Come To Jesus

Tuesday Tea Time Movie

We join Joe Price’s first recorded MPD interview at Anacostia’s Violent Crime Branch about 30 minutes into it (on page 38 of the first transcript).  It began around 4:30am.  Who knows what happened to the first half hour; both our AV squad and theirs are working on it.

“This isn’t our life. This is like something out of a bad dream.”

Price had been questioned off camera (as was Ward and Zaborsky), and it’s still unclear what transpired during the very first interviews from the early morning hours of August 3, 2006.

Here, Price is literally backed into a corner, between the wall and a desk, with Detectives Daniel Wagner and Milton Norris looming and booming.  Bad cop/badder cop; neither of them were buying Price’s story.

The last portion of this interview screens later this week.  Today’s movie, after the jump.

posted by Craig

80 comments for “Come To Jesus

  1. chilaw79
    09/07/2010 at 12:14 PM

    My initial impression is that Joe was much more sarcastic and arrogant in this interview than the transcript suggested. The police detectives could not get Joe to distinguish between what he assumed or believed and what he actually saw and heard. The whole set of questions on the DNA and the knife illustrate this, as do the statements regarding Dylan and Victor (and the detective’s surprise that Joe did not just came out and say, “I did not murder Robert.”

    I understand that Joe would take umbrage at the nature of some of the remarks made by the detectives, particularly the “come to Jesus” speech. However, Joe’s inability to recount the basic facts in a straightforward way is more evident when watching the video.

  2. Eagle
    09/07/2010 at 1:16 PM

    Joe tries to be very much in charge, doesn’t he?
    He easily dismisses the detective’s hypotheses.
    He doesn’t hesitate or be humble- ever.
    Is this the way he is in real life?
    Certainly does not look like he has suffered much emotionally given all the dysfunction, uncertainty and emotional turmoil- including double crossing his partner on a regular basis- in his home.
    He does not even have a sense of respect for the position of the officers. Joe is not disrespectful, but he does not give the officer’s any stature.
    Pretty sure of himself this fellow.
    He seems to be totally unresponsive to the fact that he is in deep trouble.

  3. Lyn
    09/07/2010 at 2:10 PM

    J. Price: “You guys are trying to do your jobs. You are trying to get one of us to reveal the facts or the screw up or whatever.”

    So Price has facts he isn’t revealing and he is acknowledging that the outcome of whatever happened that night was not according to their plan (thus, a screw up).

    • Bea
      09/07/2010 at 5:38 PM

      Pretty interesting choice of words on Joe’s part.

      When the officer makes the comment that Dylan isn’t happily married but Joe says with considerable arrogance and sarcasm that indeed Dylan IS happily married to Joe, it makes me wonder if Sparkly Cat’s recent sexual disinterest/withdrawal from Joe isn’t more germane than I’d considered before. It’s different in watching the video – clearly Joe “knows” that his registered domestic partner is Victor so why make a big deal of it? Is it defiance and arrogance in general, because he’s devoted to winning this particular sparring match with the detective? Is it because he is just driving home his adamant knowledge that Dylan did not kill Robert (or even “play” with Robert – could be seen both ways in that moment’s context)? Part of me thinks that both these notions are in play but more so is that Joe is gathering his super-powers in that moment, claiming essentially to “these cops” that he has TWO partners, that he’s “man enough” for both his upstairs and downstairs partners.

      It almost plays on some 1950s man-of-the-house facade, that he’s the one speaking for all of them, that neither of the others COULD have done anything untoward without his consent.

      When the detective says essentially that the only way he could’ve known that Dylan didn’t do it was if he was ‘downstairs with Dylan’ or if he’d done it himself – the latter being the second option – which seems to put Joe on his heels for a second. As in that he didn’t think he could be held solely responsible for the murder, that the others COULD say so. I wish I could ‘read’ him better.

      Here’s where we need people who KNOW Joe to explain to us how he could have behaved so callously after finding/holding a dying/dead friend, whether this ‘smart ass’ routine of his was used when he was being evasive in personal encounters. I ‘get’ the lawyer thing – mine comes out sometimes in non-work life but I don’t see that being the case in context of helping cops find your friend’s killer.

