JP VCB 1 of 3

Thursday Tea Time Movie Matinee

Joe Price’s recorded interview with DC police at the Ancacostia Violent Crimes Branch detectives began with a phone call. 

A smiling Joe Price leaves the Moultrie Courthouse folling Judge Leibovitz' acquital of him and his (former?) housematesDetective Bryan Waid escorted Price into the cramped interrogation room with Victor Zaborsky in tow. 

Zaborsky was scooted out to a separate holding room while Price took a seat and answered his cel phone.  It was “Tom” on the line. 

Apparently, Tom had been called by Zaborsky and was told of a problem.  Price took the call and explained to him what happened:

“A very, very good, old friend of mine was at our house last night and someone broke into our home, stabbed and killed him in the process of you know attempting to rob us basically…  Victor was trying to get a hold of you to tell you that.” 

In Price’s telling of the events he seems to equivocate somewhat on where he found the knife and what he did with it.  He is certain Robert took a shower, but doesn’t say how he knew.  He tells Waid he moved Robert’s arm but could not remember which one.  

And in another seeming contradiction to the known events of the evening:  Price offered, “I kept saying where’s the ambulance?  When’s the ambulance getting here?  Ask them – tell them we need the ambulance!”   However, none of that was heard in the background of the enhanced recording of Zaborsky’s 911 call.  Listen and watch for yourselves.

The interview transcript can be found here (Part II) and the tape follows.  Parts 2 and 3 of Price’s VCB interview will be screened in the coming days.

Joseph Price MPD Interrogation Video 1 – Time: 00:30

272 comments for “JP VCB 1 of 3

  1. 08/19/2010 at 11:34 AM

    I’ll take a crack at it with random thoughts. He fared better in the video than in the transcript where it had read to me as if he were drugged out. But, to me, his video is by far the least convincing of the 3 guys. The constant use of “fuck” was a red flag. Now, mind you, I sling the word as a common adjective too, but its constant use in THIS context seemed forced, the context being a murder interrogation with a detective you’ve just met. Even if he uses “fuck” all the time, I presume he can and does restrain himself when appropriate.

    I interpreted it as currying familiarity with this detective; same with his complaint that the other detectives had not been professional (implying that this detective IS professional). Also, although he talks about Michael’s substance abuse history — having put him “through the wringer” — he does not suggest the possibility of his brother, or one of his associates, as a suspect. Nor does the detective ask. (Now knowing that Michael had free access to the house makes that omission even more glaring. He was not being forthcoming in searching for a credible, potential suspect.) Then, Dylan “couldn’t spank a child that was being bad,” but uh, he sure could inflict pain in his extracurricular activities.

    You’d think Joe would know they’d find pain inflicting gadgets in Dylan’s room, bringing that characterization of gentle Dylan into disrepute. (Which makes me wonder: Maybe Joe thought ALL the gadgets had left the house that night so that none were left to be found. On the other hand, there was so MUCH found in Dylan’s closet eventually. In that regard, I cannot decide whether he meant to include the bondage gadgetry in the category of “pornography” that he acknowledged would be found.) Next, his characterization of Dylan coming out of his room, clueless, rings untrue.

    Giving Dylan the alibi of the loud hum of the air conditioning system does not square with his report of Victor screaming hysterically, mere feet away from Dylan. Finally, I didn’t understand his focus on Dylan putting on his robe, wearing nothing underneath, etc. when he emerged from his room — especially given Joe’s remaining disrobed with a houseful of first responders (to the point that he had to be ordered to get dressed).

    • Bill 2
      08/19/2010 at 12:06 PM

      The focus on Dylan putting on his robe, wearing nothing underneath, makes one wonder if he was naked under the robe because he had removed his bloody clothes and now they were removed from the house, along with bloody towels.

      • Clio
        08/19/2010 at 8:33 PM

        Why would Culuket be surprised at Dyl’s apparent initial nudity if he and “Sparkly Cat” were “married”?

        Also, another possibility is that Dyl was initially nude in part because he had just participated in the sexual assault/murder. Thus, in this scenario, he took off all of his clothes before retiring for the evening: so, there may have been no bloody clothes of Dyl for Michael to remove from the premises.

  2. readee
    08/19/2010 at 1:35 PM

    No emotions at all, he talks like he is reading a script, a story..Come on!!And the officer is behaving like they are best mates. Everything just seems so wrong that even a child wouldn’t buy it.

    • LegallyConfused
      08/19/2010 at 2:02 PM

      Det. Waid is purposely allowing Joe to just tell his version of the story. Joe is freely volunteering info that Waid has not asked for.
      For example, midway thru, after Joe gives his accounting of the night’s events, he mentions that the trouple are “in the living room, and we talked to each other, you know, about — there was no time after the cops got there that there would have been any chance for any of us to get together on our story or anything, you know.”

      So he freely admits that the trouple were talking while the EMT’s and or cops were there, but then catches his gaffe mid-sentence, and says there was no time for the trio to get together on their story.

      I think it’s pretty clear from Joe’s words that at some point the trouple coordinated their “story”.

      A few minutes later in Waid’s interview, Joe mentions that he heard only one beep, but points out that Victor will say that he heard two beeps. How does Joe know what Victor will say unless they did coordinate their story, including these apparent discrepancies?

      I think Waid was smart to put Joe at ease, not challenge him, and just let Joe recount his own version of events. Detectives Norris, Wagner and Kasul challenged Joe in their interviews, and, arguably got less info from him, as he turned more defensive with them.

  3. Rapt in MD
    08/19/2010 at 2:14 PM

    I’m only six minutes into this – so rehearsed, so transparent, so clear that he authored “the story.” Give me a break.

  4. Michael
    08/19/2010 at 2:35 PM

    I could never kill Robert, you know? Because we were old friends, you know? So it would just be impossible for me or any of my roommates to kill him, you know? And I know you think one of us killed him, you know, but why on God’s green earth would we do such a thing, you know? So it had to have been an intruder, you know, because someone noticed the backdoor was unlatched when we were, you know, downstairs, saying things like, “Oh my God! This can’t be happening” you know. I guess I’m just an idiot, you know.

  5. i4Justice
    08/19/2010 at 4:52 PM

    According to, the word “dissemble” means to give a false or misleading appearance or to conceal the truth or real nature. This statement is replete with offerings of information that was not asked for, e.g., “I don’t know where Oakton is –oh, (of course) I’ve been there”. “The grill caught on fire and we had to salvage dinner.”

    Three times, he uses the phrase “it wouldn’t surprise me” to speculate: (1) it wouldn’t surprise me that he (DW) wouldn’t hear anything, (2) it wouldn’t surprise me that the door was unlocked, and (3) it wouldn’t surprise me if someone went straight upstairs. He even uses the word “surprise” to say that the intruder came upstairs and “stumbled on to a surprise.” An intruder wouldn’t have know whether RW was a resident or a guest, so “he” shouldn’t have been surprised to find someone behind a closed door. Only someone familiar with the house and its residents might be surprised to find a guest

    Where is the credibility?

    • Bea
      08/19/2010 at 5:11 PM

      Good point. I would like to hear from people who know Joe if he is this casual with the F-bomb in similar settings (police stations) – I agree that it seems he’s attempting to seem like ‘one of the guys’ and that it’s a ploy to make him appear plain-spoken and thus truthful. The Detective (smartly) keeps his mouth shut but certainly that is fine with Joe – loves to hear himself talk, apparently, and to this total stranger, I’d wonder if he was high because of the rapid fire talking and topic-jumping.

      Two specific statements jumped out at me. When he says that Victor and Dylan couldn’t have done this, he then says “and if I did know/think they had” I expected him to finish with “I’d be leveling with you guys”. Instead he finishes by saying that they’d be lawyered up and not talking. This is very interesting when juxtaposed against the second statement that caught my attention, namely that Joe would gladly “trade places” with Robert “because I liked the guys that much.”

      Which? You’d level with the cops even about your loved ones because you’d willingly be dead if Robert were alive OR you’d already made an allegiance with Dylan and Victor? So much of it rings false, including the statement about trading places with a dead man because you LIKE him so much. Wouldn’t that statement be reserved for people you LOVE? Clearly he’s just bullshitting because Joe looks out for Joe, from making clear that the “intruder” may have worn gloves to his self-pitying “this is so unreal” but really no emotion FOR poor murdered Robert, the one you’d trade places with. If you’re that committed to the murdered man then you’d end the sentence about Victor/Dylan’s involvement that “you’d be leveling with the cops” about what you thought.

      Can’t have it both ways. If anyone knows Joe, please comment on the rapid talking (i.e. does he often sound like he could be high) and F-bombs.

      • Clio
        08/19/2010 at 8:49 PM

        Do most graduates of William and Mary and of the University of Virginia talk and carry themselves with such disgusting vulgarity? Let us hope not.

        If Joe’s “common touches” are relatively rare amongst the products of the incubators of so many Virginia gentlemen, his use of the phrase “you know” and the F-bombs must have been the proverbial “trailer park” in Mr. Price’s past coming back to haunt us all!

        • chilaw79
          08/19/2010 at 9:04 PM

          The use of the F-bomb is not at all unusual in law firms (whether considered “second tier” (zing!) or not).

          I am willing to cut Joe a bit of slack on this given the hour and the situation, although most prominent DC law firms would cringe at the notion of such language being used with anyone in the law enforcement community (other than in the context of a softball game).

          • Deb
            08/20/2010 at 9:52 PM

            So f-ing true — especially during trial prep.

        • Bruce
          08/19/2010 at 9:46 PM

          A “gentleman & a scholar” should never use the “f” word, says this UVA grad.

      • Bill Orange
        08/20/2010 at 11:40 AM

        I haven’t watched the tape yet, but rapid-fire speech was the norm for Joe back in his W&M days.

        • chilaw79
          08/20/2010 at 11:54 AM

          I am very interested in hearing your thoughts after you look at the tape.

      • 08/30/2010 at 4:51 PM

        Thanks for your insights; been following your comments. don’t know Joe, but in my mind he is an egotiscal, manipulatve. Amazing he was in a family relationship w/Victor but when his interview was over in interrogation room, he was so concerned with Dylan?? Seems very obvious to me. I’m no mystery writer, but does it take Inspector to figure that out. Even tho you are lawyer, I like the way you just look at the facts, ma’am. It all seems so self-evident to me. It seems to me that JP is a superb sociopath/psychopath and if he gets away with this, another intelligent criminal, I will be so sad.

  6. Bill
    08/19/2010 at 5:25 PM

    As a confirmed outsider from the regular posters who has intentionally taken a break from this site since the previous verdict its analysis, I thought I’d listen to the recording of JP’s interview today, particularly after reading seven comments.

    As I’ve stated before (please, no hateful comments), I believe that those of us who have not been tied to this case by the hip have a perspective (read, new eyes) that is of value. It is with these, “new eyes,” that I share these comments.

    First of all, some took exception to his use of the work “fuck.” He used the term eight times and only late into the interview for the first time. I don’t believe this was forced; for me, it felt as part of the natural flow to the conversation. I see no issue with this – either positively or negatively. I don’t believe at all that he was attempting to aggrandize himself to the detective – has is far too sophisticated for such immaturity.

    I did not find the conversation rehearsed. Recall that he had previously spoken with other detectives and had developed a construct in telling the story. This does not mean he “made up the story,” only that he made the segue form his implicit understanding of what happened (i.e., the info in his head) to an explicit discussion of what had happened. Anyone with an understanding of knowledge ontology will see the connection.

    I don’t think he was covering for Victor or Dylan but rather, in the course of his conversation, discussed that they couldn’t have been involved. This didn’t hit me as him staging alibis for these men. For me, I saw a more familial expression of support.

    I understand that this is the first of three parts and the remaining two will, of course, be important in understanding his entire interview. However, from what I have heard here, I don’t believe that is as negative as others have indicated.

    • Liam
      08/19/2010 at 8:42 PM

      Two things:

      First, I agree completely with you regarding the use of the f-bomb. It did not seem at all unnatural, forced, or an attempt to bond with the “streetwise” police, etc. I personally don’t see anything in JPs use of the word “fu**” or variations thereof.

      Second, it is relevant to me that there were discussions with the three prior to the VIDEOTAPED discussions (for some reason, I did not know this). This is relevant to me for at least the reason that it could explain why they go into long soliloquies detailing how they know Robert and the events of the evening. Perhaps the police told them, after the initial (non-videotaped) questioning, that we’d now like to tape you telling your story. So, they then tell their story. It’s less an interrogation than simply documenting their story of the evening.

      • susan
        08/20/2010 at 9:12 PM

        I think JP’s use of the “f-bomb” in relation to DW’s robe is extremely odd. Didn’t he say he had his robe on and “no f-ing clothes on underneath”? Why would having no clothes on underneath be odd? It was a hot night, they were all “married,” he did have his robe on. Unless DW usually slept with a little something on, in which case there might be reason for the shocked exclamation. Otherwise, what’s so “f-ing” odd about seeing your spouse with a robe on and knowing he had no clothes on underneath?

        • Clio
          08/20/2010 at 10:25 PM

          At Anacostia, Joe wanted to include Dyl as family for legal and strategic purposes, but, then again, he denied him that status in subtle ways for the same purposes. So, he’s shocked, shocked, shocked that Mr. Ward, “housemate” and masseuse in training, slept nude, but, later on, Dyl in Joe’s eyes turns into a spouse who could not hurt a child and whom Culuket knew better than his own (step?)-mom.

          Joe self-sabotages, but only to cloud the tragedy into a mystery (unsuccessfully in most places yet just enough to get Lynn’s “cold comfort”).

          • susan
            08/20/2010 at 10:58 PM

            They do the same with RW. Sometimes he’s their “dear friend” and DW “even baked” whatever for KW. At other times they say they barely know him.

            I still think it was odd that when JP first sees DW that night–he doesn’t say “Are you okay?!” but “What the f**k happened? What’s going on?” And then again the he had nothing under his f-ing robe–a lot of hostility seems to be directed towards Dylan Ward. Wonder why?

