JP VCB 2 of 3

Monday Movie Matinee

This installment of the Joe Price Anacostia Dialogue is actually the last thirty minutes of his final hour-long interview during the mid-morning hours after Robert’s murder. 

Joe Price at the VCB. Courtesy William Hennessey

Reliable reader Gloria helped us out with the time stamps on this and the earlier segment

This interview began in the 9:00am hour, well after the so called “Mercedes meeting.”  That sedan summit, according to the prosecution, occurred in Swann Street neighbor’s Scott Hixson’s car while Price and Zaborsky sat, conferred and “got on message” waiting for Ward to emerge from his interrogation and lie detector test.

At four minutes in (on the tape counter) Waid leaves the room and Price sits for the next several minutes, then at 17:43 he takes a phone call from an unidentified person. 

A few minutes later he dials a number, no answer, then knocks on the interrogation room door, no answer. 

Then at 21:45, Price calls his brother Michael and we hear half of that brief conversation in which the older brother is given a phone number.  He dials it but is interrupted by Detective Brian Kasul. 

The first thing Price tells Kasul is that he wants to see Ward.  Kasul spoke with Price briefly just to confirm that he was there voluntarily.  The interview was over at 10:30am.  Price got up to leave and on his way out asked, “What’s the story with Dylan?” 

Price’s actual first recorded interview with MPD Detective Daniel Wagner (of “Come to Jesus” fame), will screen in the coming days, so part 1 will come last.  Chalk it up to New Math.  The tape follows and the interview transcript can be found here (Part II).


Joseph Price MPD Interrogation Video 2 – Time: 00:26

102 comments for “JP VCB 2 of 3

  1. boofoc
    08/30/2010 at 1:10 PM

    How can the interested observer reasonably account for JP’s total calm, knowing – as we do now – that he has just, within the past 9 or 10 hours, witnessed (at the very least) the brutal, bloody murder of a friend. It almost appears as though he’s waiting for a bus; iritated, perhaps: a constant shaking of the right foot on a crossed leg. It would seem as if he is intently observing with abject approval the third act of a play he is producing.

    • Bea
      08/30/2010 at 1:37 PM

      Agree, boofoc. This does not appear to be a man leveled by emotion and grief. While there is no ‘one way’ to behave, none of the three seem all that moved by the events of the evening in the way I’d imagine. Victor expresses some emotion but of the ‘my life will never be the same’ variety.

      At one point when Joe is alone, he flicks his hand upward – a gesture which seems to illustrate his thinking at the moment – my read of it “c’mon, what do you want from me?” or “I’ve told you already” (in that vein). It’s a distancing gesture, and I take it to mean he’s practicing it. I may well be reading far too much into this, but it struck me this way.

      • 08/30/2010 at 10:35 PM

        Check 1:13 in the tape when Joe is alone and is bobbing his head and shoulders. To me, it was like he was going through his story in his head. “and then we did, and then he said, and then this… OK, got it all down now.”

        Comparing each guy’s “quiet time” when left to stew in an empty room, it appeared to me that Victor was thinking: “oh, Lordie, what a mess”; Joe was rehearsing: “OK, go through the story again, step by step. Da da dah dah. That’s it; got it cold. Now get me oudda here.” And Dylan? “Hmmm, how’d I end up here?”

        More of my thoughts below, about Joe’s use of cellphone.

        • denton
          08/30/2010 at 10:56 PM

          Gloria – I’m with you with all 3 readings that you have described. Joe’s agitation when he is by himself and the use of cellphone(s) (seems like he uses more than one) is a cop out, and, perhaps, to keep Dylan on the same page.

        • denton
          09/05/2010 at 7:24 PM

          . . . check this out!

          CDinDC (Boycott BP) on 08/30/2010 at 8:24 PM
          Can anyone tell what Joe says at 1:13:43?

          He is alone in the room and he says something to himself. He repeats it.

          Bea on 08/30/2010 at 9:18 PM
          CD, I tried a few times. My first guess was “Victor, Victor” . . .

          CDinDC (Boycott BP) on 08/31/2010 at 12:00 PM
          Bea, I listened again . . . and it certainly sounds like he says “victor” and then something after that.

          Gloria on 08/30/2010 at 10:35 PM
          Check 1:13 in the tape when Joe is alone . . .

          denton on 09/04/2010 at 12:46 PM
          I forgot where read . . . during mid interview and while JP was by himself, JP mumbled “Victor, Victor.”

          Clio on 09/04/2010 at 4:43 PM
          If Culuket indeed said that, . . . Victor who could do them all in.

          Deb on 09/05/2010 at 3:55 PM
          He mumbles something about that time as well.

          I think there is a spontaneous clue here. Joe (mis)led Dylan into doing something stupid to the point of killing R.Wone that night. Joe was too smartass to kill R.Wone by himself. Joe played a good guy “I pulled the knife out, cleaned it, and placed it on the nightstand.”

          Joe worried ONLY about Dylan during this interview. If what Joe’s mumble was “Victor …,” as Clio wrote (until we know for sure what was said) – “Victor could do them all in.”

          BUT Victor NEVER going to DO THEM ALL IN because Victor was not going to lose Joe!

          Gosh! Dylan did it (to please Joe), and Joe was mastering him what to do.

      • Deb
        09/05/2010 at 3:55 PM

        He mumbles something about that time as well.

    • denton
      08/30/2010 at 10:49 PM

      Joe is calm when he is talking. He looks worried and agitated when he is by himself. What’s the problem, Joe?

      • Deb
        09/05/2010 at 4:22 PM

        Devil’s Advocate, here — I am EXACTLY like that (maybe even worse) when in the curtained off area of the ER with my kids. Change the curtains to walls and locked doors . . .

        • denton
          09/05/2010 at 9:34 PM

          . . . but you were just trying to manage your kids, your life. You didn’t try to hurt anybody.

  2. boofoc
    08/30/2010 at 1:14 PM

    Perhaps bears repeating; but three times? Sorry.

  3. boofoc
    08/30/2010 at 2:27 PM

    Yea, Bea, “c’mon what do you want from me;” like I’m running this show. NO sign of fear whatsoever. That phenomenon amazes!

  4. Craig
    08/30/2010 at 3:52 PM

    Just how many phones did Price have with him that night? Why was he carrying Zaborsky’s? Why was Ward not allowed to bring his phone (or so his criminal defense team said in motions they filed)?

    • Clio
      08/30/2010 at 9:35 PM

      Yes, Craig, what did we all do before cell phones and diet Coke? That ring tone was pretty boring, I must say.

      Why would Joe not tuck in his shirt? Did he want to come off as more youthful or rakish for the camera?

      Were Detective Waid and company watching Joe via the camera and/or a possible two-way mirror off-camera? Probably. If so, I wonder what they thought of their oddly impatient “witness” with all of those phones.

    • 08/30/2010 at 10:47 PM

      Cell phone, Craig? Bingo. It’s yet to be mentioned (in earlier posts), but am I the only one here who is pissed that Joe kept his cell phone on WHILE being interviewed? I admit to being a banshee about people not turning off their cellphones during meetings, concerts, movies, etc. But to me, keeping the cellphone on during an interview with a detective about a murder in my house would be the height of arrogance and rudeness.

      But maybe that’s just me. I’m the person in the next car, giving you dirty looks when you’re talking on a handheld cellphone while driving.

      • susan
        08/30/2010 at 10:54 PM


        I was surprised he didn’t say “excuse me” or something to that effect, especially since the detective explicitly asked him to Turn It Off at the beginning of the interview.

      • chilaw79
        08/30/2010 at 11:24 PM

        Is Joe sending texts during the time when he is not being interviewed? It looks like it to me.

