DW VCB 3 of 3

Marathon Man

The final installment of Dylan Ward’s interview with DC police at Anacostia’s Violent Crimes Branch runs the better part of two hours. 

It begins with Detectives Wagner, Norris and Kasul exiting the cramped interrogation room, allowing their subject to sit in the corner, head buried in hands, hunched over in contemplation and letting out the occasional sigh, while waiting, waiting, waiting for the next session to begin.

Those pressed for time who have quick buffering, can fast forward 24 minutes (to 1:57 on the time code) to pick up the action with Detective Bryan Waid.  Ward walks Waid through his version of the evening’s events. 

Waid has trouble with the intruder theory from the start – no signs of forced entry were seen by the police on the scene.  Ward maintains his and his housemates’ innocence every step of the way.

The transcript of the session is here (page 50). 

One more set of interviews, Joe Price’s, is all that remains to be screened.  We will offer those in the coming days.

Dylan Ward MPD Interrogation Video 3 – Time: 01:50

145 comments for “DW VCB 3 of 3

  1. Michael
    08/09/2010 at 12:15 PM

    I like how Dylan stresses the existence of the door chime and how audible it is from upstairs.

    • alternateguy
      08/09/2010 at 4:06 PM


      Yes, I can easily say how he might be miffed at the fact that Joe didn’t bother to leave his door open and listen for his houseguest. Some guys are far more bothered at being awakened unnecessarily than others. That, I would consider well in the realm of natural behavior. But triggering homicide? REALLY rare and UN-natural behavior.

      • Bill 2
        08/09/2010 at 7:02 PM

        You’re absolutely right alternate. I noticed how Michael stated in between the lines that the doorchime triggered the homicide. You really are sharp to catch that accusation. As always, you’re REALLY amazing. Joe’s friend will really be impressed when you tell him how YOU really took care of this situation. No doubt, Joe’s friend will really be so proud of you that he’ll finally let you get into his pants. After all, that’s really your intention for being here. It’s really all about Joe’s friend, isn’t it?

        • alternateguy
          08/09/2010 at 8:32 PM

          Bill 2,

          I’m not really good at sarcasm and try not to employ it. I see that you aren’t either but that doesn’t seem to stop you.

          Your comments concerning my friend are extremely off the mark, and downright SICK to boot.

          I can only imagine what kind of friends you have.


          Being new at this, (Annazed tells me I’m a poster, not a blogger as many folks today seem to use the term.) I have decided to no longer be a either poster or commentator here.

          That is not entirely due to the occasional rudeness, and sarcasm or even a truly sick and crude comment or two. But any real or useful conversation here is beginning to seem impossible to me. And I’m tired, and I have other things I should be doing..

          I will keep up with the site. I think that the Editors are doing a fine and good service. But some of the postings are bringing the quality down, and why be a part of that.

          I truly hope with all my heart that the person or persons responsible for Robert’s Wone’s untimely and horrible death are soon brought to justice and that no innocent person further suffers.

          Thanks, posters, for you patience, friendship, help and encouragement.

          TRUTH WILL OUT, my friends.

          • Clio
            08/09/2010 at 9:46 PM

            Buh-bye, alt, for now. We all hope for justice, of course, and the only innocents who have suffered have been those who have been fooled by the guilty. The truth will come out in the end eventually — yet, will it be detectives or historians or archeologists who will uncover it?

          • chilaw79
            08/09/2010 at 11:14 PM

            I’m sorry that things got a little heated this weekend. Sometimes, we all need to step back from the keyboard a bit and take a break.

            Hope you will at least keep reading and if you feel like contributing again, hop back in.

      • Deb
        08/09/2010 at 8:40 PM


        Being awakened when you don’t need to be — especially right as you are just drifting off — is VERY irritating. You are more than right about that.

        Where does the “triggering homicide” fit in though?

        I guess Michael can correct me if I’m wrong, but what I think his comment suggests is that he believes there is a connived aspect to the “stories”. I think he is suggesting that it strikes him odd that Dylan is almost too quick to point out that Joe would hear the chime.

        I don’t see where Michael ever mentions that the chime triggers a homicide — not even between the one and a half lines.

        Bill 2: Are you being sarcastic?

        • alternateguy
          08/09/2010 at 9:05 PM


          No, michael never said that at all. But I think that he would understand my comment. More than one poster on this site has suggested that the comment concernuing the door bell might point to such anger or hostility on Dylan’s part that it might have triggered hostile behaviour leading to the murder.

          When I read or hear Dykan’s comment, it seems very natrural to me. Not something that I whould expect could likely trigger some way out behavior. I would guess that michael might agree.

        • Bill 2
          08/09/2010 at 9:06 PM

          Yes, Deb, I was being sarcastic. Alternate tosses in things like “But triggering homicide?” as if some people have already made that suggestion. It’s just a sample of the “games” that he plays in his attempts to alter testimony, obfuscate facts, and then pretend that he’s being put upon if someone calls him on his constant stream of misinformation. This isn’t the first time he announced his departure.

          • Deb
            08/09/2010 at 10:24 PM

            In all honesty, I think it was Bruce bidding farewell.

            Regardless, Bill2, you’re a thoughtful reader, so just do your thing.

            • Bill 2
              08/09/2010 at 10:55 PM

              You’re right about Bruce bidding farewll today, but Alternate bid farewell a few weeks ago, too. That’s why I said it wasn’t his first announced departure when he said he was leaving today. Of course, he followed up by returning, again.

              • Deb
                08/09/2010 at 11:17 PM

                Don’t worry about that.

      • Michael
        08/10/2010 at 7:36 AM

        Sorry I missed all the hub-bub. alternateguy, I hope you’re not actually leaving us. We need you here to contradict everything that’s being said! Don’t mind Bill 2, he’s just a silly-billy sometimes, ya know?

        Anyways, all I was really trying to say about the door chime, is that Dylan wanted to stress that it CAN be heard from upstairs. This helped the trouple out in “proving” the intruder theory because Joe and Victor both said they heard the chime when the intruder _evidently_ left the house that night.

        Also, Dylan answered the door because Joe was readying the needles. 😉

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


          Thanks. As I posted to handy pandy, I’m an addict. I swear off again and again but I probably will stay awhile.

          I think that there may be some confusion going around, (Perhaps on my part,) concerning the door chimes/bells.

          The way I understand it, there was a chime that sounded on a control panel both downstairs and in Joe and Victor’s bedroom, whenever any of the doors where opened. This would wake up anyone sleeping in that 3rd floor bedroom.

          There was also a doorbell, which apparently only sounded downstairs when a visitor rang the front doorbell, but would not sound in Joe’s room.

          I think that it was this doorbell that Dylan thought that Joe should have been listening for, perhaps with his bedroom door open, television off etc. in anticipation of Robert’s arrival.

          I also seem to remember from his testimony, that Joe heard the chime on his 3rd floor control panel when Dylan opened the door to let Robert in, and thus proceeded downstairs.

          Joe did not report hearing the control panel chime during the time they first discovered the stricken Robert, but that Victor did report thinking that he may have heard the chime during that time in spite of his hysteria.

          Am I wrong about this sequence? Someone please tell me if I have it wrong.

          • Bill Orange
            08/10/2010 at 10:42 AM

            Re: Door chime versus “doorbell”. I think that’s about right. The only things I’d add are that (a) Joe claimed–adamantly–that he was awakened by the door chime a few minutes before he heard the grunts from downstairs, and (b) I think Joe says in his statement that he didn’t hear the door chime (as opposed to what I think of as the typical “doorbell”) before he went downstairs to meet Robert; what I think he actually said is that he just went downstairs in anticipation of Robert’s arrival, and Robert and Dylan were already in the kitchen.

            • alternateguy
              08/10/2010 at 11:55 AM

              Bill Orange,

              I think that I recall that he, somewhere, or Victor perhaps, said that Joe went downstairs after hearing the chime that announced that the door had been opened, because he assumed that Robert had arrived.

            • shawn
              08/10/2010 at 11:58 AM

              Joe said he heard an entry chime (who he thought was Sarah) but did not hear an exit chime. Victor didn’t believe he heard an exit chime. The non exit chime story was probably used to set up the idea that the intruder left the back door ajar to allow for a quicker exit and lessen the chance of the housemates seeing the intrudrer.

              • alternateguy
                08/10/2010 at 12:14 PM


                I’d agree that the non-exit door chime could possibly (“Probably,” your word.) be used for the reason you say.

                I’m just now, after reading your post, wondering what kind of intruder would continue to enter the house after hearing the door open chime.

                Do we really know if it sounded on the first floor, as I’d assumed, in addition to sounding on the panel in Joe’s bedroom?

                • TT
                  08/10/2010 at 12:17 PM

                  “what kind of intruder would continue to enter the house after hearing the door open chime.” This has already been discussed on this site several times…..

                  • alternateguy
                    08/10/2010 at 12:22 PM


                    As has just about everything else over the course of four long years, I would imagine.