            • Clio
              08/21/2010 at 6:06 PM

              Well, Dyl probably knew the most about what went down, and Joe worried that Mr. Ward’s alleged “independence” or “smartassedness”, the very qualities that had attached Culuket to Sparkly Cat, would lead the quirky masseuse to spill the beans — hence, the dirty look thrown Dyl’s way by Joe.

              • 08/22/2010 at 11:53 AM

                Please remind me. What did Dylan say that prompted Joe’s dirty look, according to the police officer? Where can I find that report?

                • 08/22/2010 at 5:06 PM

                  Found it myself. Day 3 update. Det Alimein:
                  “He testified that Ward started talking, “We heard a chime…” until he was cut off by Price. Alimein said Price shot Ward a glare, “with a stern look. That’s when Ward stopped talking.”

                  To Alimein it appreared as if, “…a little kid got in trouble with mom or dad” who then took him to task.”

                  In following testimony, another Detective mentioned Joe’s glares at both Victor and Dylan, so they would not contribute anything to his version of events.

                  Thanks to ME for slogging through to find that!!!

                  • carolina
                    08/22/2010 at 6:34 PM

                    I’m going to have to go back now and dig into this. I didn’t recall Dyl saying he heard a chime. Apparently that chime is louder than someone coming up those bare, creaky stairs or stabbing someone in the next room.

                • 08/22/2010 at 8:49 PM

                  Carolina: This post be out of order (so I’ll have a fatter column to write in). I thought the “we heard a chime..” was an indication that they had already rehearsed, as in “here is the story we’re all going to tell. But unless you’re asked directly, I do ALL the talking. Just follow my lead and we’ll be ok.”

                  • susan
                    08/22/2010 at 9:28 PM

                    That does sound contrived–“We heard a chime” by DW, since “We” were in separate bedrooms, etc.

    • chilaw79
      08/20/2010 at 9:09 AM

      I agree that Joe expresses some form of loyalty to the members of his household and his brother Michael in the interview, and particularly challenges the notion that either Victor or Dylan could have done this. This is hard to square with the negative comments he makes about them (Victor is “hysterical,” Sarah is “fat,” Michael is a drug addict, and Dylan is oblivious and is naked under his robe). Joe goes a bit out of his way to avoid telling the police that Michael has a key and the security code.

  7. Deb
    08/19/2010 at 5:50 PM


    • Bea
      08/19/2010 at 6:05 PM

      Because he is the boss?

      • Deb
        08/19/2010 at 7:12 PM

        Probably — that, and the fact that all the rest of them are stupid compared with Joe? Joe probably figured Victor would not handle the cell phone properly . . . he’d forget during the “down time” that he was still being videotaped by the police.

    • chilaw79
      08/19/2010 at 8:13 PM

      I am a little confused about timing now. I am assuming this interview occurs after Joe and Victor were interviewed initially, when out to the car, and then were asked to return for an additional interview with Detective Waid.

      Joe probably commandeered the cell phone when he and Victor were in the car. He speaks with Tom on the cell phone and later with Michael Price.

      I believe Joe probably was lining up lawyers with the cell phone. He apparently had spoken with one, was trying to get the number for John Nassikas (a criminal lawyer at Arent Fox at that time and a former prosecutor), and clearly was trying to get a lawyer for Dylan.

      In retrospect, I wonder if Joe said he was married to Dylan to try to bolster the argument that Joe should be able to speak with Dylan or call him a lawyer (if Dylan failed to ask for one).

      • Deb
        08/19/2010 at 9:17 PM

        Touche. Also would a “marriage” with Dylan priv their communication?

        Timing wise, it seems from what Joe says about Robert laying on the bed “as we drew for you” (or something similar) that this recorded convo is after an initial “chat” with the police.

      • 08/19/2010 at 10:20 PM

        Timing: The video we just watched today was Part 2 and started around 8:30 am; since it was 30 minutes long, it ended around 9 am. The transcript for Part 1 (which we’ve read but have not yet seen the video) had the interview starting 3 hrs earlier, 5:20 am. That was the “unprofessional” (i.e., homophobic) grilling by the two detectives.

        Calling attorneys: Written transcript says: “I’m getting my ass kicked by my attorney for talking to you now because my lawyer said don’t do it, you know. I told (indiscernable), look if I had anything to hide, I wouldn’t be talking because I know better but I don’t.” I don’t have the patience to listen/watch the tape again, but I heard the (indiscernible) as the name of his first attorney — a woman, former colleague at Arent Fox. I forget her name and cannot find it now.

        The F-bomb (replying to your earlier post): Now here’s where MY expertise comes in. I’m not referring to his use of the word or even how many times he repeats it. But read or listen again WHEN he uses the F word, who he’s referring to. It tells me a LOT. For e.g., when referring to Dylan exiting his room while slipping on his robe, Joe says Dylan was not wearing his “f…ing clothes.” Just about every time he uses the word, he’s expressing hostility. I’m “getting into” this anger theory (although I’m not yet at the “rage” theory). Despite saying obligatory nice things, there’s a clear undercurrent of aggression or competitiveness as he mentions each person, if not with unkind descriptors (Sarah, Robert, etc.), then with the choice of the F adjective.

        • 08/19/2010 at 10:53 PM

          Correction: Part 1 interview ENDED at 5:30 am.

  8. Anon34
    08/19/2010 at 6:20 PM

    I want to say a couple things now that may offend people; I know there are strongly-held views about what did or did not happen here– please know that I understand that I am making assumptions and drawing conclusions that others may disagree with.

    Other than living in Dupont and having gone to William & Mary undgergrad and UVA Law, the thing that has kept me interested in this case from the beginning is that each of the three most plausible scenarios– pre-arranged consensual event gone wrong, non-murderous sexual attack gone too far, and pre-mediated murder– seems to suffer from crippling defects: (1) there is zero evidence supporting the first scenario; (2) the second scenario requires you to believe that one or more of the trouple believed that Robert could be attacked sexually without consequences; and (3) the third scenario requires you to believe that these very intelligent guys cooked up an extraordinarily risky exit strategy that relied heavily on police incompetence and uncommon good luck. After watching Joe’s interview, scenarios (2) and (3) suddenly seem a lot more plausible to me. I didn’t get that from the transcripts of Joe’s interviews, but somehow this video gets me there a lot more easily.

    As someone who has practiced in large Wall Street and K Street law firms, I know you have to be exceptionally bright and driven to make partner– even at a second-tier shop like Arent Fox. One of the things that has troubled me from the beginning was Joe’s willingness to submit to the police interviews and to allow/encourage the other two to do the same. He’s not a criminal lawyer, but he knows that you don’t talk to cops. Ever.

    Even if you are 100% innocent. Certainly once it becomes clear that they are looking at you as a potential suspect, the show is over. Lawyer. Done. So I was glad that he addressed this in the interview, and I think that passage is telling. After watching this tape, I believe that Joe thought at great length about overriding the default rule of never talking to cops, and decided that he could orchestrate the coordinated story and use his powers of persuasion to peel the cops away from the truth.

    I know that is pulling a lot from 30 minutes of tape of an interview I’ve already read, but the confluence of body language, messaging, cadence, etc. is overwhelming here.

    I agree that the F-bombs seemed out of place, as did Joe’s overall subtle aggression in this video. Even adjusting for personality differences, and even assuming that one would become defensive once it becomes clear that one is a suspect, this is not someone who has just suffered a horrible, unexpected tragedy.

    I agree with you 100% that Joe clearly is *managing* the tale (and trying to manage the process as well). For some reason, this aspect didn’t jump out at me when the transcripts were first posted, but the examples you give are spot-on; when he starts– on his own volition– reconciling Victor’s statements & etc., he is light-years away from any kind of beleaguered co-victim.

    Totally agree– you can almost SEE Joe trying to transpose his “it wouldn’t surprise me” onto the cop; as though if he repeats it enough, the cops will start to view the ninja-assasin-superburglar story as plausible.

    I agree that this cop does a much better job of letting the interviewee spin out his tale; like Victor, Joe feels the need to fill the silence, and this cop knows how useful that can be.

    But again, we have a DC cop who doesn’t know how to follow up on the most obvious threads. “Approximately what date did the plumber hop the fence on his own? What was his name? Oh, you don’t remember- that’s fine- how did you pay him? With a check? Credit card? Oh cash, that’s fine. Did you communicate with him by telephone? Ok, now were those calls placed from your cell phone or from Arent Fox?…. When was the last time your brother Michael was in the house? Does he know Robert?” etc. etc.

    TL;DR recap: Joe Price murdered Robert Wone.

    • Deb
      08/19/2010 at 7:41 PM

      I think I agree. But I don’t think it was scenario 1, 2 or 3. I think more strongly now than ever that Joe is personality disordered. I think that none of his relationships are healthy and that, for him, they are all competitive. I think it infuriates him to not be No. 1.

      I think Robert “rejected” what ever it was that Joe was trying to sell — via the pamphlets on the counter and the planned breakfast for the following morning.
      I think Joe felt “stabbed in the back” by this.
      And I think Joe then killed him.

      A rage killing? Only sort of. Joe was likely enraged, but if he truly is personality disordered, he was likely very methodical regardless of the rage. Robert deserved it. Robert will never treat Joe like Joe is “beneath” Robert ever again.

      Following, as a personality disordered person has the (very brief for them) “Oh shit” moment, their minds turn themselves back into the hero — you will either hear that the other guy had it coming( i.e., self-defense) or the bad guy is lucky I didn’t catch him. But the personality disorder always assumes the starring role.

      Really, I hear Joe talking to himself in this interview. It did not so much come across that way in transcript.

      The lack of follow on questions bothered me on paper too — but much less so on memorex. Some of the follow on questions you suggest about the plumber who hopped the fence are right on the money, but can be otherwise verified after the fact. Waid just let Joe talk — but unfortunately there were issues with evidence gathering (etc.) that never yielded the contradictory moment I think Waid was hoping to net.

      All that said, Joe Price is personality disordered, and Joe Price murdered Robert Wone.

      Over some pamphlets on the counter.

      (But I haven’t closed my mind yet. I’m going to continue to try to prove myself wrong.)

      • gina
        08/20/2010 at 3:09 PM

        Can someone remind me what the pamphlets were on the counter and what Joe might have been planning to talk with Robert about? The search function on this site is not helpful. Yes, I am back after a long hiatus, still in disbelief that they were acquited. It’s so sad to me that Kathy Wone has to now go through all this again.

        • 08/20/2010 at 3:13 PM

          Welcome back. Pitch materials about Arent Fox’s capacity, via Joe, to help Radio Free Asia on a trademark issue it was facing.

          • gina
            08/20/2010 at 3:26 PM

            god I had totally forgotten about that. Thanks Gloria

            • 08/20/2010 at 3:42 PM

              Not that we don’t have a gazillion details to remember about this case!!! We’re each others’ memory banks.

              • Deb
                08/20/2010 at 9:56 PM

                I am not an applicant for any of the “Memory Bank” positions. Gloria and Bea could be head tellers, though! (^;

      • Bruce
        08/20/2010 at 6:23 PM

        Hi Deb:

        You could very well be right about the loss of business opportunity/murder scenario. Makes about as much sense to me as any other theory out there. And I’m very happy to read that you are keeping your mind open, because I suspect (but do not know) that there may be some surprises in store for everyone with the civil trial.

        Maybe its a combination business opportunity/massage/murder scenario…

        or even a loss of business opportunity/evil massage/porno filming/S&M session/accidental killing during sex/trick or treat gone bad/ninja assassin/drug crazed brother/murder scenario, all going on at the same time, and we are all correct.

        Who knows whether if Robert Wone decided not to do “business” with Joe [and is that now accepted as a fact?], what his reasons were. But a very good one, from ny perspective, would have been simply because they were friends. And beware friends that go into business deals like this together, because they many times end up less-than-friends. What would happen if there was a dispute regarding Joe’s billing or his competence in handling a trademark matter? what would happen if things went South on the trademark issue, RFA lost a lot of money, and the board decided to sue Joe for malpractice? I don’t do paid legal work for friends or family, and I never will, for just that reason. You would hope that Joe would have been sensitive about that, but I guess we all know the answer to that…..

        • Deb
          08/20/2010 at 9:58 PM

          Do keep in your own open mind, however, that there was very limited time for all of this to take place. Whatever happened, and whatever our personal opinions, I think we can all agree it happened very quickly.

    • Liam
      08/19/2010 at 8:06 PM

      “I know you have to be exceptionally bright and driven to make partner– even at a second-tier shop like Arent Fox.”

      I’m liking the not-so-subtle put down. I wonder how Bernie Grimm feels being a graduate of UDC, who wouldn’t even get an interview at a second-tier firm like Arent Fox.

      • 08/19/2010 at 10:31 PM

        Grimm: Graduate of Antioch School of Law which was a hotbed of social justice law, as I remember. When did it become part of UDC? By the way, after law school, Grimm then worked for the public defender’s office for several years. I’m liking him a little more.

        • Craig
          08/19/2010 at 11:00 PM

          G: Thanks for figuring out the timing. It was in the old public defender days that Bernie got to know Greta.

          • Clio
            08/20/2010 at 6:03 AM

            For Bernie, then, doing good turned into doing well, a familiar Washington story.

            I do wonder if Counselor Grimm is still returning Joe’s calls, which may be increasingly cloying — given the circumstances.

        • Ivan
          08/20/2010 at 11:46 AM

          I believe Antioch went too far into the red and was at risk for being shut down and then a DC councilman (now deceased) came up with a plan for it to operate under within the University of the District of Columbia. (I think the building the school is located in is named after the deceased councilman but dang I can’t remember it)

          • chilaw79
            08/20/2010 at 11:53 AM

            The councilman was the late David A. Clarke.

            The law school is known as the David A. Clarke School of Law and it does operate under the UDC (while carrying on the mission of the Antioch Law School, which was established by founders of the Legal Services Corporation).

            • Craig
              08/20/2010 at 1:00 PM

              Dave Clarke was a cool guy who rode his bike all over town and he died too young. He lost the 1990 mayoral race to one-term abject failure Sharon Dixon. Pity, DC sure could use a guy like Clarke these days.

              • gina
                08/20/2010 at 3:31 PM

                so true-i used to see Dave Clarke all the time at Stoney’s downtown, chatting amiably with the prostitutes, pimps, dealers, and other barflies. A really decent guy and great politician who treated people with respect no matter what walk of life you were from.

