their tracks by being flaming homophobes. So it makes on sense Mr. Wone was a consenual participant hiding something dark from his family. Mr. Wone’s family are outstanding human beings for saying about the Swann Street “family” these are creepy guys and not saying these creepy gay guys.

    I just hope the truth comes out to give them the peace they deserve and hope they know we have come to learn what an exceptional person Robert Wone was, and his wonderful spirit continues to inspire.

    • carolina
      08/06/2010 at 9:51 PM

      Yes, this is exactly what I thought as well. Where is the anger at the situation?

    • susan
      08/07/2010 at 10:56 AM

      Not only that, Shawn, but maybe you’d go talk to neighbors yourselfe to ask if they heard or saw anything. And maybe at that point, where you see after a night of police interrogation that you and your household are now suspects, and if you thought that was outrageous, in addition to hiring legal representation wouldn’t you also hire your own investigator to do the job you think the police are not doing?

  10. alternateguy
    08/06/2010 at 9:47 AM


    Man, I sure hope nothing of this nature ever happens in your house.

    In my opinion, yelling at the cops, kicking over chairs, demanding this and that from them and telling them how to do their jobs is generally considered NOT a good thing to be doing when interviewed by the police. I think that in almost any emergency, an educated person should try to sit on his or her emotions and cooperate with the authorities as calmly as you can manage. They are the professionals, not you.

    One problems here, may have been that the cops and EMT responders were used to dealing with less sophisticated folks.

    The defendants seemed to me to be fully cooperative in everything asked of them. It was the police who directed the interviews from the get go and who did, by the way, tell them that all sorts of investigations were happening and neighbors being interviewed that very night.

    Then once lawyers are involved, you, as a client, are instructed in no uncertain terms to speak to no one except your lawyer concerning the case. ALL and any communications with the police henceforth go through your attorney. That’s my understanding.

    And I don’t think that we know exactly what,if any,further suggestions, were then so communicated from the trio.

    • shawn
      08/06/2010 at 10:36 AM

      You’re right that is how the system works thanks for the reminder, it does help to be cooperative with the police in a calm manner (until they start making foolish comments like “I have 3 gay guys and 1 straight guy”)but IF I were innocent in an event like this I would never lawyer up I would use those resources to find who the killer is.

      And thanks I very much hope an event such as this does not happen at my house or yours.

      I am, like so many others just angry this tragedy happened to the Wones and to the many of people Mr. Wone could have helped throughout his life being one of the good guys. Much blessings to his family.

      • alternateguy
        08/06/2010 at 11:18 AM


        As an innicent guy who once failed to lawyer up when I should have, my advice to you is to LAWYER UP as soon as cops start to imply your guilt. And, especially, NEVER agree to take a polygraph. A false reading can end up costing you many thousands of dollars in deffence, and folks who can’t afford that, often do end up convicted.

        • shawn
          08/06/2010 at 11:55 AM

          Yeah and friend and me were the victims of a very violent crime and the police did claim that the robbery and beating did not happen and was actually staged as a result of my friend using drugs and not 3 armed invaders who threatened to take our lives. I was so angry at the police speculation, they were like there’s no way he’s lying.

          I am very sorry that situation happened to you AltGuy, I hate when bad things happen to innocent people, then it is made worse by you having to defend yourself. I always want to remember our perspectives are based on our life experiences and what an experience that must have been for you. Wow what you could have done with that money besides pouring into a faulty legal system that did not serve you as intended, well I am very glad you are free and not fighting the case from jail.

          • alternateguy
            08/06/2010 at 12:16 PM

            Thanks, shawn,

            I thoroughly agree about our faulty legal system.

            Once they decide to go after YOU, then all of their many resources are directed at proving you guilty. Any investigations, tests, and witness, gathered in your defense are generally done at your expense.

            Like I said, after the O.J. trial, it seemed correct that he should have been found innocent. After all, isn’t his money as good as anyone elses? In all of U.S. history there is hardly any case of a millionare being convicted of a murder.

            I’m not sure how this thought applies to this case, however.

            • chilaw79
              08/06/2010 at 2:23 PM


              I am sorry both you and Shawn had bad experiences.

              Keep in mind, though, that Robert is dead and his murderer remains at large. There has been no justice here.

              I agree the police could have handled these interviews better and the forensics work could have been much better.

              I have written to my City Council member here in DC (who serves on the committee with responsibility for the police) to express my frustrations on these points and to Kathy Lanier, the current police chief in DC.

            • susan
              08/07/2010 at 10:22 PM


              You’re “not sure” how having lots of money “applies to this case?” Your friend’s friends bought some of the best local defense money could buy, that’s how.

              On another note, your personal bias and interest re your good friend’s connection to one or all of the defendants would have been an honest disclosure. Now all of your argumens are tainted with that bias. Nothing wrong with a bias necessarily, but hiding a conflict of interest–not very forthright it seems.

              • Bruce
                08/07/2010 at 10:27 PM


                What bias? Please explain. Altguy has said nothing to indicate a bias, has he?

                How do we know you are not the sister of the primary plaintiff’s attorney?

                Explain to me what it is that “taints” his arguments? You don’t like them?

                • susan
                  08/07/2010 at 10:31 PM

                  You must read all the posts. It’s on this site. Read the page. Your answer is on this page.

                  • Bruce
                    08/07/2010 at 10:59 PM

                    No No No. I know what was said. Please explain to me exactly what the bias is?

                    Please explain to me how his arguments are tainted.

                    Strong words, and they need an explanation.

                    • carolina
                      08/08/2010 at 9:00 AM

                      To use a Southernism, Alt has a dog in this fight.

                      Simple, no?

      • Deb
        08/06/2010 at 9:34 PM

        On the flip-side, maybe you should lawyer up if you are innocent. Look at that poor Dad in OH who confessed to killing his own daughter and her friend. Turns out, he didn’t kill them.
        A former Marine did.
        A lawyer will help protect your rights as a United States citizen. He will make sure you are not interviewed to the point of exhaustion and confusion.
        That said, in the OH case, the guy was interviewed for more than 20 hours after finding his daughter’s brutalized body. The scene in DC on early Aug 3 was at least a little less intense than that.

        • Bruce
          08/06/2010 at 9:52 PM

          Deb, this also just happened in Illinois. Father gave a confession, and has been in jail 5 years. Ends up DNA evidence showed it was another guy picked up in Virginia. Same case?


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

            I think that’s the same story . . . OH, IL, my memory for minute details sucks. I knew it was somewhere in the midwest, and I know the real killer was from the same area (I do recall the name of the town, though — Zion).

            Odd how you recall one thing and not another.

            I think that’s because you bring your own background into the act of remembering.

            Odd that the three known to be in the house had nearly verbatim recollect, yet vastly different backgrounds.

            A curiosity, for sure.

            But I’d lawyer up in a heartbeat. Either way.

    • chilaw79
      08/06/2010 at 10:44 AM


      While I agree that different people can respond to situations differently, the defendants do not seem to express any remorse that Robert Wone was murdered in their home.

      If someone were murdered in my home, I certainly would want the police to investigate and interview neighbors. I don’t think the police in DC are “used to dealing with less sophisticated folks.” Obviously, DC has a diverse population, including a substantial gay and lesbian community, and a higher percentage of lawyers and other professionals than many other jurisdictions.

      In my dealings with the police and the EMTs, they always have been professional. They may care a little less about muggings than I might prefer, but otherwise they are courteous and respond quickly.

      Victor, Dylan, and Joe so shut off their communications with the authorities that they had a lawyer call 911 following the later burglary of Swann Street. Nevertheless, the DC police were able to locate many of their stolen items in pawn shops.

      You are correct that we do not know what else transpired. However, the detachment reflected in the police interviews with Dylan and Victor stands out to me. On the other hand, Joe, in particular, seemed to want to talk with friends about what happened, including Lisa Goddard, his brother, and others who appeared at the VCB and then at Cosi. (Joe also wanted the telephone number of his then Arent Fox colleague, John Nassikas, a well-known white collar criminal defense lawyer.) Similarly, Victor’s friend Sarah Morgan was on the scene and Joe and Victor spoke to her in the early morning hours and at Cosi. Even though Sarah was not present on the night of Robert’s murder, she retained counsel. It all seems incongruous to me.

      • alternateguy
        08/06/2010 at 12:00 PM


        To me they seem VERY SORRY that someone was murdered in their house. Remorse is something that you are expected to show if you’re guilty of something. And proud gay guys being questioned by these macho cops are not likely to want to express a great deal of emotion in my opinion.

        In this case, it would have been interesting to see if they would have opened up more to women interrogators.

        In most of my experiance with police and EMTs, particularly in Montgomery County, they have been VERY courtious, helpful and professional.

        Joe’s wanting to talk to FRIENDS that evening seems very understandable. The cops probably didn’t feel very much like friends.

        After hearing accounts, at Cosis and elsewhere, which by that time were probably emotional, of the intense police grilling and the insistance that someone in the house was guilty, it seems logical that Sarah would want to retain counsel.

        Calling their lawyers rather than the police after the later robbery would have been the expected thing to do, in my opinion.

        I’m quite sure that they were under instructions to talk to their attourneys first, reguarding anything that might remotely be involved with the case, and this break-in would obviously seem so reguarded.

        • Deb
          08/06/2010 at 9:37 PM

          Someone who was in the house at the time IS guilty. There was no intruder.

          • Bruce
            08/06/2010 at 9:46 PM

            Deb, you are very knowledgeable on the case. Would you mind playing my intruder/impossible? game, and point out a fact or piece of evidence that would make my intruder scenario (set forth in detail on here) impossible, such that I can say, along with you, what you just said:

            “Someone who was in the house at the time IS guilty. There was no intruder.”

            It would be greatly appreciated.


            • Deb
              08/06/2010 at 10:22 PM

              Hi, Bruce:

              I posted later about the Isabella Stewart Gardner theft.

              I think maybe in response to a comment by Alteguy? Not positive — it gets tough to follow the skinny columns . . . scroll up, scroll down, refresh, submit. Ach, I need a shower.

              Anyway, there is no evidence of an intruder. That is the one thing MPD did do thoroughly enough. Really.

              The judge would not have commented as she did unless she felt her comments were supported. Additionally, the docs and transcripts here say the same to the world — no evidence of an intruder, no intruder.

              That said, I think you and alteguy could present an argument that there was a fifth person present in the house.

              But that fifth person did not intrude, that fifth person merely entered. Or was invited.

              • Bruce
                08/06/2010 at 10:25 PM


                I don’t think you will play the game. Sorry to have bothered you.

                • Deb
                  08/06/2010 at 11:16 PM

                  What game?
                  There is a game here?
                  I think that’s kind of freaky.
                  You are right, I decline.

        • carolina
          08/08/2010 at 9:02 AM

          Sarah wasn’t in the house, yet felt the need for a lawyer. Why do you suppose that was?

      • carolina
        08/06/2010 at 9:56 PM

        I still can’t wrap my head around them holding court at Cosi. Really? This is what you do after your friend is murdered in your home and you’re interrogated for hours?

        • Deb
          08/06/2010 at 11:21 PM

          What’s Cosi?

          • 08/06/2010 at 11:40 PM

            Deb: Cosi is the restaurant where JP and ZP and a coterie of friends had breakfast after leaving the interrogatories at Anacostia. The same place that DW did not enter (with various theories as to his reluctance to do so — distraught over the case — NOT — or afraid of JP’s wrath because he took a polygraph test). Suggest we all, before asking a question that can be answered by our own research, give “Search Unlimited” a spin. Type 4 letters (Cosi) in the search box, and voila. Even better than Google (which won’t tell us the connection of Cosi to this case).

            • 08/06/2010 at 11:41 PM

              Ooops, second line should be VZ.

              • Deb
                08/07/2010 at 12:10 PM

                Thank ya! Now I recall that.

    • Michael
      08/06/2010 at 11:12 AM

      I have to agree with alternateguy on this one. I’d be pretty relaxed too if someone had been murdered across the hall from my bedroom.

      Dylan is simply _relieved_ that the killer decided to walk passed his room and into Robert’s guestroom. If Dylan seemed at all like an emotionless robot in these interviews, it’s because he was busy thanking his lucky stars.

      • Craig
        08/06/2010 at 11:50 AM

        I’m not sure what I’d do in a similar situation, but flipping through magazines as if I were in my dentist’s waiting room, wouldn’t be at the top of my list. The lack of urgency by the MPD seemed to be mirrored by the actions and behavior of their three witnesses.

      • Nelly
        08/06/2010 at 12:01 PM

        Uh… yeah right…. Dylan doesn’t look relieved, nor does he seem shaken up that someone had been stabbed to death right down the hall from where he was “sleeping.” He sounds like a high schooler auditioning for a play. Terrible acting.

      • Michael
        08/06/2010 at 12:08 PM

        I’ve decided to go along with whatever alternateguy has to say. When you trick yourself into actually believing the intruder theory, it’s easier to see why it doesn’t make any sense.

        • alternateguy
          08/06/2010 at 12:32 PM


          It’s not that I believe in the intruder theory, it’s just that I consider it possible.

          On the other hand I feel that many of you have been tricked, and not by yourselves, into discounting any possibility whatsoever of there having been an intruder.

          • Michael
            08/06/2010 at 2:21 PM


            I also consider it possible, thanks to you. I find your speculations to be more fascinating than anyone else’s. And the more I think about your ideas, the more fascinating they become. My mind is open and reeling.

            There are no tricks here. People read the facts provided by the editors and come up with their own opinions. Very few take the time to scroll down and read the comments. Of those few, I would say most think the trouple are guilty. That is why you might feel like you are being bashed for your opinions, but that’s only because MOST of everyone else has come to the opposite conclusion.

            Just as you have convinced yourself into thinking an intruder may have murdered Robert Wone, others have convinced themselves into thinking he was murdered by one of the trouple (or by one of their buddies or close family).

            I enjoy your comments and sincerely hope you keep posting during the civil trial.

            • alternateguy
              08/06/2010 at 2:42 PM


              Thanks much for the encouragement. What I said about tricks wasn’t referring to anything going on on this site, but about the perpetual insistance by the authorities that no intrusion was at all possible.

              I just tend to become skeptical in the face of absolute certitude.

              • Deb
                08/06/2010 at 9:50 PM

                I said before, there is no evidence of an intruder — beyond a reasonable doubt — therefore there was no intruder.

                That said, is it possible an additional, unnamed person was present in the house at the time of the murder? Sure. There is no evidence for or against that idea.

                But there was no intruder.

                Intruders leave evidence.

                One of the biggest art heists in history: Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum. Lots of evidence of intrusion, not the least of which was the missing art, but lots of other evidence too. Those intruders, or that intruder, were/was the creme de la creme of intruders. Lots of evidence of intrusion, all of it leading no where.

                But there was evidence of intrusion above and beyond the missing art or the dead body.

                • Bruce
                  08/06/2010 at 9:54 PM

                  Deb, my scenario for the intruder/impossible? game sets forth a very smart killer for hire. So smart he doesn’t leave evidence, not that the police in this investigation would likely find it anyway.

                  Please play the game? Please!

                  • Robert H
                    08/06/2010 at 10:02 PM

                    Ok lets play the intruder game….the intruder is so good that he gets in silently, stabs RW and removes most of the blood, and gets out all in about one minute. Thats QUITE THE INTRUDER with apparent magical powers. Question: Did Dylan and gang have an alarm system and if so why wasn’t it activated that night?

                    • Bruce
                      08/06/2010 at 10:15 PM

                      The alarm system was not on, per the Swann 3. Please see my intruder scenario that it would only take a minute or 2 so to kill Robert Wone.

                      I’m looking for facts or evidence that ends the intruder/impossible? game. do you have any?

                  • carolina
                    08/06/2010 at 10:27 PM

                    You would need money and a reason to hire someone that skilled as an assassin, and you’d need to know where to find one.

                    Could you find one? It’s not as though they list in the Yellow Pages. If you found him, could you pay him? And why would you want to kill anyone in that house?

                    • Bruce
                      08/06/2010 at 10:32 PM

                      Not sure if you read my complete scenario for the intruder/impossible? game.

                      Your points are well taken, but they don’t make it an impossibility.

                  • Deb
                    08/06/2010 at 11:46 PM

                    It is not a game.

                    There was no intruder.

                    One of the people occupying 1509 Swann St. NW between 22:30 and 23:54 on 2 Aug 2006 murdered him.

                    There was no intruder.

                    What is the game?

                    Maybe I do want to play?

                    • alternateguy
                      08/06/2010 at 11:52 PM


                      Why play, if you’veclosed
                      the case?

                    • carolina
                      08/07/2010 at 9:10 AM

                      Deb, obviously there IS reasonable doubt. It’s possible someone DID sneak in and out undetected and leave a dead man but no fingerprints or other evidence of his being there.

                      It’s also possible it was a hired assassin.

                      And it’s possible they were not Ninjas, but MARTIANS.

            • carolina
              08/08/2010 at 9:06 AM

              No one reads the comments? Sir, are you mad? Threads are closed with sometimes over 500 comments, most of them in response to other comments. If someone doesn’t agree with you, it’s because they have digested the facts and come to a different conclusion, and most certainly NOT because they don’t read the comments.

              • AnnaZed
                08/08/2010 at 1:05 PM

                Carolina, well since he states that he is “fascinated” by the insight and erudition of a poster that can’t form a simple sentence in plain English; then yes, I am forced to conclude that he is mad.

                It seems that there are some who arrive here with guns blazing (yet curiously lacking in time spent assimilating facts) who are then amazed to find that very few credible posters want to “play” with them. You Bea have soldiered on, I am in awe of your fortitude.

                • Bruce
                  08/08/2010 at 2:52 PM


                  I never thought Michael was mad at all. When you look at his statements to Altguy in that one post:

                  “I find your speculations to be more fascinating than anyone else’s. And the more I think about your ideas, the more fascinating they become. My mind is open and reeling.”

                  ……the wording used there and what Michael says in other posts right around that spot, I think that Michael is truly the “King of Sarcasm” on this site. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

              • Michael
                08/09/2010 at 7:34 AM


                I wasn’t trying to say, “Commenters don’t read other people’s comments”; I’m saying that most people who visit this site do not read the comments. I see a lot of these posts with over 500 comments. 500 comments, all made by the same ~15 people.

                The majority of people who read the posts, read the comments, AND make comments themselves do not entertain the intruder theory.

            • Bill 2
              08/08/2010 at 9:55 AM

              “People read the facts provided by the editors and come up with their own opinions. Very few take the time to scroll down and read the comments.”

              It all goes far beyond your simple explanation. While people read the facts provided by editors, they also read newspaper accounts and view television accounts of the case. In addition, they read discussions of the trial at other websites.

              When it comes to reading the comments at WMRW, your take on that couldn’t be more wrong.

              The comments have provided a great deal of additional information from trained professionals – doctors, defense lawyers, prosecutors, lab technicians, psychologists, etc.

              Most of the people who post messages here, come up with their opinions about the case that are based on a careful study of the facts and consideration of input from professionals. Some have been following the case since August 2006. Some people come here to deliberately obfuscate known facts but they are soon found out. Others just want to play silly games and don’t care about ascertaining the truth.

              • carolina
                08/08/2010 at 10:08 AM

                I still want to know what became of Lawmed. Maybe his stipend ran out and he had better things to do than work for the trouple for free.

                • Bill 2
                  08/08/2010 at 10:48 AM

                  Lawmed is actually a shape-shifter intruder who morphed into Bruce. If you think you could possibly prove otherwise, feel free to join my game. I’m waiting to read actual facts that would prove this theory to be wrong. Meanwhile, we’ll just have to go with the idea that Lawmed is a mysterious intruder who is still here in the form of Bruce. Be aware that tomorrow, it could shift into a new shape. Go in peace and may the farce be with you.