                • Bill Orange
                  08/11/2010 at 8:58 AM

                  “I’m just now, after reading your post, wondering what kind of intruder would continue to enter the house after hearing the door open chime.”

                  Welcome to the “lynch mob”.

          • Michael
            08/10/2010 at 12:24 PM

            My bad. It’s hard to keep track of all the chimes, non-chimes, who heard this, who didn’t hear that, etc. It would be nice to have an official “chime timeline” based on the transcripts. Maybe I’ll work on that when I have the time.

            NOTE: Figuring out a Chime Timeline is silly considering in REALITY, there _probably_ weren’t any chimes, but it would be possible to find inconsistencies. (i.e. Trouple debunk their own Chime Timeline)

            NOTE #2: The fact that I’m even thinking about chimes this much makes me want to puke. WHO MURDERED ROBERT WONE??

        • sophia
          08/11/2010 at 12:25 PM

          But then why did they NOT hear the chime when the intruder entered?

          • alternateguy
            08/11/2010 at 12:53 PM


            Joe did say that he heard a chime, but thought it was probably Sarah. What I wonder, is if anyone knows for sure, if the door-open chime sounded on any other floor, or only on Joe’s control panel.

      • carolina
        08/10/2010 at 6:20 PM

        Well murder in general is rare and unnatural. What’s your point, exactly?

        • alternateguy
          08/10/2010 at 7:01 PM


          There had been discussion on how Dylan’s apparently having been disgruntled at having to answer the doorbell was indicative of an attitude that may have somehow lead to the murder. I was simply suggesting that his behavior regurding the doorbell seemed rather commonplace and natural to me, while the other is rare and far from natural.

          But in answering Michael, I might have been confusing his reference to door entry chime as being to doorbell, and later tried to clear that up, the hear ability of the two being quite different.

          • Bea
            08/10/2010 at 7:25 PM

            I would assume that no one meant that Dylan having to answer the doorbell sent him into a murderous rage. I do think it’s odd that he hears the doorbell but Joe does not, that he assumes Joe will hear the chime – but Dylan himself does NOT hear a chime at any time (except, I suppose, as he’s opening the door for Robert).

            • alternateguy
              08/10/2010 at 7:38 PM


              I understand that the doorbell sounded only on the first floor, which for Dylan was a floor closer, while Joe had a sounder on a panel right there in his bedroom for the door open chime. I don’t think there was such a panel in the other bedrooms, but I’m not sure. I’m not sure, either, if the door open chime sounded on the first floor, which could make a big difference regarding the entering of a would-be intruder. Do you know if the door open chime sounded on other floors or only in the master bedroom?

            • susan
              08/10/2010 at 7:47 PM

              Hi Bea and Alt,

              Bea, you’re right. I had posted a few days ago that I thought it was odd that DW, in his taped testimony, mentions twice that he told JP he would not be answering the door, he was going to sleep. And then apparently RW called to tell JP he was on his way. It was odd that knowing RW would be there in about 10 minutes, that he wasn’t on alert for his arrival, esp. since partner #2 specifically told him twice (says it in the testimony twice and I think-think-he says he told it to JP twice) that he would not get the door. So if VZ is upstairs with JP, who is getting the door. I’d imagine that would piss off DW a bit, adding to what seems like an evening with a number of irritations. This was the gist of what I posted earlier.

              • Bea
                08/10/2010 at 8:56 PM

                Hi Susan, agree that it would piss off anyone (a little anyway). Joe knew he was coming very soon – my guess is that he and Victor were still in the middle of an argument. Why else not be at-the-ready since it’s a mile in a cab with forewarning. Joe was pissing off everyone that night it seems!

                Alt – I think you’re right that the chimes sounded on the first and third floor, though Dylan says he is usually awakened by it in the morning when Sarah went for walks. I believe it’s in Joe’s transcript where he says the chime panels are on 1 and 3 (in master bedroom) but obviously can be heard on 2 as well. Don’t know about the doorbell but assume it’s at least supposed to be loud enough so everyone can hear it (most are) – Joe told Robert to ring the bell so you’d think he’d be listening for it, or that he’d just go wait for him since RFA is a mile from Swann and Robert said he was catching a cab.

                • alternateguy
                  08/10/2010 at 9:38 PM


                  Yes, so one would think. Out of character for an organized Lawyer.

              • 08/10/2010 at 10:02 PM

                Can no one in that house yell up/down the stairs? Up: “Hey, Joe, Robert’s here. I’m not dressed. Get the front door (under Dylan’s breath — your own damned self).” Down: “Sarah, are you in the house? We think there has been an intruder, and we’re worried if you’re ok.”

  2. Bill 2
    08/09/2010 at 1:55 PM

    There have been a number of times that we’ve heard how sound easily travels throughout that house and even through walls to adjoining houses. Of course, we can expect someone to give an alternate viewpoint by claiming that the sound only travels with ease on Swann Street on nights when there’s a full moon in months that end in V and WBIG (100.3 FM) is playing Chubby Checker singing (appropriately) “The Twist.”

  3. AnnaZed
    08/09/2010 at 4:54 PM

    I like that in this version “Joe and Victor are my friends.” Dylan doesn’t seem to share Joe’s compulsion to tell the cops all about who loves whom at Swann St.

    Boy are there about 5,000 missed opportunities for pertinent questions per minute in these interviews. It’s painful how dumb these cops are. Somewhere deep inside Dylan must have been gestating that Kabuki grimace/grin that he gave birth to outside of the courthouse upon his acquittal on the tampering, conspiracy and obstruction charges as he came to realize just how unmatched these detectives are against anyone who is educated, poised and willing to go the distance.

    • Deb
      08/09/2010 at 6:42 PM

      Don’t forget — in Joe’s interview he states EMPHATICALLY that Dylan is his partner.

      • Deb
        08/09/2010 at 8:26 PM

        Bea actually points out Joe says he’s married to Dylan, and I believe Bea’s memory better than mine.

        • 08/10/2010 at 9:46 PM

          I checked the transcript of Joe’s interrogation and, sure enough, Joe made that bold statement, clear as day. Someone, probably Bea because it’s so perceptive, speculated that Joe may have said that in order to later claim some kind of marital privilege between him and Dylan. (Excuse me if I’m misphrasing any of this.) Since we’re getting a hint of the Estate’s strategy (state of mind of the defendants), could posters spin this marriage to Dylan scenario? What might Joe have been thinking, in terms of legal strategy, in stating in the interrogation that he’s “married” to Dylan? First, we’ve had some conversation earlier about what “privilege” would convey to Joe and Victor who, I take it, have a DC-sanctioned civil union. I’m sure DC does not grant a formal “privilege” to three-somes or to bigamy. Would there be ANY legal benefit for Joe to have established that on tape? Is that totally farfetched? Or, since I’m being told he was such an able attorney, what other strategy could he be using? Second, do we have ANY information that Joe and/or Dylan have ever claimed to be “married” to each other, in any other setting or to other people? I cannot think of any, but ….

          • chilaw79
            08/10/2010 at 10:19 PM

            DC had not legally recognized same sex marriage in 2006; DC did provide for the registration of “a” domestic partnership. (I don’t think either the domestic partnership or same sex marriage provision permit you to have more than one partner or spouse.

            DC does have common law marriage, but it did not recognize same sex common law marriages in 2006.

            I seriously doubt that Joe had any contemplation of a brilliant legal strategy based on multiple contemporary relationships.

            • Bea
              08/11/2010 at 1:11 AM

              I think Joe, being Joe, was really miffed at being called on the carpet; Joe doesn’t like anyone besting him. In the context of the interrogation, if I remember it correctly, the detective stated that Dylan “was downstairs with Robert” while Joe was upstairs with Victor, that Dylan may have been attracted to Robert. Joe takes the position that he knows Dylan’s type and Robert isn’t Dylan’s type – that Joe “is Dylan’s type”. Again, if I recall correctly, this is the context in which testy Joe is being pressed about Dylan (and that Dylan may have been attracted to Robert) that Joe says Dylan “is married to me.”

              Like Chilaw, I don’t think Joe was trying to set anything up from a legal standpoint since he knows his domestic partnership (from earlier in 2006) is with Victor. He’s also wily enough to understand that his equivalent ‘marital privilege’ will be only with Victor (I doubt anyone will spend any serious time arguing that he could be protected with TWO marital privileges).

              Gloria’s right to consider that perhaps Joe would be so calculating, but that night I think it was too far out on the horizon – AND that Joe’s reaction was spun purely from not liking the cop’s insinuation that Dylan was attracted to someone other than Joe, that Joe’s authority on the subject was questioned. He certainly knew that there was no legal marriage between he and Dylan (nor a domestic partnership) but it really burned him that the cop got under his skin so effectively. My two cents anyway.