        Permitting Joe to keep the cell phone certainly obviates any claim that he is being isolated or not permitted to talk to any one during the interview process. The initial petulance displayed when Joe is told he cannot speak to Dylan is interesting, as is Joe’s reaction when the detective explains to him that Dylan can speak for himself.

        Did Joe have a cell phone during the first interview? I guess we will soon see. I think he may have gotten the cell phone from Victor in the car in between interviews. Cell phone = power.

        • susan
          08/31/2010 at 12:01 AM

          It certainly looks like he’s texting. I imagine he persuaded V to give him the phone at some point with the argument that he had the atty contacts, etc. Wonder if he was outright lying to the officer when he said D’s atty was trying to contact him. I think J was making a blanket statement about whatever atty he may have made contact with as being D’s atty as well.

          Notice that J also went out of his way to go over that blood on one finger story.

          • carolina
            08/31/2010 at 8:09 PM

            If Dyl had an attorney and that attorney wanted to see Dylan, there is no one that could have stopped him (or her). Joe is full of it.

            • susan
              08/31/2010 at 10:09 PM

              I’m sure you are right, Carolina. In fact, re the phone records, there would be “proof” right there if a call came in from “Dylan’s attorney.” And did he already have a personal atty? If not, when did he get one? Btw changing from the robe and nothing into clothes? In the ride to the station? During the mercedes confab?

            • Bea
              09/01/2010 at 2:05 AM

              Huh, huh?

              Want to try to rebound quickly and throw in a real comment or are you really itching to get banned?

              • 09/01/2010 at 1:40 PM

                Explanation: Late last night, someone named “huh” with a brown/white quilt posted a brief, profane message. I alerted the editors via email, and they quickly removed the post. (And hopefully, Mr. or Ms. Huh is now banned.)

                • Susan
                  09/01/2010 at 1:55 PM

                  Thanks, Gloria. I appreciate that. I wondered how that post could have been for me. I was just going to post and ask Bea what was up and then I saw your message. Thanks for clearing that up. Much appreciated.

                  • Bea
                    09/01/2010 at 3:34 PM

                    Yes, my comment was meant for “huh” whose comment was full of nasty vitriol – not that it was clear just who he/she was targeting with the insults. Good riddance.

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

          The cell phone records from that time at the VCB must be fascinating reading. I wonder who he’s calling, aside from the obvious-Michael, Sarah, Lisa, Scott and AF.

          • Clio
            08/31/2010 at 10:04 PM

            Maybe he was “dialing” the following: His mom still wearing those combat boots after all these years? Scott’s trick whom Joe and Dyl had just recently poached? Mr. Hinton to add a quotable quip to the diarist’s latest delicious entries? Deacon to see if the latest issue of Bound and Gagged had arrived at Lambda Rising? The list of possibilities is endless!

            • carolina
              09/01/2010 at 4:44 PM

              It’s curious to me that Louis said MP was home in bed and if I am not mistaken, somewhat under the weather. Am I mis-remembering that? I’ll have to go look it up.

              I ask because MP doesn’t show any signs of being ill. He went to see the nephews ride bikes earlier and then was up at the crack of whomever to do Joe’s bidding.

              • chilaw79
                09/01/2010 at 10:11 PM

                I went back to the trial testimony. If I read it correctly, Hinton did not testify as to either his or Michael’s whereabouts on the night on which Robert Wone was killed. Most of his testimony concerned the burglary. It looked as though Hinton was concerned about his own potential criminal liability because his attorney (Barry Pollack) raised the Fifth Amendment issue and the questions asked were limited as a result.

                According to the write-up, Hinton was not asked where either he or Michael was on the night of August 2, 2006, on direct, cross, or re-direct.

                • chilaw79
                  09/01/2010 at 10:22 PM

                  In going back in time to look at the materials on Hinton, I re-read the posts about the domestic disturbance beef (several months before August, 2006)between Hinton and Michael Price (after Michael allegedly took money from Hinton) that wound up with Hinton being arrested on assault charges,Victor Zaborsky posting a $2500 bond for Hinton, Hinton taking up residence at 1509 Swann Street, and Joe Price representing Hinton in criminal court in Montgomery County, Maryland, along with a colleague from Arent Fox.

                  This case is so complicated it is very hard to keep track of all the comings and goings at 1509 Swann Street.

      • AnnaZed
        09/01/2010 at 9:54 AM

        Pissed isn’t exactly my reaction, more like amazed ~ astounded. The arrogance required to do something like that, and he obviously thinks it’s his right and his due, is breathtaking really.

      • Deb
        09/05/2010 at 4:28 PM

        Mine is ALWAYS on — except airplanes — but it’s always on vibrate. I will peek at it during meetings, etc., but usually with the explanation of the fact that I am the single parent of 4 boys . . . if they or their schools, camps, sports coaches, what-have-you are contacting me, I am interrupting whatever it may be to verify they are ok.

        The question nagging at me is why is Joe the only one of the 3 who even has a cell phone with him, not to mention the fact that it would seem he is in possession of Victor’s cell phone?

    • Deb
      09/05/2010 at 4:24 PM

      I have a nagging feeling that perhaps he confiscated the phones of the others to prevent contact with a larger support structure. Who knows?

      • Clio
        09/05/2010 at 7:05 PM

        I think your hunch may be correct here, Deb. As an ancient and childless goddess, I loathe cell phones, and I only got one last year for any automobile mishaps. It stays off in the car, especially when I am driving!

        Yet these three strike me as being perfectly at home with the technological innovations of the Information Revolution: so why was Joe the only one with the phones?

  5. Rapt in MD
    08/30/2010 at 4:04 PM

    Okay, so my reaction is more of the same as the first tape – I just see someone who completely feels they are dictating the outcome of the mess they have found themselves in. And by mess, I mean something that I believe was too unseemly to have been pre-planned/intentional. I think in his arrogance, Joe truly thought he could assault Robert and have a cup of coffee with him the next day.

    I see more missed opportunities here by the detective(s). I understand that allowing someone to spew details is a technique in and of itself, but I would have loved to have seen the detective start a lightning round of questions involving the patio, the shower, the towels, the blood. I think if Joe had been peppered with crazy questions like – “do you think Robert left the bedroom and was on your patio?”, “do you think he got attacked on the patio and then went upstairs?” we might have seen him add some non-rehearsed details to his story because he thought they had some other evidence. I think they could have tripped him up. Hindsight.

    I just see Joe again filling in every anticipated question with a detail that his racing mind has formulated. When he talked about Victor inquiring about the time stamp of 11:43 I just had to laugh. It’s so transparent. One other thing that struck me, and this goes to my personal experience following the death of my father, was that when Joe said he was going to have breakfast with Robert the next day to discuss the pamphlets – he showed no emotion. I remember that in the days following my father’s death I could not keep from busting out crying anytime I brought up something that was going to happen in the future because it hit me in the face that he was gone forever. There is just zero emotion coming from this guy except for disdain, impudence and exasperation. I would also have expected him mutter something like “oh, poor Kathy” or “how is Kathy doing?”

    Asking about Dylan and not Victor was again very telling and I’m wondering if it was because he was so in love with Dylan or whether he thought Dylan was most likely to screw up the story because of his Ambien trance and the fact that Dyl had one foot out the door already anyway…

    Creepily fascinating.

    • Bea
      08/30/2010 at 4:34 PM

      Hey Rapt – similar thoughts. When Joe says “I touched his neck and wrist to check for a pulse” WHY DIDN’T the cop ask if he FELT one at any point? That could have helped with pushing back against the defense’s theory that Robert died instantly. And if the “intruder” had snuck in and stabbed Robert without waking him, how did Robert “move down” the sheets as Joe suggested? Frankly, that statement seems at odds with the evidence, that Robert was lying on top of folded-down sheets at a diagonal. I’ve always found that suspect – who lays down on TOP of sheets folded back halfway?