                • AnnaZed
                  08/08/2010 at 1:08 PM

                  Yeah, what happened to LawMed? I wonder if he contacted team trouple and they gave him a real job. If I were them I certainly would hire him.

          • Bruce
            08/06/2010 at 3:33 PM


            The mere mention of an intruder on here will automatically prompt a “ninja assassin” response.

            And there are good reasons for this, particularly for people who have been following this carefully and have been on here for a long time.

            There is absolutely no evidence of an intruder. If there was an intruder, they probably, with modern forensics, should have left a “calling card” of some sort. The judge in the criminal case came to the conclusion (dicta, in my opinion) that there simply was no intruder. The “sex” evidence is not consistent with, and is actually inconsistent with in many ways, an intruder. The time line makes it difficult to conclude that there was an intruder. As Bea would say, if you give any thought to an intruder, you are looking at the trees and you can’t see the forest.

            To suggest an “intruder” seems to mean to many that you are demeaning the memory of Robert Wone, his family and friends.

            All compelling arguments.

            The only person or persons suggesting that we shouldn’t give up wholly on the intruder theories are the Swann 3, their attorneys, and idiots like you and me.

            To mention an intruder puts you in a very small much maligned minority.

            Yet, some lingering doubts exist for me, and it appears they may exist for you. It can be very lonely in here when you even mention something against the “conventional wisdom” of this blog, and I am glad you are here, to also examine some of those old gnarly hickory trees, with the forest’s shade covering all.

            I have only been on here since the criminal judge’s final ruling, and I don’t have the great wealth of knowledge others on here do. I have made serious mistakes in some of my postings, and I am still learning.

            But with the chance that the sun may blow apart and that we all die, let’s suppose, not really seriously at all, but “just for fun,” that there…close your eyes…was… an intruder.

            The intruder would have to have knowledge of the whereabouts of Robert Wone on the night of the murder and have a knowledge of where exactly Robert Wone was in the Swann house when he went to bed.

            The intruder had to have a motive, in my opinion. This could not, in my opinion, have been someone who just wanted to kill someone, a crazy person on the street. Nothing to suggest that.

            How much knowledge could someone gain by “casing the house,” looking in windows, possibly watching from outside the house all the events of the evening of the murder…Robert Wone going to the house, Robert, Dylan and Joe having water in the kitchen, the three going upstairs, Robert being in the front room, the others in their rooms, the shower(s), the quiet of the house settling down?

            The intruder, who has been watching this from a car (with Spy v Spy binoculars) or in the street, or actually out in the yard, then makes the move. He or she gets in the house, goes directly and immediately to Robert Wone’s room, surprises Robert and very quickly stabs him 1, 2, 3 times in the chest and abdomen, taking only seconds, so quickly that Robert does not fight back, and then immediately leaves the house, again leaving no evidence of his or her appearance in the house. The whole thing taking a minute or so.

            Well, you can see why this is ridiculed. It depends upon a lot of planning and absolute precision in execution. It would mean it was someone who knew exactly how to not leave any “calling card” at all.

            The intruder would have to have knowledge of the whereabouts of Robert Wone and the house. Knowledge of the house may not be so terribly problematic. If you were good at what you do, you could probably get a good sense of the layout of the house without being in it, by “casing” it for a half hour or so after Robert went in.

            To know about the whereabouts of Robert Wone that night is very problematic. To me it would have to be someone at the work function (Robert’s meet and greet)at RFA or someone who knew about it. The “intruder” would have to follow Robert’s cab in a car.

            The motive is the real problem, in my view. The only possibility to me, with our complete lack of anyone else who may have had a grudge against Robert, is someone hired by the out-going counsel to RFA. We know that Robert was hired, and the previous counsel let go, because of something about a “lack of communication.” That to me sounds like it could be a euphemism for something else….personalities, divisions in the staff?

            Could the past counsel to RFA have felt that his replacement was unfair, that Robert was stealing the position from him? Do we know if Robert even knew the past counsel?

            Seems to me that I read somewhere on this blog that the past counsel for RFA was not in Washington the night of the murder, and may have been out of the country. That is why it would have to be someone hired by him. So, in my lamebrained scenario, he or she had to have hired someone to murder Robert Wone, someone who had experience in doing such jobs quick and with no evidence left behind and with no sounds (on the wood floors) to disturb the others in the house.

            The act of being out of the country is the cherry on top for the former counsel from RFA, and removes he or she entirely from being the actual killer.

            So that is the only way there could have been an intruder in my opinion, crazy as it seems.

            As I said, there are many reasons to relegate this to the “ninja assassin” category, all of them good ones.

            But some things bother me:

            (1) I am not confident that the police did a good job of looking for “calling cards” of an intruder, especially since they apparently latched on immediately to the idea that it was one or more of the Swann 3.

            (2) I am not confident that the police would have done the necessary investigation to have completely ruled out the past RFA counsel or any other possible leads for an “intruder” theory, for the same reason as in (1), above.

            Finally, I wrote earlier in this long post that none of this fits with a sexual assault, the “semen in the rectum,” etc.

            So the only way you can give countenance to an “intruder” theory is to also accept the defense arguments against there being sexual assault, or attack the forensics of the sexual assault kit.

            By the way, I don’t buy the Michael “intruder” theory at all. If there was an intruder, he or she was a professional.

            So, I’m not inviting bashing please. Please don’t respond and say “this has been gone over and over….”

            Just…Is there anything out there that makes this conclusion absolutely impossible. If so, I will start barking up another tree.

            • Bill 2
              08/06/2010 at 3:51 PM

              The most amazing thing about the intruder is his power of mind control. Getting Joe to tell first responders that they found Robert at the back door and then getting the story changed is something we’ve only seen in fiction up until now. The intruder’s power to get two different versions of where they found Robert is certainly a unique way to make people think it was one of the trio involved in the murder instead of an actual intruder. You’ve got to admit that there is some type of mind control involved in this murder and that certainly adds a unique perspective. Will we be able to learn how the intruder accomplished this?

              • Bruce
                08/06/2010 at 4:03 PM

                Thanks for responding, Bill2, but your response does not make the intruder theory impossible.

                I have, and I imagine a lot of people have, a major problem with this first responder and what he said.

                Am I correct that this first responder did not testify in the manner you suggest at the criminal trial? WHY? Seems that would be critical information for the criminal trial. Did that first responder “back off” of that statement? Please explain.

                If there is anything else that makes my dumb intruder theory impossible, please also respond further. I really want to bark up another tree.

                Thanks again.


                • Bill 2
                  08/06/2010 at 5:22 PM

                  I have no idea why this didn’t come up at the first trial but there is a lot of other stuff that didn’t come up, too. Will we see it at the next trial?

                  It’s easy to predict that this trial will give more attention to the possibility of sexual assault, missing camera equipment, the neighbor across the street, Sarah Morgan’s history with the two men she stayed with and her reasons given for staying there that night, and on and on.

                  Surely this trial will delve into Joe’s statment about wiping up blood vs. where is the towel that would indicate that he wiped up blood.

                  None of that disproves an intruder, but did the intruder exercise mind control over Sarah Morgan to get her to leave the house with a toothbrush? Did the intruder exercise mind control over Joe Price to cause him to think he cleaned blood off the body?

                  • Bruce
                    08/06/2010 at 5:43 PM

                    Hi Bill2,

                    Sarah Morgan and her tooth brush are as much of a mystery to me as they are to you. But, that is all loose speculation, isn’t it? I guess you must think she is or may be a co-conspirator, right?

                    As to Joe and the blood, while of interest for sure, that is all post-murder stuff, isn’t it?

                    Again, I am really looking for anything that would make the intruder theory I posted impossible.

                    Following Bea’s reasoning, if no one responds on this blog to that with anything showing it impossible, then it must be possible, right?

                    Best regards,


                  • Bruce
                    08/06/2010 at 5:49 PM

                    Hi Bill2:

                    Sarah Morgan and her toothbrush is as much of a mystery to me as it is to you.

                    But isn’t that all loose speculation?

                    You must think that Sarah Morgan is or may be a co-conspirator with the Swann 3, which is a bit out of the “conventional wisdom,” right?

                    As to Joe and the blood, that is all post-murder, right?

                    What I am really trying to ferret out is any fact or evidence that would make the intruder theory I posed in my earlier post impossible.

                    Following Dear Bea’s reasoning, if no one posts on here a fact or piece of evidence that makes the intruder theory I propounded impossible, then it must be possible, no?

                    • Bea
                      08/06/2010 at 5:56 PM

                      “Dear Bea”? Really? And I thought you and I were playing nicely.

                    • Bill 2
                      08/06/2010 at 6:09 PM

                      “You must think that Sarah Morgan is or may be a co-conspirator …”

                      In what? Pre-planned Murder?

                      Put that on your list with the intruder. It’s something that you may be seeing but don’t put that on me.

                      Just because I think she knows more than what has been revealed, doesn’t mean she planned what was in store for Robert.

                • carolina
                  08/06/2010 at 10:08 PM

                  Here’s a question for you. An intruder left no fingerprints. He may have worn gloves, but would he have been kind enough to wipe down every fingerprint to the point that none were found on any of the doorknobs in or out of the house and bedroom?

                  I’m telling you, I’d hire that intruder for maid service any day.

                  • Bruce
                    08/06/2010 at 10:10 PM


                    Now wait a minute, please. If he or she was a professional they would be wearing gloves the entire time that left no fingerprints or evidence.

                    I don’t understand your post.

                    • carolina
                      08/07/2010 at 9:13 AM

                      It wasn’t that there were no fingerprints of the assassin, but there was NO fingerprints on places that should have been littered with them. Again and with all due respecct, read the case before trying to make one of your own.

                    • Cat from Cleveland
                      08/08/2010 at 8:06 PM

                      His glove on his dominant hand would have blood on it on the way out.

              • Deb
                08/06/2010 at 10:15 PM

                Honestly, we don’t know beyond reasonable doubt that Joe DEFINITELY said he found Robert by the back door.

                We know with a moral certainty their story evolved, and that it evolved in a way that seems to a degree of moral certitude to be more than just forgotten minutia.

                In fact, minutia seems to be at the forefront of their recollection. We COULD say that they beyond a reasonable doubt focus upon minutia — like burning steaks — and that the MPD never seems to follow the significance of that focus on minutia.

            • alternateguy
              08/06/2010 at 4:31 PM


              Thanks for a very thoughtful post. I agree with all you say.

              Of course anyone who has followed modern US history, knows that there are black bag type operations that have gone on. Some around D.C. Some VERY high profile killings, and seeming suicides, have ended without any clear or very believable explanation. There do seem to be, behind the scenes forces capable of the most blatant things. In this less than high profile case, there could be some thin possibility of this also, in my opinion. If it weren’t for the editors, this case would be pretty much forgotten by now.

              Of course one other possibility is that some true gay hater, and they do exist, could have slipped in and taken a lucky shot at the first one they came to in the household. Using their own knife and being as stealthy as possible, could have just been an attempt to do as much damage as possible to that “evil” household. It’s easy to imagine how some straight laced neighbor might have gained so much hatred towards this household, whose members seemed to flaunt there life style, that something boiled over. Perhaps Robert wasn’t a target, but just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

              It’s always seemed to me, that a guy like Joe, must have taken great pride in having a truly straight friend like Robert. I think it would have been against his thinking to diminish Robert in any way. Robert’s friendship would have likely been a subject of real pride to Joe and an asset to his self-image. Not something someone would want to dick with.

              As far as the Wone family goes, I think that the LAST thing they would want is for a wrong persons to be convicted while a real murder goes free. Not closure in my opinion.

              • AnnaZed
                08/06/2010 at 4:36 PM

                I am pretty sure that Kathy Wone was disabused of any doubt that she might have had about Joe’s involvement in the murder of her husband when he thoughtfully reenacted it for her during his condolence call.

                • alternateguy
                  08/06/2010 at 4:44 PM


                  Did the reinactment include himself as the killer? Where can I read about that?

                  • AnnaZed
                    08/06/2010 at 5:03 PM

                    If you do not know about the conversation between Kathy and Joe in that days after Robert’s murder then I am forced to conclude that you haven’t even done rudimentary research into this case. I know that you have been amusing yourself on this site for some time, so you obviously have plenty of time on your hands. I have no intention of doing any research for you.

                    • Bruce
                      08/06/2010 at 5:13 PM

                      To AnnaZed, the all powerful and all knowing. I see we must all bow down to you on here, or suffer endlessly the stench of your remarks.

                    • carolina
                      08/06/2010 at 10:09 PM

                      This is why we love you.

                  • Bruce
                    08/06/2010 at 6:37 PM


                    In response to your question, you can find about everything at the condolence event in Oakton by reading the post: “Day 2: Wrap”

                    This describes Robert Wone’s wife’s testimony, and she describes Joe’s actions in the basement at the condolence event.

                    Of interest, this post also shows that Robert’s wife saw the Swann 3 after the funeral at an October wedding of Lisa Goddard, where Victor spoke to her and she and Joe made plans to get together for lunch.

                    Some time thereafter, she got together with Joe and he gave her a 2 inch thick folder of papers and e-mails having to do with Robert.

                    She then saw all 3 at a party at Lisa Goddard and her husbands in December of 2007.

                    As to the condolence event, she testified that the 3 were distressed and crying, and that they appeared to be grieving.

                    She testified that at the funeral the 3 looked “shell shocked.

                    Taking all of this evidence into account does not seem to be entirely consistent with AnnaZed’s post about how Robert’s wife felt about Joe after the murder.

                    • alternateguy
                      08/06/2010 at 6:59 PM


                      Thanks That’sas I recallreading. Not about an

                • Bruce
                  08/06/2010 at 4:59 PM

                  Yet she allowed him to be a pallbearer?

                  • Bruce
                    08/06/2010 at 6:06 PM

                    To Bea:

                    Bea, I am sorry. I did not mean “Dear Bea” to be a dig. I will not do that in the future.


                  • carolina
                    08/06/2010 at 10:12 PM

                    Do you think any friend would have immediately assumed another friend would play a role in their husband’s demise?

                    And furthermore, pallbearers are, for the most part, tapped by the funeral director at the service, not arranged beforehand. I doubt the widow cared so much who carried her husband to the grave as she did that he was being carried at all.

                    • Bruce
                      08/06/2010 at 10:19 PM

                      If I thought a murderer of my husband was at a dinner party months after the murder, I would not attend. Would you?

                      My point was that AnnaZed’s post said that the widow knew at the condolence event that Joe was the murderer.

                    • alternateguy
                      08/08/2010 at 8:27 PM


                      I was a pall bearer once for a good friend.

                      I was asked well in advance by the family.
                      I just can’t see ANY funeral director not consulting the family.

              • Bruce
                08/06/2010 at 4:55 PM

                Thanks, Alte:

                I don’t mean to diminish your thoughts of other possible “intruder theories,” but right now the only possible intruder theory that makes any kind of sense to me is a professional killer, done very quickly, and with tactics that only a professional would know, to preclude any “calling cards.”

                Although I didn’t point it out in my earlier post, I tried to make my crazy “intruder theory” also to be consistent with everything that the Swann 3 said to the police.

                So, I guess this mad theory involves:

                (1) Assume as fact everything the Swann 3 say to the police.

                (2) Assume for purposes of this exposition that the defense arguments against any sexual assault are correct.

                I appreciate Bill2’s response to my scenario, but, in my mind, it does not make the scenario impossible.

                Impossible doesn’t make it likely, and I’m not saying this loopy theory is likely. I mean, Robert Wone does seem to be an unlikely candidate for a professional killer, I think we can all agree on that.

                I am just very interested in hearing from someone with any fact or bit of information that makes the theory I propose (I’m sure others have also on here) an impossibility. If it is impossible, it is not worth another thought. If it is possible, it doesn’t mean it happened.

                Best, and hang in there.


            • Bea
              08/06/2010 at 6:52 PM

              Bruce and Altguy: I realize it’s difficult to be in a minority here (having been a minority so much of my life, in so many ways). I do appreciate Bruce’s desire to minimize flaming (and tolerating a fair amount of it) when called on a particular element/disagreement.

              As he pointed out, many of us have been here so long that our (collective) response is ‘this again?’ (and thus the ninja assassin comments). I’ll speak only for myself, though, and not try to jam the nonbelievers-of-intruders into one mold: to believe that these three men have no notion of what happened to Robert requires one to buy too many incredible coincidences and inconsistent (if not ridiculous) leaps of faith.

              Examples: if there was an assassin (forgetting that RFA doesn’t attract that kind of attention and absent evidence that the former general counsel is/isn’t a crazy murder-for-hire guy in a $100K job) or if there was an “unknown intruder” (either total stranger or a known person whose presence was unknown), why then:

              1. would the defendants have such an oddly concocted story as to things such as the magical locking door (credited to Dylan’s vision from the stairwell but having first been offered by Victor on the 911 tape); the 11:43 time stamp; the missing 14-40 minutes; where the original towel went (if Joe was applying pressure); why would Victor say ‘they used one of our knives’ (since he claimed not to have spoken to Joe); why did Joe say “there was blood everywhere”?

              2. why would a paid killer go OVER the gate upon his departure? Intelligent folks go through doors – they’re faster.

              3. why would Joe “wipe up blood”?

              4. why would Joe pull the knife from Robert’s chest but tell cops he didn’t (alternately, lie to friends)?

              5. why would Joe write a friend that they couldn’t tell the cops the whole truth?

              6. why would Joe perform a charade/know that Robert had been stabbed three times in his “motions” to Kathy Wone since he’d told cops the night before that he only heard breathy grunts, mostly from upstairs, but one while sitting next to Robert?

              7. why would Joe try so hard to control the other two in keeping them from talking to cops (and get Victor to cry by saying “wasn’t he our friend, Victor?”)?

              8. why did the trio clam up and behave so much like suspects from the very beginning (and even before cops arrived – who sits on a sofa minutes after stabbing?)?

              9. if the intruder was in and out within five minutes, as Joe stated, when did they have time to stick Robert with needles and get Robert’s own sperm in his rectum? Forgetting the PURPOSE – he simply didn’t have the TIME for this.

              10. did they really only have one disposable camera – in a house with tens of thousands of electronics equipment, with many photos displayed, and Joe’s alt dot com ad states a penchant for erotic photography?

              These are things I’m thinking of offhandedly, hardly an exhaustive list. To be even-handed, is it possible that there was a murder by a trick that the defendants felt they couldn’t turn him in because they’d photographed/videoed themselves having sex around and taking advantage of a comatose Robert? Would Joe the lawyer think “this is felony murder – or might be – because it’s murder during the commission of a felony sexual assault”? I’m TRYING to meet you guys somewhere OFF my instinct of what happened that night, and that’s the best I can do with the facts. It’s essentially in keeping with the need for a cover-up AND is more sensible than “being concerned with Robert’s reputation” yet is a step below these guys being cold blooded murderers. And it would explain the missing photo/video equipment. Personally, I still think they would have TOLD the cops and handed over the trick, stuck to the “story” (if it was a lie, as I presume) that Robert had consented, but that the maniac trick had gone nuts. These are not men willing to go through what they’ve gone through to save reputations or ‘take one’ for someone else (except for pathetic Victor for his beloved Joe – who prefers Sparkly/Smelly Cat).

              • Bruce
                08/06/2010 at 8:27 PM

                Hi Bea:

                Thank you for your thoughtful post.

                As with Bill O’s response about the shutters, I need to do a bit of research on a couple of your points, particularly:

                (1) The “magical locking door”;

                (2) Why would a paid killer go over the fence?