                • Deb
                  08/20/2010 at 10:01 PM

                  I probably would have really liked him!

    • Liam
      08/19/2010 at 8:28 PM

      Regarding the interview/interrogation tactics, do you suppose that they didn’t ask very many follow up questions because they are just terrible interrogators or they intended to just let these guys talk and hang themselves.

      Because, the only things they ask are (1) how do you know Robert/why was he staying at your house (in response to which each of the three goes into a long soliloquy); (2) how could an intruder get over the fence (in response to which each replies they don’t know); and (3) why was a straight man staying at their house (in response to which they repeat, in part, the response to (1) above and emphasize he was only a friend).

      I don’t know, but the interrogation doesn’t seem very creative for people who do this for a living.

      • Deb
        08/19/2010 at 10:31 PM


        With Waid it really seems like a “net” for contradiction. I think he was hoping to have contradictory evidence to present if Joe ever came up for air.

        Epic Fail, but not really Waid’s fault. I definitely did not like it on paper, but on the video I see that he was pretty great.


      • AnnaZed
        08/20/2010 at 12:49 AM

        I have to agree with you on this Liam, there are more missed opportunities per minute during these interviews than I can even keep track of, though (with a nod to the “”give ’em enough rope” camp) I think Waid at least has a strategy, the others are just embarrassing. It makes one wish that Helen Mirren would come striding in in her Prime Suspect mode and kick a little ass.

        As for Joe, I think he is (like…you know…fuck!) very high. I thought that Valley Girl shit was knarly on paper, but live it’s painful.

        • carolina
          08/20/2010 at 6:27 PM

          Even pumped on adrenaline, no one machine guns like that in this circumstance unless they’ve at least had a gallon of coffee and NoDoz. He’s flying.

    • chilaw79
      08/19/2010 at 11:26 PM

      I think we need to remember when watching these interviews that the defendants were not under arrest. They were free to go at any time. The defendants were not given their Miranda rights (although Joe should know them, I don’t think that excuses the police’s failure to inquire).

      There is no sense asking a lot of questions if the police and prosecutors will not be able to use the answers in a subsequent prosecution. While all of us can think of good follow-up questions, the police here are trying to lock the defendants into a story and time line, while not treating them as suspects (although the first two cops came awfully close, in my opinion).
      While the defense was not successful in getting the tapes excluded in the criminal trial, they did move to exclude the tapes.

      • chilaw79
        08/20/2010 at 9:34 AM

        The issue of whether the videotapes come in as evidence in the civil case is one area where I think collateral estoppel may apply. KiKi, if you are out there, do you think the defendants can relitigate this in the civil case?

        Shouldn’t the ruling by Judge Liebowitz govern on the issue of whether the defendants were in custody for purposes of a Miranda warning?

        • Cat in Cleveland
          08/20/2010 at 10:54 AM

          The videotapes are statements by a party. They are generally admissible in a civil case for any and all purposes, and I don’t see any strong argument to exclude them.

          • Bruce
            08/20/2010 at 11:14 AM


            Based upon that reasoning, all deposition transcripts of the parties should be “generally admissible for any and all purposes,” as you say.

            Yet, we know that in civil cases you can only use deposition transcripts of the parties to “impeach” the parties on the witness stand if they say something inconsistent with their deposition testimony.

            I think the issue of the transcripts or videos of the statements coming in at the civil trial is a bit more complex than you suggest in your post. Recently, there have been posts on “impeachment” and the Federal Rules relating to hearsay exceptions, incluidng Rule 801(2).

            Yet, I don’t think that we have quite answered the question as to how those statements or videos come in.

            Cat,could you expand on your post in this regard. It seems that I am just dull on this point, and I definitely need some sharpening.

            • Deb
              08/20/2010 at 10:09 PM

              As you say yourself, depo statements are used for impeachment purposes.

              If the person was telling the truth in depo and is later telling the truth in open court, then essentially the transcript of the depo is being verbally delivered by the deponent in open court — they should match. So no need to admit the transcript.

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

                Hi Deb:

                I agree with you, but under that reasoning, the videotapes or transcripts of the interviews shouldn’t be used unless they contradict the party on the stand.

                Nevertheless, I have done some research (who has the time??), and I think now that the videos or transcripts may likely be able to come in on their own as substantive evidence at the civil trial, like you and Cat and others have suggested, under DC’s application of Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2).

                However, very recent cases out of DC have suggested that while DC applies that rule as written in conspiracy matters, DC still applies a “hearsay” analysis of that rule for other purposes, such as “statements of party.”

                The federal rule states clearly that statements of a party are not hearsay, so why does DC apply hearsay analysis to that issue?

                So, there may be some unsettled law here, but I am more and more thinking they can come in as substantive evidence, and not only if they contradict the party on the stand at trial. Kudos to Deb, Cat and others on this issue.

                • chilaw79
                  08/21/2010 at 11:40 AM

                  You will find there is a lot of unsettled law in DC, although I would be careful on this issue in distinguishing between criminal and civil cases.

                  In addition, federal courts in DC sometimes decide issues of DC law (particularly in the criminal context), but defer to the DC courts on issues of common law or areas where DC has not spoken.

                  DC is not Illinois, where virtually every state law issue has some state court precedent.

                • chilaw79
                  08/22/2010 at 1:06 PM

                  It’s worth remembering that the three defendants in the criminal case were tried together. Each individual’s statement, as to himself, was not hearsay, but Judge Liebowitz “siloed” the trials of each defendant.

                  • Cat from Cleveland
                    08/22/2010 at 5:25 PM

                    Yes. Judges are less concerned about individual rights in civil cases than in criminal cases. So, for example, they will usually will allow the plaintiff to introduce statements made by one defendant (as a statement of an adverse party) even though that statement may also be damaging to another defendant (against whom the statement would be inadmissible as hearsay) while giving a “limiting instruction” to the jury that the statements are to be used only against the defendant that made the statement and not others. “Limiting instructions” for those who do not know, are legal fictions. . . the judge tells the jury something like “you may use what you just heard for this purpose but not for that purpose.”

      • Bruce
        08/20/2010 at 11:51 AM


        I suggested in another post within the past several weeks, that I believe that the allowance into evidence of the tapes or transcripts of the police interviews would have been controversial in the criminal trial. I would love to get my hands on the briefs and court order in that regard.

        I also suggested in that same post that the Swann 3’s attorneys were probably keeping that ruling in their front pocket, for purposes of an appeal, if the criminal case had gone South for the Swann 3.

        While there have been a number of posts over the past couple weeks about “impeachment” and Federal Rule of Evidence 801(2), I don’t think that anyone yet has come up with the exact train that will definitely pull that cargo into the civil trial station. As I say below to Cat, maybe I’m just not getting it!

        • chilaw79
          08/20/2010 at 2:59 PM

          Each of the defendants filed a motion to suppress their police interviews on the grounds they were in custody and the police failed to provide them their Miranda rights.

          Dylan signed a waiver of his Miranda rights and a consent to a polygraph while at the FBI for his polygraph.

          Judge Liebowitz denied all of the motions to suppress.

        • chilaw79
          08/20/2010 at 8:23 PM

          The various brief, if not available somewhere on this site, are available on the Internet. A lot of them were picked by The Legal Times.

          They did not strike me as anything special. Judge Liebowitz did have an evidentiary hearing on the motion before allowing the videotapes into evidence in the criminal trial.

  9. Deb
    08/19/2010 at 6:54 PM

    1) I am pretty confident that Tom is of “Tom and John” fame — the place where Sarah was staying.

    2) I’d still love to know why Joe appears to have Victor’s phone. Tom is clearly trying to return a call to Victor, and seems confused that he’s reaching Joe. (Not that we can hear Tom, but make the inference from the fact that Joe says “This is Joe” twice, then tells Tom they are separated right now.

    3) Gloria’s point about currying familiarity rings very true, and something I also noticed.

    4) Waid’s style comes off far better on video than paper. As I believe Bea said, he just lets Joe “take it”. Joe seems to really hate pregnant pauses. Waid seems to deliberately stay silent.

    5) Joe seems almost manic to me. Like the speed-talker on those radio commercials.

    6) Pornography, toys: I do assume Joe is dumping the images/videos/reading materials and toys into one category “pornography”. Just have that impression. However, given the colloquial tone he seems to be establishing, I’d have expected him to not use the word pornography, but to say something more along the lines of “kinky shit”.

    7) BDSM sexual preferences do not necessarily suggest a violent person. Sex is a very strange creature indeed. I don’t think the fact that one person (Dylan) assumes a dominant role in a sexual game between or among consenting adults necessarily means that he is a violent or cruel person. He may well be, I’m just suggesting it doesn’t need to automatically follow.

    -8) Joe did not like Robert. He has nothing nice to say about him. Listen at the beginning of the tape as Robert’s parents “GRILLED” Joe about CoW&M. The impression left is the parents thought Joe’s college was not good enough for their boy — who seemed embarassed by this.

    After that, we’re told Robert came to the college for the special session for the “bunch of OVER achievers”

    Then, “he acted like he was A MEMBER OF CONGRESS or something”.

    When going through why was he at RFA so late, Joe explains he needed to visit the “PEONS” — using the standard quotation mark hand gestures.

    Finally, at the end of the tape, he’s quick to point out that Robert was not partner material, but throws in the fact that he (Joe) himself had already gone through the “to partner/not to partner” dance.

    He seems to have nothing but contempt for Robert.

    • Deb
      08/19/2010 at 9:39 PM

      Thanks for fixing my “8”!

      • Clio
        08/20/2010 at 5:58 AM

        Deb, your point #8 is brilliant. Joe did not like Robert, and here it is on tape! Frenemies must be ubiquitous in treacherous DC, but most, I would guess, only talk behind one’s back and do not literally stab one in the front.

        • Deb
          08/20/2010 at 2:56 PM

          I like “Frenemies”. Permission to use elsewhere?

          • Clio
            08/20/2010 at 9:55 PM

            Thanks, Deb, I did not coin that word, which comes from the generation who embodies the nihilistic spirit of The Hills and Jersey Shore. But, feel free to use it anyway because it can be applied to so many people these days.

            • Deb
              08/20/2010 at 10:16 PM

              See I don’t even know what The Hills or Jersey Shore is really all about — except they seem to show up all over Huffington Post for arrests.

              But thanks for the loaner!

              • Clio
                08/20/2010 at 10:33 PM

                No problem.

                But even if you do not get the backstabbing on these inane TV shows (possibly still watched by Sarah with her Tom and John), Deb, you may remember the cliche popularized during the Truman years — “if you want a friend in Washington, buy a dog.”

                And, to think that the family at 1509 Swann had no pets!

                • Deb
                  08/21/2010 at 2:30 AM


                  Thanks for the loan.

                  Now I need to tinkle.


                • carolina
                  08/21/2010 at 11:44 AM

                  And with all those lovely collars! Such a pity.


                  • Deb
                    08/22/2010 at 9:12 PM

                    Witch of the finest sort!

    • Cara
      08/20/2010 at 3:40 PM

      Something else that sounded strange in Joe’s discussion of Robert Wone: Toward the end of the interview, Price brought up that other MPD reps had asked him if Robert had been “experimenting,” by way of explaining why he was at Swann St. that night. Regarding that issue, Price said to Waid, “[Robert] didn’t drink, he didn’t smoke marijuana, he didn’t do anything bad.”

      Why would Price equate “experimenting” with “bad?” The adultery angle doesn’t seem as if it would be “bad” to Price, as he’s in a triangle of his own. That leaves the sexual “experimenting” angle. Why is that “bad” to Price? (It seems certain that Robert Wone was not experimenting, of course, but I still wonder why it would be “bad” if he–or anyone–were, in Price’s eyes.)

      • carolina
        08/20/2010 at 7:11 PM

        Cara, I think a lot of us understand that for much of the populace, gay *is* bad. I don’t necessarily think Joe thinks it is bad, but that it might be perceived as such by others.

        On the other hand, a lot of us seem very at ease with our sexuality but harbor a little (or a lot) of self-loathing that comes out in subtle ways and often at the most inopportune times.

        I wouldn’t hazard a guess which interpretation is the correct one.

        • chilaw79
          08/20/2010 at 8:28 PM

          Read the brief filed in the criminal case about how prejudicial the defendants though testimony about their being gay would be. Ultimately, the Government decided not to use the evidence, but I think the defendants probably are dusting off this motion.

          In my opinion, sex will play a bigger part in the civil case. I am not sure what Judge Hedge will do with this issue.

        • Deb
          08/20/2010 at 10:56 PM

          Cara and Carolina:
          I think a big part of the problem is that Joe is not at ALL at ease with his sexuality. Keep in mind, at one point he makes the comment (not in this particular tape) about having had the snot knocked out of him as a kid by “my younger brother. My GAY younger brother.”

          Some part of Joe does see gay = bad.

          Also, if some woman joined the site tomorrow and started saying she had sex with Joe on several occasions, would you really be surprised?

          Carolina: I don’t think “loathing” is the right word. Self-doubt maybe. I think whether you are straight, gay, lesbian, bi, monogamous, polygamous, abstinent, self-gratifying — what ever — we all at some point think/feel that a sexual thought, urge, desire or fantasy we’ve had is somehow “abnormal”, so we doubt ourselves.

          (Except kids and animals. If you are having urges for kids or animals . . . or any other activities that could not possibly involve mature consent, then you need help. Warm Apple Pies do not count.)

          I guess though, now that I’ve thought a bit more about it, I could see how if you were “other than mainstream”, it could involve a certain amount of self-loathing. For whatever reason, my years of frequenting Provincetown, MA as a child just popped into my head. My parents explained to me that everyone was kissing all over each other because that was a place where they could do it without people making fun of them, which in my mind meant people only did this on summer vacation. It was the early ’70s and P-town was a little crazy then. Especially to a 7 year old being raised by some very conservative Catholics whose Mommy’s family had a crazy thing for art galleries and Marshall’s. Oh, and Johnny Appleseed’s, too.

          But I think the self-loathing could come from the feeling that you need to hide your true self, or “save it for vacation” and work as many experiences in as possible in a short amount of time. In that situation, I think any one would sit back and say to self, “What the f am I doing?”