  4. Robert H
    08/09/2010 at 5:01 PM

    Ok I need the groups help here. I’ve been reading the “posts” here almost every day for the past few weeks, the misspellings, the aggravation, the sarcasm is rampant so…….Could someone please tell me, because I have not kept up with every post since day 1, if the autopsy mentioned how much blood was missing from the murder of RW? If it’s alot of blood then the “intruder” theory is totally shot because an intruder did not have enough time to take all the blood with him/her. It also point to the “Swann3” as the culprits as the ones who did have the time to dispose of it…..

    • Bruce
      08/09/2010 at 5:48 PM

      To All:

      The time has come for me to stop posting comments here.

      Over the weekend, more than one poster has attributed to me, by name, specific things in their comments that I have never said, and most important to me, some things that I would never say.

      There are no hard feelings. It’s no big deal. These were simply mistakes, and I was able to post corrections and I rec’d (or would receive) apologies for sure, which I have accepted (or would accept).

      It just tells me it is time to go.

      But I will continue to read the kind resourceful editors’ articles, as I am very interested in this case and the different theories applied.

      I do wish all the posters the best, and I do mean all of them. I liked the give and take. Thanks for your patience in enduring my goofy theories and thoughts.

      Most of all I wish for some relief to the Wone family and friends, and the memory of Robert Wone, and that the “truth” — yes the “truth” — comes out.

      (AnnaZed, Dear, I hope you will forgive me for signing off on my last post!)

      Best to All.


      • Clio
        08/09/2010 at 9:55 PM

        Buh-bye, Bruce. Like “sistah” alt, you’ll be back. And, I look forward to that day when you realize that some theories are more credible than others because of, dare I say it, historical context. And, of course, remember to sign up for a CPR class ASAP! XO, Clio.

      • Bea
        08/10/2010 at 2:36 AM

        Bruce, I wish you would continue to post, much as I found your ‘bias’ to be equal to any to the contrary and even though you insulted me personally a couple of times (and apologized). Things get hot at times, and I know it must be harder to not have many others to back up your position. There were times when you approached this forum in a forthright manner that I liked and appreciated. I don’t mean this with sarcasm but genuinely – come back after you’ve had some time away. And don’t expect to win people over on things that don’t make sense – try to make inroads if you think old-timers like me are wrong but know that we’ve been here a long time and thought through many of the positions you’ve taken.


      • KiKi
        08/10/2010 at 9:13 AM

        Bruce, I really hope you continue to post. If it makes you fell better as a fellow “contrarian” (as described by carolina), I have stopped responding to every ridiculous thought that is posted and try to only respond to things that really bother me or new theories and ideas. I find your posts to be very helpful and interesting, I think it is much needed. Without you and alt, this is going to be a very boring blog of “posters” just patting each other back. I know it gets frustrating, trying to keep up with the ridiculousness and trying to refute everything, but you don’t have to. You can save it for the truly worthwhile rants. Either way, I do hope you will continue to read and eventually come back.

    • Cat from Cleveland
      08/09/2010 at 8:55 PM

      I may be incorrect, and I’m sure someone will correct me if I am. My memory is that that the autopsy did not refer to this issue, and I recall (perhaps trial testimony, perhaps from another post?) that chest tubes may have been used by the health care professionals and no record was kept of the amount of blood that was drained.

      In any event, it is my general understanding (full disclosure, I’ve read quite a bit, but I haven’t taken notes or exhaustively studied the evidence as other apparently have) that the evidence is inconclusive as to whether the amount of blood Robert lost is approximately equal to the amount found on the scene and in his chest. I’m sorry I can’t give you a more definitive answer.

      On the other hand, it appears that the act of asking for information, rather than finding it on the site yourself, is frowned upon by some here. While I’m certainly not the best source of information on this site, I will readily part with my knowledge, for whatever that knowledge is worth. . .

    • Bill 2
      08/09/2010 at 9:17 PM

      While I don’t think the amount of blood lost was brought up at the trial, I believe both Victor and Joe claimed they saw a lot of blood. Don’t know if this was to the first people who arrived there or later on. Someone also mentioned in a discussion here that Dylan said he saw blood on the sheets. There were photos linked here and they may be somewhere in this website, too, that showed very little blood. It was situated on the sheets and pillow so that it would be under Robert and not where Dylan could see it. As far as all the blood that Victor and Joe mentioned, I have no idea where that was located.

      We also have that info from Joe to his friend where he told her he wiped blood off Robert. They showed a towel at the trial that had a bit of blood on it, but it didn’t seem there was enough to show it had been used to wipe blood off of Robert.

      • Bea
        08/10/2010 at 2:30 AM

        I’d have to check the trial recaps for the exact testimony, but Dr. Lois G. (Goslinowski?) indicated that a considerable amount of blood was “missing” from what she expected to see.

        • Cat in Cleveland
          08/10/2010 at 4:16 PM

          If you find it, please let me know where? I just re-read the posts about Dr. G’s testimony (posted 5/22 and 5/23 – I profoundly apologize if “posted” is not the right word). But I did not see any reference to the amount of blood as normal or abnormal.

          Early in the case, I understood that the evidence would show that Robert had lost large volumes of blood which was not accounted for at the scene, at the hospital or on autopsy; and that trace evidence of blood was found in the guest room, on the door, on the steps, and on the basement door. Having followed (but not observed) the trial, I believe that the evidence is inconclusive on the former. With regard to the latter, I believe that the FBI report (which is referenced in the motions but not filed) found no trace of blood or cleaning agents in any drain (all were tested), and no trace of blood on the other surfaces.

          If I am in error in regard to these matters, please let me know. I came to this Blog/post/commentary with an understanding of the “facts,” and have learned that what was initially believed by the police and prosecutors has been brought into question.

          All that being said, I don’t buy the “intruder” theory. I just want to know as much about the facts as possible, and hope that something will eventually unlock the mystery of what actually happened.

    • susan
      08/09/2010 at 9:52 PM

      Dear Robert,

      Hopefully others with a better grasp of the blood issue, not to mention direct testimony from the trial, will come forth. I can tell you there have been different theories of the blood. I believe the defense team had an expert (was it Lee or someone else?) testify that it is possible that with one of the stabbings, the blood would have collected inside Mr. W, and therefore there wouldn’t have been a lot of blood. It was argued that even though JP said there was “lots of blood” evident, that a lot or “lots” is a relative term.

      Others have argued that there would have been a great loss of blood. In fact, blood and amts of blood were mentioned at length in the trial. Someone else here or a search of the posts going back to the trial, would provide you with more information.

      • chilaw79
        08/09/2010 at 11:22 PM

        The only source I have seen on the site reflecting any blood volumes is the autopsy report and the testimony of the medical examiner. It is not clear if hospital records would show the amount of blood drained at the hospital through the chest tubes inserted in Robert’s body at the hospital. At some juncture, these medical records may become available.

        Much of the medical testimony in the case suggested that a lot of the bleeding would be internal, given the nature of the wounds and the fact that Robert’s body may have been prone in the bed when he was stabbed.

        However, it does seem that some significant volume of blood is not accounted for in the records seen to date. This would seem to be a potential issue in the civil case and any subsequent criminal investigation.

        • shawn
          08/10/2010 at 1:02 AM

          From what I read about 2/3 of Mr. Wone’s blood was missing and not accounted, this is one of the reasons it is believed he was murdered somewhere else and then placed in the bed to make it look like he was murdered in his sleep. Another reason is the indent in the pillow found under Mr. Wone’s head showed he did not move his head at all while he was sleeping or while he was attacked (and of course Joe said to Ms. Wone that fateful night Robert was stabbed in the back). Everyone except the defense legal team seems to believe with that type of attack there should have been more blood around the body and the attacker should have left some type of blood trail.

          Some of the past speculation has indicated that since the housemates were very meticulous about being clean but also enjoyed water sports there must have been a method to make sure any w/s activities were neat. Such as using the very popular play mat to gather any body fluids, a play mat although BDSM standard gear was not found at the Swann Street home with the other BDSM assorted equipment, this is strange for people so heavy into BDSM not to have at least one. Also floated since the sexual attack was to include messy body fluids, an incapacitated Mr. Wone may have been assaulted and killed in the bath tub which would have allowed for no mess in the home and much easier clean up since it was mentioned by the EMTs that the body looked like it was showered and redressed.

          So if he was murdered somewhere else in the house it would be very important for the body not to drip much blood, so as not to provide a blood trail, which would be evidence that the body was moved.

        • Bill Orange
          08/10/2010 at 10:44 AM

          The ER records should record the “ins” and “outs” on every patient (i.e., how much fluid, blood, medicine, etc. went INTO the patient, and how much blood, urine, etc. came OUT OF the patient.

          • Robert H
            08/10/2010 at 9:06 PM

            Well thank you all for your insights into the “blood” issue. I believe it will be THE major issue in any trial simply because the short time factor between when RW arrived at the residence and when all this blood disappeared after his death. This points to one or all three of the Swann trio as the murderer(s). Someone once said follow the money…..here it will be follow the blood.