                (3) “Needles & Sperm.” Although my post says you need to accept the defense arguments as to the “sexual attack,” there is still the needles.

                The other items you mention I don’t think directly go to the “intruder/impossible? game, as they are post-murder or matters of speculation (like cameras, how they acted, etc.) rather than in my view “real” facts or evidence.

                As I have been thinking of this, something came to mind: the knife that had been wiped by Joe and was supposedly used in the murder was one of the Swann 3 kitchen knifes, no?

                I know that there is a lot of back and forth on what the cut marks indicated in terms of the knife used, was it the knife in Dylan’s room, etc.

                Why would a killer for hire use a knife of the Swann 3 rather than his own?

                My scenario doesn’t really allow for a stupid killer that comes upon chance on a kitchen knife. The intruder/impossible? game requires a professional.

                Have I ended my own game?

                • Bea
                  08/06/2010 at 8:42 PM

                  Hi Bruce, I agree that if it was an assassin that he’d have brought his own weapon and not relied on finding a suitable kitchen knife. Agree about the needle marks – and I wonder what about Robert could engender that level of wrath. A former RFA person posted here (I know your aversion to anonymous sources) that nothing about RFA is killing-worthy. And my guess is the former general counsel has gone on to another job without much wrath – if you want to find out his name I’d find out what he’s doing these days. Split the work on it.

                  If there was an assassin, he would have been thrilled at the nonsensical behavior of the three defendants – couldn’t have asked for better. But I thought assassins would not only come armed but also ‘make a point’ so whatever lesson there is would indeed be learned. Isn’t that true of mafia and political stuff? We had many threads on the possibilities: CIA included. None really panned out.

                  If the trick-gone-crazy idea was true, then I don’t think these defendants would have taken the route they took. But to me it’s the most plausible of the Joe/Dylan-not -murderers theories. It would still make them serious criminals (and possibly felony murderers). Maybe that was enough for them to hide the truth. I think Victor just did whatever Joe told him to do.

                • Bruce
                  08/06/2010 at 9:33 PM

                  Oh damn, I am thinking way too much.

                  Unfortunately, I think the intruder/impossible? game is still “on”

                  A really smart professional killer for hire might grab the Swann 3’s kitchen knife, use his own knife for the murder, and leave the kitchen knife on the chest, to lead the police to think it was one of the household members that murdered Robert Wone with the kitchen knife, and cover his tracks.

                  This could explain (and would be perfectly consistent with):

                  (1) the prosecution’s theory that the cut lengths don’t match the kitchen knife;

                  (2) the mysteries of the wierd evidence found on the kitchen knife, that indicated that it may have not been used in the murder;

                  (3) the prosecutions’ theory that it could have been Dylan’s knife (despite the imminent Dr. Lee’s testimony that it could have been the kitchen knife, all of that testimony being a little “iffy”); and

                  (4) why Joe found the kitchen knife on (ok, or in) Robert Wone’s chest.

                  OK, I realize that this would make the smart killer for hire now a genius, but in my mind the knife doesn’t end the intruder/impossible? game.

                  Any other facts or evidence that could end the intruder/impossible? game?

                  • carolina
                    08/06/2010 at 10:20 PM

                    What kind of ninja assassin goes into a *LIT* house at 11 pm?

                    None, that’s what kind.

                    • Bruce
                      08/06/2010 at 10:28 PM


                      You make a good point, but it does not make it impossible.
                      Also, do we know if the lights were on at the time of the murder?

            • Bill Orange
              08/06/2010 at 7:05 PM

              A few points:

              1. If we posit an intruder, the intruder would only have to know which room Robert was in IF Robert was the intended target. If the choice of the victim was random (such as in some sort of gang initiation), then there was no need to know who was in what room. (Of course, then you have the problem of the intruder skipping the first bedroom and moving on to the second one.)

              2. I think that Victor said that the shutters were closed on the guest room windows. Depending on when this happened (before or after Robert got there), it might not have been possible to know which room Robert was in, even if the house was being professionally “cased” from the outside.

              3. I agree with you that you can’t really put much stock in the fact that the police didn’t find any evidence of an intruder. Given the caliber of the investigation, I don’t think they would have found such evidence even if the intruder had been standing in the living room when they got there.

              4. While I doubt the police would have looked into the past RFA counsel as a possible suspect, I’m quite sure the defense team did. Assuming, of course, that their clients didn’t tell them that there was really no point in looking for intruder, because there wasn’t one.

              • alternateguy
                08/06/2010 at 7:52 PM

                Bill orange,

                “Some sort of gang initiation.” Hadn’t thought of that. To me the most logical thing would be that some observer, a hater of gays and their life style, could have taken action against the family. Perhaps he has been waiting and observing the house for some time. And then he went after Robert, having seen this straight looking guy go into this house of sin. “I’ll fix them!” And he did. One quick stabbing and ruination to the entire household!

                Wouldn’t have taken a whole lot of skill to get away with, considering what we know of the DC Police. Wear gloves and move stealthily and quickly. And although we have confusion on this site as to whether he could have simply exited the back gate as Joe suggested, he could have simply gone out the front door. Perhaps he was in disguise, maybe just a hat pulled down.

                Haters of gays, by the way are not at all rare. And you can see how easy it is for folks to get real down on these guys. What if they were neighbors of yours, and you just could no longer stand their life style on your block? In your city? How could he think he could get away with this? Easy: He had God on his side.

                Sorry, Just thinking.

                • Bea
                  08/06/2010 at 8:43 PM

                  I thing gay-haters having done this much planning and with this level of intelligence would have killed a gay man. Just sayin’.

                  • alternateguy
                    08/06/2010 at 8:54 PM

                    Bea, Just saying that they saw a streight looking guy go into this house,but they knew what was REALLY going on. Pure SIN!

                    • carolina
                      08/06/2010 at 10:00 PM

                      My mouth is still hanging open, minutes after reading this.

                  • carolina
                    08/06/2010 at 10:22 PM

                    Okay, this was my daily laugh. I can now turn off the computer and go out. Thanks, Bea.

                • chilaw79
                  08/06/2010 at 11:33 PM

                  My goodness, Bruce, “straight looking guy?” I know some people claim to have “gaydar” and maybe you are one of them, but I do not know how you decide someone is “straight looking” based on their individual appearance.

                  As for your “intruder/impossible” game, I do not want to play. It is not impossible, but that is not the standard. Even in a criminal case, the standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” It is never that the possibility of someone else doing it is impossible.

                  There are three men who admit they were in the house at the time of Robert’s death; there is no physical evidence that anyone else (other than Robert) was present in the house that night. Even Joe, Victor, and Dylan do not claim to have seen or heard another person in their home that night until the EMTs arrived. It is just a supposition on their part.

                  • Bruce
                    08/06/2010 at 11:37 PM


                    Going to bed but had to respond to your post. I have never said anything about a “straight looking guy.”

                    Not me! You have confused me with someone else!

                    • chilaw79
                      08/07/2010 at 12:07 AM

                      Yes, I’m sorry, I had you confused with your “intruder/impossible” colleague, Alternateguy. It’s difficult to follow the postings sometimes.

                      I still think the “intruder/impossible” game is dumb. The standard is either going to be “beyond a reasonable doubt” or a “preponderance of the evidence.” No court plays the “intruder/impossible” game. Why should we, especially after a DC trial court judge already played?

                  • AnnaZed
                    08/07/2010 at 10:03 PM

                    chilaw, it becomes easier to keep them straight (ha!) when you keep in mind that alternateguy is the one who can’t spell the word “innocent” (or cat probably) and tells a lot of silly Ben style lies about himself, Bruce has some brains.

                    That said, and this is probably the wrong spot for this but I’m too tired to scroll up and down and look for the right one, calling his demands for evidence interpretation on this blog a “game” is very poor form.

                • SDK
                  08/11/2010 at 1:12 PM

                  Guy Haters?? In DC? There are many, many more of them in the south and very rarely (never!) are the stealthy killers.

                  • SDK
                    08/11/2010 at 1:14 PM

                    Sorry that should be gay haters…but ya’ll knew that.

              • Bruce
                08/06/2010 at 8:01 PM

                Bill O:

                Thanks for the reply, and your mention of the shutters in “Robert’s room” makes me want to do some more research on the site in that regard. Good point as to the possibility of shutters and the “spy v spy” guy outside with my proposed intruder/impossible? game.


            • 08/06/2010 at 9:27 PM

              RE “…is someone hired by the out-going counsel to RFA. We know that Robert was hired, and the previous counsel let go, because of something about a “lack of communication.” That to me sounds like it could be a euphemism for something else….personalities, divisions in the staff?”
              Wouldn’t the “outgoing counsel” retaliate against those who made him “outgoing”?

              • Bruce
                08/06/2010 at 9:38 PM

                Not if he thought Robert Wone connived or was behind taking the job from him.

                Do we have any information as to whether the out-going counsel knew Robert Wone?

                • carolina
                  08/06/2010 at 9:59 PM

                  Jesus Mary and Joseph. Just read the blog. This ridiculous theory has been floated in the past.

                  • Bruce
                    08/06/2010 at 10:23 PM


                    All I am asking for is a fact or piece of evidence that makes the specific scenario I presented impossible.

                    I am not saying it happened.

                    Do you have any facts or evidence that shuts down the theory?

                    • carolina
                      08/07/2010 at 9:21 AM

                      Impossible is ridiculous and you know it. It’s possible an alien invasion started with the death of Robert Wone, but it is extraordinarily improbable. Same goes here.

                      There is NO ONE who would have the contacts, the money and the motive to hire a skilled hit man to off Robert, and if they did, they’d have hired someone who had the sense to wait until an hour when the house was likely asleep and the lights were out.

                      Yes, we know Dylan’s lights were on, visible from the back of the home.

                • 08/07/2010 at 9:33 PM

                  RE “ if he thought Robert Wone connived or was behind taking the job from him.”
                  Wouldn’t he [the intruder] retailate against all who “connived or was behind taking the job from him.”
                  RE “ Do we have any information as to whether the out-going counsel knew Robert Wone?
                  I don’t believe this has been a topic on this blog.

                  • carolina
                    08/08/2010 at 3:46 PM

                    It has indeed been a topic here.

                    The former counsel was gone before Robert even applied for the job. He was not tapped for the position, but read about it, discussed it with Kathy, applied, interviewed and was hired.

                    Hundreds of people change jobs involuntarily every day. The reason the crazy ones are on the news is because they are the rare exceptions, not the rule.

              • Bruce
                08/06/2010 at 9:41 PM

                Hey Busy Reader: Do you know why you are not listed on the list of recent posts at the top of the page?

                • Bruce
                  08/06/2010 at 9:56 PM


                  • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                    08/06/2010 at 10:00 PM

                    All the posts after Busy Reader’s post knocked it off the list.

                    • Bruce
                      08/06/2010 at 10:05 PM

                      Don’t think so, but you may be right.

                • Bill 2
                  08/06/2010 at 10:05 PM

                  The name is clearly located right below Carolina and right above Deb. Why would you want us to think otherwise? Please explain.

                  • Bruce
                    08/06/2010 at 10:08 PM

                    bill2: Not on my computer. I’m not being accusatory? I was just curious, as everyone else
                    s post was listed on my computer. I was checking it very frequently.

                    It’s a nothing deal, and I’ll just drop it.

                • 08/07/2010 at 9:35 PM


                • 08/07/2010 at 9:37 PM

                  RE “Hey Busy Reader: Do you know why you are not listed on the list of recent posts at the top of the page?”

              • susan
                08/06/2010 at 10:47 PM

                Busy Reader,

                Just saw your post. I agree. At least that seems to be the pattern of those kinds of brutal crimes.

            • susan
              08/06/2010 at 10:42 PM

              Hi Bruce,

              One thought re the RFA and the possible theory you consider with the former counsel. People fired (Connecticut this week, for instance) or let go, etc.–those unhinged ones who end up murdering in relation to the job: I’ve heard of the victims being former bosses, former co-workers. Can’t think of ever hearing a case where someone retaliated against a person who replaced them.

              I don’t know of a single post on this site or anywhere that I’ve seen on the web that speaks to RW as a person who had enemies. He seemed to go out of his way to get people to like him. Doesn’t mean he didn’t have enemies just means that the evidence out there strongly rules that out.

              There are crazy strangers who kill for no reason or little reason (see Silver Spring case discussed on this site or that horrid post by “Reader” the other day about two girls in Australia who killed their friend just for the heck of it). In those cases that I’ve heard of, the crazy/unhinged ones have been easily caught. The crazy seems to keep them from getting away with it.

              There are people who still see O.J. as innocent and Nixon as not a crook, so there will always be individuals who discount evidence. Not saying that’s the case here, not saying it isn’t, just making an observation.

              There’s a wealth of info. on this site and it’s worth taking the time to look at the posts and links, articles, etc. since the first date this site was founded. I’ve learned a lot and am still learning and sifting through the info.

              • Bruce
                08/06/2010 at 10:51 PM


                Thanks for your thoughtful post.


            • Bruce
              08/06/2010 at 11:13 PM

              Thanks to everyone that played my intruder/impossible? game. There were some very interesting responses, and it has really made me think.

              It was very silly and presumptuous of me to expect people to read my very long blog setting forth the scenario for the game. That’s just not done, and is not realistic, and for those that did, many thanks.

              Time for bed.

              If anyone would like to play the game, please do. Just looking for facts or evidence that make the scenario I set forth in the long boring blog impossible.

              I knew before starting the game that there is no specific evidence of an intruder, that it is extremely unlikely that there was an intruder, and that my proposed scenario for the game is pretty darn far-fetched.

              The game simply asks: Is it impossible, and if so, why?

              And to all a good night…..

              • Bruce
                08/06/2010 at 11:23 PM

                Oh, before I go off to that good night, I should say that so far I haven’t seen any posts that set forth specific facts or evidence that make the scenario impossible, although there are a couple items suggested in posts that I need to further research, including shutters for Roberrt Wone’s room possibly being closed that night, which would put a real kink to the scenario, etc.

                The many thoughtful posts have certainly shown that this intruder theory is both terribly unlikely, and to the point of being silly.

                But not impossible….yet.

                Please take that as a challenge.


                • susan
                  08/06/2010 at 11:39 PM

                  Hi Bruce,

                  I think it’s a good idea to take these theories as far as they can go to get closer to the truth in this case. To that end, you should really familiarize yourself with some older posts. Many of your theories have been covered before, though it’s always good to revisit the evidence from different angles, etc.

                  That said, while I think your “challenge” is healthy towards the goal of putting all info. out there, I’d never call it a “game.”

                  The goal of this site as I understand it is justice for the Wone family. People here truly want resolution to this crime and for the culprit or culprits to be brought to justice and for the neighborhood to be safer, etc.

                  • susan
                    08/07/2010 at 12:03 AM

                    P.S. It might just be a poor choice of word, and I realize you seem sincere in your postings.

                  • Deb
                    08/07/2010 at 12:26 AM


            • Deb
              08/07/2010 at 12:24 AM

              Professional intruders leave evidence of intrusion.

              • alternateguy
                08/07/2010 at 10:29 AM


                Professional as well as amateur intruders leave evidence. At least in those cases we know about, which are the intrusions we know about.

                In this case the evidence was at least one door chime reported by one of the residents, a second door chime, reported by a second of the residents, a stabbed body, reported by all, an open back door reported by police, (As I recall.) But this evidence is discounted as evidence of intrusion due to the lack of additional evidence.

                One may, understandably perhaps, doubt the reliability of the house residents. Perhaps for good reason. But you can’t simply say that no evidence of intrusion was reported.

                And, if you take the stand that some or all of these intelligent residents of the household somehow staged the situation, why wouldn’t they come up with additional evidence, more believable evidence, pointing towards an intruder?

                Why limit your made up story to just hearing a door chime? Why not open the back door further and set a computer or two or a TV next to it? Why not leave the knife in the victim? And if you are disposing of a bunch of towels and photo equipment, why not dispose of Robert’s money and bill-fold to make it look like a robbery?

                Oh, I know, someone like Bill 2 will say that they panicked because of Victor’s scream. But why would Victor scream if he simply walked into a situation where Robert lay prone and unconscious? It’s more likely that he would have screamed after seeing him stabbed and bloody as he said he did.

                And if the others found that Robert had died as a result of date rape drugs, why stab him rather than have his body discovered in the morning, after giving the disappearing date rape drugs plenty of time to disappear?

                Too many questions!

                Of course, if one or more of the suspects is a psychopath, a sane person can go nuts trying to understand the mind of a psychopath. But where is there evidence that any of the three is a psychopath? Most people commenting on this site, seem to feel that they are too controlled in their interviews, not acting out of character.

                • Bill 2
                  08/07/2010 at 10:38 AM

                  “But why would Victor scream if he simply walked into a situation where Robert lay prone and unconscious? It’s more likely that he would have screamed after seeing him stabbed and bloody as he said he did.”

                  It’s even more likely that he would have screamed if he saw a housemate in the process of stabbing Robert. Where did anyone claim he screamed because he simply walked into a situation where Robert lay prone and unconscious? Is it more of your daily misinformation campaign?

                  • alternateguy
                    08/07/2010 at 11:28 AM

                    Bill 2

                    I’m sure that you’re sincere in your postings. However:

                    I thought that it was YOUR argument, in an earlier answer to me, that they stabbed Robert in a panic, as a result of the scream.

                    That was the explanation that you gave as to why they stabbed him rather than let his dead body simply be found in the morning. Am I wrong about that?

                    Why they would have stabbed him, is one of the greatest unanswered questions on this site.

                    You seem to want to place the scream after or during the stabbing, so how can you, at the same time, say that the stabbing was the RESULT of the scream? I fail to understand that.

                    And why do you think that statements people make are “claims” rather than suggestions?

                    And why do you see my suggestions as being a part of a “daily miss-information campaign?” Are you really so insecure in your own claims? Or is something else going on here?

                    • Bill 2
                      08/07/2010 at 11:35 AM

                      NEVER did I say that. It’s more of your misinformation.

                      “Am I wrong about that?”

                      Totally. Absolutely. Without the slighest doubt.

                      There is no sense in explaining anything to you because you will twist it.

                    • carolina
                      08/08/2010 at 9:19 AM

                      Lunesta? Short term memory loss? Deliberate misinformation?

                  • alternateguy
                    08/07/2010 at 12:27 PM

                    Bill 2

                    Sorry if I was wrong about thinking that it was you who suggested that one or more members committed the stabbing in a panic after Victor’s scream caused them to think that the police might be on the way.

                    Someone did say that, answering one of my blogs a few days ago. Said that the scream was the cause of everything.

                    But if it wasn’t you, I’m sorry to have accused you.

                    However, if it wasn’t you, please let me ask you this question?

                    If Robert was stabbed as a cover-up of the fact that he had died as a result of a dose of date-rape or some other quickly disappearing drug that ended up killing him, as so many have suggested, Why wouldn’t they just let him lie there through the night, cleaning up whatever the could and claim to have found his dead body in the morning?

                • Deb
                  08/07/2010 at 12:18 PM

                  “Reports” of evidence are not evidence.

          • carolina
            08/06/2010 at 9:58 PM

            I think I was tricked by there being absolutely no evidence of it. I’m pretty easily led astray by things like that.

            • Bruce
              08/06/2010 at 10:47 PM


              The point of the intruder/impossible? game is not about evidence for it, but if there is any fact or evidence that makes it impossible.

              I don’t think it is likely that there is an intruder as I suggest on my post which describes the scenario.

              If someone on here can give me a fact or piece of evidence that makes it impossible, I will drop it.