      • Rapt in MD
        08/30/2010 at 4:39 PM

        The sheet thing hit me too, Bea. And – about the third time I’ve heard the “lot of blood” comment. I don’t know – maybe to some people any blood is a lot, but this just doesn’t synch for me. I think the blood left in the towels, rags, etc.

        PS – notice I did not say playmat – oops, nevermind.

    • chilaw79
      08/31/2010 at 10:49 AM

      Or maybe Joe saw Victor leaving Robert’s bedroom as Joe descended the stairs.

      I think I would be more unsettled by seeing a stranger who had died of natural causes than the trouple were about seeing Robert Wone stabbed to death in their home.

  6. chilaw79
    08/30/2010 at 5:03 PM

    Two things strike me right off the top: first, Joe clearly is impatient; and, second, Joe knows where the camera is and tries to avoid it.

    I also have to say I found his invocation of Kathy Wone as an excuse for leaving to be a little gross.

    I am having a hard time making up my mind whether the police detectives just wanted to leave Joe on his own and see what he would do. While tempted to do a reverse look-up of the phone number Joe repeats, I have not done it. Anyone do it? I think they may have wanted to catch Joe in an unguarded moment of conversation, but Joe was very conscious of the camera and recording capabilities.

    I am not sure to make of the little flair-up at the end. The detective really is pretty good on making sure Joe understands he is free to go and came back in voluntarily, albeit at the request of Detective Waid (Brian, as Joe refers to him). I am not sure whether Joe actually had an attorney at this point or was just bluffing. He never gives the name of his attorney (or Dylan’s) on the videotape.

    I don’t believe that Joe is sure of himself on the legalities. I would be interested in hearing comments from KiKi or another criminal defense lawyer on this score. More generally, what would you have counseled in this situation?

    • Bea
      08/30/2010 at 7:51 PM

      Hey Chilaw, the phone number is Detective Waid’s – since it was post-knocking, I’m guessing it was a way to try to signal he was ‘done.’

      I suspect Joe was bluffing about all the attorney talk. I’m surprised he didn’t say at the end that HE was representing Dylan on the spot as a means to get to see him. It sure seems like he’s concerned that Dylan may be talking too much – possibly he is just worried about the love-of-his-life, but he doesn’t seem surprised that Victor is free but Dylan is still busy. Why not? One could say that because Dylan was on the second floor that that made him more suspect than Victor, but I’m having trouble deciphering this aspect.

      Each time I see these tapes I think that Joe has changed physically SO much (and the weight gain isn’t likely much pound-wise but the frog-neck thing is disarmingly different, almost like it couldn’t have been within a four year time span). Victor’s and Dylan’s hair may have receded a bit more, but neither looks THAT different.

      • Boltz3000
        08/30/2010 at 8:40 PM

        I agree, the physical transmogrification is remarkable. It’s interesting that you describe Joe as developing a “frog-neck,” which makes me think of the lipodystrophy associated with certain protease inhibitors used to treat HIV. Who knows. Were you wondering the same thing?

        • Bea
          08/30/2010 at 8:43 PM

          I hadn’t thought of that. I just assumed it was a combination of eating instead of doing drugs and just a short-stick draw in the aging process game.

          • Clio
            08/30/2010 at 10:11 PM

            Yes, Bea, who knew that Dorian Gray would reappear as a video star, but, then again, the superb Hennessey sketches do not lie either!

            • Bea
              08/31/2010 at 11:55 AM

              Very well said!

      • Cat from Cleveland
        08/30/2010 at 8:47 PM

        I haven’t watched it yet, but reading it, here’s my read:

        It sounds like he thinks Dylan is going to be arrested. He isn’t asking about Victor because he’s not concerned that Victor is going to be arrested. Each time I read it, I get the feeling that he believes Dylan did something for which he will be arrested and will need a lawyer. I can’t pinpoint anything specific, just the way he keeps asking about Dylan. . .

        • Bea
          08/30/2010 at 9:21 PM

          That’s my guess too, that it’s not just normal concern but more. If Joe was involved, he’d know for sure; if Joe was indeed upstairs for most of (I personally doubt this) then maybe he doesn’t really know what Dylan did. Either way, he’s very concerned that Dylan may be arrested.

          • Clio
            08/30/2010 at 9:50 PM

            Or, one could think that Joe was simply pretending to be concerned about Dyl in order for Dyl to take the rap. Remember his subtle (and occasionally not-so-subtle) feints pointing at (and directing the cops to) both “the love of his life” and his younger brother Michael.

            Joe cares about his own freedom first and foremost in this tape: if Dyl had to be sacrificed, oh well, but he had better not have ratted on Culuket!

        • denton
          08/30/2010 at 10:28 PM

          … or Joe wants to make sure Dylan (a partner in crime? or not?) is on the “same page.”

      • chilaw79
        08/30/2010 at 10:08 PM

        Realistically, even if Joe said Joe was Dylan’s counsel, unless Dylan said it first, I am not sure it would mean anything. Also, it seems pretty obvious legally that Joe cannot be both a witness and counsel in the same case consistent with the ethics rules in DC.

        The questions asked in the police interviews make it pretty clear that the police knew Joe could not provide a full alibi for Dylan. You can’t be both in the bedroom with Victor and downstairs with Dylan. If anyone said anything different (other than I know my friends and they could not kill Robert), the story would fall apart.

  7. CDinDC (Boycott BP)
    08/30/2010 at 8:24 PM

    Can anyone tell what Joe says at 1:13:43?

    He is alone in the room and he says something to himself. He repeats it.

    • Bea
      08/30/2010 at 9:18 PM

      CD, I tried a few times. My first guess was “Victor, Victor” but I don’t think that’s right. Someone with better auditory refinement will have to give it a shot . . .

      • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
        08/31/2010 at 12:00 PM

        Bea, I listened again from my work computer (better sound) and it certainly sounds like he says “victor” and then something after that. Hmmm.

        He also says this seconds after he “acknowledges” that he is on camera. You can see him look up, directly at the camera.

        I wonder if he muttered that/something on purpose.

        • Bea
          08/31/2010 at 5:28 PM

          I suspect it was intentional (and calculating) – as you noted, he did look directly into the camera.

          • Clio
            08/31/2010 at 10:33 PM

            How appropriate! Joe mumbles a self-conscious tribute to wifey, while “Brian” may be chomping on a doughnut off stage. Now that’s “cold comfort” from the still “very active” investigation!

  8. susan
    08/30/2010 at 10:44 PM

    I don’t know what to think about this taped interview. At times he seems believable, but that’s my impression. Everyone has their own. I’m not a criminal analyst/profiler as most of us here are not. I will say he appears to have a case of the “jimmy legs” (Thanks, “Seinfeld”). Even when he’s resting his bottle of soda on the knee it is still bouncing.

    Regarding his seeming lack of emotion, after about 24 hrs of wakefulness that might explain it. Or repeating the story over and again might explain it. About getting attys so soon–well that one officer did basically accuse him that someone was “going to Jesus tonight.”

    I’m not making excuses for JP, just pointing out that his behavior could be interpreted in a number of ways.

    About his K. Wone statement. Does anyone know if he ended up speaking with her that next day or even seeing her? We know he called to say RW was on the way to GW and what he said is in contention (stabbed in the back or bed). But did he follow up on what he said in this interview–that he wanted “to see Robert’s wife” or something to that effect?

    I think it’s clear he knows he’s being recorded in that room even when the officer is absent. It’s just interesting how close he seems to his brother despite their fraught relationship. The brother beats him up growing up, steals, borrows money. Wonder if they were both estranged from their parents.