          Am I getting the hang of what you mean, or no?


          • Cara
            08/20/2010 at 11:42 PM

            Deb, back in the day when I was growing up in Mass., my mom made most of our things, so getting clothes from Marshall’s was our big treat!

            As carolina suggested, it’s quite possible that Price was speaking to what he thought to be a prejudice of his questioner, and thereby equated “experimenting” with “bad.” Either way, that segment jumped out at me.

            • Deb
              08/21/2010 at 2:42 AM

              Oh, don’t tell me she crocheted.

              I got “lost” in Marshall’s once, and got a toy red phone out of it. Wasn’t worth it — i was terrified.

              I guess my main point is that “gay” seems to be such a big issue here, but I don’t totally understand why yet.

              I think I’m approaching it maybe, but nobody wants to explain and that’s kind of frustrating for me.

          • Clio
            08/21/2010 at 6:23 PM

            Deb, what woman would put up with Joe? Only a man could be that stupid or desperate. And, Mr. Price has never had a self-doubting moment: that’s a big part of the problem.

            Joe does not and did not like the kinds of gays who are/were unassimilated by straight norms (at least in public.) This came out most strongly in that William and Mary tape. He may have felt he could “pass” as “normal”, at least in public: so, if he thought that, he may have also thought that others who could not “pass” or whose behavior was less than conventional should be censured. This very Virginian or almost Texan cultural conservatism could be the reason for the off-putting and snippy language regarding Dylan and Michael.

            • carolina
              08/21/2010 at 9:46 PM

              I agree with this wholeheartedly. JP and MP grew up as Navy brats, too. That could *not* have been easy.

              As much as I think JP was involved in this, I do have some sympathy for the way the world can twist a man. I don’t envy him his life.

            • Deb
              08/22/2010 at 9:19 PM


              Come on. You’re smarter than that.


      • SDK
        08/30/2010 at 3:54 PM

        I think Joe had a crush on Robert from way back, but he knew Robert would NEVER reciprocate, but something went terribly wrong that night and Dylan was a big part of it. I also think when he said ‘he didn’t do anything bad’, would be more of a ‘he would never cheat on his wife’ type statement.

    • carolina
      08/20/2010 at 6:35 PM

      Deb, if it is that Tom, why is there no mention of Dear Sarah? Why doesn’t he tell Tom to keep Sarah from going to the house until Victor calls?

      I agree that it makes the most sense for it to be *that* Tom, but it’s a very odd conversation if it was.

      • chilaw79
        08/20/2010 at 8:34 PM

        I think Joe already had spoken with Sarah by the time of that interview and told her not to return to the house.

        My recollection is that Joe called Sarah around 6:00 am, told her not to return to the house, and asked if she could find the telephone number for John Nassikas.

        Sarah and Lisa Goddard showed up at the VCB that morning and Lisa held Joe’s wallet when he went back into the VCB for the interview. (All of this is from memory, so I may have some of it wrong.)

        • carolina
          08/20/2010 at 8:44 PM

          Still curious why Tom would be calling Victor. Also curious why Joe had Lisa hold his wallet. Do you suppose he expected to be arrested?

          • chilaw79
            08/20/2010 at 9:08 PM

            Went back to look at Sarah’s testimony and it explains things a little more fully.

            Sarah received an initial call from Joe at 5:50 am in which Joe told her not to go to the house (but did not mention that Robert had been murdered).

            Sarah then got calls from Michael Price. Michael asked her to get the phone number for John Nassikas and Michael told her Robert had been murdered. Sarah told Michael to look up the number for John Nassikas since she did not have it. Sarah told Tom and his partner these facts.

            Sarah then called her work and went to the VCB. It seems possible to me that Sarah asked Tom to call Victor and tell him she was on the way and Joe then had Victor’s phone.

            On the wallet, I have no idea.

            • Clio
              08/20/2010 at 10:14 PM

              So, Tom called from his home, or was he on his way to work, too? Where did/does he work, and why was he called/calling instead of John?

              Sarah must have received comp time for her morning mission of “mercy”, but then again TV watching is such a time-intensive, demanding hobby!

              Did Lisa G. get the day (of August 3) off from CNN? I wonder.

      • Deb
        08/20/2010 at 11:07 PM

        I don’t know why no mention of Sarah.

        What Joe says is “Victor was just trying to get hold of you to tell you guys.”

        Does you guys include Sarah as well? Possibly.

        I think it was clearly a “return” call though.

        The interesting thing to me is that it would suggest that Victor still had the phone at some point AFTER they left Swann because by all accounts the only phone calls made from the Swann location were by Victor to 911 and by Joe to Mrs. Wone.

        Suggesting Joe confiscated Victor’s phone just prior to videoed statements.

        Curious, that!


        • carolina
          08/21/2010 at 9:50 PM

          Yes, Deb, listening again I would agree that “you guys” probably includes Sarah.

      • Deb
        08/22/2010 at 9:23 PM

        See my prior thoughts. I think it’s a return call.

  10. DrM
    08/19/2010 at 7:33 PM

    I have spent many hours reading and thinking about this case; every possible scenario that has been proposed and that I have imagined all seem highly unlikely. I have read contradictory statements about physical evidence collected at the scene and was wondering if there is one website that has a list of all physical evidence findings. For example, was Robert Wone’s semen actually found inside of his rectum or just on the outside of his anus?
    I was also wondering if anyone is aware of the police interviewing any of the S&M enthusiasts that Price and Ward engaged in S&M activities with. Did they have a fondness for erotic asphyxiation?

    • Deb
      08/19/2010 at 7:49 PM

      The site for which you search is this very site, DrM. Look at the legal docs tab (I think that’s what it’s called). Everything is there.

      The semen was found inside the rectum. No other obvious signs of sexual assault. The “around the anus” stuff was just your usual situation of folks remembering something, but not going back to check the docs — I’m famous for this, so I’m not poking fun at anyone.

      The e/a aspect is a curious thought, especially since I think the autopsy showed hem. in the eye. . . but now I’d have to go back and look . . . and as I said earlier . . .

      Yup — I’m still lazy.

      So, DrM, you ask these questions for a reason. What are your thoughts?

      • DrM
        08/19/2010 at 11:32 PM

        Thanks for the heads up about the legal documents; they answered many questions for me.
        I am having a difficult time accepting the theory that Robert Wone was sexually assaulted, murdered and cleaned up in one location of the house and then moved to another location of the house. The time frame just doesn’t seem to work. Also, why did the cadaver dogs only indicate the presence of blood at the rear stairwell drain and in the lint filter of the clothes dryer. Also, if the murderer cleaned a huge amount of blood off of Mr Wone why would he still have semen in his genital area. Wouldn’t it have been washed off as well.
        I suppose it is possible that Mr Wone could have been murdered in the bathroom with the murderer cleaning the bathroom really well including any drains, but once again I am bothered by the time frame and the remaining semen on his body.
        Although I do believe that Price, Zaborsky and/or Ward are involved in the murder I believe that all speculation I have seen so far is wrong.

        • Bill 2
          08/20/2010 at 12:16 AM

          If he were stabbed while lying on his back on a massage mat, perhaps the blood just ran down his sides, onto the mat, and not to his groin area. In that case, cleaning just the blood would not involve cleaning the genital area.

          • Deb
            08/20/2010 at 12:51 AM

            Bill 2: Let’s not add physical stuff not in evidence.

            DrM, same thing.

            The one thing we know is Robert was dead in that study.

            Now what?

            • Bill 2
              08/20/2010 at 1:13 AM

              That’s very true that a massage mat is not in evidence and that’s what is a problem. It’s the same way with cameras and video equipment. They are not in evidence.

              In this case, if we take out the idea of a massage mat, we could still speculate that Robert was lying flat on his back and that the blood ran down his sides, thus no need to clean the groin area of blood.

              The lack of a massage mat and the lack of camera/video equipment points to a clean up. The lack of a second towel points to either a lie or a clean up.

            • carolina
              08/20/2010 at 7:21 PM

              I feel like a broken record, but the lack of a play mat in the home of a BDSM couple is more telling than if it *had* been there. When one considers the scenes in which Joe and Dylan played, you simply do *not* go without a mat, or several.

              • Bill 2
                08/21/2010 at 9:09 AM

                This is one reason why they need to question former tricks of Dylan to find out if he was using any kind of play mat or massage mat. It’s the lack of some specific physical evidence that’s very important in figuring out some of the activities in the household that night.

                Were bloody items and camera equipment carried off by Michael Price that night? Did some of those things end up in a house across the street? Were they quickly stashed in Sarah’s apartment (Don’t go home this morning) to be carried off later?

          • Cat in Cleveland
            08/20/2010 at 10:58 AM

            Interesting. Your theory is that Dylan offered Robert a massage, then injected him while he was on the massage table, sexually assaulted him, and stabbed him?

            • Bruce
              08/20/2010 at 11:18 AM

              The “massage murder” theory is intriguing. Yet, it seems like that kind of murder would leave LOTS of evidence, and a lot of know-how on the part of the one cleaning up the evidence, with little time to do it…….no?

            • Bill 2
              08/20/2010 at 11:43 AM

              I never considered a massage table, just the idea of a massage mat or padded covering on the floor. Though I’ve never encountered a portable massage table, it seems that it would not easily hold the weight of two people but a mat on the floor would offer more space to a person giving a massage or giving injections or assaulting a person on the mat.

              It seems that someone who earns money giving massages would have such a mat. Further, someone involved in BDSM scenarios would likely have some type of mat or plastic covering to use in their games in order to protect floors, carpets, etc. It’s something that could be picked up and quickly washed off in a shower stall or tub. If Joe and Dylan were involved in “water sports” then they would likely be experienced in a quick clean-up from those type of games. I believe that there was some sort of facemask with hose that indicates “water sports” were not unknown in that household.

              • chilaw79
                08/20/2010 at 11:49 AM

                Confessing a complete ignorance in “water sports,” do you think this could have anything to do with the plumbing issues that Joe discusses in the interview involving a hose?

                • Cara
                  08/20/2010 at 12:52 PM

                  I was wondering about that, too. Joe was describing something about checking on the leaky shower and seeing if water would run through the hose, as if that’s something that one does when checking on plumbing. If he were siphoning off water that had collected in the shower/tub, that might make sense, but it didn’t sound like that was what he was describing. Sounded strange to me.

                • carolina
                  08/20/2010 at 6:38 PM

                  No, sweetheart, it wouldn’t. Watersports typically involve being urinated upon, or in some circles, enemas. Now, I’m inclined to say that JP is full of shit, but surely not enough to destroy the plumbing!

                  • Deb
                    08/21/2010 at 2:46 AM

                    Belly laugh!

          • 08/20/2010 at 11:59 AM

            Hmmm, who of us courtroom junkies can find your notes from Dr. Henry Lee’s testimony? I remember him commenting on the amount of blood on Robert’s shorts, as to the waistband. Right now, I cannot find my notes on his testimony. (Gotta get all my papers organized one day!!)

            • 08/20/2010 at 1:46 PM

              Found my notes. Dr. Lee said there was little blood on the shorts, including the waistband. This was mentioned in regard to why Dr. Lee felt that Robert had not been standing when he was stabbed. Rather than blood traveling from the stab wounds directly downward to the shorts, the blood pattern was from the stab wounds to the left side of Robert’s t-shirt. (And, as we know, the back of the t-shirt was saturated in blood, but that could have been caused by EMT transport.)

              I cannot believe I’m writing this. Sad. Infuriating.

              • chilaw79
                08/20/2010 at 4:29 PM

                I know, but I do not know of any other way to determine who murdered Robert Wone. Looking at facts, applying the law, and observing human behavior are the tools at our disposal.

                Perhaps the defendants justify their apparent detachment in the same way. While I do not know if any of the defendants has any religious background, if it were me, I would have a “there but for the grace of God” or survivor guilt feeling if my friend were murdered in my home. I am not sure whether I could do a police interview after such an event.

                I might sound a lot more like Victor at the end of the 911 call.

              • susan
                08/20/2010 at 10:32 PM

                Some of the theories posed on the site allow for the possibility that he might not have been clothed when stabbed. With one of those theories, no blood would be on the shorts. Lying flat, blood would be on his shirt. But I think with those stab wounds he prob. was lying down when stabbed.

                • chilaw79
                  08/21/2010 at 11:16 AM

                  To me, the precise nature of the stab wounds means it is almost impossible for them to have been made while Robert was on his feet. In that case, it seems much more likely there would have been evidence of some defensive response and the stab wounds would not be precise, surgical slits. I do not believe any of the experts thought Robert was stabbed while on his feet.

        • Deb
          08/20/2010 at 11:14 PM


          All excellent questions, many of which have been and continue to be laboriously pondered here.

          Since you seem to be new in town, Welcome! Keep thinking and posting.


    • chilaw79
      08/19/2010 at 8:43 PM

      Robert’s own fluids were found both in the rectum and in the anal area, as well as the groin area from a sexual assault kit taken as part of the autopsy.

      There is not a lot of evidence of asphyxiation. There are unexplained puncture wounds and three stab wounds the medical examiner found to be the cause of death. One of the stab wounds caused a collapsed lung.

      • Deb
        08/20/2010 at 11:17 PM

        What do we know about the small hemorrhage in the eye? Do you recall off the top of your head? If not, it’s definitely my turn to go look something up.

        Ach, I’m starting to feel like my tree killer boss. I want it on the computer AND a rain forest’s worth of paper. But sometimes paper is less cumbersome than seven open browsers.


        • chilaw79
          08/21/2010 at 11:17 AM

          I know what you mean. I feel an ever increasing need to do a pre-trial notebook.

        • carolina
          08/21/2010 at 11:59 AM

          There were only two small petechiae, enough to say there was some suffocation, but nothing that would not be expected in a death like Robert’s. It does not indicate he was choked or otherwise suffocated to unconsciousness.

          • chilaw79
            08/21/2010 at 2:27 PM

            One of the stab wounds apparently punctured one of Robert’s lungs. Would that produce petechiae?

            • carolina
              08/21/2010 at 9:59 PM

              Yes, it might. The fact that they are small and very few in number is a sure indication that he was not smothered to unconsciousness as part of the attack as some had theorized.