              I realize that there is a lot of info and evidence that makes it unlikely.

            • alternateguy
              08/06/2010 at 11:24 PM


              They seem to have lost all sorts of things, like the victim’s Blackberry for God’s sake. No one seems to know what was on his underwear. They missed getting the blood spatter pattern. They missed interviewing neighbors for days, though they said that they did.

              Couldn’t they have missed some evidence of an intrusion? Particularly since they were so damn sure, from the very start of the investigation, that there couldn’t have been one?

              I think that judges perhaps tend to have more faith in the system than some of we laymen do.

              • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                08/06/2010 at 11:30 PM

                They didn’t lose the blackberry. the police department gave the blackberry to the FBI to retrieve information from it and then the FBI returned it to RFA without analyzing it.

                • alternateguy
                  08/06/2010 at 11:40 PM


                  Lost the information, same thing.

                  And RFA apparently junked it. I wonder why. You know, I understand that experts can find info. on hard drives, even if they’ve been erased or formatted.

                  Don’t know if this is true of Blackberries, but if they didn’t even check?

                  • carolina
                    08/07/2010 at 9:25 AM

                    They didn’t junk it. They gave it to another employee.

                  • Bill 2
                    08/07/2010 at 9:40 AM

                    Why do you keep posting misinformation? Please explain.

                    Is it an attempt to confuse people who have not had access to transcripts and reports on the case?

                    • AnnaZed
                      08/07/2010 at 10:13 PM

                      I’m not sure that it is entirely paranoid to suppose that there is a Team Obfuscate tasked with working the blog from time to time. It seems to consist entirely of D-grade players though, mores the pity.

                  • Cat from Cleveland
                    08/07/2010 at 10:10 AM

                    When it was returned to RFA, all involved believed it had been mirrored. RFA “recyled” it – i.e., gave it to another employee after wiping it clean. When the Secret Service realized it had not been mirrored, efforts were made to recover it, but the data was lost. FWIW, the Secret Service had a number of electronic devices it was mirroring in this case, and there is no reason to believe that the failure to mirror this blackberry was anything other than an innocent, albeit bumbling, mistake.

                  • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                    08/07/2010 at 11:20 AM

                    No, it is not the same thing. Perhaps you are thinking this but none of us are mind-readers. You need to be clear and a little more precise with information regarding the evidence.

                    • Bea
                      08/07/2010 at 5:52 PM

                      I miss you, CD!

                    • Cat from Cleveland
                      08/07/2010 at 10:54 PM

                      I’m sorry – I’m confused. What is this in response to? What’s not the same thing?

              • Deb
                08/07/2010 at 12:30 AM

                Juries comprise laymen.

      • shawn
        08/06/2010 at 12:37 PM

        LMAO, very, very funny Michael, that is a good one. Thanks.

        • shawn
          08/06/2010 at 12:47 PM

          ooops sorry that is in the wrong place it was suppose to go after the DW thanking his lucky stars post.

    • Deb
      08/06/2010 at 9:25 PM

      I’m pretty confident plenty of people who have family/friends as victims get pretty pissed off — whether it’s at the cops, themselves, another family member, whatever. If you are innocent, and someone you love is abducted, injured or killed, you go through the stages of grief. Anger is one of them.

  11. Rich
    08/06/2010 at 11:35 AM

    “I would have called the police the next day and said why have you not interviewed my neighbors and every person within blocks of my home. I would have said to the police at the very least you should have talked to everyone between 1509 Swann Street and Radio Free Asia. I would be very angry the police would not have to worry about calling me in for interview I would have already been in the police station lobby saying why are you not doing more to find out who cut this wonderful person’s life short. If I were not guilty and the police were acting in the manner they did I would have become so frustrated I would have spent money on Private Investigator to do the work the police were not doing.”

    Pretty Good points. Never real thought it through before. The defendnats should have taken the, “OJ Point of View,” and look to find the murderer.

    Instead, they were a bit passive about it. They behaved more like guys who do NOT want to get caught, than catch the, “Bad Guy.”

    • Ivan
      08/06/2010 at 3:04 PM

      I also would have arranged to have the locks changed on the house ASAP – if only to sleep better at night.

      • chilaw79
        08/06/2010 at 4:08 PM

        Interesting comment and one I had not seen before. When I got mugged, the first thing I did is get the locks changed and fortify the security system at my home.

        Sarah Morgan, the most security conscious person in the home, did move out.

  12. Bea
    08/06/2010 at 1:06 PM

    Dylan was pushing 40 and yet wanted to call his parents and wanted magazines – maybe Highlights so he could check out “Goofus and Gallant” to help him formulate his correct persona.

    He doesn’t seem all that bothered that a (casual) friend was murdered down the hall from him. I agree with above comments – I do think all three men would be much more animated and would see themselves as being on the same side as the cops if they were not involved/knew nothing about the murder. In other words, Dylan did not choose to be “Gallant” that night. Gallant would not have seen the murdered friend then have chosen to go sit on the sofa. Neither prospect is particularly appealing: heartless mama’s boy or cold blooded killer.

    • Liam
      08/06/2010 at 8:28 PM

      “Dylan was pushing 40 and yet wanted to call his parents and wanted magazines – maybe Highlights so he could check out “Goofus and Gallant” to help him formulate his correct persona.”


      Thank you. I read that and I could not stop laughing! That comment just cracked me up.

      Every time I read it, it makes me laugh.

      Thank you, it’s good to have some uncontrolled laughter every so often.

  13. Rapt in MD
    08/06/2010 at 2:32 PM

    Hi All – at the risk of getting called out for digressing into obscure areas of discussion, I will throw something out here for Friday fodder. I just happened to be enjoying some Dave Matthews at my desk and wound up listening to the song “I Did It.” This prompted me to Google the lyrics to follow along. If you would like to have your hair stand on end while you are perusing WMRW this afternoon, please check it out. Seasoned readers familiar with the sparkly cat card will appreciate that the song even has a reference to “the cat that collared me.” References to going door to door to spread love had some relevance also given how neighborly things had gotten on Swan Street. Interesting song.

  14. Deb
    08/06/2010 at 10:35 PM

    With all the talk about how hot it was, the air conditioning not being completely effective, etc., WHY IS DYLAN WEARING A LONG SLEEVED WARM-UP JACKET?

    Do we know if any of the three were examined for injury?

    When the detective and Dylan walk out of the room at the beginning, he deliberately pulls the bottom of his jacket down. I think he also looked to verify it was covering his belly.

    Others have mentioned Dylan seems “hippy”, I noticed a bit of a tum-tum, so maybe that’s why he pulled the jacket down.

    It didn’t seem like he was too cool — no tucking up of the legs or anything. He also didn’t seem too warm, really.

    But why the long sleeves? Just seems incongruous.

    • mia
      08/07/2010 at 2:20 AM

      Good point! and don’t forget he was wearing a bath robe when the EMT first met him in the hallway. I can’t recall the physical examination to the defendants have ever been mentioned tho.

      • Deb
        08/07/2010 at 12:20 PM

        We can likely assume Robert did not cause any of them any injury as there is no indication he struggled.

        But what if one of the three threatened another of the three?

    • AnnaZed
      08/07/2010 at 9:10 PM

      What an interesting observation ~ one of the first to bring anything new to the conversation in months ~ well observed there madam!

      Interesting also that at least in Victor’s interrogation room it was hot enough to need a fan so maybe Anacostia is not one of those frigidly air conditioned public buildings. The detectives appear to be dressed for summer heat with rolled up sleeves.

      My money would be on Dylan wanting to conceal his own injection sites with the sleeves, basically your up-market junkie fashion statement.

      • carolina
        08/08/2010 at 8:56 PM

        Or bruises from hands grabbing his skinny arms.

        • Clio
          08/08/2010 at 9:22 PM

          A pot belly on an otherwise skinny, if hippy, middle-aged guy might explain Dyl’s sudden need to exercise in his own room that evening.

          As for the track suit top, he would have used it as a cover-up over a camisole or a wifebeater or its equivalent in order to dress up for the detectives, who wouldn’t be that interested in his cleavage … as his Florida clients would become in the near future.

  15. susan
    08/06/2010 at 11:23 PM

    Keys to the house: First JP wasn’t forthright with police about who had keys to the house. Then, after his brother’s robbery of the place with his friend, P. Collins, JP shares that his brother also had a key to the house.

    Why not others? We only know about Michael Price having a key to the house because the truth inevitably came out due to the robbery and police involvement. But JP also previously lied to his paying tenant and friend S. Morgan about his broher having a key.

    But, didn’t L. Hinton live there after M. Price assaulted him (this house was like Peyton Place, as prob. Clio or someone else mentioned before). He probably had a key. Who else?

    Who else might have been around, had access? Did S. Morgan give the key to anyone? Did JP meet anyone on Alt.com, did they have a third over before, did D. Ward’s brother M. Ward have a key? I know the door was supposedly open, but I wonder. As is clear from the postings here and the evidence, the spider/lamp post thing seems convenient, with the alleged unlocking of the door as a result. It might be true, there are people that fastidious/anal. Personally, I feel badly for the spider (Yes, I did write that–how could a spider outside bother JP?)

    That said, that part of the city back in 2006 and even now seems sketchy in parts, even by the “million dollar” homes. So it is odd that they’d be or say they’d be prone to leave the door unlocked.

  16. Emily
    08/07/2010 at 10:14 AM

    Been reading here a long time and very impressed with the level of debate.

    I am a trauma counsellor and have dealt with many victims of crime (mostly armed robberies and assaults). I mainly deal with robberies and assaults that have occurred in someone’s workplace rather than their home.

    I can say that, without exception, one of the primary concerns of all of the victims I speak to is their voiced fear “what if they come back?” Victims of professional robberies fear the perp will come back for further pickings because it was so easy the first time, victims of robberies/assaults by disturbed people fear that they might hold a grudge and return to prevent people testifying against them. The major thing they fear is future victimisation by an unapprehended perpetrator. Victims become paranoid about the possibility that the perps may be surveilling them or following them or may know where they live and try to victimise them at home. They become fearful for their own safety and the safety of their families.

    One thing that really stands out to me is that none of the trouple has apparently ever expressed a concern that the unknown intruder who “evidently” came into their home and murdered their friend could possibly return and further victimise them.

    I think that I can say, with some authority, that a “normal” reaction to having someone murdered in your own home by an unknown intruder would be to become extremely fearful that you yourself could be murdered and to lock the place up like Fort Knox.

    The fact that it appears that none of the people in the house that night expressed a concern about further victimisation suggests to me that they knew they were not at risk of an unknown intruder murdering them in their beds because they knew that that didn’t happen.

    • susan
      08/07/2010 at 10:48 AM

      Thanks, Emily! That is a great observation. I can’t recall when the police ended up sealing off the house and when the “family” had to move out. Did they go back home the next day?

    • alternateguy
      08/07/2010 at 10:52 AM


      Very interesting questions! Good questions!

      I’m sure you know your stuff.

      What I’m not clear on, can anyone tell me, were the triple allowed back in to their house right away? I’m assuming not of course, since it was a crime scene and it would be down-right stupid for the authorities to allow them back right away.

      If they weren’t going be allowed to return home for a few days, where did they stay? What arrangements were made and when?

      Wouldn’t all of this have been discussed during the first police interrogations which of course went unrecorded? And, if that were the case, wouldn’t that be the time that discussion, questions, conserns, fears about their personal safety would have been expressed?

      • Emily
        08/07/2010 at 11:32 AM

        In my experience concern about “what if they come back” is not a topic that is compartmentalised by victims of crime – it’s their constant refrain “but what if they come back”. I think that if someone has this concern then it would be voiced in hours of videotaped discussion with police. It is not a topic that would be discussed and then moved on from. It’s an obsessive issue with victims – “what if they come back”.

        • alternateguy
          08/07/2010 at 11:52 AM


          You’ve said that your familiarity is mostly of victims at the work place, where workers are going to be returning to. In this case, if the suspects are not returning to the house anytime soon, couldn’t their reactions be somewhat different? Just saying.

          • Emily
            08/07/2010 at 12:13 PM

            I’ve got to say that you’re grasping. If people are so traumatised about an event that occurred to them at their workplace how much *more* traumatised are they going to be about an event that occurred at their home?

            Surely the question of “what if they come back” has got to be of greater import if someone is murdered in your home than in your workplace.

            I suggest you read up on post traumatic stress disorder to get a good idea of how people usually respond to exposure to a site that they associate with the risk of death.

            It’s not even my real name but I’m sort of pissed off that you don’t even spell my nom-de-plume right. I also suggest that you seem to have very limited comprehension of the impact of traumatic events on participants, e.g. MURDER. This is a situation where the paramedics and the cops would have gone home and burst into tears and needed time to process it. I really don’t think you understand the nature of how traumatic this sort of event is. I question your ability to understand this sort of thing unless you have been exposed to something similar.

            • alternateguy
              08/07/2010 at 12:42 PM


              Wow! Sorry I pissed you off by misspelling your pretend name. I just asked a question. And since the question involved folks under accusations of murder, and not planning to return to the home, was it so crazy just ask you if it could be a different situation?

              I WAS bowing to your expertise in asking you this.

              • Emily
                08/07/2010 at 1:00 PM

                The issue of my name means that you don’t pay attention to details. If you can’t get my pretend name right then how can we trust you to get anything else right?

                Please answer this question – do you have any experience at all of dealing with people who have experienced a traumatic event such as murder? I think that your questions about such an event are extremely naive and suggest that you have no idea of the emotional import of everyone involved in the event.

                • alternateguy
                  08/07/2010 at 1:08 PM


                • alternateguy
                  08/07/2010 at 1:35 PM


                  You’re right. I tend to miss the trees for the forest.

                  And yes, yes, I have had personally had those experiences that you speak of as have others I’m close to.

                  In my experience, people react in many ways and their individual behavior is not something always to be found in textbooks, but may-be dependent on the particular circumstances.

                  Your suggestion as how people behave while under the personal accusation of murder, I suspect may not be something in your experience, but I could be wrong about that.

                  I would never say that I think that your postings about these events are “extremely naïve” nor would I ever suggest that you have “no idea of the emotional import of everyone involved in” said event.

                  Though I may be beginning to suspect that.

          • carolina
            08/08/2010 at 9:31 AM

            Wouldn’t it be more of a concern when you LIVE in the same small house in which the crime took place?

            The answer is yes, yes it would.

    • AnnaZed
      08/07/2010 at 10:16 PM

      Thanks for this professional observation Emily, excellent points all.

  17. Cat from Cleveland
    08/07/2010 at 10:17 AM

    I fell asleep reading DW, so I apologize if I missed it. Did he say, “OMG that could have been me??” The range of emotions I can imagine one would feel under the circumstances would range from the most empathetic “OMG, Robert. . . Cathy. . . ” to the most self-involved, “I was sleeping right there behind the first door. It could have been me. What if they wanted to kill me? Am I safe?” DW doesn’t even seem to be on the spectrum. He acts like a murder happened on TV. So hard for me to imagine a self-involved innocent person not expressing some hysteria over the fact that they could very likely have been murdered in their sleep that very night.

    • susan
      08/07/2010 at 11:07 AM

      Hi Cat,

      He asked for magazines.
      He ended that evening, so he said, reading a magazine (the New Yorker) and seemed to want to continue reading. Quite odd. Maybe he compartmentalizes well.

      He also said, in this tape or the first one, twice he said–that he hadn’t planned on going downstairs to open the door for RW and that he told JP this. Why was it such an issue that night? It seems to me that both VZ and DW were pissed off with JP and there was resentment at RW coming over, so they both made their intent clear–he’s your guest, you deal with hosting him.

      It’s like a maelstrom was brewing that evening and culminated in a murder.

      • alternateguy
        08/07/2010 at 11:43 AM


        I think I recall hearing that the door open chime sounded on the bedroom panel in Joe’s room but that the door bell just sounded downstairs. Appearently Dylan thought that Joe didn’t hear the bell, being up another flight, so he answered it. If he were so pissed off, “…you deal with him.” why did he bother to answer the door rather than to just pretend to be asleap?

        • susan
          08/07/2010 at 10:07 PM

          He mentions twice in the interview that he told JP that he would not be answering the door. Why was it such an issue? In the “story” we’re told JP is upstairs watching TV.

          If you have a friend coming over and your other partner has told you twice–point blank–that he is not getting the door and the only other person in the house is your other partner who is in bed watching Project Runway, why aren’t you downstairs or on heightened alert for the doorbell. Something was amiss there.

          • AnnaZed
            08/08/2010 at 12:49 PM

            Susan, I had made a note about this as well, then felt unable to expand on it. Is Dylan just lying? Is Joe just rude? manipulative (topping from the bottom again)? what?

            • 08/08/2010 at 12:54 PM

              Or otherwise occupied, as in making preparations (other than making up the guest bed).

  18. Bill 2
    08/07/2010 at 1:18 PM

    Okay alternateguy, I have attempted to be kind (not easy) because I figured that perhaps you learned English as a second language. I also thought that perhaps you still didn’t have your GED due to serious problems with reading comprehension. (Obviously, I’m no longer attempting to be kind.)

    When you take statements of any of the trio out of context and mash those statements together to create a new meaning that is NOT there, I have a problem with that. I don’t know if it’s a deliberate attempt to cause confusion in those who have studied this case since Day 1 or if you haven’t the slightest notion of fact vs. fiction.

    Now, when you take my statements and twist them into your own interpretation, then there will no longer be the slightest attempt by me to hold back.

    When I said that Victor’s scream caused panic and changed the plans, I did NOT say that Robert was still alive. I did NOT say that it was the cause of Robert being stabbed. I still say it caused a panic and I still say it caused a change in plans. Now, I’ll add (only for you since you are unable to comprehend), that the change in plans involved plans for a corpse. Got it?

    I’m totally over your bullcrap. When the next trial is over and done, I predict that you’ll still be unable to comprehend anything set forth by anyone on either side in the courtroom and you’ll still be coming up with more of your fairytale scenarios by twisting everything set forth by both sides.

    And just so you know, your attempt to quote Shakespeare the other day in that I doth protest too much, means that, given the Shakespearean meaning, you are accusing me of murdering Robert Wone, proving that a little knowledge in the hands of a Fool can be very dangerous. You’re damn right that I’m going to loudly protest your repeated attempts to obfuscate facts in this case. If you think the protests are too much, then stop trying to change real facts and quotes to your fiction.

  19. shawn
    08/07/2010 at 1:51 PM

    Wow Emily great insights, I have done research on PTSD and that is a main concern of a victim is their safety not only where the even happened but also many locations in their life.

    Has anyone heard anything about the clothes Mr. Wone was planning to wear the next day for work? It seems if he were somewhat of “neat freak” as described by one the news papers covering the trial he certainly would not be planning on climbing into the same clothes and showing up at work in the same clothes as the day before.

    In particular the number of pairs of underwear with him, once again since he was a neat freak, does it make sense for him to shower and put back on the same underwear he had been wearing all day or to put on what he was planning on wearing the next day? Since he would have to shower in the morning and then would be looking for clean underwear to put on.

  20. alternateguy
    08/07/2010 at 2:08 PM

    Bill 2,

    You figure totally wrong regarding my education, which includes long ago graduate school right there in D.C.

    You’ve attempted to be neither kind nor polite in your postings to me.

    Your suggestion that my Shakespeare quote includes a meaning that you are the murderer, is ridicules, of course, since that all-too-often used quote is commonly employed whenever someone seems to be going overboard in defending their position.

    And I don’t find much logic in you’re arguments at all. But that could just be me.