    Re asking about DW, he almost seems protective of him, as if he is vulnerable and can’t look out for himself. Maybe some of that’s true as he seems the only one who took a polygraph. But, did they ask any of the other guys? We see both VZ and JP end their interviews and take the initiative to stop them. Did DW do the same? He did agree to the poly though.

  9. Onyx
    08/31/2010 at 12:34 AM

    OK, so this is my very first post on this site, but I’ve been following this case and reading everyone else’s insightful comments for a long time. While nothing about this tragedy makes sense, and part of me is terrified that we’ll never find out the truth, I have come to a conclusion that may or may not resonate with all you veterans out there.

    I think Joe knows what really happened that night, and Dylan and Victor do not.

    I know many will disagree with me, but here is my reasoning.

    1) The time frame is simply too short for something that horrific and violent to happen, for three different people to get together on their stories, for three different (and seemingly kind) men with no known criminal history to justify a cold-blooded murder to themselves in just a few short minutes and then present their false stories to the police with almost unwavering resolve. If all three, or maybe even two were involved, someone would’ve cracked. Over hours of questioning, there would’ve been minute divergences in their stories as they scrapped for details that would’ve damned them.

    The only explanation I can come up with is that two of them are telling the truth, and the other has tailored his false story to meld with their credible ones. If only one person had to justify the murder to himself, hold it together, and not screw up the story, the chances of compatible testimonies across the three are way more likely. IMHO, that person is Joe Price.

    2) Joe’s story is the only one that changed. The others’ never did. Not one inch. I know Joe claims that he never said he found Robert on the patio, but there is no reason for Diane Durham to make something like that up. Especially since Robert was on the 2nd floor when she arrived… if she was going to have a memory lapse, it wouldn’t be something as specific as Joe saying he found Robert on a different floor. Couple that with the lack of blood in the guestroom and the traces of blood in the patio drain, and I think it’s pretty clear that Joe screwed up by telling a more near-to-the-truth version in the beginning and then recanting. To me, this is one of the most important details in the entire case.

    3) Their demeanors during the taped interviews. I’ve watched them all, and Dylan and Victor are clearly distressed. While they might not portray the stereotypical affect of a devastated mourner, they are scared, sighing, holding their heads in their hands, shaken during the questioning, etc. Dylan, especially, seems genuinely baffled and depressed. Joe, on the other hand, is BORED. Just straight-up bored. He taps his foot, he beats a little diddy with his water cap, he checks his watch, he checks his phone, he knocks on the door, he looks around the room, he checks his phone again. His only sigh is a clear indication that this whole voluntary questioning thing is taking far too long. This is not a devastated person who just lost a good friend. This a a self-righteous, calculating, manipulative person who has better things to do. Who’s inconvenienced. He’s the only one of the three that seems completely unaffected by the depth and tragedy of what’s occurred. He talks about the events of the night as if he were recounting a knitting marathon at the local old folks home.

    4) Joe was ADAMANT that Dylan and Victor were not involved (as someone would be who knew the real truth), but both Dylan and Victor allowed for the possibility in their testimonies (as in, “I can’t believe either of them did it — if that’s the truth, I’d be absolutely shocked”).

    I can’t begin to surmise what actually took place in that house. Maybe there was a fifth person that Joe let in through the front door, and Robert came downstairs at the wrong time. Maybe Joe came down to see Robert after his shower and something crazy happened. Hell, maybe Joe joined Robert in the shower and things escalated from there. I really have no idea, but honestly, the possibilities are many.

    I genuinely believe that the chances of three guilty people pulling this off for years, and through a grueling criminal trial, are slim. One person with narcissistic controlling tendencies and a disturbingly unaffected conscience could definitely make it happen.

    At least, that’s my opinion.

    • chilaw79
      08/31/2010 at 1:14 AM

      I found your thoughts very interesting and well thought out.

      When you say Dylan and Victor did not “know” what happened, do you mean they were not directly involved in stabbing Robert or never learned who did? In other words, do you think Dylan and Victor “know” who did it now (even if they may not have witnessed it or been involved)? I guess I am wondering what you think their level of involvement is (if any).

      I would have a really hard time sleeping comfortably next to someone I thought had stabbed someone else to death.

    • Bea
      08/31/2010 at 2:18 AM

      Welcome, Onyx! I too find your comments intriguing. Will mull them over – any notion as to why Joe is so concerned with Dylan? If playing out your theory, would assume it’s because he really is concerned that cops will assume Dylan guilty since he was the only one on the second floor. Do you think Victor was told to say Joe was with him? I assume whether it was Joe or Joe/Dylan that Victor coming downstairs and screaming was true but have always suspected that Joe’d been downstairs for some time. Thoughts?

      • Onyx
        08/31/2010 at 3:00 AM

        ChiLaw, I know this sounds crazy, and most will disagree, but I’m going to argue that Dylan and Victor still don’t know for sure what happened that night or who’s responsible. Even now. I’m guessing they have their suspicions, but I think they wanted to believe in Joe’s innocence so badly that they never pursued it.

        Imagine if this happened to you and your two best friends. You’ve known and lived with them for years, trusted them, loved them even. You wake up one night, under the influence of a sleeping aid that you’ve just taken (which applies to both Dylan and Victor), to find a stabbed person in your house. To the best of your knowledge, the other two have just woken up as well. And they both claim their innocence wholeheartedly for years on end. Not only that, but there’s no earthly reason for them to have done it. They are both sane, successful, well-liked people and Robert was a good guy. Wouldn’t every fiber in your being want to believe your friends? Even if there was no other rational explanation for what happened, wouldn’t you keep holding on?

        I’m not claiming that Dylan and Victor are saints by any stretch, but there’s a huge difference between recreational drug use/weird fetish sex habits and cold blooded murder. And I stand by my biggest argument, which is that three seemingly normal guys would have a very tough time getting through this thing without breaking down if all three of them were lying.

        Bea, it’s possible Joe would’ve been hung up on Dylan because he knew Dylan would be the most likely suspect. Even though (if my theory is correct) Joe has some serious personality issues, I think he cared about Dylan and realized he’d put him in a seriously sticky situation with the way this whole thing played out. If I had committed a terrible crime and lied about it, I would still probably go out of my way to make sure my innocent friends (family) didn’t go down for it.

        I realize there are still huge holes in this theory. Why did one report say they all looked freshly showered? If Joe was downstairs with Robert, then Victor had to be lying at least a little (unless Joe crept back upstairs and slipped into bed before Victor woke up). How could one person clean up so much so fast? And the list goes on. However, my problem with this whole entire case is that I can’t think of a single theory that’s not shredded with holes. Not one. I will keep trying, but of all of them so far, this is the one that I continue to come back to. Especially when I re-watch those interviews.

        • Emily
          08/31/2010 at 6:29 AM

          This is where you’ve lost me.

          I’m prepared to believe that Victor knew absolutely nothing about anything that was going on up until the time he walked downstairs and spontaneously screamed at the sight of a dead/dying Robert and Joe (and possibly Dylan) standing over him.

          I’m prepared to believe that Dylan may have known nothing up until the point where Joe called him to come and see how he’d set Robert up or some such, maybe as a “surprise” for Dylan. I’m even prepared to believe that Dylan may have discovered the situation just as Victor had.

          So basically I’ll accept that both Victor and Dylan may have had no pre-meditation of any act against Robert whereas Joe did.

          However I find it difficult to believe that Victor and Dylan didn’t know exactly what had happened shortly before/after Robert died and that they didn’t conspire with Joe to get their stories, er, straight before emergency services were contacted.

          I find the stories of the trouple to be too troublingly dovetailed for them to be the spontaneous accounts of 3 people simply relating their recollection of events.

          So whether Victor or Dylan were involved in the set-up I believe they were certainly involved in the cover-up, and, regardless of how much delusional denial they may be capable of, they have not told the truth about what they know about that night.