  11. chilaw79
    08/19/2010 at 9:00 PM

    My personal opinion is that Joe is misleading the detective when he says that if Victor or Dylan did this he would not be talking to him and Victor and Dylan would have lawyers. If he truly believed that, Joe would have kept talking to the police after August 3, 2006.

    He does seem to go out of his way to say unpleasant things about his brother Michael and Robert Wone. He does make a sterling character witness for Victor and Dylan.

    I found the videotape more unsettling than the transcript. Some things that also seemed odd to me: his suggestion that his lawyers would be upset with him (I wonder whether he actually had succeeded in speaking with a lawyer); his statements about walking home in the middle of the night or of going to Southeast (does he think this will impress the detective?); the detail about the plumbing and drainage problems; the whole conversation with Tom; and the contrast between his characterization of his relationship with Robert and what Victor and Dylan said about Robert.

    I am not sure why these things strike me as odd, but some of them seem so tangential.

    All of this seems just a bit askew to me. The presentation is not cogent or sympathetic, it just goes on and on, as Joe delivers his monologue.

    • Deb
      08/19/2010 at 9:32 PM


      Tangential — yes. But a tangent always abuts the central point, doesn’t it?


      • chilaw79
        08/19/2010 at 11:11 PM

        I have to watch it again. I think Gloria (as usual) is making some wonderful observations; she is a keen observer.

        One thing I have been trying to put my mind around is that Joe’s descriptions of past events often are more detailed than of events that just occurred. He denigrates Sarah and Michael, takes some cheap shots at Robert and Victor (“hysterical”), and casts himself as the one person who always was successful (student body president, partner, the guy who did not lose his cool and wore (at least) underpants at the scene of the crime, yet was so convinced of the innocence of Dylan and Victor that he was willing to get his ass kicked by his attorney.

        • Deb
          08/20/2010 at 12:18 AM

          He puts himself in the best light.

          I almost feel sorry for him.


          • Clio
            08/20/2010 at 10:07 PM


    • susan
      08/20/2010 at 10:39 PM

      I wonder if the house came with the alarm system. Otherwise, someone in that home was concerned enough about security to have it installed. It couldn’t have been cheap. In which case the statements about never worrying about crim before even in Southeast (what was that about?) wouldn’t ring true.

      • chilaw79
        08/20/2010 at 11:10 PM

        I thought Joe said the house did come with the alarm system.

        I had a thought about that when I went to answer the door recently. The security system on Swann Street sounds similar to systems I am familiar with, where there are contacts on the doors and motion detectors within the home. There generally are two control panels: one near the front door and another in the master bedroom. The system can be set from either location.

        My point is the control panel shows which element of the system has been trigger (which door, window, or motion detector). I wonder if Joe knew from the control panel which element was activated which is why Joe thought Sarah had come in through the front door.

        • susan
          08/20/2010 at 11:17 PM

          Thanks, Chilaw. It would seem he would share that info. to back up his case unless he didn’t see it or it didn’t happen that way, in which case he wouldn’t mention that feature of the system, if it did exist.

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

          I think Joe gave as few details about the security system as possible because he wasn’t sure what information could be gleaned from it by the police. The less said, the less chance he had of contradicting himself of any evidence that turned up.

    • Deb
      08/20/2010 at 11:34 PM

      I’ve never met a lawyer who keeps another lawyer on retainer with the exception of ethics counsel. (Or the divorce lawyer, but that is another matter entirely)

      You are absolutely right, Chilaw — unless your name is Steven Conrad or Joe Price, you, as a lawyer, do not have a defense attorney on call.

      I agree it is deliberately misleading — I COULD have a lawyer in here if I ‘needed’ one, but I don’t need one because I am a lawyer and I can make you believe me better than (s)he could.

      The suggested assumption also points back to the personality disorder.

      Add on top of that, Joe’s “that’s because you” defense: I closed my mouth because YOU were mean, anti-gay, suspecting/railroading me, etc.

      The personality disordered are NEVER at fault. They also never say I’m sorry. It’s always “Well I’m sorry, but . . . ”


      • chilaw79
        08/20/2010 at 11:43 PM

        I thought Waid might have really gotten Joe going if he had asked him to spell Arent Fox.

        • Deb
          08/21/2010 at 2:51 AM


          But off track.

          (Yes, I’m laughing.seriously laughing)

          In the style of Joe, well fucking done, dudw!

      • Cat from Cleveland
        08/22/2010 at 5:58 PM

        Speaking for the civil attorneys here. True we don’t have criminal attorneys on retainer. That said, if we are active in the profession, we have several as friends, and can get one on the phone in a matter of minutes if we have a true emergency and need one fast. I once had a relative of my spouse reach out to me from jail late on a Friday night, and within the hour he had a visit from an expensive criminal defense attorney who was doing me a personal favor. If Joe wanted someone there, I assume he could have had someone in the time it takes to drive there. What I don’t understand is why he didn’t? Unless, of course, it was a performance with an agenda as you suggest.

        He’s a partner in a big firm. He’s being questioned in a murder investigation. His home is about to be searched, and he is aware there are illegal drugs in his home, as well as a large assortment of legal, but “personal” items. He doesn’t have a lawyer friend come to the police station to walk him through?

        I live a pretty law-abiding, mainstream existence far from the fringes of what our right-wing wants to call “cultural norms” here in middle America. (No judgements about other people’s lifestyles by me. I’m just unwilling to characterize my own lifestyle “vanilla,” as I consider it to be full and exciting, for me. My point is just that there is nothing in my literal or proverbial closet anyone would blog about). If I found myself in the middle of a murder investigation being questioned at the police station in the middle of the night, I’d ask an attorney friend to come hold my hand through it in a heartbeat! It doesn’t mean I wouldn’t cooperate and tell them everything I know, I’m just saying I would not be alone with the cops. And while I know lawyers on the left, right, civil, criminal, plaintiff, prosecution, defense, domestic. . . the one thing we all have in common is that we would call on each other in a second if we thought we might be questioned by the cops in a felony investigation.

        • chilaw79
          08/22/2010 at 6:13 PM

          I think the answer to this is that Joe, Victor, and Dylan all were at the Violent Crimes Bureau, so the people they most trusted were not available. Also, it is not clear the Joe had a phone or had access to a phone, until after the first set of interviews ended for Joe. The person Joe apparently did manage to contact was his brother Michael.

          Also, it is one thing to call another lawyer on behalf of a client or a relative. However, Joe (or Michael on his behalf) was calling on his own behalf, Victor’s, and Dylan’s. That’s a tall order in Washington in August, especially that early in the morning.

          Sarah was of no help to Michael that morning (she told Michael she did not have the number for a criminal defense lawyer at Arent Fox, and Joe, et. al. were not eligible for a public defender. Add to that the fact that Joe practices in a legal area (intellectual property) where criminal law generally is not part of the territory.

          • Cat from Cleveland
            08/22/2010 at 6:24 PM

            Hard for me to fathom the idea that he couldn’t get another lawyer to be there for him. Counting my blessings (in the form of great friends) now.

            • chilaw79
              08/22/2010 at 6:37 PM

              The guy Joe wanted to reach was John Nassikas (then at Arent Fox, now at Arnold & Porter). John has a lot of criminal defense experience and, although he deals primarily with white collar cases, easily could have made a few calls–if he was in town and Joe could have reached him.

              (BTW, the photo on the Arnold & Porter website must be 25 years old.)

              • susan
                08/22/2010 at 8:20 PM

                His A&P page mentions all kinds of white collar-type criminal crimes and in the press release of his joining the firm it mentions he is a top crim. defense atty. Would he be appropriately equipped to have handled a murder case? Do you (or does anyone) think JP attempted to have him contacted for his expertise or because he was a friend/colleague who happens to be a criminal defense atty?

                • Clio
                  08/22/2010 at 8:47 PM

                  Well, Susan, John N. did apparently serve as a prosecutor in the Eastern District of my Virginia from 1991 to 1995. According to the bio, he prosecuted an array of cases from violent crime through fraud.

                  Didn’t Robert serve in the Eastern District for Judge Jackson, although it was a little later in the 1990s? Joe, of course, worked in the Western District — the Wicked Witch of the West in training, in retrospect?

                  John N.’s tenure as an assistant U.S. attorney is probably from when that picture was taken, Chilaw — that hair, OMG!

                  • susan
                    08/22/2010 at 9:25 PM

                    Thanks, Clio.
                    Wonder if there was/is a friendship there or if he thought of him because of his credentials. He does have good credentials.

                • chilaw79
                  08/22/2010 at 10:38 PM

                  It has to be hard to call another partner at your firm to tell him you are at the police station.

                  Joe may have been calling to say he needed some recommendations for friends who might need counsel. Even with attorney/client privilege, I am not sure another partner at Arent Fox would take the case.

        • carolina
          08/22/2010 at 6:55 PM

          “If I found myself in the middle of a murder investigation being questioned at the police station in the middle of the night, I’d ask an attorney friend to come hold my hand through it in a heartbeat! It doesn’t mean I wouldn’t cooperate and tell them everything I know,”

          This sums up how I think many of us feel. It’s confusing to me that Joe didn’t ask for an attorney for the other two if not himself. That’s not the act of a guilty man, but a smart one.

          That said, I can also see how he might think asking for representation would make him look guilty– but even an idiot would have gotten the hint that the cops were starting to look at the three of them as more than witnesses.

          • chilaw79
            08/22/2010 at 7:42 PM

            Joe did ask to be able to speak with Dylan and wanted to get him an attorney. The detective effectively told him that Dylan was an adult and Dylan was on his own. Meanwhile, Dylan was told he could not call his parents.

            • carolina
              08/23/2010 at 6:13 PM

              That still makes me laugh. Call daddy, not a lawyer. Hey, what do I know; obviously it worked out well for him.

          • 08/22/2010 at 9:05 PM

            Huh? At least, according to Joe, he HAD secured legal representation for himself by the time of the Part 2 interrogation (8:30 am). Remember? He said, “I’m getting my ass kicked by my attorney for talking to you now because my lawyer said don’t do it, you know. I told (indiscernable), look if I had anything to hide, I wouldn’t be talking because I know better but I don’t.”

            Again, the “indiscernible” I believe was his former AF colleague, a woman attorney whose name I keep forgetting. She served as his first attorney, before Grimm et al. I don’t know if she ever went down to Anacostia but remember he was not yet formally charged AND can’t you just picture him telling her (despite her strong advice): “Not to worry. I’ve got it under control”? I assume the calls he was making AT 8:30 am were for his roommates.

            • 08/22/2010 at 10:21 PM

              Kathleen E. Voelker was the initial attorney for both Joe and Victor. She had been employed at Arent Fox; her specialties include criminal defense with “high profile cases.” In the Aug 16 2004 Wash Post, she did not answer WaPo phone calls about her clients, but Schertler was fully on board by that time with Dylan as his client.


            • chilaw79
              08/22/2010 at 10:41 PM

              I am a little skeptical as to whether Joe really had a lawyer at that time. Any lawyer worth his or her salt would have called the police station and told them to stop questioning the client until the lawyer got there. I definitely would kick my client’s ass for ignoring my advice.

              • cat from Cleveland
                08/22/2010 at 10:44 PM


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

                  JP was/is an atty. He had to know he had that option without a crim. defense atty telling him that. It appears that he consciously chose to “cooperate” and keep talking until he stopped.

                  Just as he was active in his criminal trial, it seems he decided (advised himself) to keep talking.

                  • carolina
                    08/23/2010 at 6:17 PM

                    Yes, he was sure he’d talk his way out of it. After all, they’re just dumb cops and *he* is Joe Price of A-r-e-n-t Fox.

                    • AnnaZed
                      08/23/2010 at 6:32 PM

                      Gratingly, he just might have been right.

            • carolina
              08/23/2010 at 6:16 PM

              I don’t think Joe had an atty at that point. Do I know it? No. But if he had, that attorney would probably have been there and the name would have been dropped at least half a dozen times in the course of the conversation. YMMV.

          • Bea
            08/23/2010 at 6:56 PM

            I agree with Carolina that many of us civil lawyer types COULD get a middle-of-the-night criminal attorney on short notice IF we wanted to. I think Joe was just blowing smoke that he’d already gotten one (‘kicking my ass’ was part of the schtick he was running for the cops). I suspect that with the little bits of criminal law that Joe practiced (mostly for Michael or Michael’s boyfriend(s)) that he figured he knew as much as anyone and needed no help.

            He was trying to act as de facto attorney for all three of them – I really don’t think he WANTED Dylan or Victor to have counsel because it might not worked out so well for Joe (depending on the advice, of course). And as Kathleen Voelker’s name was mentioned in another thread, I was convinced that when Joe hired her to represent BOTH he and Victor that he was exerting more control over Victor than ever. She was Joe’s personal friend.

            • AnnaZed
              08/23/2010 at 7:24 PM

              Frankly I think (and I’m pretty sure that I said this before) Ms. Voelker was on shaky ground ethically in agreeing to represent both of these men, even for just days. If things had turned out differently it could have been actionable even, I think.

              • Bea
                08/23/2010 at 8:20 PM

                I suspect that’s why she withdrew from representing either. That, and Joe “got” Bernie. I do wonder if Tom Connolly ever read Victor.

  12. susan
    08/19/2010 at 10:20 PM

    I’m only partway through the tape, and it’s been mentioned before from the transcript, but he says VZ handed him a towel and he applied that towel. But VZ had said J already was applying something like a towel to R. Wone. So, again, what happened to the second towel?

    Other impression: how conversationally it seems he tells Tom about the events of the eve.

    Final impression only minutes into the tape: He says he’s not sure if the knife was in RW or not, but he seemed to gain clarity on that days later when he conferred with T. Ragone.

    • Deb
      08/20/2010 at 11:40 PM

      A lot of folks seem to have hung up on this second towel issue. I personally don’t see it as a big sticking point — whether the scene is contrived or naturally chaotic.

      After watching Joe’s interview, I do think the 1 or 2 towel(s) issue speaks volumes regarding at least Waid’s approach . . . let him talk, then we’ll show him there was never a second towel and ask him to explain why he lied. Contradictory evidence.