    • Bill 2
      08/07/2010 at 6:02 PM

      “someone I’m close to is a friend of Joes”

      At last your endeavors are beginning to make sense, alternateguy. We finally see the reason for all your attempts at obfuscation.

      • alternateguy
        08/07/2010 at 6:14 PM

        Bill 2


        Speak for yourself can’t you? And you’re quite wrong in seeing attempts at obfuscation. What is your reason for all of your certitude? (I don’t think I want to know.)

        • Bea
          08/07/2010 at 6:23 PM

          Altguy – can you ask your friend who is a friend of Joe’s whether Joe was anti-drug or if he did do drugs as has been reported here? Would be helpful to get at least ONE person to say he didn’t do drugs (if true) since we have a lot of commenters and other “evidence” to the contrary.

          Thanks. I do have to say Bill 2 raises a good point – that it’s important to know why people may have or not have a bias. If your friend, for example, has you convinced that Joe is innocent, it’s relevant. And if you could pass along factual reasons for this opinion, even better.

          • Bruce
            08/07/2010 at 6:41 PM


            Bea makes a very good point.

            Have you met Joe?

            Does your friend that knows Joe feel he is innocent?

            If so, have you discussed this matter with your friend?



            • alternateguy
              08/07/2010 at 7:05 PM


              He did, for years. Right now he has grown pretty traumatized by all of the unending talk/publicity. I don’t think he wants to be questioned or further think about the case after all of this time. I haven’t told him that I’m pursuing this in any way, though I’m just curious, since I’d heard, long ago, of his good opinions of his friends, and in his belief that they were caught up in something not of their making.

              • Bea
                08/07/2010 at 7:10 PM

                Hi Altguy,

                I can imagine that it would be hard – but your comment that
                ‘he did, for years’ suggests that he’s had/having possible change of heart. Any notion of his drug use? The indirect way I know of Joe has him as a serious drug user at the time – though not one would call an ‘addict’ but more of a binge user (realizing of course that certain binge users could be called ‘addicts’).

                Would like to hear back from you. Thanks.

                • alternateguy
                  08/07/2010 at 7:22 PM


                  My friend doesn’t hang with drug users to the best of my knowledge. And no, I don’t think that he has had a change of heart. Hung in there through the trial.

                  Just tired of a situation that will appearently never get dropped.

                  • AnnaZed
                    08/08/2010 at 12:19 AM

                    I actually had to bring myself back to this (much scrolling up and down to find it). What a curious turn of phrase that is: “…a situation that will appearently [sic] never get dropped.”


                    Why on earth would your friend or Joe himself or anyone think that this “situation” (presuming that syntactically you mean interest in Robert Wone’s murder) would just be “dropped” by anyone?

                    That is bizarre, but in case Joe is wondering about that you could tell him not to count on it any time soon if ever.

                • AnnaZed
                  08/07/2010 at 9:57 PM

                  So in lieu of the real thing we just have to settle for the Ben-lite-alternative.

              • Bruce
                08/07/2010 at 8:55 PM

                Thanks, Altguy. Interesting. I think we were all wanting to see if you had any inside “goodies” info.


                • alternateguy
                  08/07/2010 at 9:18 PM


                  Sorry if I led you guys down the garden path.

                  As I think that I once said before, I’ve never met any of the defendants. And I’m quite sure that I have no inside information whatsoever.

                  I think that I recall that the defense said that the three had no history of either alcohol
                  or drug abuse. So I can see that it would be big if one could prove otherwise.

                  • Liam
                    08/07/2010 at 11:08 PM

                    If the defense said that the three had no history of drug or alcohol abuse, that’s good enough for me.

                    • carolina
                      08/08/2010 at 9:40 AM

                      In what world would a defense attorney say otherwise? Unless it was a matter of public record, he’s going with “Don’t ask, don’t tell.

                      And there was evidence of drugs in the house. I don’t think the E fairy left it under their pillow.

  21. chilaw79
    08/07/2010 at 2:38 PM

    Let’s look for a moment at the possibility of an intruder. While I think this is whipping a dead horse, my reasons for discounting the possibility are:

    1. The failure of Victor to ask the 911 operator for a police presence to determine if the intruder was still in the house;
    2. The apparent lack of concern for Dylan and Sarah (who Joe believed had returned) and Sarah’s departure from the residence;
    3. Victor’s willingness to do downstairs to receive the EMTs;
    4. The absence of any statement by defendants the police were asked to search for an intruder in the home when the police arrived;
    5. The absence of any fingerprints, shoeprints, evidence on the BMW (cited as a possible method of getting over the gate), or any other evidence in the backyard;
    6. The timing of the attack (so soon after all had retired to bed);
    7. The fact that Robert was found on top of the folded sheet;
    8. The failure of Victor and Joe to change or upgrade their home security (before the later burglary);
    9. The fact that no items were taken from the premises; and
    10. The fact that no witness reported seeing or hearing the intruder.

    I am sure I could come up with ten more items, including the explanation so clearly set forth by Emily above. A judge (after hearing this testimony) determined beyond a reasonable doubt there was no unknown intruder, and I have confidence a jury would do the same, whether under a reasonable doubt or preponderance of the evidence standard.

    • alternateguy
      08/07/2010 at 4:40 PM


      Sorry, under item 6, I ment to say “Trio planned timing seems strange at best.”

    • Bruce
      08/07/2010 at 5:12 PM


      With all due respect, I think you know that the judge, in your words: “…determined beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no unknown intruder..” is simply dicta, not any “law of the case” or of any other evidenciary value.

      I think it is something to consider, certainly, but it is of no binding authority, and yours and others recitation to it seems to suggest otherwise. While I have no doubt that she is extremely brainy, her “opinion” in this regard is really no different than anyone else’s who knows the evidence, or lack of it, that was provided at the criminal trial.


      • carolina
        08/08/2010 at 9:42 AM

        Ignoring the forest for that one tree again, B.

    • Liam
      08/08/2010 at 12:00 AM

      This is a corollary or addendum to the points you raised above, all of which I agree with.

      I also find it strange that in response to hearing the sound (whether it was a grunt, a groan, a low scream, etc.), JP and VZ didn’t yell downstairs something like “Robert, Dylan, are you okay.” They obviously did not know what this sound was. They offer no details during the interrogation like “we thought it might be RW or DW sick” or “we thought RW and DW might be arguing”.

      Yet, they rush downstairs to explore this unknown strange sound that was loud enough to wake them up.

      I realize that at the time they went downstairs, they did not “know” of the intruder. Nonetheless, I’d have been yelling “Dylan, Robert are you okay?” as I approach their bedrooms downstairs.

      ) …

      • carolina
        08/08/2010 at 9:44 AM

        Agreed. If the sound did not seem desperate or frightened, it would make more sense to call down. A couple of low grunts would be more likely attributable to stubbing one’s toe or running into a chair in the dark.

      • 08/08/2010 at 12:04 PM

        And I’ve wondered why they didn’t (later, once they had descended from the top floor) call, farther down the stairs, for Sarah because they said they thought maybe the door chime was Sarah returning home. Such a shout-out would be both to know if the chime had been of her doing and if so to ascertaiin if she was ok. She could have returned to the house with someone (intentionally or not) who entered the house with her. That does not seem to have been the case, but the 3 did not know that at the time.

        • alternateguy
          08/08/2010 at 12:31 PM


          If she lived in the basement apartment, how would she have heard a call from the second floor? They
          might have phoned her, but wasn’t the phone tied up with the 991 call?

          • 08/08/2010 at 1:05 PM

            I live in a large 3 story house; can and do yell from one floor to the other; and am heard. I just conducted an empirical experiment to test my hypothesis. Even with the interior door to the basement door closed (to an “accessory” apartment in my house), I was heard. And I don’t have a loud voice either. (If I were frightened, I’m sure I could be heard in the next block.) BTW, please call 911 (not 991) if you’re ever in need, which I hope is never the case!! Alt: Another beautiful weekend day.

  22. alternateguy
    08/07/2010 at 4:30 PM


    Your well thought out list of reasons to discount the possibility of an intruder, seems to dovetail with the beliefs of most posters on this site. You may very well be right in these.

    However, please let me post my alternate speculations after
    each paragraph. Not saying that I’m right, just possibilities.
    Even if folks do consider them thin.

    “Let’s look for a moment at the possibility of an intruder. While I think this is whipping a dead horse, my reasons for discounting the possibility are:”

    1. The failure of Victor to ask the 911 operator for a police presence to determine if the intruder was still in the house;

    He clearly did informe the 911 operator that there might
    be an intruder who stabbed the victim.

    2. The apparent lack of concern for Dylan and Sarah (who Joe believed had returned) and Sarah’s departure from the residence;

    The time was short and they were asking for immediate
    help at the house.

    3. Victor’s willingness to do downstairs to receive the EMTs;

    But only after he looked out the windo and saw mega help at
    the door. That is, of course, if you believe him.

    4. The absence of any statement by defendants the police were asked to search for an intruder in the home when the police arrived;

    The police were told RIGHT AWAY of in their view that there was
    or had been an intruder.

    5. The absence of any fingerprints, shoeprints, evidence on the BMW (cited as a possible method of getting over the gate), or any other evidence in the backyard;

    The D.C. police ability at evidence gathering didn’t seem
    so hot.

    6. The timing of the attack (so soon after all had retired to bed);

    Curious in all respects. Lucky timing? A stalker?
    Thio planned timing seems strange at best.

    7. The fact that Robert was found on top of the folded sheet;

    Was a very warm night. And didn’t his wife say he might
    have done that? (I’m not sure of this.)

    8. The failure of Victor and Joe to change or upgrade their home security (before the later burglary);

    They hadn’t even bothered to turn it on before the murder.
    Did they after? That’s the question if you ask me.

    9. The fact that no items were taken from the premises; and10. The fact that no witness reported seeing or hearing the intruder.

    If not a burglar, any other intruder would have wanted to be
    low profile as well. Even if armed, he/she could have used
    their kitchen knife to throw suspicion back on the house
    residents. Which it surely did do.

    I am sure I could come up with ten more items, including the explanation so clearly set forth by Emily above. A judge (after hearing this testimony) determined beyond a reasonable doubt there was no unknown intruder, and I have confidence a jury would do the same, whether under a reasonable doubt or preponderance of the evidence standard.

    Both judges and juries do make mistakes. Yes, even in murder
    cases. Sadly, that’s U.S. history.

    • Bea
      08/07/2010 at 6:19 PM

      I’ll try to tackle your ‘comments’ to Chilaw’s points (hers, yours, MINE underneath):

      “Let’s look for a moment at the possibility of an intruder. While I think this is whipping a dead horse, my reasons for discounting the possibility are:”

      1. The failure of Victor to ask the 911 operator for a police presence to determine if the intruder was still in the house;

      He clearly did informe the 911 operator that there might
      be an intruder who stabbed the victim.


      2. The apparent lack of concern for Dylan and Sarah (who Joe believed had returned) and Sarah’s departure from the residence;

      The time was short and they were asking for immediate
      help at the house.


      3. Victor’s willingness to do downstairs to receive the EMTs;

      But only after he looked out the windo and saw mega help at
      the door. That is, of course, if you believe him.


      4. The absence of any statement by defendants the police were asked to search for an intruder in the home when the police arrived;

      The police were told RIGHT AWAY of in their view that there was
      or had been an intruder.


      5. The absence of any fingerprints, shoeprints, evidence on the BMW (cited as a possible method of getting over the gate), or any other evidence in the backyard;

      The D.C. police ability at evidence gathering didn’t seem
      so hot.


      6. The timing of the attack (so soon after all had retired to bed);

      Curious in all respects. Lucky timing? A stalker?
      Thio planned timing seems strange at best.


      7. The fact that Robert was found on top of the folded sheet;

      Was a very warm night. And didn’t his wife say he might
      have done that? (I’m not sure of this.)


      8. The failure of Victor and Joe to change or upgrade their home security (before the later burglary);

      They hadn’t even bothered to turn it on before the murder.
      Did they after? That’s the question if you ask me.


      9. The fact that no items were taken from the premises; and10. The fact that no witness reported seeing or hearing the intruder.

      If not a burglar, any other intruder would have wanted to be
      low profile as well. Even if armed, he/she could have used
      their kitchen knife to throw suspicion back on the house
      residents. Which it surely did do.


      • alternateguy
        08/07/2010 at 7:10 PM


        Biginning my sentance with “If not a burgler,” is not glossing over item 9, but agreeing that there might well not have been a burgler.

        • Bea
          08/07/2010 at 8:11 PM

          I see what you mean.

      • Bruce
        08/07/2010 at 8:35 PM

        Well, gosh guys and gals, you know I can hardly leave this with out putting my 2 cents in. Terribly sorry, and with all due apologies:

        Chilaw, Altguy & Bea:

        Re: Chilaw’s list of reasons for discounting an intruder.

        (1)Victor and the 911 call. Absolute complete non-issue and silliness in my view, and I expect a lot of others’. If the plaintiff in the civil case tries to make hay of anything you say about this issue, the jury is going to look at the plaintiffs’ counsel as if they are nuts or up to something. If you accept that the Swann 3 are innocent (for this exercise only), Victor was in a panic and extremely upset. He told the 911 operator that a man had been stabbed and there may be an intruder. Bea, if I was given a choice, in a panic, as to which (an ambulance or the police) I would pick, I would choose an ambulance to try to save Robert’s life. Are you faulting him for that? What would you have said if Victor chose the police over the ambulance, hum?

        If the Swann 3 were trying to cover up something and in a conspiracy to do so, your arguments make no sense at all. What benefit was it to “the master plan” to screw up this 911 call in any way. Everyone knows that 911 calls are taped!!!!! You hear or see them on the news all the time!

        I just can’t believe that Bea and Chilaw put so much on this call, expecting Victor to be a “Superman” when we know at the time he was panicked. Easy to criticize in hindsight. What Victor did was reasonable under the circumstances. One of the silliest arguments of the morally certain.

        Bea, I’m sure Emily is brilliant, but you again are relying on an anonymous poster. I know I can’t stop you from repeatedly doing that — even though you have advised in your postings that you are an attorney — despite my best efforts. Better, I would like to hear from an MD about the effects of schock on the human body, human perceptions and communications, before going to Emily. Sorry, that’s just me. See also, Altguy’s response to #1. Nothing to see here, please move along.

        (2) Apparent lack of concern for Victor or Sarah. Again, in my book, this is a close cousin to your arguments about the 911 call. Nit nit nit nit-picking. They were dealing with an emergency situation, all likely in shock (if they are telling the truth, how could they not all be in shock) with a dying or dead person in their home. You again want them to “super-multitask” like “Superman.” Sorry Charlie. Again, the plaintiffs’ counsel will make a huge mistake if he nit-picks at the Swann 3’s behavior right after the murder. Credibility of an attorney is very very important at a civil trial. Just saying.

        (3) Victor’s willingness to go downstairs. See responses to (1) and (2). Mountain out of a molehill. Nit-picking supremeo! Choose your battles wisely, plaintiff’s attorneys! At this point, if the plaintiff’s attorney started out his case with (1) and then (2) and now (3), pushing your arguments, I believe a lot of jurors will simply stop listening to the attorney, trying to lead them down odd and unreasonable nit-picking paths, and try to concentrate on the demeanor of the witnesses and the judge. I know I would, and I expect a number of reasonable people on here, if giving the most basic of reasonable “benefit of a doubt” to the defendants, would also.

        (4) See answers to (1), (2) and (3). Good God, people, the police were on the site doing their investigation. They are the ones in charge! They are the professionals! Don’t start telling them what to do. What, exactly, would you tell them to do, there at the house, that they wouldn’t do anyway? How many times do they have to say “intruder?” See also Altguy’s response.

        GENERAL SATEMENT AS TO (1) THROUGH (4) ABOVE. The defense counsel at the civil trial will be dancing in the streets if the plaintiff’s counsel bring up the nit-picking arguments (1) thorugh (4). Steaks for everyone on the defense team each night!

        (5) Absence of Evidence of an Intruder. I agree with you, you have finally hit on something. No nit-picking here. Defense counsel have to be very careful here. They have to attack the police investigation. Attack attack attack! This is the centerpiece of their defense, a la OJ. They can do that, as we know, on many many many grounds, and they can do it credibly. No nit-picking by the defense. Pick the “big article” police bumbling, not everything. Convince the jury that they can’t trust anything that the police investigation did. The next step…show the jury that the only reason there is no evidence is that the Three Stooges police investigation wasn’t capable of obtaining it. Plus, the defense must suggest an intruder scenario that does not involve “Martians.” I realize that the intruder/impossible? scenario I suggested in the past will be hard to do. But, if the defense can demolish the police investigation, the jurors may accept the possiblility of an intruder that otherwise may not make a lot of sense.

        (6) Timing of the attack. This is problematic, but not nearly like (5). I have made the same arguments that Bea makes about this in my postings here. Defense saves this for closing argument, and pretty much lets the plaintiff’s attorney do what they want on it during the trial. Hey, if you have problems with that time element thingy for an intruder, how do you view the defendants killing someone in their own home, or the other many mysteries that the plaintiff’s can’t explain?

        (7) Robert on top of folded sheet. Not particularly important in the grand scheme of things. He was on an unfamiliar “bed.” It is a step above “nit-picking,” but who knows why he was on the top? Don’t think this will be critical in any way at the trial.

        (8) Changing or up-grading alarm system. Supremeo nit-picking. Good question as to them being bad homeowners, not so good at showing they killed Robert Wone. Sorry, I rank this with (1) through (4), above.

        (9) No one saw or heard the intruder. Lucky intruder. Above “nit-picking,” but don’t think it is critical. Bad police investigation on this. Defense already convinces the police investigation was baffoonish. Police did not follow up on this. Didn’t speak to next door neighbor until well after murder. Lack of witnesses is the police investigation’s fault. Along with the bad investigation, the defense also convinces the jury (not hard under the circumstances) that the police decided immediately that it was one of the Swann 3 and did not really investigate the intruder theory, or did it shoddingly.

        I agree that the cumulative effect of all the things you mention, even the “nit-picking” ones, can make a reasonable person severely question the intruder theory. To me, it does not rise to moral certitude, as it appears that it does to many on this site, but the defense at the civil trial really have their work cut out for them.

        Only #5, I believe, of the 9 things Chilaw mentions is going to be a terrifically problematic one for the defense. As I said, it makes the defense have no choice but to go “whole hog” on the dumb police investigation. If the defense can whip up the jury against the police investigation, they may be able to lead them to accept a very weak intruder theory. Unless the plaintiff’s attorney can show that the intruder theory is “impossible” (Ah ha…the intruder/impossible? “game” — apologies to everyone for using that word), the jury, under the circumstances, may accept an improbable one.

        One of the most important things in a civil trial is confidence in the attorney. Thus, the attorneys for both sides, have to really pick and choose from an array of items what they want to present that will not shake that confidence for the jury, or even one person on it.

        Thus, many of the things discussed on this site will likely not come up in the civil trial.

        • Bruce
          08/07/2010 at 8:50 PM

          Oops, forgot #9, like Altguy. Why is that????

          (9) No items taken. Agreed, problematic. Interesting that the Swann 3 never said “burgler,” isn’t it? Always “intruder.”

          Because of this issue, I think the defense has to come up with someone or some people who had a grudge against Robert Wone. We don’t know how they will do this, because they really did not have to do so at the crimnal trial. The intruder/impossible? scenario goes into this on previous posts. But, frankly, I don’t believe there was a burgler, and find it very improbable.

          This and #5 are the most problematic for the defendants. Again, if the defense can whip up the jury as to the botched police investigation, they may be able to sell the jury on a less than probable intruder theory.