          • Rapt in MD
            08/31/2010 at 11:22 AM

            This is a great, thought provoking dialogue. I agree that Victor knew nothing until his curiosity got the best of him and he came downstairs and screamed. This is Vic’s part of the cover up…when he said Joe was in bed with him until they heard the grunts, he was lying. He found Joe sitting over Robert’s body.

            I have a hard time thinking Robert was a surprise treat for Dylan because the e-mails between Joe and Dylan about adding a “third” to their group did not sound like they were met with much enthusiasm from Dylan. Remember he gave a wishy washy “I guess we can try” to Joe.

            I’m agreeing with Onyx (welcome) that Joe did the entire thing on his own because of the compressed time. I agree that this detail alone is why the story has withstood the years because it is really Joe’s story, and Dylan and Victor did not have to remember very much. Dylan really did hear a scream from Victor and stumbled out of his room in a sleeping pill stupor. If he wandered back in his room like the detectives said, he was probably trying to hide something that is inconsequential to this case.

            I think Joe did not come to the door to get Robert when he arrived because he was still setting things up to incapacite him and carry out the assault. I think Victor probably had a sick feeling something was going to go on because he had been kept out of the loop that Robert was even coming until that very night, but I still don’t think he or Dylan knew what Joe had planned and I don’t think they know the actual details even now.

            I agree with Chili that it would be hard to continue to live with someone you thought was a murderer, so what if Joe told them that someone else had come in and joined in the games with Robert and that that is the person who actually did the killing? I have no idea who that person might have been, but it would explain how they have been able to stay with Joe if they thought the murder did not happen by his own hand.

            • Onyx
              08/31/2010 at 12:27 PM

              “I agree that this detail alone is why the story has withstood the years because it is really Joe’s story, and Dylan and Victor did not have to remember very much.”

              That is exactly my reasoning. I just really feel that if all three had to remember something completely false, it would’ve unraveled somewhere along the line.

        • chilaw79
          08/31/2010 at 9:30 AM

          My biggest problem with the scenario you suggest is that all three defendants never permitted the police to interview them further and interposed lawyers between themselves and the police. Also, why was Dylan so fearful of Michael Price at the time of the burglary?

          At least one scenario I have considered is that Michael went to Swann Street, let himself in with his key, and stabbed Robert. This is complete supposition, but it provides a fairly consistent explanation for the entry, knowledge of the Swann Street premises, and the motivation of Joe to cover up. The hard part with this is motive. I have thought of at least three: one is that Michael (assuming he did the stabbing) thought he was stabbing Dylan; the alternative is that Michael knew he was stabbing Robert and did it because of some perceived slight of Joe; and the last is that Michael was part of the cover-up.

          Why would Michael be upset with Dylan? Again supposition, but Michael apparently had visited with one of the boys and seemed to be excited by the prospect. Maybe Michael perceived Dylan as a home wrecker who was upsetting the family life of Joe and Victor.

          Or, perhaps, Michael (who engaged in an unseemly scuffle with the police officer at Robert’s funeral) was on the verge of some sort of meltdown and just lot it, culminating in the binge behavior observed after the murder.

          Obviously, Michael and Joe are close, even though Joe went out of his way in the police interview to gratuitously disparage his brother, although he did not spill the beans about Michael’s access to Swann Street.

          As you can see, I am still confused by all of this and able to consider a lot of theories.

          In some ways, your view that Joe did the stabbing (assuming I interpret your views correctly) makes some sense, since I do think stabbing is a personal crime and Joe had the closest relationship with Robert. I can tell you that a lot of prospective jurors will have a hard time thinking a lawyer would do this (having tried several cases against lawyers who were in fact guilty–it seems to me jurors engage in thinking that it would be so stupid for a successful lawyer to engage in bad behavior, the lawyer-defendants has a built-in edge with jurors–which is why I like to try the cases to a judge).

          • xxx
            08/31/2010 at 11:59 AM

            My suspicion, too, has been that Michael was the one who stabbed Robert. He used his key to come through the front door, and then he left with a good part of the evidence with him. Joe knows this, but the other two don’t (they just know what Joe told them).

            Was there ever an air-tight alibi established for Michael?

            • chilaw79
              08/31/2010 at 12:03 PM

              I am not sure how air-tight the alibi is, but Michael’s lover allegedly said they were at home in bed at the time the murder allegedly occurred (sometime between 10:30 and midnight on August 2, 2006).

            • 08/31/2010 at 12:25 PM

              Here’s my hangup with the “Michael done it” theory: If you want to protect Michael, why would you call him to show up at the site of the early morning interviews and at Robert’s funeral? Both places were teeming with cops, so it would draw attention to Michael’s existence (and as a prime person to interview) and to his nonreliability and volatility. With all their really solid, responsible friends, they didn’t need to call on Michael to serve as their proxy. (Get Joe’s wallet from Lisa and get phone number on a card in there.)

              I don’t ever remember any of the 3, after being kept in isolation for many minutes when they had time to think, ever saying to the detectives — upon their return — “while you were gone, I remembered that ….” or “I was thinking, you might want to have your guys check out ….” Again, none of them were being particularly cooperative, when to do so could have resulted in possible clues. Especially when their intruder story clearly had no traction.

              • chilaw79
                08/31/2010 at 1:45 PM

                It’s just a theory, but bringing Michael to the police station may be part of Joe’s jujitsu moves–like telling the detectives he would not be talking to them if he was not completely innocent in all this even though Joe said he was risking getting his ass kicked by his lawyer in doing so.

                Dump on Michael in the interview and bring him to the VCB. It could be part of Joe’s need to maintain power and control over everyone.

                • Phil
                  08/31/2010 at 4:30 PM

                  I actually found the judge pretty convincing in this regard–she didn’t think Michael did it because the 3 didn’t act like Michael did it. Seems pretty sound to me.

              • chilaw79
                08/31/2010 at 9:45 PM

                The only person I have a hard time making a case for as the murderer is Victor. First, Victor apparently did not know that Robert was going to stay over until that evening (almost as if this was being kept from him), even though it had been set up earlier. He did not go down to the kitchen to visit with Robert (where most of the knives were, coincidentally). Second, Victor seems to have been tired from his trip and generally annoyed at Joe, and went to bed early. You would have to be a really cold calculating guy to watch Project Runway and then go downstairs and stab a house guest three times. Victor seems to have many friends willing to vouch for him. Finally, and most importantly, Victor screamed when he saw Robert’s body.

                I am not saying Joe and/or Dylan are off the hook as far as I am concerned.

                • 08/31/2010 at 10:37 PM

                  Look, I am sympathetic to Victor also, but we should keep an open mind. Earlier, I wrote that we may be letting him off too easily. After all, we don’t have much EVIDENCE for most of our suppositions about Victor beyond his return from his trip. No more than for the others. He just seems more “normal” to us, on the face of it and a more sympathetic character. But that could mean squat in the end.

                  Do an exercise — match up each of your presumptions about his actions, etc that night and then identify specific evidence to buttress each presumption.

                  • chilaw79
                    08/31/2010 at 11:35 PM

                    I absolutely agree with you that there is evidence that has not been seen or taken into account in my analysis.

                    I could make a case against Victor, although more for the cover up than the actual stabbing. The fact that Victor had the most emotional reaction to the stabbing cuts both ways, in particular the sobbing at the end of the 911 tape. Are these the reactions of someone who has the most remorse because he knows he did something incredibly wrong? They could be.

                    Perhaps Joe’s monologues are aimed at shifting attention away from Victor. Maybe Joe does love Victor.

                    Bea may be right in thinking that Joe says “Victor, Victor.”

                    Suffice it to say that I am not precluding anything other than the unknown intruder.