  5. Deb
    08/09/2010 at 7:05 PM

    What if Joe Price is not gay because he was born that way? I know this will likely start a firestorm, but please try to read me out.

    I stopped my video viewing at like the 1:59 marker on the counter because Dylan CLEARLY said “I (Dylan) got Robert a glass of water.” My recollection was that Joe said that he (Joe) had gotten Robert a glass of water . . . so I went back to Joe’s transcripts and started scrolling through to find the water talk.

    Keep in mind, I realize that I bring to the table some perceptions of Joe, based upon my reading, that may or may not be accurate: he is arrogant, he is charming when he wants to be, he is well spoken, he is intelligent, he likes to be #1, he likes attention, he is competetive, he does not like to be bested.

    So with these perceptions in mind, as I’m scrolling, I land briefly on page 72 of the first transcript, where Joe says: “Are you kidding me? My gay brother beat the shit out of me, you know, for however many years. I mean it was an ongoing family — my younger gay brother mind you.”

    I really can hardly wait to HEAR how he delivered these lines. As I read them, I perceived them as being full of contempt. He seemed appalled that he had had the shit beat out of him for years by a gay guy . . . a younger gay guy.

    So what if Joe just likes sex however he’s “forced” to do it? Maybe that’s why he likes to sub? What if being gay for him is about being a better, more accomplished gay than the younger gay brother?

    Which leads me right back to my own thought of the IP “problem” Robert was supposedly having and was going to discuss with Joe over breakfast the next morning. The pamphlets were out on the counter. Joe thought Robert needed Joe’s help.

    What if Robert rejected Joe’s help?

    Again, I’d like to actually HEAR Joe saying these things about his brother to see if there is as much contempt as I anticipate. But if there is, it strikes me odd, and I think suggests a very troublesome aspect of Joe’s psyche.

    • carolina
      08/10/2010 at 6:44 PM

      Interesting take, Deb.

      One thing I would point out, however, is that it doesn’t seem Robert needed Joe’s help. I believe it was the other way around– Joe hoping to solicit some work for AF from RFA. This may be incorrect, but this is what I recall. It’s possible that it was supposition so I cannot state it as fact.

  6. Bea
    08/09/2010 at 7:39 PM

    My take on Dylan is that while he was getting dressed (or perhaps before 911 was called), he popped a couple of Xanax or other “leveling” drug. That or he has such a flat affect that it’s hard seeing his ‘attractiveness’ to anyone (not a Sparkly Kitty or Smelly Cat no matter one’s orientation or taste). While I thought Victor was lacking in emotion, Dylan makes him look downright hysterical.

    I suppose that if one is called to tell a story of an evening’s events over and over that many elements will be the same – that what seemed relevant would later seem relevant too. But it does strike me that by the last interview, he’d streamlined his story and fixed in his mind ‘all that would be said.’ I agree there were many missed opportunities for good questions (the ‘anybody ever get jealous?’ was huge – that V&J did get jealous but he never heard them argue about it – I’d ask (1) how do you know they got jealous, (2) under what circumstances had you seen jealousy – and whom, and (3) if you didn’t hear them fight but thought they might be fighting when you first heard the commotion, I guess you’ve heard them fight – what was your guess they were mad about?). Agree with AZ it was interesting that he said J&V were “my friends” and that he let Waid say “Joe and Victor are partners, right?” without him clarifying that particular issue a bit. Joe went out of his way to know Dylan’s “type” because Dylan’s type WAS JOE and that they “were married.”

    Very minor inconsistencies from Dylan but more troubling is the lack of real concern for having experienced a stabbing death hours before. I know some disagree, but it doesn’t sit right that he would not have wanted to help more, wouldn’t have been more emotional about the murder.

    This was the first time I knew that Dylan too offered up the leaping-from-car burglar. So that’s three for three with the same theory. Not that they talked much.

    • Deb
      08/09/2010 at 8:16 PM

      I’m not sure if it were chilaw or hoya who said it first, but Dylan’s total lack of affect is beyond “normal” comprehension.

      Either he’s a cold-blooded killer or an impotent observer playing well his part.

      It’s scary sad, but it’s definitely telling.

      • 08/09/2010 at 8:50 PM

        Ya shouldda seen him in person, at the trial. I was surprised how chatty he was in the interrogation tape, compared to what I expected from having seen him in Moultrie.. Although watching him cool his heels, alone in the interrogation room, all that time, was akin to watching paint dry. Patent that tape as a new sleep aid.

        • Clio
          08/09/2010 at 10:08 PM

          In this clip, Dyl is quite insistent about calling into work: was his marketing gig that much of a grueling “sweatshop”? If so and that’s a big if, then, his sleeping problems, compounded by a long day and night, may have contributed to the utter lack of personality caught on tape.

          I just don’t see the “smartassedness” or “fear” that Joe apparently projected onto this tabula rosa. John Locke, “call” your office!

          • Deb
            08/09/2010 at 11:05 PM


            Let”s not fight about this, but he probably can, once and for all, rely on himself once things “may” go south.

            He wants to call in because he needs the job.

            Have you ever been the mother of 4 earning $10.00/hr?

            • Clio
              08/10/2010 at 7:28 PM

              No, of course not, Deb, I am not the kind of “woman” who would put herself in that situation, but, then again, Dyl was/is not either. Indeed, Mr. Ward seems like a “Daddy’s Girl” who left that precious marketing job before leaving for Thailand in 2007. His families, both bio and gay, would/could never abandon him — for their own reasons, and he was (and still may be) banking on that unconditional loyalty!

          • chilaw79
            08/09/2010 at 11:29 PM

            You are taking Dylan at his word that he was going to call his office. I’m not sure who would answer that early in the morning. Maybe he wanted to call Joe (or someone else he was close to, like his parents).

            I have not had a chance to watch this video yet. Does Dylan have a cell phone with him or any other way of telephoning? Joe seems to have been able to telephone people, since there were a number of people there when he got out of the police station, including Sarah Morgan, Lisa Goddard, and others. (He may have been using one of their phones; I know Joe left his wallet with Lisa Goddard when he went back into the station.)

            • Deb
              08/10/2010 at 3:11 PM

              Didn’t they tell him it was about 8:20 a.m., though?

              • susan
                08/10/2010 at 7:59 PM

                What I think is odd about their not having their phones is that most people take them along in times of emergency. If I’m in a situation where I don’t feel 100% safe I have my phone out and at the ready. Victor Z. met the “fire people” and others while sitting on the front steps–with a phone. What happened to that phone? Maybe that’s the one JP had. When DW said he was wondering if S. Morgan was okay, I wonder why he didn’t grab his phone then? Of course it could have been disposed of beforehand. Or not.

                • susan
                  08/10/2010 at 8:01 PM

                  Oops. I realize VZ’s phone was probably the land line. Still wonder about the other phones and why if there was worry about S. Morgan DW didn’t make a move to contact her. I’d imagine her friends’ number might have been known to them. Or maybe not (trying to be open to any possibility–or not!).

                • alternateguy
                  08/10/2010 at 8:05 PM


                  I had simply assumed that the phone that Victor had in his hand while meeting the responders was the same one he called 911 on, and that it was a remote of the house phone, and not a cell phone. But you know what they say to assume makes us.

            • Bea
              08/10/2010 at 6:45 PM

              Dylan didn’t have a phone. Joe didn’t have HIS cell phone but had someone’s cell phone as he clearly gives out the number but says it’s not his (in transcript – I think the detective may be out of the room). It could be that he grabbed Victor’s or Dylan’s or possibly borrowed one from Hixson, his brother or even Lisa Goddard. Regardless, Joe was making calls though Dylan wasn’t. Dylan says at least twice that he wants to call his work and possibly twice as well that he wants to call his parents (which still blows my mind).

            • alternateguy
              08/10/2010 at 7:47 PM


              That’s rather interesting. Few guys, I’m assuming either gay or straight, like to ever be without their wallet. Wonder if there was something in it that he didn’t want to be found by the cops? (See, you guys have got me doing it.)

              • chilaw79
                08/10/2010 at 10:26 PM

                I have never been to the Violent Crimes Bureau and I am not familiar with the procedures at the VCB. Perhaps, anyone brought in to be interviewed must check their belongings at the door.

                I think Joe had his wallet with him originally, but went he went back inside to the VCB, Sarah Morgan said he gave his wallet to Lisa Goddard. He may have had cash or credit cards that he did not want to go missing in some way.

                I know that certain cell phones (those with camera capability) must be left with security at the federal and DC court buildings in DC (at least if you acknowledge possessing one). I would have thought Joe had a Blackberry.

                • 08/10/2010 at 11:11 PM

                  Joe had a cell phone. Pages 2-3 of the second interrogation (beginning 8:48 am) indicate he was talking on the cell phone to someone (his conversation was transcribed), and Det. Waid asked him to turn it off to he could begin his interrogation.