      Again, unfortunately, epic fail by MPD with the evidence.

      • chilaw79
        08/20/2010 at 11:51 PM

        I don’t see the interviews as an epic fail. The police did not bring Joe, Victor, and Dylan to the police station as suspects, but as witnesses.

        It is clear as day to me that by the time Joe finished the original interviews (not the tape shown here) that Joe thought everyone needed lawyers and had Michael Price trying to get hold of one or more. In my personal view, Joe was still going with the legal jujitsu approach with the argument that “If I thought I was a suspect, I would not be talking to you, so by talking to you, you should know I did nothing wrong.”

        If Michael Price was trying to call John Nassikas, it was probably for a recommendation, because I don’t think John (who was at Arent Fox at the time) would agree to handle this type of case (although I could be wrong about that). John is more of a white-collar criminal defense lawyer, but he certainly would know who the better criminal defense lawyers would be.

        At any rate, big-firm lawyers aren’t answering the phone at six in the morning and I doubt they know how to get to the VCB. Someone like Bernie Grimm is much better suited for this defense (although Bernie also is trying to get into white collar defense work).

        • Deb
          08/21/2010 at 12:42 AM

          I didn’t read your entire post yet, Chilaw, but my “epic fail” comment was ENTIRELY regarding physical evidence. I think I was not totally clear on that, and I also think that’s one thing all of us agree upon?

          More in a few, no doubt.


        • Deb
          08/21/2010 at 12:57 AM

          Chilaw: I SO SO SO hope you have a good sense of humor – – cuz here comes Mama!

          I pretty plainly said, “epic fail by MPD with the evidence.”

          Your response was, “I don’t see the interviews as an epic fail.”

          Pretty compelling evidence that lawyers think before they read.

          Would you like to sign the confession?

          (All in truth, but all in roast. I’m not going back over the rest of the stuff because we’ve previously agreed.)

          canyoutelliamaparalegal, Deb

          • chilaw79
            08/21/2010 at 11:22 AM

            Although I think of the interviews as evidence, I definitely feel slightly singed–not like the steaks at Swann Street.

            In my defense, sometimes I don’t respond to a particular person’s post (even though that is the format), but to the widely expressed thought that the police should have asked more follow-up questions.

            I will plead guilty to having an occasional sense of humor.

  13. Cat in Cleveland
    08/19/2010 at 10:27 PM

    I don’t recall which, but in one of the transcripts. Joe says that his blackberry had a dead battery. So he had Victor’s phone. It makes sense to me that the lawyer would take the phone, so he could call lawyers. That’s probably the only thing about this case to which I would apply the phrase, “it makes sense.”

    • Deb
      08/19/2010 at 11:12 PM

      He also tells Waid he has two cells, but I think the one on which he speaks with Tom is actually Victor’s.

      Yes, it’s just suspicion. No, I have no proof.

      • chilaw79
        08/19/2010 at 11:29 PM

        That should provide another interesting line of inquiry in the civil case. It also suggests some potential for the defendants to claim they share their cells (although, share may not be the right verb).

        • Deb
          08/20/2010 at 12:21 AM

          I think that’s part of the sealed stuff.

  14. susan
    08/19/2010 at 10:57 PM

    Does the tape actually end in the middle of the discussion of J mentioning his making partner?

    At times JP seems credible to me and parts of account ring true. But all of these type of comments are just personal impressions.

    Other thing that stuck out was when he said he “didn’t give a shit what I touched, or what a mess the place was.” that last part seems odd. And he did care what a mess he was from what he told T. Ragone. But wouldn’t any “mess” be the very last thing on a person’s mind in that circumstance?

    Another thing: When he says that upon seeing D he said “What the f**k happened? What’s going on?” as if D was responsible for something. Then his next sentence was something like “everyone was scared.” Those few sentences don’t go together. And they run together without any real break.

    • Deb
      08/19/2010 at 11:10 PM

      The end of the tape, I suspect, is just a time-out break by the Eds. Some were having buffering issues with longer segments.

  15. carolina
    08/20/2010 at 7:37 AM

    The phone call at the beginning is so very “off” to me. He’s so calm, trying to put some emotion in his voice when talking about Robert’s death.

    My question for others is, would you insist that the intruder was there to rob you? Wouldn’t you be more inclined to say, “We have no idea what happened, nothing was stolen, we just don’t know”? That would be the scariest thing about it, to me at least. Not knowing why, not having a reason would worry the hell out of me.

    • Deb
      08/20/2010 at 9:03 AM


    • Emily
      08/20/2010 at 10:34 AM

      I agree, I think a typical reaction would be, as you say, “we have no idea what happened, someone snuck in and killed him” rather than try to “sell” the robbery story that all of the trouple insist on. I think it’s very unusual for someone to come up with a “theory” of such a mysterious crime, let alone for 3 people to come up with the same theory.

  16. Emily
    08/20/2010 at 7:40 AM

    The thing that really strikes me from the get go.

    To Tom:
    “someone stabbed him and (brief pause) killed him, in the process of, you know, attempting to rob us, basically”.

    Is this the way that you break the news to someone that a very, very good old friend of yours has been murdered? I don’t care how professional you are, how drugged you are, how in shock you are, how much individual results may vary, that is the most bloodless and precise manner I have ever heard anyone report the death of someone to a third party…”in the process of”?

    In these circumstances people really do declaim in cliched and stereotypical stock phrases – things like “OMG”, “You’re not going to believe it”, “I can’t believe it”, “It’s a nightmare”, “This is the worst night of my life”. There is none of that from Price.

    Also note the odd placement of clauses in Price’s reporting of events to Tom.

    I would argue that the usual sentence structure to report this news would be – “they broke in and they killed him” with the news that he was dead delivered at the end of the sentence, that being the most important piece of information in the sentence. Whereas Price delivers the news in the order of – “he was killed, they were trying to rob us”.

    Price’s conversation with Tom is the oddest part of the whole thing to my mind.

    • chilaw79
      08/20/2010 at 9:01 AM

      Yes, it makes it sound like Joe, Victor, and Dylan all managed to fend off a knife-wielding robber in the process of a home invasion/robbery, while Robert simply had the misfortune to be stabbed to death.

      While there may be other interview sessions, in this one, Joe never voices the notion that he really feels terrible about what happened or that he was ever scared. It is just all so matter of fact, stream of consciousness, but imparts so little information about the crime scene or the stabbing. When it comes to details of the actual crime scene, Joe does not seem able to recall them. Joe did not see or hear anything, and he would not remember whether the building next door exploded.

    • Bea
      08/20/2010 at 1:57 PM

      Agree, Emily. His dissemination of information is ‘tamped’ and ‘packaged’ in an off-putting way – where is the emotion?

      I note Bill having said that this rapid fire speech pattern is typical for Joe, so perhaps my assessment of him being high is wrong. What I continue to find troubling is – and this may sound weird – that he seems almost to be enjoying the ‘conversation’ with the detective. I fully believe he thought himself quite capable of winning over the detectives and stopping the investigation in its tracks. Why else AGREE to these when he knows he shouldn’t then clam up almost immediately? Trade his life for Robert because he “liked” him so much my ass. Such a badly played ‘line’ to say if he thought Dylan or Victor murdered Robert he’d have gotten them lawyers – in the context of ‘trading his life for Robert’s’ he’d have said he would fully cooperate and tell the cops all he knew. Doesn’t ring true.

      As others pointed out, he really can’t help himself but to make himself the only shining star. And he sure seems to think he’s ‘beaten/won’ the detective over too. Really enjoy reading about the insights of the psychologists here. Personality disorder not mood disorder, correct? To the level of sociopathy/psychopathy? Maybe his narcissism just makes him look guilty (for these purposes, assume he’s not)? Curious if anyone with training could look at Joe’s comments and analyze from perspective of truth and perspective of cover-up/guilt. Would these words have been chosen and do the mannerisms/tone/inflection match? (Asking a lot, I realize).

      • readee
        08/20/2010 at 2:31 PM

        this would cost a lot of money and from the begining it seems to me there was no big will of solving this case.

        As far as I am concerned, Joe did not commit this murder, leave the assult, but is covering up for someone and he is well enjoying this role or rather power he’s got over the murderer. He feels needed. That is just my impresion.

      • Deb
        08/20/2010 at 3:02 PM

        Just to make sure there is no misunderstanding, I’m not a psychologist. I was married to a p/d’d person and I got a lot of professional education on it from psychologists.

      • 08/20/2010 at 4:29 PM

        Uh, I guess that’s me since I’ve got the credential (PhD in psych). There’s the pesky little issue of the professional code of ethics via standing in the American Psychological Association. But even if that were not a problem, to get at a diagnosis — beyond where our minds are carrying us anyway — the diagnostician needs to do the interview. The questions being asked (or not) by the detectives are not the questions I would ask (or want to have asked). Different agendas, so different questions asked.

        Anyway, I’m busy “reading for the law” via correspondence course, aka, so that I can be a LOYA too and thus understand truths, estoppels, etc.

        • chilaw79
          08/20/2010 at 8:48 PM

          There are still four states that permit you to “read law” so you are not too late. The states are Vermont, Virgina, Washington (State), and Wyoming.

        • Deb
          08/21/2010 at 1:07 AM

          Although it would be unethical for you to “diagnose” someone with a personality disorder via descriptions of him/her over a blog by people who for the most part really don’t know him/her . . . would you be able/willing, given your professional education and/or experience, to answer a few general questions regarding personality disorders?

          • Emily
            08/21/2010 at 9:15 AM

            I’m a registered psychologist in Australia.

            On the face of it Joe’s reactions to the situation fit the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual criteria for a Cluster B personality disorder. Handy link here:


            The thing with many people with personality disorders is that, regardless of professional training, most people can recognise that the reactions of someone with a personality disorder are somehow consistently “off”.

  17. Rapt in MD
    08/20/2010 at 10:46 AM

    Can someone take another listen to the area of the tape around 12:56 when the detective asks Joe which of Robert’s arms he moved. I have listened over and over and feel like he starts to say “it doesn’t matter.” If this is what he said – it strikes me as telling, as in – it doesn’t matter because Joe knows the whole story of what happened.

    I have found the reader’s comments from this installment to be particularly insightful. For me personally, the viewing of Joe’s tape has really upended my theories about the entire case. I now feel that Joe was very contemptuous of Robert and that he was assuaging his contempt by violating Robert in a particularly humiliating way on that fateful night. This line of thinking has also led me to the conclusion that the murder of Robert was UNINTENDED. I think Joe would have taken immense pleasure in having assaulted Robert in this way and then having a coffee with him the next morning (and any time he saw him in the future). As I have said before I believe there is some missing camera equipment that documented this momentus occasion for Joe.

    As for the comments from folks who are seeing his dialogue as credible and natural, I can only say that Joe seems to be the twin of someone I have encountered who had a personality disorder. The person I knew was a brilliant master of deception. In particular, I was continually amazed at this person’s ability to rapidly concoct incredible details to suit the most convoluted of situations – even when he was caught red-handed in something. IMO the level of minutiae in Joe’s story reveals someone who has tried to anticipate the impact of every detail by offering another detail. Not having a lawyer and his whole speech on talking without a lawyer is a testament to his arrogance and how smart he thinks he as at snowing people.

    Lastly, I think someone hit the nail on the head when they said Joe had something bad to say about everyone. I think he has been miserable and dissatisfied with his life and that is why there are so many subtle jabs at every person he discusses. It must have been a constant battle for him to be with Victor. On one hand, he needed a submissive, long-suffering partner, yet this partner was also everything Joe is not – kind-hearted, selfless and truly loving. In Victor (and Robert), Joe must have seen every day who he could never be.

    • chilaw79
      08/20/2010 at 11:11 AM

      I also found the statement about Robert’s hand very creepy.

      I wonder if any of the doctors who comment would state whether Joe’s description fits with a definition of cadaveric spasm.

      Could the moan that Joe says he heard from Robert fit with some type of post-death phenomenon?

      • denton
        08/20/2010 at 11:56 AM

        chilaw79 – “… Joe never voices the notion that he really feels terrible about what happened or that he was ever scared. It is just all so matter of fact, stream of consciousness, but imparts so little information about the crime scene or the stabbing. When it comes to details of the actual crime scene, Joe does not seem able to recall them. Joe did not see or hear anything, and he would not remember whether the building next door exploded.”

        Psychologically speaking, is it possible that Joe just did something terrible (like did the last 3rd stab to finish off what DW had started and walked off) and he simply just had to block himself off so he won’t feel his own terror. I wish Dr. Phil can help us analyzing JP, VZ and DW’s state of mind(s) on this.

        • chilaw79
          08/20/2010 at 3:04 PM

          I defer to Gloria since I am not a psychologist.

          • carolina
            08/20/2010 at 6:53 PM

            And even with her credentials, it is my experience that for every psychiatrist/ologist in a room, there will be just as many opinions. Sometimes more.

      • Deb
        08/20/2010 at 3:05 PM

        You’re talking about the thumb between the fingers? I was wondering about that, too.

    • readee
      08/20/2010 at 12:18 PM

      I can’t hear Joe saying it doesn’t matter but I was caught on that same part of the video as well. What caught my ear was the following:
      Q: Do you remember what arm that was across him?
      A: I don’t know. I know it was one, and I remember distinctly his hand was like this. He had his thumb between these two fingers. He was squeezing it, you know, hard and…

      How can Joe recall such a detail but can’t recall which arm?! Because he doesn’t want to?

      However, for me that is very important bit of information which shows, that Robert felt the pain badly and, that all he could move was his hand. If he wasn’t paralyzed he would have at least rolled or something not just squeezed his hand as this would be a normal reaction.

      Please give me some thoughts here…

      • Rapt in MD
        08/20/2010 at 12:41 PM

        I agree with you that there are some parts of the night’s tableau that Joe cannot bring himself to remember. I think the remark about how Robert was holding his thumb is telling because, overall, I believe the crime involved very little movement or response from Robert (because of druggin). I think the posture of this hand, and what it denotes – pain and suffering – may have been one of the only animated signs of the harm that was being inflicted. Hearing this part of the tape made me cringe.