          • denton
            08/31/2010 at 12:11 PM

            chilaw79, and all posters here,

            One great thing about WMRW is that I can “pretend” that I am a potential juror (who probably will not be selected) sitting in a box listening to arguments, watching videos, reading transcripts, etc. from all presented here – “simply because” I am not a lawyer, analyst, historian, or psychiatrist, etc., but as a former DC wrongful death juror.

            I find that the “intruder” that the defendants “implied constantly” probably was true – and they meant “known, invited or not, person(s) who came through the front door.”

            I, too, agree with you, chilaw79, on Michael’s strange behaviour with the police officer at the funeral. Yet another hint to catch the “known, invited or not, person(s) who came through the front door intruder,” not his brother (Joe).

            R.Wone’s death was caused by “executed stabs,” the 3 precision stabs that Dr. Fowler testified on Wednesday, June 16, 2010, that “this was not a normal knife attack.”

            No morning breakfast = equal to = no more businesses with R.Wone. Was conversation gone wrong? Was someone “touchy” on “personal” level? Who “executed” R.Wone? Yes, it was “personal” “execution style stabs.” Try it on a chicken, or a pork loin.

            I did mentioned earlier that a jury trial is a gamble. Particularly with DC transient population that I don’t even think we are that committed, never mind the lack of good judgment, knowledge, and the patience to serve the justice. eeeerrrrr.

            And if the court gives them only 5 weeks to decide on this case, forget it!

          • Bill 2
            08/31/2010 at 12:29 PM

            Didn’t medical experts say that Robert was already incapacitated when he was stabbed?

            If that’s the case, Michael didn’t just go to that room and stab him. Someone had to have given Robert some type of knockout drug in order to have a quiet, no-movement death by stabbing. Could Michael have done that on his own?

            • Rapt in MD
              08/31/2010 at 12:46 PM

              As I recall, the ME who did the autopsy felt that he was incapacitated because the wounds were so perfect. The day I was in courtroom, the defense’s cardio doctor made a big case that the tamponade would have stopped the heart so quickly that he would not have time to react to the stabs – a story I do not buy a all. There just was no sign of struggle. That day in court, I caught a glimpse of the autopsy photo of Robert’s chest and the wound looked like you drew it on his skin with a magic marker. It was perfect.

              • chilaw79
                08/31/2010 at 1:40 PM

                The sole (and only sign) of a reaction on Robert’s part was noted by Joe Price (the thumb between his fingers–which may have been an involuntary reaction of such type, including a cadaveric spasm).

                I just don’t believe you can be that soundly asleep so quickly in a setting you are not used to on a hot evening. I may be projecting myself onto this, but I usually do not fall asleep quickly away from home, unless I have been on a marathon hike during the day.

              • denton
                08/31/2010 at 5:43 PM

                If this is a normal killing (e.g. CSI hollywood drama), the stabs wounds “may” have been found a bit messy. One of the (3) stabs was to “execute” R.Wone. Was it done by the same person for all 3 stabs, or by multiple persons for 1, 2, and/or 3? I am totally up on the wall on this one.

        • Bruce
          09/03/2010 at 3:38 PM

          Hi Onyx:

          Thanks for posting your theory of the case. It has engendered a lot of very interesting discussion on here.

          I feel that your theory is as good a theory as any that I have heard, but, as you say in your original post: you can’t think of one single theory (including this one) that’s doesn’t have its own problems. I couldn’t agree more.

          Your reasons for thinking this was a lone-Joe murder are compelling. However, I disagree with a few of them:

          (1)Diane Durham and the “Robert on the patio” scenario. I agree wholeheartedly with you that this is one of the “most important details of the entire case.”

          Someone has to explain to me why this was not in the criminal case and why Ms. Durham did not testify there. The first reason that comes to me is that she advised the prosecution that she could not testify to it as a fact, and may have been confused about who said what, and what they said.

          I would think that the prosecution would consider this to be crucial, as do we. I would think that putting her on the stand to talk about the patio business would be priority #1. By putting her on and testifying, the prosecution could put Joe in a big old fat lie, something they desperately wanted.

          To me, it will be very interesting to see if she testifies at the civil trial, and what her deposition will reveal as to why she did not testify in the criminal action.

          But taking this all into account, I just can’t put any stock in her (yet).

          (2) The demeanors. As has been pointed out by others, Joe is a lawyer and the others are not. Lawyers would interview generally different than someone else. Lawyers are “task oriented.” They get a job done, and don’t commiserate over it.

          Also, lawyers would much less likely be frightened or intimidated by the police. Finally, lawyers do sometimes have an inflated view of themselves and their responsibilities. Joe most likely got into the “I have to keep my head and get through this and help Dylan and Victor” role more than the other two.

          While these are certainly generalizations, when you mix in Joe’s narcisstic personality, I am not surprised at his demeanor.

          And, here is the real kicker for me: if Joe really wanted to try to point the finger away from himself, wasn’t he intelligent enough and capable enough to try to “act emotionally” and “act shocked” for the police?

          I think Joe is smart enough to have done that. And he is smart enough to know that he was being videoed and certainly could have put on an act of emotion if he wanted to. If I was a killer and being interviewed by the police and trying to get them away from me as a suspect, I would certainly include emotions and shock at the killing.

          I guess what I am saying here is that Joe could have acted emotionally as did the others, if he had wanted to. He would be smart enough to do it right, and not go overboard. I don’t think I am giving him too much credit. He’s a smart guy and was not intimidated by the police.

          I’m not saying that Joe’s demeanor didn’t bother me; I just think his “position” was different than the others, and he was in his “lawyer mode” during the interviews.

          (3) Joe adament that Victor and Dylan not involved. I was really shocked when I heard and saw Dylan say that he would really be surprised if it was one of the other two. That sounded like a little waffling to me. I think they were just trying to be very honest about it and trying to keep open minded with the police, but that is just my opinion, probably not agreed to by many others.

          But again, lawyers are “advocates.” If I am correct, and Joe went into his “lawyer mode” during the interviews, I think that a lawyer is more likely to not be wishy/washy on this issue at all, and he would be completely loyal to his friends: They could absolutely not have been involved! To even give a hint of the opposite, would be unthinkable and showing a weakness, something lawyers don’t like to do.

          So, the answer to me on the demeanors is that Joe was playing “lawyer,” both because that is what he is, and it is a way for him to try to ignore or distance himself from any emotional response. The other two were obviously not playing “lawyer.”

          I realize my thoughts above are just my impressions, and yours and others are equally or of greater value.

          I think we apply our own circumstances to other applications, and my being a lawyer I think biases me in a way.

          I think if I was in Joe’s position, and I was innocent, I might have acted similarly to Joe, albeit, I think I would have shown more emotion, and put on the “lawyer” role. I think if I was in Joe’s position, and I was guilty of a crime, I would have acted quite differently than Joe at the interviews. Just me.

          Again, thanks for your theory, which, again, makes as much or more sense to me as any other that I have encountered. Please keep posting.

  10. 08/31/2010 at 1:34 AM

    Onyx: Where have you been all our (wmrw) lives? Great stuff. I’ve been thinking along the same lines for a while, since we first saw the written transcripts and felt V and D were believable. But there are still quite a few holes in your theory so I cannot let them off the hook.

    More piling on Joe: when describing the scene he found (the bed clothes were not disturbed), Joe said “everything looked fine except there was a guy there with a bloody shirt…”

    “A guy…”? “… with a bloody shirt”? His dear friend, dead in his guest room. That’s downright CREEPY to refer to Robert thusly.