  7. susan
    08/09/2010 at 11:21 PM

    You know what’s interesting? At one point in DW’s testimony doesn’t he say that both he and JP showed RW the shower? But later, after asking for magazines, he said he last saw JP as JP was showing RW the shower as he headed off to bed. Not that they both showed RW the shower.

    Maybe I’m credulous, or maybe it’s true but a lot of the testimony seems credible to me. Then again, it’s what’s missing that might hold the clues. Like the Catch 22 info. and why JP moved the knife. When DW tells the police that JP moved the knife, the police don’t pursue that information further. I would have asked, what did he say exactly. And wouldn’t DW look ridiculous saying, oh, he just said “I moved the knife.”

    Clearly, there’s information missing from that statement. Sad that that was the best the police could do. I think they were a bit too cocky that evening and sure that they’d find a smoking gun. Four years later…..

  8. handypandy
    08/10/2010 at 2:11 AM

    First time poster, long time reader

    Oh, no, alternateguy, please don’t leave…this case needs more “radical” input of the like you’re giving, as the “senior” posters here antagonizing you are not really able/don’t want to produce a convincing timeline of the events themselves…

    That comment by Bill2 is absolutely disgraceful, IMO, and I find it surprising to see it stay there as if it wasn’t.

    • alternateguy
      08/10/2010 at 9:23 AM


      “First time poster, long time reader,”

      How nice to learn that there are more long time readers who read and value my “radical” postings. (Don’t seem radical to me, of course.)

      The fact that my questioning seems so radical to some of the “senior” posters amazes me at times.

      Thanks to you handypandy, (Like that name!) and regular posters who apparently do care, I’ll try to keep jumping in from time to time, respond to polite thoughtful posts, question illogic when I perceive it, and no longer let myself be baited. (If I can help it.)

      (Like a wino in a Swann St. alley, I keep swearing off this addiction.)

      • KiKi
        08/10/2010 at 9:41 AM

        One time when I was in college I watched a documentary on Jack the Ripper and one of the people who they interviewed was a “Ripperologist”. I then decided I knew a lot about Jack the Ripper and had read a lot of books, so I deemed my self a Ripperologists. In that same regard many people on this blog have deemed themselves “senior” or “veteran” posters. As if it gives their opinions some greater clout. I think altguy, you have posted plenty enough, to get your own title, so based on the power vested in me by no one, I hearby pronounce you “Poster Maximus.”

        • alternateguy
          08/10/2010 at 10:22 AM


          Hay, Thanks. How can I quit after that?

  9. susan
    08/10/2010 at 7:59 AM

    7:53 a.m. WTOP radio aired a brief report on the upcoming Wone case civil trial giving special attention to the emails requested by Kathy Wone.

    • chilaw79
      08/10/2010 at 9:14 AM

      The Estate of Robert Wone filed a request for a subpoena and related paperwork requesting that Verizon and other carriers provide a list of all phone calls and e-mails to and from the defendants for a period beginning one month before and ending one month after Robert’s murder.

      This is an excellent way of determining who third-party witnesses may be and discovering their identities. Taking depositions and requesting discovery from third parties is a good way to begin since third-party discovery is likely to be more fruitful than discovery from the parties. While some third-party witnesses are obvious (for example, Sarah Morgan), others may not be. Perhaps we will finally hear from the Lisa Goddard Desjardins.

      • Bill Orange
        08/10/2010 at 9:44 AM

        The two month window is a wide net that’s going to catch quite a few people. I would imagine that the defendants are going to have even fewer friends when people start getting hauled in for depositions.

        • 08/10/2010 at 1:53 PM

          Please explain. Is a deposition really burdensome or confrontative for the average friend? My sense of it is that the questioning would be fact finding without rancor if the people cooperate and that the questions are pretty trivial for the witness/friend: What time did….? What was meant by this email ….? etc. No? I’m trying to understand the steps of civil procedures, yet to be revealed.

          • chilaw79
            08/10/2010 at 2:40 PM

            A deposition typically is a question and answer session in a lawyer’s conference room. Both a lawyer for the plaintiff and the defendant(s) typically are present. Some witnesses have their own counsel. Counsel typically arrange a convenient time for the deposition for all concerned. Witnesses can be required to bring certain documents and other evidence (e.g., e-mails, etc.) with them to the deposition.

            Most depositions are relatively informal, although a court reporter records the questions and answers. Counsel for the witness may object to the question and instruct the witness not to answer. If a deponent (the person answering questions) does not answer a question, the parties can go to court and obtain a court order that the witness answer the question. However, most depositions are not filled with rancor because each party learns something about the other’s case.

            The deposition sessions typically last a morning or an afternoon, but can be shorter or longer. They usually do not feature too much rancor.

            Depositions are part of the discovery process. In a civil case, discovery is intended to permit both parties equal access to the facts. Additional discovery tools are requests for production of documents, requests for admission, and interrogatories (written questions).

            The discovery process is intended to be non-adversarial in a civil case. Lawyers being lawyers, things can get a bit uncivil. Lawyers are supposed to work out discovery disputes between themselves and the court can be a bit annoyed when parties go to court in conjunction with an ongoing discovery process. Sometimes, a court is needed to work out a dispute, especially if a legal privilege (e.g., Fifth Amendment, domestic partner privilege, lawyer-client privilege) is involved.

            A deposition originally is not really burdensome in the type of case I handle, but this is not an ordinary case. When you start wanting to find out about sex, drugs, and the like, people can get testy.

            • 08/10/2010 at 2:58 PM

              Wonderful information, Prof Chilaw. If someone is to be deposed, do attorneys on both sides consolidate their questions and requests for materials at one time, for one session? Can a person be deposed a second time, if info is revealed after the first session that could be explored further or is it one chance at the “deponent” (love that new word) only? Can you give me a few examples of a “discovery dispute” other than Fifth Amendment, etc. that you’ve listed? Maybe the extremes, in a range of trivial to nontrivial. Many thanks, as ever.

              • chilaw79
                08/10/2010 at 3:40 PM

                Typically, only one deposition is conducted for each witness (no matter what you find out later, which is why I like to save the depositions of the most important witnesses for late in the discovery process).

                Discovery disputes can be extreme. For example, one party can just decide to walk out in a huff. (“If you are going to insult me, I’m leaving…)

                A lot of discovery disputes center on what is relevant or what documents should have been brought with a witness. Sometimes, disputes can just be related to the timing of a deposition. (“You said this deposition was going to last three hours and we are going on five…”)

                Attorney-client privilege is a topic that is often raised in discovery disputes. Kathy Wone could not get discovery from the defendants’ criminal lawyers about what was said to them, or from Joe about what his lawyer told him (unless Joe wanted to waive the privilege).

                The term deponent is used in some cases because the person may or may not be a witness. For example, if you want to depose a corporation, the corporation designates someone to be the witness. This often is the case with business records, including personnel files, hospital records, and the like.

                In a civil case, discovery is reciprocal. For example, Joe could depose a witness to find out the salary Robert Wone was receiving as counsel for Radio Free Asia. Dylan could request Robert and Kathy’s income tax returns.

                • alternateguy
                  08/10/2010 at 3:45 PM


                  Am I correct in thinking that clients have a right to addend the depositions in person, but under lawyers advice seldom do?

                  • chilaw79
                    08/10/2010 at 3:49 PM

                    Parties have every right to attend a deposition. Sometimes it is helpful to have a party present since they may know a lot about a topic (including things I do not know about a case), but in other cases, especially if I have a client who is a hothead or prone to rolling her eyes, I may ask them not to come. Usually, parties are pretty well behaved and may have something to add. I tell them all not to say anything out loud, but to ask to take a break if they want to discuss something that was said.

      • Michael
        08/10/2010 at 9:55 AM

        This is exciting stuff! Is there any way for the defense to counter this, if the estate successfully obtains this information?

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

          The defense is entitled to take discovery, too, and is entitled to ask questions in any deposition of a third party.

          It is possible the defense could seek to quash (some folks say squash) the subpoena, although I think most of the objections would go to divulging the content of conversations than the fact a communication occurred. For example, Joe is an attorney and could raise attorney-client privilege and Joe and Victor are domestic partners subject to domestic partner privilege.

          I don’t think an objection on Fifth Amendment grounds is possible, although I defer to my criminal defense colleagues on that score.

          Of course, there always are hearsay objections as to content.

          • KiKi
            08/10/2010 at 12:51 PM

            I cannot see any valid 5th amendment argument coming out of phone records, or what was said in the conversations, there is no compulsion, and the statements were already made to a third party (the person on the other end of the call and the phone company).

            And any hearsay arguments about what the defendants said would fall under the party opponent exception. I am not a civil lawyer but it is my understanding that there are much more liberal rules on confrontation and hearsay in the civil context. I.e. Plaintiff could enter in Joe’s phone call with X against Dylan because Joe is a party opponent. I may be wrong on this because it is not the way it works in criminal proceedings, Chi?

            Privilege seems to make sense as an argument but that is only going to be a few of the calls.