        • Bea
          08/07/2010 at 10:11 PM

          Bruce, your post seems unconcerned with the truth and only how one could discount each item mentioned. It’s laughable that none of our elements “make sense” yet make so much sense to me and to Chilaw. Just saying that if I’m scared to death and a 911 dispatcher asks “do you need police?” I am going to say yes.

          • Bruce
            08/07/2010 at 10:34 PM

            Now I get it, Bea. You are the holder of the truth. Got it.

            And now you are changing the words with the 911 call. Bea, exactly what was said by the 911 operator to Victor in regards to police/ambulance, and exactly what did Victor say in response? You know the truth, so that should be easy. When you can post it correctly, maybe we can have an intelligent conversation about it.




            • Bea
              08/08/2010 at 1:34 AM

              You can listen and transcribe the 911 call as well as I can, but to the best of my recollection, the dispatcher asked “police, fire or ambulance?” and Victor answered “ambulance.” I am not sure if you’re concerned that perhaps he thought he could have only one (!) or if perhaps I got the order wrong – did she ask fire, police or ambulance?

              The pertinent point, much as you may wish to dodge it, is that a terrified-for-his-life man fearing that murderers may be lurking downstairs will answer this question that he needs the police in addition to the ambulance. Even if the 911 dispatcher had not asked (which seems silly) it would seem he’d think to ask for them, with his mental dialog going something like: “I need an ambulance for my dying friend and I need the cops so I don’t die.”

              Bruce, when you’re unwilling to give ground on the obvious ones, it weakens your argument. If you’d said “maybe it hadn’t yet hit him that the killer might still be in the home” then at least there’s something to ponder – silly as it is since he’d already discussed the matter with Joe (“they had one of our knives”) and IN MY OPINION he knew damned well that there was no legitimate fear for his own safety (unless he thought Dylan or Joe might kill him to keep him quiet – again unlikely).

              Too, when you get mad at being caught in a clearly weak argument and say things like “Bea, you are the holder of the truth” (in the same day in which you apologized for being nasty and referencing me as “Dear Bea”) it reads a lot like someone saying “it’s my ball and I’m going home.” I do not hold the truth. I likely say that things “are my opinion” as much if not more than most. To make it perfectly clear, I have no truth but for the evidence of record, and my opinions are simply that – opinions based on the evidence of record, transcripts of interviews at VCB, the 911 call, but also common sense and personal experience which all of us bring to any decisions, including juries.

              So I stand by my OPINION that if I am fearing for my life, and I happen to have a 911 dispatcher asking if I need the police, I’ll answer YES in no uncertain terms. If she asks this as part of “do you need a pony, an ambulance, some cigarettes, a shiny red fire truck, new Gucci loafers, or the police” I am going to cut through all of it and spit out that I need an ambulance and the police.

              Dying friend: ambulance.
              Fearing for my own life: police.
              Gucci loafers never really go out of style, but I wouldn’t have time to get her to understand that I need the butch low heel kind and not the girly pump-ish version – with the nickel buckle, not gold.

              • alternateguy
                08/08/2010 at 3:45 PM


                It is easy one to speculate on “How I would have reacted…” during any particular situation, but putting oneself in the shoes of others at the time of an emergency is speculation at best.

                But when the residents describe themselves as being in a state of shock or almost hysterical, upon seeing the condition of Robert, I think that almost any living human adult alive can understand what they are saying.

                I’m no expert by any means, but from a long lifetime of experience, I do know that there is no real predicting how an individual will behave in an emergency.

                Some may just sit down, some may rush around, and some starts shouting orders.

                How can we know that Joe knew that Victor was safe? Maybe he just sensed it.

                But we do know, if we can believe him that his entire focus was on getting help for his injured friend Robert.

                The Swann Street’s residents behavior as they have described it, seems very believable to me.

                When a 911 operator asks, “Police, fire or ambulance?” the way they always do, if one was told to run upstairs after seeing a bloody, lifeless appearing person and told in a shout to “Call 911, get an Ambulance!” Wouldn’t your first words be “We need an ambulance?”

                Then, while answering the dispatcher’s questions, you do clearly state to her that there might be someone in the house who has stabbed someone, doesn’t that truly express a need for police help?

                Folks around here, who have been insisting that the failure to not specifically ask for police, is an admission of something, seem more than Nit Picking to me. As do those who ask why they didn’t shout downstairs two flights to check on someone.

                Most any adult knows that when you call 911, you get full service and you don’t specifically have to state each need separately. You begin with which is the most urgent and immediate need.

                I can just imagine the speculation if Victor had rushed upstairs and said “We need the police.” leaving the need for an ambulance to come out during the questions.

                • Bea
                  08/08/2010 at 9:48 PM

                  Altguy, I agree that emergencies affect people differently, but some things fall far afield of what you’re suggesting. As for Joe “sensing” that Dylan was safe (you wrote “Victor” but I assume you meant “Dylan), that isn’t realistic.

                  Robert was a casual friend and Dylan was Joe’s “beloved.” He’s going to leave Robert immediately – or at a minimum begin screaming to see if he answers – and not assume he’s fine. We’re talking stab wounds, not that Robert died of natural causes. I can’t imagine any scenario in which one “assumes” or “senses” that another person closer to the stairs on the same floor has NOT been stabbed. Because Dylan was the “beloved” makes it that much clearer to me: we give preference to those we love over casual friends.

                  As for Victor’s responses to the 911 call, I can “give” a bit more leeway, but only in the instance that perhaps he was so initially in shock that it didn’t strike him that he should be afraid. Yet moments later he says he IS afraid – one would assume he’d say “the cops are coming too, right?”

                  With Victor’s call, you have to consider it in full context.

                  He asks only for an ambulance when he’s offered all three response vehicles.

                  He begins with some strange sentence (like “we have a person in our home who is bleeding” or something very odd).

                  He seems more concerned about including facts which exonerate the trio (“they have one of our knives”) than things about Robert’s medical condition and what they should be doing until EMTs arrive. She has to ask several times whether he’s conscious and whether he’s breathing. She’s clearly operating under the assumption that he’s bleeding profusely (‘keep adding towels and never remove the bottom one’) yet he doesn’t suggest that he’s not bleeding that much and whether that means anything or is indicative that other measures should be taken.

                  In the only circumstances in which I’ve directed a 911 operator the key issue is what should be happening to the person needing medical assistance – I do find it odd that he’s not simply reporting about Robert’s condition or not handing the phone to Joe to do so. We know more about the knives and the time and how afraid he is than we do whether Robert was conscious or breathing – he says that he is unconscious and says that he’s breathing but they need an ambulance right away. If the defense’s experts were correct, Robert died right away and would NOT be breathing at this point. Why did Joe lie that he was breathing? Or if Joe didn’t lie, said he wasn’t breathing, why did Victor lie?

                  If Joe was having trouble finding a pulse, would he not have passed this along? Did Victor not wonder and ask?

                  Taken with the other strange “coincidences” of the night (Victor telling the 911 operator that the back door was unlocked before this was “discovered” for example) I think most people would find it unbelievable. I know that you and Bruce do not, but the Judge did and she heard ALL the evidence where neither you nor I did.

                  It’s much like how I asked Bruce if his friend (who is a friend) of Joe’s knows whether Joe is/was a drug user (not just a twice a year recreational sort, for example) his answer was simply that his friend ‘doesn’t hang around with drug users’. Does that mean he doesn’t know him well? Also he replied that his friend was tired of talking about it – yet Bruce is on here arguing that Joe (and the others) are likely innocent but refuses to give full information about what he knows from his friend (how well he knows him, whether he’s ever questioned any part of Joe’s behavior or comments).

                  What is your reason for being here? Is it to test your own assumptions or to try to persuade others of your position or just for kicks? There is a disingenuous side to alleged ‘responsive’ posts when you blast people’s opinions about what they think is strange behavior but then argue that ‘Joe could have sensed that Dylan wasn’t injured’ without noting how silly that sounds. To me it’s like Bill O saying a nearby bank was likely open three weeks ago Tuesday because it fell on a work week – but having you claim that it was outrageous that he didn’t make sure it wasn’t a holiday or that branch hadn’t burned down YET then go on to say that Bruce is rational to say he “senses” that a nearby bank branch will be closed on a Tuesday.

                  I realize it’s frustrating that you’re in the minority here – many of us have read and commented here (and DataLounge) for going on two years on a near daily basis. Speaking only for myself, I fully admit that my opinions are largely ingrained and not easily shaken in large part because I’ve questioned myself MANY times before when these arguments have been hashed and rehashed.

                  I am curious to know if you think your opinions are ingrained and that you’re unlikely to be swayed on ANY issue (being relatively new to the site) – and if it’s because you’ve spent so much time thinking and reading – and too, whether your own experiences make it such that your biases color things to the point that you can’t consider anything else.

                  Despite have ingrained opinions, I keep searching to see if there are more ‘truths’ to be found, more evidence to be unearthed – that’s why I come here. While it’s mildly entertaining to have someone come on periodically to “jostle” it inevitably reaches a point where it seems disrespectful. Despite what Bruce thinks, it’s not a ‘game’ or even ‘an exercise’ in a vaccum. A man was murdered and there has been no justice for him. My guess is that periodically people who love him may come here to read – I would hate it if they were to stumble into an online argument characterized as ‘game-playing’. Hope this makes sense and doesn’t come off as officious as I don’t intend that.

                  • alternateguy
                    08/09/2010 at 12:06 AM


                    Of course people can look at things in many ways. We can all speculate on how we ourselves would react in different situations. I admit that it’s hard to put myself in Joe’s shoes, having never had so many lovers at one time, and having never been much of a take-charge person. Nor rich.

                    But Joe’s oldest closest lover and his old very good friends dying body are there with him. If there is some murder still at large in the house, then couldn’t calling out to Dylan possibly draw attention to Dylan or draw Dylan out into the hall where the murderer may still be lurking?

                    If Dylan has also been hurt, then getting first responders there as quickly as possibly remains the correct thing to be doing.

                    Bea, I have never, and would never and could never use the word ‘game’ in this situation as others do. But when I see people arguing with what I sense to be illogic, or entrenched opinions, I tend to jump in with counter arguments.

                    In this situation, I have no dog in the fight whatsoever.

                    However I do think it would be a real shame if the wrong people were accused to the point that another killer goes free and perhaps kills one or more others.

                    When I said that perhaps Joe sensed that Dylan was all right, I referred to the fact that Joe likely knew in his sub-conscious mind that Dylan was probably OK and that shouting out, calling attention to him was not the thing to do. Joe and Victor were shouting, screaming, calling for help and that alone should alert the household as well as scare off an intruder. We don’t know about an intruder, but it worked, Dylan came right into the room, and we are only speaking of seconds here. (All of this is if you believe the defendants, of course.) (If you simply don’t, then you simply don’t.)

                    All I guess that I’m saying is that without the mind-set that these guys are undoubtedly guilty, many of the actions that I see from them don’t seem all that remarkable or unexplainable under the circumstances.

                    Explain to me different, I’ll listen. If I decide that my arguments have no merit – serve no purpose, then I’ll give up, game or no.

                  • Bruce
                    08/09/2010 at 12:15 AM


                    Bea, Bea, Bea. You are confusing me with someone else. Just like others have, to which I have had now to spend time correcting.

                    I have no friend who is a friend of Joe, and have never stated such. I have stated affirmatively in posts on here that I have no connection to anyone, and I don’t.

                    I have never ever said or suggested that Joe is innocent. I have consistently said that in my opinion it is more likely than not that he is guilty. Why are you twisting that, a la “pretzed factory.” If you think otherwise, you are not reading my posts.

                    I have never said anything about “sensing” anything, much less anything about a bank. Never have I mentioned a bank at all, or “sensing” things. Just is not true. Please stop that.

                    And please please please stop with the sanctimonious self righteous cheap shot bullshit on the “game” issue.

                    This site is full of non-“truthiness” posts, including but not limited to, vicious personal attacks on the Swann 3 personal appearances and clothing. I don’t see you, Susan or anyone taking exception to that. Don’t be high and mighty. It does not suit you.

                    I think everyone on here or anyone who comes on here can handle the word “game,” especially in the context used (a self-described far-fetched silly scenario.) I have never and would never say the murder of Robert Wone is just a “game,” and you know it.

                    Grow up. No one could reasonably interpret any disrespect to the Wones or to the memory of Robert Wone in reading my posts.

                    Are you purposely confusing me with others, and tring to dimish me and what I say, by saying these things in this post about me in an attempt to steer others away from reading my comments?

                    I would hope not. None of your previous posts would suggest that you would, but I don’t know you. I have tried on here to give people a benefit of a doubt, something few others here seem to ever do, but this post by you certainly raises suspicions.

                    • Bea
                      08/09/2010 at 7:59 PM

                      Bruce, I was referencing that Altguy said Joe didn’t need to check on Dylan because he “sensed” he was fine. I did get you confused with Altguy on having a friend who is a friend of Joe’s – sorry about that.

                      As for you “never” using the word “game” see 08/06/2010 at 9:33 PM

                      “Unfortunately, I think the intruder/impossible? game is still “on”.”

                      Frankly, Bruce, I don’t get you. You flame me twice and then get angry that I mistook you for Altguy on whether you have a friend who knows Joe? I correctly noted that Altguy said Joe “sensed” Dylan being ok. And you reference the elements on which we disagree as though it is some type of competition – and, as quoted, you used “game on” that you believed one particular issue was still in play.

                      Maybe this doesn’t matter since you’ve now formally taken your ball and gone home.

                      I wish you well.

                    • susan
                      08/09/2010 at 9:11 PM


                      I know what you mean about being mistaken for something else. Like when you suggest that personal attacks are okay by me. If you had just taken my suggestion and read some older posts. Many people have mistakenly responded to the wrong poster or suggested someone said something they didn’t. That poster then corrects them, but usually doesn’t, as Bea said, “take their ball and go home.”

                      I don’t care if this trio committed the crime or an “intruder” did (those that term sure was used a lot by the three guys) I just want justice in this case. In that regard this site isn’t about any of us. It’s about the case and people who care that justice gets served. At least that’s the way I see it.

                    • susan
                      08/09/2010 at 9:15 PM

                      Sorry for that thin thread below and the unreadable language. It would have been more readable and coherent earlier in the day but I think the gist I what I mean is conveyed.

          • Bill 2
            08/07/2010 at 11:01 PM

            “Bruce, your post seems unconcerned with the truth”

            Just one of his posts? That’s the understatement of the year!

            • Bruce
              08/07/2010 at 11:06 PM

              You guys are fun.

              Truth is in the eye of the beholder, correct?



              • AnnaZed
                08/08/2010 at 12:06 AM

                Well at least he has the self awareness to go from “game” to “exercise”; that’s a small improvement.

        • susan
          08/07/2010 at 10:30 PM


          There’s so much off about that 911 call. It isn’t only Bea and Chilaw who have a problem with it; I do, the judge does, the prosecutors do and I’m sure many other people as well. It’s just that the judge, the prosecutors, everyone else following this page didn’t choose to respond to you. To learn more about what problems many of us have with the call, pls. go back and listen to the call, read other postings (from some anonymous people like yourself). Good information on the site and then you can come back with stronger “exercises.”

        • 08/08/2010 at 12:09 AM


          RE “(8) Changing or up-grading alarm system. Supremeo nit-picking. Good question as to them being bad homeowners, not so good at showing they killed Robert Wone. Sorry, I rank this with (1) through (4), above.
          The starting point was : chilaw79 on 08/07/2010 at 2:38 PM
          “Let’s look for a moment at the possibility of an intruder. While I think this is whipping a dead horse, my reasons for discounting the possibility are:
          8. The failure of Victor and Joe to change or upgrade their home security (before the later burglary);”
          I read this to show this as reason for “discounting the possibility “ [of an intruder], not as
          “good at showing they killed Robert Wone.”

          • 08/08/2010 at 12:22 AM

            I don’t believe this was offered as “showing they killed Robert Wone”

            • Bruce
              08/08/2010 at 12:38 PM

              Busy Reader:

              You are correct. Sorry I did not get that right.


              • AnnaZed
                08/08/2010 at 1:24 PM

                Bruce, are you in your late 60’s or very early teens? Those are the only age groups that I know of that still feel the need to sign blog posts that obviously identify each poster (unless posting anonymously) by name in each post header. Do you sign your name to your email too? (just curious)

                • Bruce
                  08/08/2010 at 2:42 PM


                  Not in either age group. Sorry this bothers you, and I will stop doing so immediately.

                  And, yes, I do sign (type name) each and every e-mail I do. It is the standard in my profession to do so, along with firm, address and phone number.

                  Sorry, that seemed to carry over to here where it is, as you say, unnecessary and stupid.

      • chilaw79
        08/07/2010 at 11:16 PM

        I went back to review Sarah Morgan’s testimony since she provided the most information on the security system. Sarah testified she noticed the back door unlocked at 6:00 p.m., locked the doors, and set the alarms upon leaving for her friends’ home, including setting the interior motion detectors.

        Sarah said Joe did not tell her Michael Price had a key until the time of the Swann Street burglarly. Sarah did not want Michael to have a key. The testimony is that Michael had a key and the security access code. In fact, after the property was taken from Swann Street, Michael locked the door and reset the alarm.

        After property was taken from Swann Street a couple months after Robert’s murder, Victor and Joe had a locksmith out and had the locks rekeyed. However, they did not press charges against Michael, but did try to get him “off the street.”

        Seems a little strange to me that the murder of Robert Wone would not have triggered a similar response, but that’s just me.

        • carolina
          08/08/2010 at 9:58 AM

          I think this is perfectly reasonable.

          In the case of Robert’s murder, nothing was taken or harmed, aside from maybe needing new sheets and a single towel. Hardly worth the expense of a locksmith.

          On the other hand, Michael and Phelps took their pretty electronics! How dare they! Call the police! Call the locksmith!

          • chilaw79
            08/08/2010 at 12:00 PM

            I don’t think anything of value to the defendants was taken on August 2, 2006, but other people dearly valued the life of Robert Wone.

            As I am sure you are well aware, my suggestion is that the defendants did not fear a return of the “intruder” who murdered Robert to kill them while they were in their beds, but when Michael Price was on a binge–whoa Nelly–change the locks.

            Its possible the locks were changed after Robert’s murder, but Sarah Morgan did not testify to this and she would have known. I assume this is something defense counsel would want to bring up on cross.

            • alternateguy
              08/08/2010 at 12:24 PM


              I’ve seen many comments to the fact that the suspects didn’t seem concerned or worried about living a house after a murder and didn’t even bother to change the locks.

              But I’ve read elsewhere reports that seem to suggest that the housemate were never allowed to returned to the house, since it was a crime scene and that after it went through weeks of being torn up for the investigations, they ended up having it remodeled at great cost to them and put it on the market. The later burglary of the house was apparently done while the house was un-occupied.

              If this is the case, Their failure to replace the locks prior to that may show carelessness towards their property, but hardly a lack of fear of intruders or murderers, since they merely owned the property but no longer resided there.

              Am I wrong about this? Did any of the housemates ever spend another single night in the house? Does anyone know for sure?

              • chilaw79
                08/08/2010 at 1:02 PM

                The Washington Post reported that the crime scene investigation took approximately three weeks following Robert’s murder. Following the investigation, renovations had to be done to the property. It is not clear to me whether any of the defendants ever spent another night there, although the defendants apparently did return to the residence on occasion (for example, at the time of the burglary) and apparently left some of their belongings there.

                According to the Post, Joe and Victor rented an apartment in DuPont Circle. Dylan eventually went to Thailand and then to Florida. Joe and Victor sold the Swann Street residence and purchased property in Florida. All three of the defendants ultimately moved to Virginia to reside with a relative of one of the defendants.