    • tatoo
      08/31/2010 at 4:21 AM

      Sorry to very much disagree Onyx, but I think because right now Joe’s interview is the freshest we like to believe it has the most holes in it, but let’s face it all 3 have huge holes in their stories and all 3 act more like their favorite pet is missing, rather than a good friend was JUST murdered in their house by an intruder, no less. As each interview was presented, readers painstakingly commented on the inaccuracy of each tale. Also if you look at Joe as the only one who really knows what really happened, and Dylan and Victor being at all times innocent, this fails to look at all the evidence, for example the knife that was used in the murder must not have been in everyday use at the house or they would not have felt the need to switch it out with a kitchen knife that was. Joe just walked through Dylan’s room, and said to Dylan excuse me I’m just going to borrow this knife from your closet and Dylan either heard nothing or said nothing.

      There are minute divergences in each of the stories, the 911 call is Victor’s waterloo, volunteering too much info and mentioning events that later were not factually true, while Dylan had a bionic ear as far as hearing people on the wooden steps unless it’s a not so late night intruder. The problem was the interviewers thought they had solved the crime and did not examine those divergences. Why did the 3 not crack? They were pissed because the interviewers had such stupid lines of questioning, instead of poking holes in their stories, they wanted to know why a straight guy was staying at a house with 3 gay guys, so they just dug in their heels and stuck to the plan.

      The plan was for sure put into place soon after Mr. Wone’s arrival maybe even before 11pm, so what went wrong, went wrong quickly. The typing of 2 unsent emails demostrates that a deadly plot was being hatched at the time of the writing, which gives time before the EMT’s arrive and based on Joe’s correction to the story about where Mr. Wone was found, there was some revision to the stories after the EMT’s left and before the police arrived, when underwear guy was told to go put some clothes on.

      Most disturbing is the world really needs to move on from something consensual happening, Joe joining in the shower- EWWWWWWWWWW. The shower story is just that a story based on Ms. Wone’s account of her husband’s habits and it was needed as a cover for them covering up the crime by cleaning the body. As mentioned before if something consensual did happened the Swann 3 would not be involved in such an elobrate cover up. Family members do strange things in the name of loyalty for instance harboring a confessed murderer which has happened so many times in the past including just recently. Such is most likely the case with the Swann Street 3 it’s all being done in the name of love.

      All 3 know exactly what happened that night, or at least have a good idea, all 3 are equally guilty in taking part in a horrific crime. Joe is just the ring leader. The body language of 3 suggests this isn’t the first time they have taken part in something this horrible, probably they just have never been caught,repeat patterns seem to be the case with socio paths and their co dependents.

      • Clio
        08/31/2010 at 6:44 AM

        Tatoo, your last paragraph may be the most chilling of your observations — the Three had done a similar deadly or dangerous caper before and that they will try it again. Yet, Dyl’s email response back to Joe in the summer of 2006 indicates the massage therapist in training’s caution/concern at attempting the type of “third” that Culuket may have had in mind. And, Victor probably knew very few of the dreadful details regarding Joe’s alt dot bomb social life. Even so, both “wives” probably had to cover for Joe’s irrational behavior before, perhaps after especially embarrassing sex romps and/or drug binges.

      • Hoya Loya
        08/31/2010 at 11:30 AM


        Just a caveat regarding the knife: there is no proof that Dylan ever possessed the “missing knife” (though on the other hand, there is no proof that the “Seattle knife” produced at trial by Dylan’s mom is the missing knife); none of the experts in the criminal trial would rule out the “kitchen knife” as the murder weapon nor would any of them opine that the “missing knife” would be more consistent with the wounds; Dr. Henry Lee opined that the “kitchen knife” was indeed the murder weapon and the judge agreed.

        Absent additional, contrary evidence or expert testimony, the switched knife theory probably does not merit much serious consideration at this point.

        • Onyx
          08/31/2010 at 12:37 PM

          I agree. I find it extremely hard to believe that Joe or either of the other two would take the time to painstakingly move Robert’s severed chest hairs and a globule of human tissue/fat onto a separate knife. Blood maybe, but a bunch of tiny hairs?

          Also, Tatoo, when you say the 911 call is Victor’s waterloo, what specifically are you referring to? I agree there are some strange parts (“We think someone has a knife from our house”, etc.), but how do we know he wasn’t just repeating stuff Joe was saying to him? There are parts where he’s clearly listening to Joe. If he didn’t know what was going on, he might have considered Joe (who was next to Robert) a semi-credible source of info during the call. I listened to it this morning, and besides some weird moments, I didn’t hear anything 100% damning.

          As a side note, I NEVER meant the suggestion that Joe joined Robert in the shower was consensual. I don’t think Robert wanted any part of any kind of sexual encounter with the trouple. That’s my fault — I should’ve written ‘forcibly joined’ or otherwise modified my verb correctly. In any case, that’s probably not what happened, I was just throwing wild ideas out there to demonstrate that anything is possible at this point.

          Finally, I disagree that their body language suggests this isn’t the first time they’ve taken part in something horrible. I don’t think you can tell something like that from a taped interview. In general, it’s easy to dictate how one would/should act in a situation such as this, but really, I’m not sure how I myself would act if this actually happened to me.

          • Tatoo
            08/31/2010 at 6:33 PM

            So in broadcasting school they taught us never to respond to someone responding to your response because you have already had your time to speak, so in that spirit please do not think my future not responding does not mean I am not giving your thoughts some serious thought, because I promise I will.

            Just a few parting shots, Dr Henry Lee is like a good accountant, if you ask a good accoutant “what is 2+2?”, the good accountant will respond “what would you like it to be?” The experts on the defense side all agreed the kitchen knife was the murder weapon, while the prosecution experts, including the ME that examined Mr. Wone, testified it is possible that 5.5″ knife can make 3 perfect exactly similar 4.5″ knife wounds BUT not likely. Their conclusion was it is MORE likely the wounds were made by a 4.5″ knife like the one missing from the knife set in Dylan’s closet. Also it is belived materials found on the the supposed murder knife were transferred from the towel, that Victor told the 911 operator Joe was using to apply pressure to Mr. Wone, but the evidence does not support this. The towel looked more like it was used to transfer blood (and other bodily materials) from one source to another. You will recall no fibers from Mr. Wone’s shirt were found on the supposed muder weapon but the knife did have fibers from the towel.

            Just like the study the defense presented in which based on the examination 5 men who died, Mr. Wone expelled semen after he died, HUH? Five guys, really?

            I could go and on (I know please don’t), but please go back and read the evidence from the police that lead to the obstruction of justice charge, as well as the well informed commments from readers.

            Lastly, the tapes of well known socio paths show their body language is very controlled and distant in a very close, out of control situation, like the behavior of the Swann Street 3. Many times other victims are discoverd much later. If you compare that with a response from a non socio path the response is very different especially on a emotional level.

            Thanks for your time – Tatoo out

            • Bill Orange
              08/31/2010 at 6:54 PM

              I pretty much agree with everything you said here. My big questions–which I don’t think were ever answered at the trial–are: Were there hair fibers and fat globules on the towel? Were there any on the T shirt?

            • Onyx
              08/31/2010 at 10:17 PM

              So do you think I’d get kicked out of broadcasting school for responding to your response to my response to your response?

              J/K… I’ll refrain. 🙂

            • Rapt in MD
              09/01/2010 at 11:21 AM

              The biggest “knife” problem for has been the fact that at least one of the wounds had what looked like a pre-mortem bruise pattern around it suggesting the hilt of the knife went the entire way in, thus making it pretty impossible for a 5 inch blade to make a 4 inch wound.

      • Bruce
        09/03/2010 at 11:17 PM

        Hi Tatoo:

        I also was stopped short when I read what you said near the end of your interesting post:

        “The body language of 3 suggests this isn’t the first time they have taken part in something this horrible, probably they just have never been caught,repeat patterns seem to be the case with socio paths and their co dependents.”