        • Rapt in MD
          08/20/2010 at 12:43 PM

          excuse my missing “g” on druggin – did not mean to be casual…

          • readee
            08/20/2010 at 1:56 PM

            …but what difference would it make if he told which arm it was…what could he possibly hide by that?

            • Rapt in MD
              08/20/2010 at 2:52 PM

              It’s not that he is hiding anything by what he did or didn’t do with the arm – I agree that it makes no difference. It’s that the detective’s question disrupted the cadence of his story, a story he has worked out in his head as the end all be all account of the events of that night. It’s almost like he was saying “don’t interrupt me with your pesky questions, I’m telling this…”

            • chilaw79
              08/20/2010 at 3:06 PM

              The only thing I am coming up with here is the fact that Victor said something about Robert’s arm being in an unusual position in his tape.

              • readee
                08/20/2010 at 3:19 PM

                But then if this was for example the left arm, could we say that he was able to move it because it was the first limb to be injected with a drug?

            • Craig
              08/20/2010 at 3:26 PM

              If indeed Price never left Robert’s side, was able to draw a sketch (subsequently lost by MPD) of how he was layed out on the bed, and mentioned the position of his fingers, then I’m surprised he could not remember which arm it was just a few hours after the fact.

              • carolina
                08/20/2010 at 7:02 PM


                Close your eyes, Joe, and picture it. Did you move the arm away from you? Next to you? Was it easily moved? Did his fingers relax when you moved it? Where on the bed did you rest the arm when you moved it?

                Something would have triggered a recollection, unless he was afraid that he might contradict himself.

                This man can’t recall if the knife was in or on Robert or what arm he moved, or how much blood there was, but he remembers trivialities that provide an excuse or explanation for everything else. The unlocked door, the entry and exit route of the ninja, why Dylan’s room was passed by, why the patio might be wet and on and on, but not much about the dead body he sat next to for who knows how long.

                Yes, it all makes perfect sense.

                • Bea
                  08/20/2010 at 7:52 PM

                  Agree, CD and Craig. A tangled web of memories and explanations.

                  I know it’s been said that Joe spoke in a rapid fire way even in college, but when one listens (again) to his explanation of the shower experiment, it makes absolutely no sense. Victor explained it just fine. Still think he was likely high as a kite. And chock full of bravado (bravado being the nice word). At a minimum, he was trying to ‘save the day’ for someone other than himself, always the hero.

                  • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                    08/20/2010 at 8:34 PM

                    I’ve always thought that Joe was on drugs the night of the interrogation. Not only does he not make sense on many occasions, but he uses “uhhhh” and “like” and all sorts of interjections that he does seem to use otherwise. For instance, the W&M interview. He was much better spoken than during the interrogations. The comparison is stark.

                  • handypandy
                    08/21/2010 at 12:11 AM

                    Bea, whenever you’re talking about “drugs” you make me go “oh no, not again”. It is none of your business if “Joe” was “high as kite”, and it has no relevance whatsoever in this context. He could have been the “highest” person in the universe at that interrogation, and it still wouldn’t matter in discussing this video.
                    People should shut up if they don’t know what they’re talking about.

                    • AnnaZed
                      08/21/2010 at 11:20 AM

                      Handy dear, see below

                    • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                      08/21/2010 at 11:43 AM

                      Handy, you make giggle. I think posts like this are really amusing.

                    • carolina
                      08/21/2010 at 12:17 PM

                      You make me laugh. Good goin’, son.

                    • Bea
                      08/21/2010 at 2:23 PM

                      Dear Handy,
                      having myself been “high as a kite” on more occasions than I care to recall (in my youth), I do think I can spot ’em. And I find it quite relevant.

                      And to play on your playing field, na-na-na-na-na- na, so there.

                  • Deb
                    08/21/2010 at 3:04 AM

                    If Victor explained the shower problem “just fine”, then you explain it to me.

                    I still don’t get it!

            • Deb
              08/21/2010 at 1:12 AM

              It’s not about hiding, it’s about revealing. Waid was looking to get Joe to “talk” as much as possible, anticipating he’d have contradictory evidence with which to confront Joe.

              Again (hi, chilaw!) EPIC FAIL on the evidence.

              (I really hope chilaw has a sense of humor.)


              • chilaw79
                08/21/2010 at 11:30 AM

                I see your point more precisely now.

                Don’t worry about my sense of humor; I have tough skin.

                In fact, I think ultimately we’re making the same point. The focus of the police interviews was to get the defendants to lay out their story in their own words and then see if it was supported by other evidence and/or later contradicted by other statements from the defendants (either between the two sets of interviews, among defendants, or otherwise).

                Speaking of that, I don’t think Dylan ever said he was naked and pulling on his robe when he first saw Joe after Robert’s murder.

                • chilaw79
                  08/21/2010 at 2:32 PM

                  Oh–and on the physical evidence, that does seem to be an epic fail.

  18. Michael
    08/20/2010 at 1:12 PM

    Joe – if you’re reading this – I need a place to stay this weekend.


    P.S. I’ve sealed my rectum with super glue, so no funny business.

    • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
      08/20/2010 at 7:46 PM

      Joe would probably like that. don’t give him any ideas.

      glue play.

    • Rich
      08/20/2010 at 10:10 PM

      Enjoy your weekend with the Boyz but, start off with a quick shower.

      And, watch out for those, “Ninja Assasin Intruders.”

      They’re killers.


      And, semen can also be found on collars.

    • Deb
      08/21/2010 at 1:15 AM

      We needed to go this path because . . .

      Fill in the blanks for me?

      Come on guys, you’re above this nonsense in this venue.

    • denton
      08/21/2010 at 12:54 PM

      Oh! Don’t forget your mouth guard son…just put it on if the boys try to mess up with you.

  19. Liam
    08/20/2010 at 10:37 PM

    Putting myself in the shoes of JP and VZ when they both woke up to the sound of a scream, groan or grunt, first, I would probably spend a few moments collecting myself because I just woke from the start of slumber (especially VZ who took a sleeping pill). After collecting myself, there would be some brief discussion with my partner as to what the heck was that (Did you hear that? Is somebody sick downstairs (groaning while vomiting)? Did somebody fall (Robert not knowing the house in the dark?).

    Then, we go downstairs to see what is happening. We flip on the lights to see what’s going on. As we are going downstairs, we call out a couple of times “Dylan, Robert, are you okay? Not hearing a response, we are a little cautious in how we tread, but don’t imagine anything terrible has happened.

    Robert’s door was open and as we approached his room, we again called out Robert’s name and asked if he was okay. Hearing no response, we flipped the light on and we see a knife and blood on his shirt.

    At that point we are in a panic because he (RW) was stabbed and looks like he is dead. Someone has been in our house and violently stabbed our house guest. I (Joe) yell at Victor to check on/wake up Dylan and call 911. I (Joe) yell to Victor to be careful because the intruder may still be in the house and yell at him not to go downstairs, and again yell at him to get Victor and call 911 and get an ambulance and the police here immediately.

    My point of all the above is, as others have indicated, in the videotapes there is little detail regarding the events of that night, yet there is excruciating detail about what really amounts to extraneous crap.

    If the events of that night had happened as the three have stated, there would be much more detail (such as the above) regarding what happened.

    • chilaw79
      08/20/2010 at 11:18 PM

      I agree with you (although I do not think there is any evidence Joe was concerned about Dylan, except for Dylan not wearing anything beneath his robe–I wonder if that situation continued during the police interviews–although Joe himself was wearing only underpants).

      Perhaps the real gravamen of that is Joe wants Dylan to get some underpants on before the EMTs arrive.

      I also have been wondering about the lights. Were they on or off when Joe and Victor awoke from their slumbers? Was Robert’s door open or closed?

      • Clio
        08/21/2010 at 10:40 AM

        Bingo on your second paragraph, Chilaw! I guess that Dyl was also concerned about Joe’s skimpy attire, too, since I believe it was the massage therapist who went upstairs to get Joe a robe to put on.

        • AnnaZed
          08/21/2010 at 11:03 AM

          Interesting in that my own theory of the crime is that both Dylan and Joe were involved in it (with Dylan as murderer) so naturally the real or perceived “nakedness” of each man’s now criminal partner would be of major concern at all times.

          ~non sequitur~

          For no particular reason today I am feeling particularly ticked off at Victor for being such a monumental sap and taking the life of living doormat to such an extreme that it becomes an act of aggression. Fuck him.

          • denton
            08/21/2010 at 1:06 PM

            AnnaZed and Chilaw79 – Somewhere earlier, I posted that DW may have started the stab and JP finished it off (not sure when). JP then felt his own terror and shaky (we probably notice from the video by his manner and language) but wanted to stay in control (of himself).

            I don’t know what to say about VZ but hoping he can turn his life around.

            • denton
              08/21/2010 at 1:12 PM

              …and JP was also so high so there was a lot that he had to control (himself) by the verbal and body language that he used in the video.

          • 08/21/2010 at 1:22 PM

            I’ve been thinking that maybe we’ve been too soft on Victor, but more in the sense of taking “as truth” his/their account of his role in matters. So, here’s a little something to chew on: Victor mentioned having seen Robert’s eyes rolled back, upon first seeing the body. (Joe said the same, but one would expect he’d have observed that easily, having spent time kneeling next to the body.)

            I assume that even if Victor had entered the guest room, which I doubt, he would not have gone right up to Robert’s body, close enough to observe the whites of his eyes. If he stayed at the door jam or in the hallway, he definitely would not have been able to see that detail. The pull out couch was not against the door. Of course, it’s possible that none of their recounting of how they came upon Robert’s body is true. So many details.

            BTW, everytime I think we’ve come to a dead end — no more viable theories, we’ve exhausted every little detail, I can organize my spice rack or flip the mattresses — one of you smart people pops up with something totally new and promising. And we’re OFF again to the pursuit of truth and justice. THAT’s the addictive quality we all acknowledge about this blog/community.

            • denton
              08/21/2010 at 1:52 PM

              Gloria – I’m with you on “… THAT’s the addictive quality we all acknowledge about this blog/community.” Thanks to the Eds and posters here. In Buddhism, the mind is the master of the body.

  20. AnnaZed
    08/21/2010 at 11:57 AM

    Handy dear, Joe’s level of inebriation and his long-tern drug and alcohol use most certainly are relevant to the events of the night Robert was murdered in Joe’s home. You may not like this prying into Joe’s personal private body chemistry, but given that someone in Joe’s house saw fit to invade Robert’s person private actual body and take his actual life from him I would say that all bets are pretty much off on people prying into Joe’s drug and alcohol abuse, sorry.

    As for Joe’s relative sobriety during this interview; it is obvious that he is in fact as you say “high as a kite.” Really it’s a monster tell in the hand that he is trying to play.

    Oh, and since you opted to go for the personal attack in your post to Bea then pretty much all bets are off on that front as well, so try not to be such a complete ass.

    • carolina
      08/21/2010 at 12:20 PM

      Let’s not forget that the government seems to feel that “personal chemistry” is their business, as well. Lot of folks in prison for that, aren’t there?

    • Bill 2
      08/21/2010 at 12:27 PM

      It’s easy to figure that drugs played a role in the murder of Robert Wone. Too bad the trio didn’t undergo any drug testing that night.

      When somebody attacks Bea, I think of that spoken line in the “Hernando’s Hideaway” song: Joe sent me!

      • carolina
        08/21/2010 at 12:43 PM

        Ha! Bill2 wins the day!

      • Bea
        08/21/2010 at 2:27 PM

        Thanks to Bill and my other Posse (kidding, here guys!) for having my back. Handy’s notion that drugs are irrelevant makes me scratch my head – as for the personal attack, maybe it’s the Patti icon, to which I respond: I don’t f*ck much with the past, but I f*ck plenty with the future.

        • Clio
          08/21/2010 at 7:23 PM

          Bea, assuming that Joe does have a history of drug and alcohol abuse, could he still be using and abusing?

          Or, did 08/02/06 scare him “straight” at least with regard to illegal and/or prescription narcotics? What impact may the murder have had upon Joe’s (and Michael’s) partying ways? Michael went off the wagon in August 2006, but he has apparently sworn off his demons: has his older brother done the same?

          • Bea
            08/21/2010 at 11:15 PM

            My guess is that he quit for the most part – thus the weight gain and general facial puffiness. He was a lot thinner in the VCB interview than in the photo right after trial, that’s for sure.

            But now that the criminal trial is over, perhaps they’ve begun to play again.

          • AnnaZed
            08/22/2010 at 12:58 AM

            I would say, judging from his face, that Joe hasn’t given up alcohol, in fact he is probably depending on alcohol more and more these days.

    • chilaw79
      08/21/2010 at 2:42 PM

      Each of the defendants acknowledged in the police interviews that he either drank some wine or used some sleep aid in the course of the evening of Robert’s death. Joe mentioned his brother’s substance abuse problems. Robert, meanwhile, took no defensive action while being stabbed to death. I’m sorry, but this makes the use of drugs (whether prescribed, over-the-counter, or illegal) and alcohol very relevant

      Frankly, this is a standard question asked by the police and lawyers. One of the first questions asked by the police during even routine traffic stops and by lawyers during most depositions is whether the person being questioned is taking any medications or other substances that might influence their responses.

  21. susan
    08/21/2010 at 2:35 PM

    In each of the tapes of the three guys presented in the WMRW “screening room” at diff. times I’ve felt either skepticism or I’ve found them pretty believable. It’s too bad we’re missing what went on when the police first came upon the scene and the tapes weren’t running. How many times had they told their stories by the time we see them? And then, when the three were on the couch were they all there when JP gave his acct. and then all just stuck with it when in separate interviews. I think the MPD should have separated them from the get go, not had them all together on the couch. Bad move.

    • susan
      08/21/2010 at 2:48 PM

      Whatever happened that night I think it’s likely JP gave the acct–or the first acct–of what happened that night while sitting on the couch. The other two followed and that was the standing acct. That’s why their stories seem to match up so well. And the only person who goes into detail starting early in the eve is VZ and that part rings true because he wasn’t supposed to be there that night, as far as we know. But the lack of variance in the stories seems to point to that first acct. prob. told on the couch.

      One of the oddest things that night (aside from the murder!) is DW going back into his room when the police arrive. Verrrrry odd.