            Either way, I agree with what Chi said above, this is much more about an investigative tool then worrying about admissible evidence at this point. The lawyers are doing what the cops and USAO investigators should have done.

            • chilaw79
              08/10/2010 at 2:48 PM

              You are right about this, in general.

              As far as I know, requesting the phone records just gives you a potential list of witnesses, but e-mails may be more instructive. I would assume there was not a lot of e-mail traffic after Robert’s murder (although some of it, like Joe’s e-mails with Tara Ragone did surface in the criminal case).

              E-mails now are a big part of civil discovery since they never go away and it is a lot harder to delete them (unlike people’s memories).

        • Craig
          08/10/2010 at 10:07 AM

          With any luck we’ll have the motion up tomorrow. There’s a proposed scheduling order submitted by Razi sitting in the clerk’s office too.

    • 08/10/2010 at 2:46 PM

      Washington Post today has an AP report. The first part, we knew: “The widow of a lawyer killed in 2006 is seeking the phone and email records of three romantically linked men who lived in the townhouse where he was stabbled. Lawyers for Katherine Wone want a judge to subpoena such records from roughly a month before and a month after Robert Wone’s death. Authorities say Wone was drugged, sexually assaulted and stabbed after arranging the night at the three defendants’ home. (NOTE: “Authorities”? Who are “authorities” in a civil suit?) NEW: The lawyers suggest that two men were growing apart romantically and that the other had planned to be out of town when Wone was killed. OLD: Joseph Price, Dylan Ward and Victor Zaborsky were acquitted in June of misleading police, but they face a wrongful death civil lawsuit.” Metro section, page B4

      • 08/10/2010 at 3:03 PM

        Explanation: By “new,” I did not mean that WE on wmrw did not know what was said in that sentence. I meant it is new information being stated in the broad public media (AP).

        • AnnaZed
          08/10/2010 at 3:30 PM

          Gloria, do you think this is new information (more information) or just a summation of what was revealed at trial of the dynamics between Joe and his Sparkly Cat?

          • 08/10/2010 at 4:02 PM

            I was thinking along the lines of ChiLaw, below. (Info found in the documents submitted to the court by the attorneys.) As I remember, not a lot was made in the criminal trial about the dynamics of the relationship. But I took the AP article as meaning Kathy’s attorneys are making it prominent. I guess we’ll start seeing some of this information on the blog soon because we’re getting closer and closer.

            • chilaw79
              08/10/2010 at 4:18 PM

              The scheduling order may give us an idea of how quickly (or slowly) the parties are likely to move.

              While the court may be a little more likely to push things along a little more since it already granted a prior stay of the proceedings, my experience in DC Superior Court says that two years from complaint to trial is pretty quick.

            • chilaw79
              08/10/2010 at 11:00 PM

              Two critical witnesses on this score are Sarah Morgan and the Swann Street neighbor Mr. Hixson. I definitely would want to depose them before deposing any of the principals since he was present at various crucial times and had relationships with the defendants.

              He almost testified about some juicy material in the criminal case before Judge Liebowitz shut things down. I’m not sure what he was about to say, but I sure would want to know what he knows and his view of the relationships at Swann Street.

      • Bill Orange
        08/10/2010 at 3:14 PM

        Here’s the link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/09/AR2010080905889.html

        I can’t tell from the wording of this whether the AP is just rehashing this (doubt it) or if Kathy Wone’s lawyers are sending out press releases (more likely).

        • chilaw79
          08/10/2010 at 3:45 PM

          I think this is more likely to be a situation where the reporters following the story are getting copies from the court. The DC Superior Court internet site showed the filing was made on August 5.

          Reporters on the court beat often ask their friends in the clerk’s office to let them know when something new is filed (and now, in the age of the Internet, they can just let their fingers do the talking). As far as I know, unless you are a party, you still have to go to court to get a copy (unless you have a really good pal or can call up the lawyer and get a copy from them).

  10. mw
    08/10/2010 at 11:39 AM

    Why are people still comparing the demeanor and actions of people who electrocute each other’s genitals for fun against some kind of expectation of “normal” behavior?

    I swear, the more I read these boards the more I’m convinced there was an intruder.

    • Michael
      08/10/2010 at 12:26 PM

      There was an intruder but not the kind you’re thinking of.

      HINT: anal intruder

      • mw
        08/10/2010 at 12:34 PM


        Ya, probably.

        There’s nothing at all normal about these people. Their demeanor and actions that night tell us nothing. We normals can’t even probably comprehend what happened. It would probably need to be explained to us a couple of different ways.

        I would feel a lot better if 95% of the suspicion didn’t center around the behavior of these sex weirdos not being “normal”.

        • Michael
          08/10/2010 at 12:46 PM

          Using a term like “sex weirdos” is just asking for trouble!

          These guys aren’t your average Joe’s, obviously. (no pun intended). But in situations like this, I think null reactions and emotions are very telling.

          • shawn
            08/10/2010 at 1:55 PM

            Thank you very much for that statement, Michael. As mentioned before part of the reason why the case has stalled is because for many communities the case was a rush to judgement, based on discrimination.

            We do need to be mindful about using the words “normal” and ‘weirdo” we don’t want to put anybody down for a legal life style choice and normal has different meanings for people. Some people believe it is not normal to eat steak for dinner other find eating bugs perfectly normal.

            All we can do is say based on our own perceptions how we may or may not react in certain situations and how certain life style choices, including tools of the trade for that life style choice may have contributed to what happened on Swann Street that night.

        • alternateguy
          08/10/2010 at 1:39 PM


          Good thinking! Seeking normal behavior among the abnormal seems folly to me as well.

          In my view, most people lead different lives. Discerning what is normal and what is abnormal behavior in different situations among different people is almost always dependent on our own personal experiences.

          Some have professional training or experience that tells them what should be normal behavior. “A burglar wouldn’t leave without taking something.” But being a burglar or a murderer isn’t at all normal. So for a normal person to attempt to say just what an abnormal person should have said or done, is merely guesswork at best. Possibly educated guesswork, but still guesswork.

          As far as one’s sex life goes, there are many different practices, apparently, which the participants consider normal, but which might shock and disgust you or mw.

          For instance, all of the bizarre sex toy behavior described on this site seems very abnormal to me. (Perhaps not in the case of adolescent experimentation, but certainly for adults.) But can we even we say that the three suspects hadn’t outgrown earlier proclivities?

          However, a woman sleeping with a man that she doesn’t love for his money, wouls disgust me as well. But many would consider that rather normal.

          It’s behavior out of sync with what is known of one’s general personality that I look for as being possible “tells.”

          No matter what different sex lives we have, or lack of same, there are many qualities that we all do have in common. Fear in the face of hostile accusations and intense interrogation, for instance. Something we can all imagine as being normal behavior, whether guilty or innocent.

          People, for instance,wonder why Dylan wore a jacket during his interrogation. A good question, I thought.

          But then I can easily see one’s blood running cold, following that shocking murder. It would seem enough to give ME the shivers, even on a hot night. Dylan perhaps didn’t sweat out his interrogation that night, but shivered it out. Which is normal behavior under the circumstances? I wonder.

          • Michael
            08/10/2010 at 2:09 PM

            I would be shivering too if I was being interrogated after I had just murdered someone lol

            • alternateguy
              08/10/2010 at 2:26 PM


              Yes, but so many posters wonder how these guys can be so unfeeling after Roberts murder and show so little fear of a murderer.

              That can only be asked, if you assume that all of the shock and fear they do express comes from a guilty fear of discovery.

              If not, not.

              (My apology to Gertrude Stein.)

              • Michael
                08/10/2010 at 2:53 PM

                I gotta say, I don’t follow you here guy.

                “…all the shock and fear they do express…”

                There was no shock and fear. I was just extrapolating your shiver theory.

                ***THEORIZING*** They agreed (during one of their pre-interrogation huddles) NOT to be fearful when questioned, as that would (as you put it) bring out the “guilty fear of discovery.” This sort of backfired because by showing no guilty fear of discovery, they also showed no fear of the murderer returning, fear of the murderer being someone they know, etc. They presented evidence to detectives that they had not witnessed anything, instead of presenting evidence that they wished they had witnessed more.

                • alternateguy
                  08/10/2010 at 3:01 PM


                  “instead of presenting evidence that they wished they had witnessed more.”

                  What on earth would that be?

              • alternateguy
                08/10/2010 at 3:22 PM


                I believe that they did say, repeatedly, during their interrogations, that they were or had been in a state of shock following the murder.

                And, they spoke of fear of going downstairs following the murder.

                And apparently not one of them spent another single night in their beloved house.

                No expression of shock or fear? I just don’t see that.

                • Michael
                  08/12/2010 at 8:47 AM

                  Just sayin’ yo, if I was asleep, and woke up to finding out a guest in my house was murdered, I’d be thinking, “Oh lawd, what if the murderer meant to kill me or one of my boyfriends but killed Robert instead??”