        Can you explain what you mean? I just don’t get how “body language” can tell a history of previous murders without being caught. What in particular about their body language suggests that to you, and how do you connect the dots to that conclusion?

        I think most of us are frustrated that there is no past history known to us of the 3 in this regard, because it would make it easier for us to view them without any question of their guilt, and maybe we are just projecting what we would prefer things to be.

        Enjoy your thoughtful posts, and I am not being critical, just very curious. Just that one sentence took me for a loop. Peace on.

    • susan
      08/31/2010 at 10:22 PM

      I thought the same thing about the “a guy” comment. I know he was describing the general tableau of the scene–there’s this room, neat and clean and all you see is this guy (to paraphrase). It does seem like he’s distancing himself from the the scene. It’s funny too that he describes the room as “neat and clean” or something to that effect, esp. since personal accts describe him as fastidious and he told Tara Ragone that he did some cleaning up, at least of himself.

  11. mfcheem
    08/31/2010 at 4:52 PM

    The BLT, Blog of the Legal Times is reporting that Judge Hedge will retire Dec. 3, 2010.

    With the possiblity of continuing to hear cases after that date but not certain that the court will have her on the Wone civil case.

  12. boofoc
    08/31/2010 at 5:36 PM

    I’ve read all of your posts (congratulations to most for intelligent, inciteful commentary) for many months, but have not – till yesterday – participated. I’m an attorney (MD,DC & FL), but not a criminal lawyer, and I recognize the obvious legal talents of many of you, Chilaw79 among the most notable. However, I’m dumbstruck by Chilaw79’s experience leading him to conclude that “many prospective jurors will have a hard time thinking a lawyer [JP] would do this…. [because] jurors engage in thinking that it would be so stupid for a successful lawyer to engage in bad behavior… [Thus] lawyer-defendants has [sic] a built-in edge with jurors.” I hope he is mistaken in that conclusion concerning DC jurors, who are generally rated as above the average nationally.

    • Bill Orange
      08/31/2010 at 6:50 PM

      My instinct is that Chilaw is correct. I suspect that most potential jurors would initially assume that a lawyer–or a doctor or a college professor or anyone else with a “brainy” job–would be far too intelligent to be involved in a murder in their own household. But I think that this initial impression is going to be demolished by the fact that there were naked photos of Joe Price on his office computer. That’s just jaw-droppingly stupid. Once you’ve established that, there’s not much else that you’ll be able convince me that he’s “too smart” to do.

      • chilaw79
        08/31/2010 at 9:27 PM

        I should add lawyers often make terrible witnesses. Like Joe Price during the police interviews, they often expound unnecessarily, fail to answer the question, and get defensive when challenged.

        Having served on several DC juries, I believe DC jurors do an excellent job and explain their positions well. They give all parties a fair hearing.

      • Rapt in MD
        09/01/2010 at 11:36 AM

        Agree with you completely that the pics on the office computer will make Joe look like an idiot and take down his credibility. I’m hoping astute jurors will also realize that it indicates the irrational hubris of a sociopath. What are the chances that an expert witness would be called in for this type of a trial to discuss the DSM characteristics of various personality disorders?

    • denton
      08/31/2010 at 7:50 PM


    • denton
      08/31/2010 at 8:31 PM

      boofoc – Are you trying to make me feel better about DC jurors, or you are just sayin….?

      Bill O and Chilaw79 – Both of you are correct. (I’m still playing a juror in my head, you know.) I would sit there thinking “Oh, boy! What do we have here? Lawyer kills lawyer? I don’t believe it.” Then after few hours of opening statements, I’d go “o.k. let’s take a ride with them,” and . . . lawyers . . . no . . . more.

      • chilaw79
        08/31/2010 at 9:35 PM

        You really should feel good about DC juries. I think DC juries are much less likely to give the government the benefit of the doubt.
        The jury panels I have served on have been filled with intelligent people who paid attention to the testimony and deliberated in good faith. The jurors followed the instructions the judge provided. Even where the jurors split, the jurors were willing to listen to all ideas and open to a different way of thinking about particular testimony. I don’t think you can ask for anything more in a jury.

        • susan
          08/31/2010 at 10:03 PM

          “I don’t think you can ask for anything more from a jury.”

          Not texting during deliberations? Not changing your vote so you can adjourn early?

          You can always ask for better.

          • chilaw79
            08/31/2010 at 11:27 PM

            I have not seen anyone text during deliberations, in the jury room, or while in the jury box. A juror would face a big problem if caught doing so or if they even possessed a cell phone with photo capabilities since those are routinely held by the security guards.

            Changing your vote during deliberations if done to go home early is wrong, but changing your vote because you listened to others and found their thinking persuasive is not.

            Nevertheless, I think DC juries are way above average. I am not sure what perfection is since I am not sure I have ever seen it.

            • Susan
              08/31/2010 at 11:39 PM

              I have seen texting during jury deliberations in the juror’s room twice. Twice. Two different trials. Maybe DC juries are above average but I don’t know how that is calculated or measured. No one took our cells away.

              • Susan
                08/31/2010 at 11:41 PM

                By “our cells” I mean no one on the jury had to surrender their cell phones prior to serving or deliberating.

              • chilaw79
                09/01/2010 at 12:04 AM

                Having served on juries as well as trying cases to juries, there is no one way of evaluating a jury (although lots of people do study jury dynamics). DC has a diverse jury pool and many well-educated potential jurors. The one day-one jury strategy encourages DC residents to fulfill their civic duty to serve on a petit jury. The juries I have served on were racially mixed, varied in their makeup in terms of gender and age, and took their duties seriously. From the other side of the table, I often have appreciated questions asked by the jurors to the court during jury deliberations.

                Frankly, I would not begrudge a juror for making a phone call or sending a text to say they would be late, although I might go to a court official if I thought a juror was breaking a rule. Most of the juries I served on self-policed on the rules and were pretty effective on that score. People actually avoided discussing the case before all the evidence was presented, and did not to outside research or ignore the law as presented through jury instructions. The jurors often struggled with the latter task.

                On the cell phones, the guards sometimes forget to ask and sometimes people lie about photo capability (which is what the security folks are concerned with because judges do not like photos from the court room).

                • Susan
                  09/01/2010 at 12:22 AM

                  Thanks, Chilaw.

                  The discussions on both juries, during deliberations, were generally good so the use of the phones didn’t have a huge adverse effect, but it’s just disrespectful and unlawful as you said.

                  But jurors changing their votes to meet a personal timetable–it happens. Human behavior–in juries, on jobs, etc.–ain’t always pretty.

    • Liam
      08/31/2010 at 10:55 PM

      With respect to murder and my ability to believe that a person would do it, I personally would not draw a distinction between smart and/or successful people and other hard working, decent (though less “smart” and less ” successful”) people.

      Firstly, you don’t have to be that smart to recognize that murder is wrong.

      Secondly, whether the person is “successful” and lives in a 1.4 mil townhouse in a tony area of town, or is less “successful” and lives in a rented apartment, they both have the same thing to lose–everything. Most notably, they both have their freedom to lose.

      Any distinction that I, as a juror, would draw between one defendant and another would be based only on the evidence at hand.

      Oh yeah, I would also draw a distinction based on whether or not I thought the person was a smart, successful, narcissistic person demonstrating a sociopathology that would render them capable of such an act as murder.

      • chilaw79
        08/31/2010 at 11:40 PM

        I know it is cynical, but the person with the expensive townhouse may be more likely to be able to afford the best defense money can buy, replete with expert witnesses.

        I am not sure having potential murder charges facing you at any time is “freedom.” Despite the detachment evidenced by the some of the defendants, the prospect of a civil case that may deprive you of financial security and the potential for criminal charges that may result in a prison term must be unnerving.

Comments are closed.