      • chilaw79
        08/21/2010 at 4:15 PM

        Don’t you think it possible he went in to put on underwear?

        • 08/21/2010 at 4:32 PM

          Absolutely. But if Dylan had, in fact, gone back in his room to put on his underwear (knowing the police and EMTs would be arriving):

          1. Why would he not have gotten fully dressed rather than just don his underwear? He was wearing that robe when the first responders arrived.

          2. Why would Joe even think to mention, during the interrogation, Dylan being undressed under his robe when he (D) first emerged from his room to see what the commotion was about?

          Like the leaking shower, water, steaks burning and spider on the light, this just does not pass the smell test with me.

          • chilaw79
            08/21/2010 at 5:05 PM

            Very little in this case makes sense to me.

            The only two things I feel certain about are that the murder of Robert Wone was not the act of an unknown intruder who left the murder weapon behind, and that the defendants know more than they said in their videotaped police interviews.

            • Clio
              08/21/2010 at 5:47 PM

              The secondary or supporting players do hold the key to learning more, since the Triple Alliance of secrecy has only gotten stronger over time.

              Perhaps, Michael and Louis can reprise their very own informational videotape, too, for TMZ or Bravo. It could be set in Union Station or at the public library. Or, as an WMRW exclusive, Louis could do a dramatic reading of his diary entries from 2004 to the present, with Detective Xanten as host.

          • susan
            08/21/2010 at 8:07 PM

            Gloria, good points.

            Also, he had time to put on underwear before he went out into the hall after he heard the commotion and during the time he did nothing–sitting on the couch upstairs, etc. He also had time to put on underwear when he heard VZ run downstairs and open the front door, etc. Also, greeting the policemen would probably have been the first thing on the agenda but I recall it’s been documented he didn’t do that. Didn’t respond to police question, just turned and went into his room.

      • Bill 2
        08/22/2010 at 9:34 AM

        “DW going back into his room when the police arrive. Verrrrry odd.”

        Perhaps in the confusion of the 911 call and emergency people arriving in the house, he suddenly remembered that there were some very sharp knives scattered about his room. For safety’s sake, he may have gone in there to put them all in their case and stash them in an out-of-the-way place where there was less danger of anyone getting cut by a sharp knife.

        • Clio
          08/22/2010 at 10:27 AM

          Or, perhaps, he just needed to finish that article: history can be so engrossing, I know.

          • susan
            08/22/2010 at 1:01 PM

            Well he did ask for a mag. in the police station, so you never know. Now, had he specifically requested the New Yorker…..

            • susan
              08/22/2010 at 1:22 PM

              About that mag, etc. It hadn’t been six hours since a murdered guest was discovered in the home. Now, he may have been a “casual” friend, and you may be bored, but I’d think it might be a little gauche to ask for reading material under the circumstances.

              But why would you be bored? It would seem to be that in the retelling of the events that night, from JP and DW, no matter if you had already gone over the events 3 or 4 times already, it would seem that when you came to the point of seeing this bloody, dead or dying friend in your guest room, you’d utter something about the shock of it all, how unbelievable it was and is. Every time that part of the tale would be told, I’d think if it was a shock, that would be part of your tale. But neither guy seems to do that. Neither says anything about it being shocking, horrifying, Unreal. The only person who seems to really come upon a “surprise” is VZ–at least in individual recounting of what happened that night.

              • Clio
                08/22/2010 at 3:54 PM

                Well, Dylan is a reader and a life-long learner, and, in
                that regard, he was/is unlike Victor who seemed to prefer cable TV over a thoughtful essay. Now, usually, to me, that’s a good thing, but, in this case, I’m not so sure.

    • Clio
      08/23/2010 at 10:37 PM

      I think that Joe in this clip is the most revealing when he quickly (and almost breathlessly) insists that the three had no time to synthesize their stories on the couch. Why would he trot out that denial when no one had explicitly said that the three had cooked up their lines on the couch?

  22. Cat in Cleveland
    08/21/2010 at 9:54 PM

    Sorry for the new thread-my iPhone won’t let me respond to individual comments.

    If no play mat was in the home, I’ll take the word of those with knowledge of these things that it would be suspicious. We know one was not seized in the search. What we don’t know is whether those who performed the search would know what it was and would have taken it. They took Dylans comforter because they thought it had blood on it. I did not see where they took plastic bags, massage mats, or the like. Could the play mat have been something the highly skilled police missed? Yes, that’s sarcasm in my tone. I’m just wondering if they took the comforter and didn’t look too hard at anything else.

    • carolina
      08/21/2010 at 10:24 PM

      That’s a good point, but the litany of sex toys would indicate they emptied that closet to the floor. One would hope that if they found a large plastic tarp in the home where a murder seemed to have been bloodlessly committed, they might have a little lightbulb go off over their heads, but as you say, that might be giving them too much credit.

      • chilaw79
        08/22/2010 at 4:19 PM

        A large plastic tarp in the home might be suspect, but what if it had been moved elsewhere, such as a neighbor’s home or even the trunk of a car. It would seem to be critical to establish that such an item had been in Swann Street before much could be made of its absence.

        • 08/22/2010 at 4:22 PM

          The MPD was “on” that as to their own car. The search warrant asked for access to their car for items or for traces of blood or DNA. Neither was found.

          • Cat from Cleveland
            08/22/2010 at 6:17 PM

            The MPD did not search Sarah’s apartment for a few days, according to the warrants. I am assuming that MPD did not assign a round-the-clock sentry to the home. Question for anyone in law enforcement – could something have been “stashed” in Sarah’s apartment and removed after that night, but before the apartment was searched? Joe would know from his second year of law school that Sarah’s apartment would need a separate search warrant, with specific probable cause, but he would not know how long it would take for a judge to sign that warrant and whether there would be an opportunity to remove something before it arrived. . . I am, of course, engaging in total speculation here, as this is not my arena. Anyone?

            • LegallyConfused
              08/22/2010 at 6:48 PM

              Hmmm! Possibly, Joe had another reason for calling Sarah so early in the a.m. on Aug. 3. He told her not to go back to 1509 Swann.

              I thought it was out of concern for Sarah, but maybe he just did not want her (and any MPD members still hanging around) to discover his secret storage space.

              I think I read somewhere on the WMRW site that Sarah may never have returned to her basement apt. after Aug. 2.

              • carolina
                08/22/2010 at 7:08 PM

                Especially since Sarah could have easily given permission for them to search.

              • Clio
                08/22/2010 at 7:18 PM

                Miss Morgan reportedly took only a tooth brush with her to Tom and John’s: surely, she had to come back to Swann to get a fresh bra and/or girdle, at the very least. Even if she never spent another night at Swann, she still had to go back to the apartment to
                retrieve her belongings and furniture.

                But, due to the dramatic narrative of “heroism” told at Cosi, she probably and instinctually delayed that retrieval for a few days to help out her boys. So, the day of the funeral may have been the day of taking out the (most incriminating) garbage to a remote park or dump, preferably in the Old Dominion.

              • Cat from Cleveland
                08/22/2010 at 7:22 PM

                That is what came to my mind when I first read that one of them called Sarah and told her not to return, but didn’t tell her anything else. At that moment, making sure Sarah did not come home and get “frightened” should be the last thing on their minds. That’s why I looked to see when they searched her apartment. It would seem to be an error of enormous proportion if the MPD did not secure her apartment in some manner to ensure no one went in until it was searched, but then again. . . they didn’t interview neighbors until when? Does anyone know the protocol to secure adjacent property until its searched, or, is there any more information about this? Would it be a possible scenario that something was stashed in Sarah’s apartment, and removed later?

                • LegallyConfused
                  08/22/2010 at 7:56 PM

                  It’s certainly plausible as Joe is wont to say.

              • chilaw79
                08/22/2010 at 7:38 PM

                Assuming the summary of Sarah’s testimony is accurate, Sarah said Joe called her at 5:50 am and told her not to return to the house. He told her he, Victor, and Dylan were OK, but did not mention that Robert had been murdered.

                Sarah attributed Joe’s call to plumbing problems and went back to sleep.

                • Clio
                  08/22/2010 at 8:12 PM

                  Yes, having taken only a tooth brush to Tom and John’s, Sarah went back to sleep, probably in the same clothes that she had worn the day before. At Cosi, was she still wearing those same clothes? Gross, if so!

                  • Cat from Cleveland
                    08/22/2010 at 8:21 PM

                    Whenever she went back to the house to get a change of clothes, either the police did not ask her if they could search, or she refused to consent, because days later, MPD was granted a warrant to search her apartment. I do not recall seeing a list of what, if anything they seized. Police initially thought there was trace of blood on the door to the basement, but the FBI report (according to defense motions) found that to be a false positive.

                • Agatha
                  08/22/2010 at 8:20 PM

                  Sarah knows what happened before and after. I would expect the Tom – Joe spoke to during the questioning is the same Tom as the one Sarah stayed over night with to watch TV. So – I would expect that Tom shared immediately with Sarah that Robert was just killed in her home during an attempted robbery. She knew what was going on in her home home before the activities and after. Depending on the exact search warrant specs – whether her place requires a separate warrant or not … her space would seem to be a legally very convenient space to stash the missing playmat, cameras, bloody towels and clothing and any ‘toys’. I hope she clarifies when, why and how often she would depart to ‘watch TV’ so that she didn’t have to hear the ‘activities’ upstairs.

              • cat from Cleveland
                08/22/2010 at 10:28 PM

                Out of order, but a readable column. Another internet sight – it must be true, it’s on the internet ; ) – notes that Sarah Morgan retained Jonathan Rosen, a partner at Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo with regard to the murder.

                Can anyone verify?

                What does Ms Morgan do, anyway?

                • 08/22/2010 at 11:02 PM

                  Jonathan Rosen is not listed on Mintz’s site, under personnel listing. The one Rosen seems inappropriate (government affairs).

                • chilaw79
                  08/23/2010 at 12:58 AM

                  I think it was a smart move on her part to have an attorney. If I got called before a grand jury, I would want an attorney to explain the process, discuss any issues I might confront, and any legal jeopardy I might find myself in as a result.

                  • Bruce
                    08/23/2010 at 12:08 PM

                    Ok, Gloria:

                    Tell me you made up “Shook, Hardy &

                    “Shook” makes me think of shake & bake, “Hardy,”of course Hardy’s burgers and “Bacon,” well…..

                    Got to go. Need to eat lunch now.

        • AnnaZed
          08/22/2010 at 5:31 PM

          Maybe a brief examination of the year previous internet purchases is in order.

          Where’s your play mat Joe?

          As an aside, as a person in no way squeamish about anyone’s sexual tastes I have always loathed to appellations “toys” and “play” when applied to the accouterments of sexual adventure. They are so trivializing, they lack understanding of scale and intent, I really hate that.

          • Matt
            08/22/2010 at 11:56 PM

            I dont understand what you mean by that anna?

  23. sixdegrees
    08/21/2010 at 10:10 PM

    Wow. . .this video is chilling. This is not someone who found an old and dear friend inexplicably murdered in his house. This is someone who is attempting to control the narrative of the events away from what actually happened. . .the violation and murder of Robert Wone by someone already there. I do not think the events started with a planned murder, but that is how they ended.

    I appreciate reading all the comments. Rapt, you are right, his contempt for Robert is very telling and must be taken into account when trying to understand what happened. Bea, you nailed it: Joe is the boss.

  24. Clio
    08/22/2010 at 3:47 PM

    When Joe reported his statements about wanting the ambulance to come quickly, do you think that he was confusing his thoughts with what he said that he said? Or, was he trying to compensate for the silence in the background that he must have sensed would be on the 911 tape? Or, did he plead about the ambulance in a whisper that Victor’s acting had drowned out? Or, was he giving his audience what he thought they wanted to hear — like any good lawyer would do, even one from an allegedly “second-tier shop”?

  25. TT
    09/01/2010 at 12:42 PM

    “I told Kathy if I had anything to hide”, right Joe.

  26. susan
    08/28/2011 at 11:24 PM

    This has been covered before but I think it’s good to take a look at these videos after a break. Some things may stand out that didn’t stand out before. I’m only about one minute in and what stood out to me is how resolute Joe P. is about R. Wone being murdered by someone “in the process of attempting to rob us” when there’s not an iota of evidence known to him at that moment of any attempt at robbery. Not one. So why say that? Everyone is different and I don’t know what a “normal” reaction would be but he’s a guy that used words for a living and I wonder why no constant expression of being perplexed by the murder. He does have that one moment where he mentions it being like a hippo appearing (or whatever) but this is odd–at least to me.

  27. susan
    08/29/2011 at 1:49 AM

    “I have no doubt that ‘Mr. I’m gonna pawn something…’JP

    Sometimes he seems credible to me, other times he sounds like he’s on speed. But he says towards the end when talking about his brother how there’s nothing on the ground floor there to “hock” and yet we all know that a few months later his brother broke into the house, stole things from the ground floor and “hocked” them.

    • Bill Orange
      08/29/2011 at 8:25 AM

      “Sometimes he seems credible to me, other times he sounds like he’s on speed.”

      That’s pretty much what he sounds like all the time.

  28. susan
    08/29/2011 at 10:56 PM

    Thanks, Bill O.

    I’ve had this impression with each of the three that for the most part they “sound” believable to me. That means nothing as it is a lay opinion of one person. But this is still fascinating to watch over again and again, I recommend it to anyone who is still looking for clues, etc.

    Still listening to this one tape, this one part–after he mentions handling the knife–sounds odd to me:

    At 1;04 something, after he mentions being “an ass” for touching the knife he says for one second he didn’t care what he touched or “what a mess the place was…”

    First, by all MPD accounts, the place wasn’t “a mess.” But most of all, who would even think of a “mess” at that time, and mention that for one second they didn’t think of it? That to me stood out as a bit bizarre. Maybe after that “second” is when he started to “freak” out as he told Tara Ragone. But what mess? Waiting to hear about that. MPD guy: You don’t seem to have been listening as well as you could have. That would have been a great time for a question. But now, I believe, you have moved to Florida, haven’t you? Is that Det. Waid? If so, maybe you will hang out at the Pure Energy and when you get a chance, ask away.

Comments are closed.