                  I’d be afraid of future intrusion. There was no question of “well how are we going to protect ourselves if the intruder returns?” because there was never an intruder in the first place. like I said before, no intrusion of the house, but there was an anal intrusion

                  • alternateguy
                    08/12/2010 at 9:35 AM


                    “There was no question of “well how are we going to protect ourselves if the intruder returns?”

                    I’ve seen other postings concerning the suspect’s supposed lack of fear of a murderer returning.

                    However, It’s my understanding that not one of them ever again spent one single night in that house.

                    I haven’t seen any evidence that they ever intended to.

                    Now, if I were well off, and such a thing happened in my home, in the manner they say it did, I wouldn’t want to sleep there again, would you?

                    I think that perhaps their actions speak louder than any words concerning their fears and horror.

                  • Michael
                    08/12/2010 at 11:18 AM

                    Alty, I think you’ve been misinformed (again). They definitely still lived there after the murder.

                    • alternateguy
                      08/12/2010 at 11:44 AM


                      They continued to own the house and stopped by to pick up stuff and leave stuff, but I don’t think that they ever again slept another night there. Do you know different?

                • Michael
                  08/12/2010 at 8:47 AM

                  And also, seasons don’t fear the reaper.

          • Michael
            08/12/2010 at 1:13 PM

            alty; I don’t know anything, in fact! my brain is made-up of mashed potatoes and greasy noodles.

            BUT COULD THE MURDERER BE PLANNING TO KILL THE REST OF THE TROUPLE NOW, YEARS AFTER THE MURDER OF ROBERT WONE? this sneaky guy sounds crazy enough to do it. he’s got the means (stealth-camoflauge technology), he’s got the brains (leaving absolutely no evidence, therefor pointing the blame at the trouple), and he’s got the nike’s that leave no footprints(climbed that big-ass fence with no evidence left behind).

            this guy is capable of killing ANYONE and EVERYONE in the District of Colombia. we are all powerles to his abilities. YOU could be next on his list. I just hope that he leaves behind a finger nail or hair follicle or something next time (but he could very well be BALD! JEEZ).

            hopefully he turns himself in like kevin spacey did at the end of SE7EN. if we had Morgan Freeman and Brad Pitt on the case this thing would be friggin solved by now.

            it’s good to know the trouple won’t go anywhere near DC once this trial is over. they only attract the most professional of murderers. I don’t want my kids and my kids’ kids and their kids’ kids’ kids having to grow up in the kind of environment where ANYONE CAN GET STABBED THREE TIMES WHILST STAYING AT AN OLD COLLEGE FRIEND’S HOUSE FOR THE NIGHT. I just can’t live like that, guys. I don’t know about you.

            I think Victor should flip his “Got Milk?” ads to help us find the killer. Something like “Got any leads on who the f*** killed Robert Wone??” We could get Michael Jordan and Michael Buble to do the adverts.

            in the face of every Chinese-American the trouple lays eyes on, they will be REMINDED of that fateful night when they could do nothing to help their poor house guest! the trouple are the LIVING victims of this heinous crime.

            if anyone ever gets access to a time machine, DO US ALL A FAVOR: go back to the night of August 2nd, set up a video camera in the back of 1509 Swann Street. thanks in advance

            • alternateguy
              08/12/2010 at 1:29 PM


              As to evidence, I’m wondering why D.C. didn’t simply call in C.S.I. or perhaps The Mentalist, or the team on Cold Case. These folks have no problem wrapping up the most complicated cases in an hour or less. Really can’t understand it.

            • Michael
              08/12/2010 at 2:08 PM

              alty, those shows are fake. SE7EN really happened. brad pitt is IN jail right now for what he did to kevin spacey.

              back to REALITY – assassins exist in DC today and the curious case of Robert Wone is living proof of this. hide your kids, hide your wife, and hide your husband, because assassins are killing everyone.

              the next time you even THINK about sleeping over at your friends house, how about you THINK AGAIN?? it could mean the difference between you breathing and not breathing.

              AT LEAST the trouple (or one of them or two of them or all three of them?) provided Robert with a glass of water before he was VICIOUSLY MURDERED. imagine how much worse it would have been had he been dehydrated? I can’t imagine.

              also, I’m glad he was able to shower. being murdered while sweaty from work is no walk in the park, my fellow posters. in the list of items in the house, does it say how many bathrobes there were? why didn’t they provide Robert with one of those radical bathrobes? intruder theory aside, that’s just plain rude of them. THEY FULLY UNDERSTAND how comfortable it is to wear bathrobes after a nice shower. I mean yeah, okay, a glass of water was nice, but a bathrobe would have been even better. I’m sure the trouple regrets a lot of things about that night.

              The trouple was a family. The Wones used to be a family. AND SOME GOSH DARNED INTRUDER HOW TO APPEAR _OUT OF THIN AIR_ AND TAKE THAT AWAY FROM THEM!!! If I was a praying man, I would pray for Kathy. I am not a praying man, however, so I will just say that I am terribly sorry she has to deal with all this bullshit. Robert shouldn’t have been murdered that night. He wasn’t even supposed to be there, yo.

  11. Rich
    08/10/2010 at 1:18 PM

    Okay, Folks. It’s Time to Play Nicely:

    Dear Posters:

    We’ve been at this too long and it’s beginning to show.

    Upon review of today’s insertion, it’s disheartening to see how we are on each other’s case about our comments.

    Over the past couple of years, I’ve been stunned by some of the postings and at other times, offended by how I was interpreted for something, I said or implied.

    There is a real value for all of us to take in what everyone has to say and apply it to our own thinking and views.

    We are fortunate that we all care and want to know more.

    I’m confident, once the Editors decide to get on with their lives and leave us behind, we will continue in some fashion to communicate as this crime will never be solved until one of the defendant’s come clean, which may take their lifetime.

    So, let’s lighten up on one another and welcome everyone’s comments.

    Boys, do not leave.

    Hang in there. Toughen it up a bit, as some comments do pinch even the thickest of skins.

    Everyone Play Nicely.

    • Michael
      08/10/2010 at 1:38 PM

      Thanks to the post Rich just made, I’ve decided to quit posting here. See you guys later. Adios muchachos. Peace in the Near East. Bailamos. Let the rhythm take you over, bailamos.

      In other news, I dressed in dark blue pants and a dark blue striped shirt today, and I think the colors are REALLY clashing. Come to think of it, I think these pants are dark gray… wait a second, they might be bleached! This sucks.

      I’ve run out of constructive thinking. I wanna read those E-MAILS! muahahahaha!

      • Rich
        08/10/2010 at 9:55 PM

        Dear Michael:

        If you’re artound folks who care about you, no one will care about the color blue clashing!

        If they do care, then maybe you care not to run with them.

        There are way better reasons to write someone off than for fashion related matters.

        Stick with the Blue, even though, It’s my least favorite color for me.

        Try purple next time. Loads of options with it.

    • 08/10/2010 at 1:43 PM

      I agree wholelheartedly, Rich. The nit picking over spelling errors and downright nastiness recently have almost taken over the blog, drowning out (in the sense that the recent list of comments that we see first is taken up with the parrying) substantive comments, of whichever theory. I have written our blessed co-editors twice recently to suggest redactions of below the belt comments. One was redacted; the other still hangs there, pending (I hope). Yesterday, I wrote the co-editors about my observation of the deterioration in civility and asking for their intercession: “I liken it to a bar where everyone is screaming because it’s the only way to be heard over the din; someone clinks a glass and asks everyone to simultaneously lower their voices. And the din magically is reduced to normal sound level. Maybe we need a reminder to lower the temperature when it gets out of hand.” Can’t we all just get along? (Rodney King)

      • Rich
        08/10/2010 at 1:58 PM

        Wish, I thought of it…

        Rodney King.


    • Deb
      08/10/2010 at 3:18 PM


    • Cat in Cleveland
      08/10/2010 at 4:32 PM

      Thank you.

    • Clio
      08/10/2010 at 8:05 PM

      Believe it or not, girls and boys, these tempests in our teapot that is WMRW have occurred before, and our Island of the Flies has survived and prospered, even if Lynn gave us all only “cold comfort”. Debating various theories is divine and may lead to the justice for Robert that we all seek, but deliberate disinformation must be confronted with sometimes less-than-civil bitchiness. That is just the nature of public discourse, and it has been since before classical antiquity. Can or should we all get along? No.

      The exchanges of provocative posts over the weekend did remind me of a snippet of lyrics from the song “Mother Darling” of the 2006 musical “Grey Gardens” where Gould, Big Edie’s fey accompanist, tries to mediate a dispute between mother and daughter, Little Edie, and sings:

      “Please! I’m surprised by both of you today — And this bossy, bratty — bordering on catty, most unladylike melee.”

      • susan
        08/10/2010 at 9:15 PM

        Thanks, Clio. I love your quotes.