                The editors may have more information.

                • Clio
                  08/08/2010 at 6:53 PM

                  Didn’t they all hightail it to Aunt Marcia’s during the official occupation of the house beginning that August?

                  Coincidently, I believe that Uncle Oskar, Marcia’s husband, died in September 2006.

                  Joe and Vic went on vacation in late October, perhaps to allow Michael and Phelps their one last chance at a burglary.

                  If readers may recall, Dyl “discovered” the break-in when he came to pick up their mail.

                  • carolina
                    08/08/2010 at 9:02 PM

                    And he was afraid to go inside! Not because a murder had occurred, not because he thought the murderer might still be watching the residence, but because he feared Michael Price might be inside.

                    And he was right– just to late to offer MP and PC a glass of water.

            • carolina
              08/08/2010 at 4:01 PM

              I believe you missed my point in the sarcasm. They had no reason to go to the expense of new locks and codes after Robert’s murder because they knew well that there would be no Return Of The Assassin.

              On the other hand, it appears they did so quickly after Mike and Phelps helped themselves to the Trouple’s electronics.

              Now I ask you, in which of these cases would the normal person rekey and recode?

              • AnnaZed
                08/08/2010 at 4:16 PM

                Heh eh hee, have to spell stuff like that out apparently.

              • alternateguy
                08/08/2010 at 4:33 PM


                Please allow me to make some alternate possibility comments on your statements and question.

                “They had no reason to go to the expense of new locks and codes after Robert’s murder because they knew well that there would be no Return Of The Assassin.”

                OR, because that they knew that their existing codes/security system hadn’t been turned on, on the night of the murder. And because they thought the back door had been unlocked. And they knew that they wouldn’t be living in the house again. (Apparently they never did.)

                “On the other hand, it appears they did so quickly after Mike and Phelps helped themselves to the Trouple’s electronics.”

                Their existing code/locks had now been violated

                “Now I ask you, in which of these cases would the normal person rekey and recode?”

                Remember they said that they believed that the original intruder had come in an unlocked door. With them not living there, only protesting their material goods and with a security system and locks that they believed worked just fine, normal folks would likely do just as they did. Change the locks/coces only after you discovered, to your shock, that you could no longer trust your own brother.

                • Bill 2
                  08/08/2010 at 4:48 PM

                  “Remember they said that they believed that the original intruder had come in an unlocked door.”

                  Remember, that’s what THEY said.

                  Now, remember what the judge said. After going through all the evidence, the judge said there was NO intruder. Remember?

                  Carolina was correct in saying: “They had no reason to go to the expense of new locks and codes after Robert’s murder because they knew well that there would be no Return Of The Assassin.”

                  IOW, there was no intruder. Thus it does not matter what THEY said.

                  • alternateguy
                    08/08/2010 at 5:12 PM

                    Bill 2,

                    Not to be rude, but


                    The question concerns THEIR actions in not re-keying etc.

                    And their reactions were, I feel, exactly in sync with their expressed beliefs.

                    To somehow suggest that by not behaving in a manner consistent with the judges belief, (That they are guilty of something.) somehow provves their guilt, is JUST PLAIN SILLY!

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

                  It’s like talking to someone with Ausbergers, only less interesting.

        • Cat from Cleveland
          08/08/2010 at 8:27 PM

          Not that I see any meaning in this possible discrepency, but wasn’t Dylan home at that time? As I understood it, Victor was returning from his business trip, Dylan was home and Joe went to the gym; Victor went to the gym to find Joe while Dylan worked out at home. So my question is, if Dylan was home, why would Sarah set the alarm and interior motion detectors?

          • chilaw79
            08/08/2010 at 8:56 PM

            Sarah reported she was there at six p.m. and locked up. It is possible Dylan returned after that time, but before Victor, but that is a narrow window of time.

  23. Emily
    08/08/2010 at 5:34 AM

    alternateguy wrote:
    “Your suggestion as how people behave while under the personal accusation of murder, I suspect may not be something in your experience, but I could be wrong about that.”

    At the time we are discussing, that is, immediately after the trouple reported that an unknown intruder had “evidently” snuck into their house and murdered their friend, no-one in the house was suspected or accused of murder.

    Just to remind you, what we are discussing is how people would be expected to behave if, in fact, an unknown intruder had snuck into their house and committed murder.

    I contend that the trouple showed an unprecedented nonchalance over their own safety compared to that shown by typical victims of crime. I find that fact to be highly suspicious.

    • carolina
      08/08/2010 at 10:03 AM

      Emily, despite a professional in such things, *you* don’t know how they’d react, but Altguy does. We keep forgetting such important details.

      I’d like to say thanks for adding your professional thoughts to the discussion. It gives everyone here something to think about and consider how fear and grief may have colored their reactions. Not to say you could not be wrong about this particular case, but a professional opinion is welcome.

      As a thank you gift, I will spell your name correctly.

      • Emily
        08/08/2010 at 10:38 AM

        Thanks, carolina. I’ve got to say that I think people really underestimate how devastating and traumatic the violent death of a young person is to everyone exposed to it.

        Desperately trying to revive a young, fit person (who is not supposed to die, in the natural order of things) takes an enormous emotional toll on people like EMTs and police officers. The fact that the trouple appear to have treated this as “one of those things” is astounding to me.

        • Bea
          08/08/2010 at 5:47 PM

          So true. Was talking to a former policeman recently who, upon being asked WHY he quit after twenty years, said “I finally couldn’t take that I always met people on the worst day of their lives.”

    • alternateguy
      08/08/2010 at 10:15 PM


      Concerning the five minutes after the murder, and until the police and rescue people were there, we do know, If we can believe them, that they immediately called 911 and expressed their belief that there might be or had been a murderer in the house, and that then they stayed tight together. No one went down stairs until the saw the responders at the door, because they were afraid to. (If we are to believe them.) Once police fire and rescue were there, there is not much of a clear record of what was said, but they did, repeatedly, tell the police that someone had come into the house and had killed Robert.

      Their only recorded statements that we fully know about are after they find themselves under murder accusations. That’s my understanding.

      In the recorded interviews, they all tell the police, over and over again that there is an unknown murderer on the loose. This, while under a barrage of questions.

      But we do know that not one of them, apparently, slept a single night ever again in their beloved house. As far as I know, none of them ever express any desire to do so. That’s “unprecedented nonchalance?”

      Well, you’re the expert.

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


        VZ and DW said they were afraid. Then DW went and sat on a couch somewhere and VZ stood in the doorway of RW’s room. They said they were “worried” about a knife-wielding intruder within the very home they were in. Going and sitting on a couch alone by yourself shows…”worry”? Okay.

        • alternateguy
          08/08/2010 at 10:52 PM


          Wasn’t the couch right there in RW’s room? Weren’t the three, right there in the same small room together until the responders arrived? I will be VERY surprised if I find that’s not the case.

          Fight or Flight be damned! – In a sudden shocking situation, all men don’t respond the same. For one to just sort of deflate, sit down and not know what to do, seems very plausable to me.

          As long as he’s there, with his buddies!

          In the next room someplace, wouldn’t make sense, I agree.

          Do you believe he was in a next room?

          • Bill 2
            08/08/2010 at 11:06 PM

            “I will be VERY surprised if I find that’s not the case.”

            Surprise! Surprise! Surprise, Gomer! The couch was NOT in the room with Robert.

            • Bea
              08/08/2010 at 11:12 PM

              Bill 2 is correct. The couch on which Dylan sat was in the “lounge area” of the second floor, not in the room with Robert.

              So now what do you make of him going to sit on the couch, Alt? Too, he went into his own bedroom for a while – for what reason we don’t know.

              • alternateguy
                08/09/2010 at 1:57 AM


                OK, if you’re right, that does seem odd.

                I’ve seen the entire diagram of the house before, but I can’t seem to find it now, can anyone tell me how to find it?

                Do you know if the couch where Dylan claimed to sit was in the line of sight of Joe and or Victor? How far away was it, would you say?

                I do remember reading that Dylan went back in his bedroom once. Do you know at what point that occurred?

                I do feel that Dylan could have been expected to stay rather close to his friends under the circumstance if all was as they describe. Particularly true until the first responders came. If he really strayed off, it’s certainly odd behavior.

                But maybe he was the odd man out.

                Thanks for the info.

                • Cat from Cleveland
                  08/09/2010 at 7:50 AM

                  Alt guy – I think that the fact that he was the “odd guy out” is what makes everyone’s conduct so. . . suspect. No one checked on Dylan, and when he emerged from his bedroom, no one asked him if he saw or heard anything. Really? Its understandable that you don’t want to believe that one of the three is a killer and the other two are liars who covered up a murder. I live hundreds of miles away and have no connection with the case whatsoever, and I’m trying really hard to find a way to believe that because the alternative is horrible. But I just can’t get myself to buy the intruder story. Why? To start with, no one acted like they thought an unkown murderer was in their house. They said it, I understand that, but they said they were afraid he was downstairs – but not in the bathroom, or the closet, or IN DYLAN’S ROOM HOLDING A KNIFE TO HIS THROAT? No one heard “the intruder” go down the stairs, so how did they know he wasn’t in the shower on the second floor?

                  • alternateguy
                    08/09/2010 at 11:19 AM

                    Cat from Cleveland,

                    “No one checked on Dylan, and when he emerged from his bedroom, no one asked him if he saw or heard anything.”

                    I belive that he said his first words may have been, “What’s going on?”

                    Wouldn’t that have conveyed to the others the fact that he didn’t know anything?

                    • Cat in Cleveland
                      08/09/2010 at 11:42 AM

                      What was lacking, to me, was the response – OMG, Dylan, someone might be in the house. Did you hear anything? Did you see anything?

            • susan
              08/08/2010 at 11:20 PM

              Thanks, Bill 2.

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

                -and Bea.

            • alternateguy
              08/09/2010 at 2:04 AM

              Bill 2,

              OK, I said I’d be suprised.

              Name calling now are we Billy Bob?

  24. Emily
    08/08/2010 at 7:42 AM

    Bruce wrote:
    “Better, I would like to hear from an MD about the effects of schock on the human body, human perceptions and communications, before going to Emily.”

    I can confidently assert that, to the best of my professional opinion, there is no medical or psychological condition known as schock.

    I’ve asserted that, in my professional experience, 1. victims of crime tend to be preoccupied with the question of whether they are at risk of being victimised by the same perps in future and 2. that the trouple distinguish themselves from most victims of crime by not apparently being concerned about that possibility.

    Which of the above 2 assertions do you think is unsupportable by evidence?

    • Liam
      08/08/2010 at 8:46 AM

      I completely agree with your assertions.

      When an unknown intruder violently murders someone in your house, literally right under your nose, and was able to sneak all the way up to the second floor undetected, and sneak out undetected, it would be completely and utterly unnatural not to be in immediate extreme concern for your own safety (presently and in the future).

      In fact, given that Robert was only slightly more than an acquaintance to DW and VZ, it would make sense to me that they would show more concern (or at least equal concern) for their own safety than concern for rescue of the victim (i.e., getting the ambulance there).

      Self preservation is an extremely strong instinct. A person was murdered right under their nose (by an intruder) and they hardly care about getting this intruder.

      There was no real concern for catching this intruder that night or anytime thereafter.

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

      Hi Emily:

      You don’t put it in parenthesis, but I think your second paragraph is directed to the mis-spelling in my post of “shock,” as “schock,” correct? My sarcasm button hasn’t been pushed yet this morning, and I don’t want any other sleepy readers to possibly be confused. I know that you are sensitive to spelling from other posts. I am very sorry for that mis-spelling.

      I don’t challenge anything you say by evidence, so I guess the answer to your final question is: neither.

      Your “assertions” are not matters of evidence, they are matters of opinion. I am not a professional in this area, so you “got me.”

      I am a defense attorney, that is my area of “expertise” so to speak. So, if anyone is interested, I can tell you that if I were defending this case at the civil trial (thank God I am not), here is what I would do if you were properly identified as an expert witness by the plaintiff, along with proper disclosure of your “assertions” (opinions), and bona fides.

      Fair warning: If Emily and others are not interested in this, you can stop reading.

      Special warning: You may not find “truthiness” below. BEWARE!

      (1) I would assign an associate to research every thing on your c.v. (resume) which would likely be attached to the disclosure of you as an expert. In this day and age of false resumes, this associate would be sure to check on your education and degrees to make sure you are truthful. This associate would also check any organizations of which you list on your resume and any certifications you list, to make sure you are bona fide. This associate would also obtain copies of each and every publication you have authored, and do a search on the internet regarding you. Any thing you have published would be researched as to whether these are “controversial” in any matter.

      (2) I would then assign a senior associate to check on any other cases in which you may have given opinions, and try to obtain transcripts of any depositions or trial testimony you have given. It is possible that if you are an experienced expert that you have given previous opinions not consistent with your opinions in this case. This senior associate might check with opposing counsel in some of the cases in which you have given testimony and opinions before of any kind.

      (3) I would then assign this same senior associate to go on a search for what we may be able to argue at trial is a “better expert witness,” if that is possible, in terms of bona fides and experience. If you are not an MD, I would probably direct the associate to look for a trauma or emergency room MD (juries tend to respect MDs more than others, in my experience), and/or an expert in, and one who has published articles on, the effect of “shock.” In my experience, this person does not need to testify about PTSD as much as “shock.” In my experience, PTSD is something that happens some time after an event, shock is more thougth of as an immediate response mechanism. This senior associate would prepare for me a list of potential defense experts.

      (4) I then, as the person truly responsible for the defense, would actually meet with the top candiates and explain the case facts, your opinions and transcripts. Hopefully, in this process, I can find someone who can legitimately challenge your opinions or bona fides in the case, come up with opinions of their own that dispute your opinions, and someone who will appeal to a jury. That expert will familiarize himself or herself with the entire case and will be able to withstand the scrutiny that we applied to researching you. I would then disclose your name, opinions and resume to the opposing party.

      (5) Depositions of both experts will be taken, with the opposing attorneys challenging the opinions, and the bases thereof, so that I can ask many of the same questions of you at trial, and use the deposition testimony at trial if your trial testimony is in any way inconsistent with your deposition testimony (both having been taken under oath).

      Frankly, I do think that the defense needs a very good expert in this regard, to combat the sometimes quite odd behaviors of the Swann 3 immediately after the murder and through the proceeding immediate 24 hours, the cumulative effect being some very reasonable questions as to their credibility.

      As to your “assertions,” it would be a true “battle of the experts.” They will not be unanswered.

      I would hope, as a defense attorney, that the expert could explain some of the behaviors and communications by “shock,” such that the strange mysteries noted by the criminal trial judge and virtually everyone on this site could be put in better context and better explained, from and including the 911 call through the initial statements to the police.

      I have been disturbed by the emphasis and interpretations put on the appearances, behaviors and communications by the defendants the night of the murder by persons not qualified to do so, including the criminal court judge and many on this blog.

      Please Oh Please: no attacks on me for not wanting to find the “truth” as others see it, or limiting my posts to the search for your “truth.” There are very many examples of posts by those on this blog that have nothing to do with the “truth,” including, but certainly not limited to, incredibly vicious comments and jokes on the Swann 3’s physical appearances and “attractiveness.” Much of the posting on here has nothing to do with “truthiness,” so please spare me the sanctimonious self-righteous speeches. In my view, None of my postings — NONE of them — can be reasonably interpreted as disrespectful to the Wones and the memory of Robert Wone.

      And Emily, I have honestly tried to read over this post very carefully before hitting the “submit comment” button. I have tried to make sure that I have not mis-spelled your fake name or “shock.”

      If there are mistakes, and I’m sure there will be, I can only hope that you can apply some patience and understandng for the spelling-challenged, and not disregard my post because of them.

      Best to all.


      • Bruce
        08/08/2010 at 2:14 PM


        There is a mis-spelling in (3) above, near the end of the section: “thougth” should be “thought.” Oh my God in heaven. I am very sorry.



        • Bruce
          08/08/2010 at 2:24 PM


          And in my first line, I should have used the phrase “quote marks” instead of “parenthesis.” Damn it.


      • AnnaZed
        08/08/2010 at 2:33 PM

        “…I am a defense attorney.”

        Retired? Unemployed? on vacation? what?

        • Bruce
          08/08/2010 at 3:03 PM


          Wish retired or on vacation, and thankfully not unemployed. Hopefully, not all posters here have to fit one or more of your three categories, but I do “get” your point, AnnaZed.

          Just plugging along, doing civil (no criminal) defense.

          Et vous?

          • AnnaZed
            08/08/2010 at 3:14 PM

            I am a bicycle salesman.

          • Bruce
            08/08/2010 at 3:38 PM

            Also, if there is any question relating to disclosure, I think I have disclosed the fact that I am a defense attorney (with what ever bias anyone would like to make of it) many times, from my very first posts on the site.

            • carolina
              08/08/2010 at 9:06 PM

              It takes a certain amount of delusion to be a defense attorney or you’d never sleep at night.

              • alternateguy
                08/08/2010 at 9:13 PM


                I’ve NEVER understood how Prosecutors sleep at night.

                • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                  08/08/2010 at 9:30 PM

                  Oh get real, Altguy.

              • Bruce
                08/09/2010 at 12:25 AM

                down boy, let’s not get personal.

                • Bruce
                  08/09/2010 at 1:17 AM

                  My “down, boy” comment was to Carolina.

              • KiKi
                08/10/2010 at 8:58 AM

                It takes a certain amount of delusion to hold onto such judgmental prejudices. I am sure if you ever get into a rough situation you will hope your delusional attorney got a lot of sleep.

      • Bill Orange
        08/08/2010 at 3:25 PM

        I think that you’d have a lot of trouble getting traction with a jury on this issue, mainly because day-to-day experience starts to come into play (versus hypertechnical “expert” testimony), as does the later behavior of both the defendants and other people.

        Did the defendants express any fear of an actual intruder? Yes. Victor said that he was scared during the 911 call. But otherwise, none of them ever seemed to express any fear that someone was in their home and might return at a later date. You can argue that they stopped being afraid once the calvary arrived, but no one’s ever said that they expressed fear for their lives after they left the police station (e.g., in the car or at Cosi, or any time thereafter), and it doesn’t seem like they changed the locks on the doors right after the murder, even though they told the police that lots of people had keys to the house, and they police told them that it didn’t look like anyone had broken in.

        Contrast this with Sarah Morgan’s behavior: She never spent the night in that house again. Now contrast it with Dylan Ward’s behavior when he thought that Michael Price might be in the house: He was afraid to go into the house without “backup”, even in broad daylight. Now contrast it with the behavior of all three after the burglary: A locksmith came out and changed all the locks.

        All of this is circumstantial, but the weight of all of the evidence is pretty powerful. I really don’t see how a civil jury is going to rule in their favor. (Caveat: I thought all three of them were going to be found guilty on the criminal charges, so I don’t have a very good track record here.)

        • Bruce
          08/08/2010 at 3:55 PM

          Bill O:

          Your points are well taken.

          The jury will likely apply their own experiences in life to analizing the witnesses’ appearances, statements, actions and testimony.

          If there are experts on this, they will listen to them, I’m sure, but they can disregard those opinions if they so wish, and they will probably be instructed by the judge as to all experts that the jury can give expert opinions any weight they want in their deliberations. Particularly if there are battling experts, they may throw out the both of them and just rely on their own life experiences.

          Some jurors may think the experts are all bullshit and not pay much attention. Others may feel that this case presents things that are so foreign to them that they depend upon experts more.

          The potential jurors’s responses to questions during voir dire (jury selection), may give the attorneys clues as to how the potential juror might respond to an expert’s opinion, as to “open minds,” independent thinking, etc., and probably each side will consider this in trying to pick the jury, likely applying different criteria.