        There are some instances, though, when some posters hit below the belt and it is just unkind and doesn’t further the discussion. I’m reckoning Rich might have been referring mostly to those instances. There are posters who might have ulterior motives and they should be called out on that if it seems to be the case. And there are those who seem to take some kind of delight in regarding some posts as sport. There are others who bring personal nitpicky pecadilloes that have nothing to do with Who Murdered Robert Wone.

        There’s a lot to learn about human nature on this site. I hope we could all try to have a modicum of politeness with each other and take it from there. And if some of us fall short sometimes, which will inevitably happen, I hope some posters will point it out in a kind enough way. Life is hard enough without anonymous insults back and forth, I think.

  12. Rich
    08/10/2010 at 5:39 PM

    This Just In:

    Channel Four/ WRC TV Reports:

    Katherine Wone is subpeonaing all of the Defendant’s, “Phone and Email Records,” for the Civil Trial.

    Getting Ugly.

  13. Rich
    08/10/2010 at 5:58 PM

    Language from WRC TV Website:

    “Attorneys for Wone’s widow said in court documents the records could show the defendants’ “state of mind.” They suggest two men were growing apart romantically and the other had planned to be out of town when Wone was killed.”

    I guess Dylan was planning his, “EXIT,” Strategy.

  14. susan
    08/10/2010 at 10:23 PM

    I am confused about testimony from S. Hixson. He said he saw someone or someones in “white, bikini underwear” open the door and “later” saw the body of RW being removed. But in DW’s testimony he talks about the police telling him to go upstairs and bring JP’s robe. Is there a timeline showing the EMT people there with JP opening the door in his underwear? I thought he was sitting by RW, then they were all told to sit on the couch and at some point DW was told to get JP’s robe. When the door is “officially” opened in the trouple’s tale, aren’t they then clothed?

    • susan
      08/10/2010 at 10:24 PM

      When I say in DW’s testimony “he” the he refers to DW.

    • AnnaZed
      08/10/2010 at 10:46 PM

      Susan, thanks for bringing this back up. I think it was chewed on at the time of his testimony but to my mind not chewed on quite enough, and I was astounded at the time the the USA made nothing of it. I like you seem tend to think that this meant that Joe, otherwise known as underwear guy, was out front when he claimed to have been “helping” Robert. One wonders why and additionally hopes that the civil inquiry will shed some light on what he was up to. Very peculiar given the circumstances. At the very least it goes to failure to give aide to Robert. I will have to go back because I don’t recall what Scott Hixson said brought him to his window in the first place.

      • chilaw79
        08/10/2010 at 11:24 PM

        I looked back at the various summaries of the testimony of Mr. Hixson. He said he saw someone wearing underwear at the door. It sounds like this occurred after the EMTs arrived. You may remember that Diane Dunham (who referred to Joe as “underwear guy”) went with Robert Wone’s body to the hospital.

        In DC (for those of you who do not live here) when you call for an ambulance, you always get a fire truck along with it. I assume the lights, noise, and sirens brought some people to their doors, including Mr. Hixson.

        Hixson said he later saw the three defendants being taken away in cars. The police interviewed him that night, too, at his home (perhaps evidence that the police took the intruder scenario seriously).

        Later, Joe Price called Hixson and asked him to pick him up at the VCB so Hixson went to the VCB. Price and Zaborsky sat in his car with him for a while, but Ward was still inside. Michael Price also went to the VCB and Sarah Morgan and Lisa Goddard came together to the VCB. Hixson left at some point before Ward came out. I cannot blame Joe for wanting to be sure he, Victor, and Dylan had a ride home since this is not the easiest place to get a cab. (I base my knowledge about the taxis from testimony in a case where I served as a juror.) It does not sound like the police offered to drive them home.

        Hixson testified to having sex with each of the defendants (if I remember correctly) on occasion, and he thought the others knew of these dalliances, which, at least as to Mr. Ward, continued after Robert’s murder. He also said he thought someone else would have told the defendants the day prior to the murder, but that is when all hell broke loose in the courtroom.

        • susan
          08/10/2010 at 11:34 PM

          What stood out to me is that he said he “later” saw them leave in cars.

          I’ve been searching (in vain. I really tried–so if there are tips for searches, pls. someone assist. I went through many pages, used “Durham” “underwear guy” “patio” as search terms. 79 results. Spent too much time)

          When would JP have been at the door in his underwear? VZ let the police/EMT in. I wonder where JP appears in DD’s statement. That’s why I’d like to see it–again. Saw it before, wherever it is.

          • susan
            08/10/2010 at 11:37 PM

            So, Chilaw, I mean there is DD’s written notes, Hixson’s testimony and DW’s acct. I’m trying to see where the underwear guy sitings match up. I don’t believe SH said he saw police and guys in their “bikini” underwear. He just mentions seeing someone after hearing a commotion. Then he says, “later” he saw them remove RW’s body. AnnaZed says it came up before but wasn’t given due attention. I’d like to see how all the statements match up.

            • susan
              08/10/2010 at 11:38 PM

              “sightings”, not “sitings.”

              • susan
                08/10/2010 at 11:44 PM

                Found the statement, which most of you have seen already:


                • susan
                  08/10/2010 at 11:47 PM

                  Pls. excuse the multiple posts.

                  DD says she saw the medics taking RW out and went in and saw underwear guy and the others. But I believe SH says he saw the underwear guy first and then “later” saw them bringing RW out. So again, who did he see earlier, and why?

          • chilaw79
            08/12/2010 at 9:03 AM

            I understood the part about seeing them leave later in cars meant the defendants went in police cars to the Violent Crimes Bureau (that is, the defendants were taken to the VCB by the police in police cars). This apparently occurred around three in the morning (about three hours after the EMTs took Robert to the hospital).

            I have to say it would seem reasonable to me that Joe would accompany the body to the door (at approximately midnight). Durham went to the hospital (presumably to see if Robert was able to speak or was dead), after seeing “underwear man.”

    • 08/10/2010 at 11:30 PM

      Testimony of Hixson, as summarized by our co-editors, Day 16, Update: “The night of August 2nd Hixson dressed in his back room before going to bed sometime between 11 and midnight. Seeing a commotion in the street, he saw someone open the door wearing white bikini underwear and SHORTLY LATER (my emphasis) saw a body wheeled out on a gurney. Later, he saw the three defendants being driven away in cars around 3:00am, and got a phone call from Price at 6:00am. “Scott, I’ve had the worst night of my life, can you pick us up at the station?” Both Joe and Victor seemed anxious, he says, before taking a seat in his car. Joe in the front seat spun out the story of what happened, with Victor occasionally chiming in. “Joe said he pulled the knife out of his friend,” Hixson said….”

      • susan
        08/10/2010 at 11:48 PM

        Thanks, Gloria. That was a long night for SH by his window. Long night.

      • Bea
        08/11/2010 at 1:18 AM

        Good point to reconsider, all (and thanks to Gloria for finding it!). At the time it was first discussed (during trial) I assumed that Joe made an appearance before Robert’s body was rolled out but Dylan would likely have gotten his robe by then – agree with the assessment – and this doesn’t match up at all. Unless, of course, that Joe didn’t keep on the robe – but why not? So strange.

        • chilaw79
          08/11/2010 at 9:21 AM

          I have never had a deposition focus on whether someone was wearing underwear (bikini or not) or a robe, and I’ll bet no one at Covington has either.

          The real issue to me is whether Joe Price changed the story between midnight and three a.m.. One thing I note is that there is a time period of approximately three hours from the time when Robert’s body is taken to the hospital and when the defendants are taken to the VCB. During this time period, the criminal trial testimony suggests that Joe lays out his basic presentation of the events of that evening.

          • susan
            08/11/2010 at 10:16 AM

            Hi Chilaw,

            I think the point was whether or not JP went outside before the EMT arrived, and if so, why.

            • chilaw79
              08/11/2010 at 11:25 AM

              That would be interesting to know, but I am not sure it is consistent with Hixson’s testimony. I thought he said he looked out when the “commotion” occurred (presumably when the EMT and accompanying firetruck arrived, followed shortly by the police).

              If Joe was outside in his underwear earlier, that would be a matter of intrigue.

              • AnnaZed
                08/11/2010 at 12:20 PM

                I am thinking of a very narrow sliver of time where something is witness and conclusions may be drawn from it. I am wondering if any of you draw the conclusion that I do.

                Scott Hixon hears the emergency vehicles and they draw him to his window. Looking at the Swann St residence from the front from his vantage-point opposite he sees through the open door “Underwear Guy” at or near the open door (not the robed Victor). That to me says the Joe had abandoned Robert before (who knows how long before, but before) the emergency vehicles arrived. That places Joe not where he said he was and not where Victor said he was. It goes to the accusation of failure to give aid and in the previous trial would have gone very far towards conspiracy but the prosecution failed to pursue it.

                • chilaw79
                  08/11/2010 at 12:48 PM

                  That’s an interesting theory, but it seemed like Hixson was very vague on the precise timing. If you are correct, it could be a bombshell.

Comments are closed.