          • 08/08/2010 at 9:44 PM

            RE “ The jury will likely apply their own experiences in life …”
            Aren’t jurors generally instructed by the Judge to use “experiences in life” (in addition to the other instructions) to reach a verdict just before the jury goes into the jury room? Common sense is also what I hear often.

            • Bea
              08/08/2010 at 11:24 PM

              Yep. It’s necessary for jurors to use their life experience and common sense. Logic plays a big part in figuring out any crime.

      • Emily
        08/08/2010 at 8:21 PM

        Bruce wrote:
        “I have been disturbed by the emphasis and interpretations put on the appearances, behaviors and communications by the defendants the night of the murder by persons not qualified to do so, including the criminal court judge and many on this blog.”

        But that’s the thing Bruce, you don’t need to have any qualifications at all to come to the conclusion that “normal” behaviour following the fact that an intruder had snuck into your house and murdered someone asleep in their bed would be to immediately change the locks and improve security in order to protect your own life against possible future assault. This intruder apparently randomly killed a sleeping man who presented no direct threat to anyone. Wouldn’t that put most people in fear of their own lives? Is there anybody who would seriously testify that they would comfortably go back to sleeping in a house where this had happened without taking measures to barricade the place?

        • alternateguy
          08/09/2010 at 12:37 AM


          As I’ve said elsewhere, it’s my understanding that not one of the guys stayed in that house ever again. Not for one single night. Though they continued own it for a while.

          Isn’t that protecting their own lives against possible future assault?

          NO WAY it shows lack of concern, in my opinion.

        • Bruce
          08/09/2010 at 12:37 AM


          I have always felt that the actions immediately after the murder were driven by “shock,” and I don’t think anyone I list in my post is an expert on this. Many people on here expect super multi-tasking and super complete rational thought and action, like “Superman.”

          I understand that this “shock” theory may be all wet; I am no expert. The minutia analysis of each word and action really bothers me, that’s all. Is this being silly?

          I am also cautious about “post-murder” actions after the interviews being used against the Swann 3. It bothers me as a lawyer, and I think there will be some hard fought motions in limine on any post actions after the interviews in the civil court. Personally, I don’t put a lot of stock on the actions of the Swann 3 after the police interviews, except for what they may have said to witnesses.

          You have expressed yourself as an expert. What are the possible effects of shock on the Swann 3 immediately after, and in the 24 hours after the murder? Assume for the moment (not too long) that they told the truth. I don’t think you or anyone qualified has expressed that before on here. Are you an expert on shock? Very interested in this.

          • Emily
            08/09/2010 at 6:17 AM

            I’m not a medico, I’m a psychologist.

            “Shock” is not a diagnostic term used in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric

            “Shock” is a specific medical diagnosis describing a situation where a person’s body is not being oxygenated enough to the extent that it threatens their life. This usually occurs as a result of a medical trauma, e.g. massive blood loss following a car accident, etc. So medicos use the term shock to describe a very specific life-threatening medical condition.

            Mental health professionals don’t use the term shock because it is not a defined term.

            Certainly in the event of discovering a murdered person in your home you would expect most people to be disoriented and not particularly capable of planned and rational action. However I think the problem for the defenders of the trouple is that it’s not a matter of one or two details of behaviour seeming inexplicable but the entire gestalt of those details of behaviour not adding up to an understandable whole that’s consistent with their story.

            • Bruce
              08/09/2010 at 10:36 AM


              You are right. I think maybe what would be more appropriate is “stress response to emergencies.” rather than the medical “Shock.” Good points! I know there have been studies on EMT responders as to this, haven’t been able to do research otherwise.

          • alternateguy
            08/09/2010 at 11:05 AM


            I remember from long, long, ago, when I was an undergrad, (LONG ago.) I was cast in a part in a Eugene O’Neil play. We were in rehearsal on stage and at the climax of a very intense scene, where I was shouting at the leading lady as I recall, unbeknown to most of the cast, we became a part of an experiment on behalf of some psychology students.

            By pre-arraignment, the leading lady suddenly collapsed to the floor, as if passed out. Students in the rehearsal audience had been instructed to make notes of the various ways that we cast members reacted in that sudden and un-expected moment.

            In my case, I was told that I just walked back to a couch on the set and simply sat down. Various other cast members behaved in different ways.

            We all bring our own experiences to things, and in Dylan’s case, when he said that he didn’t know what to do and simply sat down, I sort of had a fellow feeling towards him.

            I would like to know details of exactly where that couch was. If not in the same room, as I had assumed, was it “on the set” so to speak, in the company of the others, or quite a distance away?

            I would think that such details are important when trying to interpret different people’s behavior in an emergency. (A difficult task, at best.)

            • AnnaZed
              08/09/2010 at 1:56 PM

              This will be the first, last and only time that I will do simple research on the subject of this site for you, and this only because you are boring the teeth out of my head. Bea is being entirely too polite to you.

              [you may want to print these instructions out as they will cause you to leave the site]

              I direct you first to the tabs at the top of each and every WMRW webpage.
              I direct you to FAQ/Wone: 101 (click on that please)
              Scroll down to the heading: “Essential Reading”
              Though I recommend (I won’t say insist) that you read all of the recommended material I direct your attention to the line:
              “Two key pieces of reporting:”
              Then within that line specifically to: The Washington Post’s two – part June 2006 series by Paul Duggan (no, I’m not giving you the link here; you will have to go to the page and actually read the text and find it yourself).
              Once you have made your way to the Washington Post article though I highly recommend that you actually read it for the purpose of this “exercise” I will suggest that you click on “View All Items In This Story” in the link box in the upper left of the article.
              Then click on “A 79 Minute Mystery” which is a graphic enhancement to the text.
              Though the 2nd floor sofa itself is not depicted, rather like in a doll’s house (even) you can figure out where it is.

              Additionally, (back to the tabs at the top of each and every WMRW webpage) you can click on “Multimedia”
              Under that heading click “Gallery – 1509 Swann St”
              There are pictures there of the entire layout of the house
              (I know! Isn’t the Internet neat!)
              There you will see pictures to the 2nd floor media room and its exact relation to the adjacent guestroom. Vulgar as that sofa is (I think Joe would love it) I doubt that it was the one that was there at the time, but a sofa was there and Dylan sat on it while a stealth ninja who had just murdered his house-guest may or may-not have been marauding through the house.

              Not having researched this essential of an element (house layout) is the sort of thing that makes other posters at the site not even bother to respond to you.

              Do your homework, do the basics at least.

              Oh, and (PS) your story is ridiculous and obviously (very poorly) fabricated in several key (glaring) ways that I won’t even bother to point out.

              • alternateguy
                08/09/2010 at 3:49 PM


                Thanks to your help, I may look further into the couch location subject, but I’ll try not to further bore you with my opinions on that.

                I suspect that if I were a female blogger, you’d be far less rude and superior in your postings to me. Just guessing, am I wrong?

                There are on this site, apparently, one or two or three bloggers who seem to appreciate my coming up with some fresh suggestions and impressions. At least they suggest that they do. The majority of you are, apparently not of that feeling. And you, AnnaZed, even go so far as to say that I’m boring you.

                Sure hate to be doing that.

                I’m sure, without knowing, that I’m much older than any of you. Long retired, I’m no expert on anything in particular, as some of this site’s posters profess to be.

                It is clear, also, that there are only a dozen or so people bothering to post on this site at this time. Indeed, if you were a Jury, the verdict would be clear. No hung jury here.

                What has become abundantly clear to me is that almost all of you have a fixed mindset. You have accepted as a fact, and admit to that, that one or more of the triple is guilty of murder and/or knows who the murderer is, (Not EXACTLY what the judge said.) and that they also know without a shadow of a doubt that there was no “intruder!”

                Therefore when you look at such things as the written or videotaped interrogations of the suspects, your preconditioning causes you to make all sorts of interpretations that an outside viewer, without your mindset, would fail to make, should they happen to still be questioning the believability of the defendants.

                Although this is by no means a COLD case so far, to most of you, it’s a CLOSED case.

                My own opinion is that I think that by assuming that, you may be making a mistake that just possibly could end up being less than helpful to the Wone family. As well as to Robert’s memory! (Was he really such a fool as to be hanging with psychopaths?)

                Am I still boring you? Probably so.

                And it’s SO much easier to simply discount everything I say.

                • AnnaZed
                  08/09/2010 at 4:17 PM

                  Fellow posters in a comments section on this or any other website are not “bloggers” they are “posters.” The bloggers own the site and create the content for the blog (and have not to my knowledge expressed appreciation and awe for your fresh insights).

                  Spouting opinions based on complete lack of even rudimentary research (that’s why that tab is marked Wone 101) or familiarity with the topic does not constitute a fresh outlook.

                  I haven’t “admitted” anything to you and have no intention of doing so. Whatever impressions you have gleaned from your cursory reading of this site do not interest me. You’re reference to my thinking as being hampered by “preconditioning” is absurd, insulting and (not least) false.

                  Do the work, do the hard boring work; read the available texts, read the notes, read the articles, view the videos and make notes. Then you might be prepared to engage in a discussion about the case.

                  By the way, are you familiar with the positions in a Transactional Analysis Karpman Drama Triangle? So far I have seen you adopt all three personae (in your post above you are “the victim”). To transcend the cycle represented by the triangle it is important to learn that all three positions are false.

                  • alternateguy
                    08/09/2010 at 4:41 PM



                    from Wiktionairy

                    Blogger (plural bloggers)

                    (Internet) A contributor to a blog or online journal.

                    • AnnaZed
                      08/09/2010 at 4:59 PM

                      Right, you are not a contributor here (neither am I), we are commenters.

                      I can’t believe that I am even having this conversation it’s so stupid.

                • 08/09/2010 at 8:27 PM

                  RE “… and that they also know without a shadow of a doubt that there was no “intruder!” ”
                  Wouldn’t that be no “unknown intruder” ?

      • Cat from Cleveland
        08/08/2010 at 8:53 PM

        I practice in the civil arena. I’m always surprised in criminal trials that evidence that the accused did not “act” like people thought he should act was admitted into evidence. We recently had a high profile murder trial here, and witness after witness testified that the defendant did not “act like” a grieving husband. He was a physician, and there was testimony that he was not emotional when he ID’d the body. Have you seen (or put on) expert testimony as to how a person “should” act at a particular time or the converse – that there is no predictable behavior, and when in shock, people react in wildly unpredictable ways? Just curious. Thanks.

        • chilaw79
          08/08/2010 at 11:06 PM

          This is not an area where I have any expertise, but this type of testimony seems appropriate to me. (Fortunately, I usually do not have to deal with unexpected death or criminal allegations.) To me, it would depend on the nature of the observed behavior. If a widow sits and does her nails while being interrogated by a police officer within hours after the murder of her husband, it seems odd. Similarly, if she goes on a Caribbean vacation before the funeral with a new boyfriend, it is unseemly. If your parent has gone through a long bout of cancer, you have probably had months to deal with the inevitable and find some relief at the end.

          Besides, the vast majority of jurors do have their own experience in dealing with grief and loss (although, perhaps not a death by murder). Some of us are more reserved than others in public displays of grief, for example, but in private we may shed copious tears or find ourselves catching our breath at some odd memory.

          This seems like exactly the type of fact finding a jury can and should do. The jurors are likely not to be shy in expressing their opinions either.

          • Cat from Cleveland
            08/08/2010 at 11:21 PM

            FWIT, I file my nails when I’m emotionally distraught, and want to give my hands something to do other than tremble. Don’t get me wrong, I think the Swann 3’s behavior was suspect in many ways, and I’m not buying the intruder story. I just don’t think one’s reaction in an unimaginable situation has much evidentiary value unless you can place it in context – this person, in the past, reacted to seeing an injured friend with complete hysteria, but in this case he was cold and detached. . . Personally, I’m calm in a crisis, but freak at the little things. I’d hate to find myself in a situation where most would freak, but I stay calm, and am judged as a wrongdoer as a result.

            • susan
              08/08/2010 at 11:27 PM

              You make good points, Cat. People do react differently to the same situation.

              I recall reading in this case that the police who arrived at the murder street were struck by the behavior of the trouple (so-called by their friends). As I recall, one officer mentioned the hair standing up on the back of his neck. He didn’t single out one person; apparently it was the vibe from all three. The judge noted all three as well in in her opinion and I think mentioned courtroom demeanor as well.

              • susan
                08/08/2010 at 11:28 PM

                murder “scene” not “street” above.

                • Cat from Cleveland
                  08/08/2010 at 11:44 PM

                  Right. The EMS attendant made that observation, and said he made sure to stay where he could see them. Their behavior was very suspect. When I first read about it, I wondered if all three had taken strong tranquilizers. They have not made that claim, I know.

                  I concur with most of the posters here about their behavior. Not only because of their demeanor and how they behaved at the precinct, but because of a dozen other little things, to name just a few: they didn’t look for Dylan; when asked if they needed ambulance or police they didn’t say “BOTH!”; Joe wasn’t talking to Robert (hang in there, help is coming, it will all be OK. . .); and they referred to an “intruder,” as opposed to a burgler or robber or killer. Just lots of little things that struck me as odd, or out of place and not credible.

                  Not specifically in regard to this case, but in general, I question the evidentiary value of information of this type, without context, and I’m always surprised that courts let it in so freely.

        • Bruce
          08/09/2010 at 12:42 AM

          Kitty Cat:

          Never have, and don’t even know if the trial judge in the civil case will allow such testimony in this case. What you have expressed in your post is why I have asked if Emily, who professes to be, and very well may be, and expert on the topic, could tell us about the possible effects of shock in this case. Not PTSD. Shock.

  25. Liam
    08/08/2010 at 9:13 AM

    I assume that at the time of the interrogations, the police had informed the three that RW was dead (not that they didn’t know this already without having to be informed).

    However, since police are permitted to lie during interrogations (they do it all the time), I think it would have been interesting if the interrogators informed them that RW had been revived through efforts at the hospital. And he was talking. I’d like to have seen their reactions.

    • carolina
      08/08/2010 at 10:05 AM

      This would have been a beautiful thing, Liam. I suspect Victor would have been relieved, and Joe would have looked at them incredulously and called bullshit.

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


      You are a genius! Oh, if it had been so–

      • Bea
        08/08/2010 at 5:53 PM

        My guess is that Joe was damned sure Robert was dead – too, he’d likely primed the other two to ‘be ready’ for lies, particularly that the others had ‘rolled’ or that witnesses had been uncovered, etc. Joe was a lot of things but not dumb.

        It might have worked on the others – unless they were all present for the final pulse check, etc. And even if Joe wasn’t in on the murder/initial cover up, I’m sure he knew Robert’s status while he sat next to him – in other words, no ‘life-saving measures necessary’ for a dead man. When the dispatcher asked if Robert was conscious, and later, if he was breathing, there was hedging at best.

  26. Bill 2
    08/08/2010 at 6:03 PM

    “Not to be rude, but THINK!”

    Not to be rude, but it might help if you say that to the person in your mirror.

    “To somehow suggest that by not behaving in a manner consistent with the judges belief, (That they are guilty of something.) somehow provves their guilt, is JUST PLAIN SILLY!”

    Neither you nor I have access to all the evidence viewed by the judge. Thus, it would be JUST PLAIN SILLY for anyone with a modicum of intelligence to call her a liar regarding her finding that there was no intuder, without concrete evidence to prove that there was an intruder. You have provided not one single shred of concrete EVIDENCE to indicate an intruder. Thus, I’ll go with the determination of a legal professional who viewed the evidence as opposed to the daydreams, fairytales, and obfuscation of a friend of a friend of Joe.

    Naturally, if the trio knows there was no intruder, there was absolutely no need for them to rekey any locks in their house. Not to be rude, but it would not only be JUST PLAIN SILLY to think otherwise, in view of no intruder, it would be JUST PLAIN STUPID.

    • alternateguy
      08/08/2010 at 6:30 PM

      Bill 2,

      It’s rather clear to me that you failed to understand my entire argument. I was suggesting that their actions reguarding their lock/key/codes was precisely in keeping with their expressed beliefs and living intentions.

  27. tattoo
    08/09/2010 at 4:16 AM

    For Bruce’s education

    Q.SHOCK-WHAT IS IT? clinical anaphylactic shock

    A. Shock is when the fluid volume in the blood decreases to a dangerous amount, then the body “panics” because most of the organs don’t get oxygen and don’t remove carbon dioxide and die. So the body starts to shut down “unnecessary” organ’s blood flow, like skin and such. One of the most common causes of shock outside of disease, such as certain types of bacteria, is dehydration. Shock can cause confusion and disorientation. Shock is death closing in on you and must be treated right away. Some types of shock are not reversible. Unless your thinking was more in the line of a slang type over reaction which would be an incorrect use, such as “I couldn’t move because I was in ‘shock’ after I learned my DVR did not record Desperate Housewives, because of the shock I started calling everyone at 1 am who may have recorded the show.”

    What you may be asking about is Acute Stress Reaction (ASR), which during an emotional traumatic event causes a physical reaction due to a discharge of the sympathetic nervous system. This would cause someone to be unable to react/move in the face of fear or cause a very small person to lift a heavy car because a loved one is suddenly trapped under the vehicle. In either event the reaction would be immediate and in the moment, not minutes or hours later unless the event is continuous.

    PTSD may happen minutes, hours, days, months or years after the traumatic event and include some of the symptoms Emily described. Acute Stress Disorder, if it does happen is usually about a month after the event. You can recover from PTSD.

    An example; I was unable to move after reading your post about how the Swann Street gang of 3 should file a lawsuit because of the press release from the NBCI, my fear was that these horrible liars, these obstructionists of justice might actually do something so self serving, awful and despicable, which could be devastating to the Wone family, so I suffered from ASR. Then later when I was suffering from PTSD I wrote a long angry response that was not very polite or pleasant. After doing some do-it-yourself therapy I did not hit the Submit Comment button to post my angry thoughts beacause I realize this site is not for petty arguements which are very self indulgent and do the Wones no good. So I was able to recover in a sense from PTSD.

  28. SJinNYC
    08/10/2010 at 4:33 AM

    I don’t think there is much sense arguing with commenters like Bruce or Alt.com Guy. There was no intruder. The only people who still believe there was are those who are trolls, friends of the murderers/obstructionists, or those who have a secret crush on Joe. I don’t believe any amount of rational argument is going to begin to change their biased opinions.

    Also, off topic but this has been bothering me, as I see the following as being mislabeled in comments on this site all the time. This website as a whole, all posts by the editors/creators included, is a BLOG. The individual entries by the editors/creators are the POSTS. And the responses to each post by us readers of the blog are called comments. Sorry for the O/T, but I see comments referred to as “blog posts” etc all the time and it’s really getting to me! Basic internet vernacular here.

  29. susan
    08/24/2010 at 12:21 AM

    I know it’s been discussed before but I just looked at this picture again and it really struck me how DW seems to have a heavy-ish coat on zipped all the way up. And how in the taped interviews he’s wearing long sleeves. Victor Z. complained of the heat when he asked the detectives if they could turn the fan on, but this guy is bundled up. And we know he was sleeping in the nude since he had nothing under his robe earlier that night.

    Why all covered up? Marks on arms? Bruises? Fight earlier? Something else? It Is Odd.

  30. susan
    08/24/2010 at 12:24 AM

    Okay, wait. Posted too soon. The mug was when he was brought in in October, or whenever that was. So that explains that (but not that kind of eerie look–from my perspective). But still doesn’t explain the long sleeves in the police station. Odd.

Comments are closed.