      • Bill Orange
        09/07/2010 at 6:01 PM

        “Here’s where we need people who KNOW Joe to explain to us how he could have behaved so callously after finding/holding a dying/dead friend, whether this ’smart ass’ routine of his was used when he was being evasive in personal encounters.”

        Still haven’t watched any of the tapes, but Joe acting like a smart-ass in response to inept questioning from the police is pretty much exactly what I would expect from him, regardless of whether or not he was involved in the murder. He’s very intelligent and very quick on his feet, and he does not suffer fools gladly. He’s in one of two situations: Either (1) he’s just been involved in the stabbing death of someone in his own guest bedroom, and he thinks the police are too stupid to nail him for it, or (2) an unknown intruder just snuck into his house and stabbed his friend to death, and he’s come to the conclusion that the police are far too stupid to ever capture the perpetrator. Either way, I’d expect him to act like a smart-ass. To be honest, I thought the transcript made him sound somewhat subdued to me. And part of me really wishes that he had said something along the lines of, “You people are so fucking stupid that you’re probably contaminating the entire crime scene as we speak.”

        • Bea
          09/07/2010 at 8:57 PM

          Thanks, Bill O. In your experience, would Joe really grieve Robert’s death or experience in an emotional way having been the last person with his dying friend? He makes no bones of pretending to detectives that he needs to leave to go see “Robert’s wife” – he has awareness of what might SEEM caring and appropriate (even though it was a ruse to sound good and get away so he could go to Cosi with friends).

          • Eagle
            09/07/2010 at 9:40 PM

            I suspect that Joe wants to see Robert’s wife as soon as possible
            because he want to indoctrinate her with his spin of what happened -whatever that may be.

          • Bill Orange
            09/08/2010 at 9:05 AM

            Let me preface my answer by saying that I think he’s guilty of everything he was charged with, and I don’t think he was ever really all that concerned about the death of his long-term friend in his own home.

            That being said, I think that even if he was completely uninvolved in Robert Wone’s death and was truly mourning the loss of a dear friend, I wouldn’t expect to see any signs of it by the time the cameras started rolling. Keep in mind that he’s already been interviewed for several hours before the videotaping started. He’s had plenty of time to size up the police, so what we’re seeing here is either (a) a man who was just involved in a killing in his own home and is convinced that he can get away with murder, or (b) a man who is wrongly suspected of killing an old friend and who has concluded that the police are idiots who are never going to capture the real killer. Either way, I think that what you’re going to see is a lot of contempt for the police. If he had any genuine grief, I wouldn’t expect to see it right now. I think we all agree that he’s very good at compartmentalizing, and we’re seeing him in “lawyer mode”.

            • denton
              09/08/2010 at 9:55 AM

              … we’re seeing him in “lawyer mode”.

              Thanks, Bill O, for clearing that up. I was just wondering about that. I had called “lawyer moment” in my other post, as supposed to my sometimes “senior moment.”

            • Deb
              09/08/2010 at 6:23 PM

              Bill O:
              From your experience knowing Joe, does he seem capable of grief?

              • Bill Orange
                09/08/2010 at 11:21 PM

                Hard to say. I’ve definitely seen him angry. I’ve never seen him grief-stricken. But I don’t think I was ever around him when there was something he “should” have been grieving about.

                • A Friend of Trouple
                  09/14/2010 at 9:07 AM

                  I have seen the many sides of Joe – and while he does tend to hold his feelings in (resorting to what some may consider arrogant, etc), he does have a vulnerable side as well and I have seen him display genuine emotions of hurt and despair – when his brother was going through a very difficult, this took a real toll on Joe. He is a very caring and giving person, and still a great friend that is there for you when you need him! We have talked a lot during this time and he still is the same Joe I met back in the 90’s. It really irritates me the way people pick on his character or his demeanor – since many of you don’t know him personally, you are making some pretty selfish assumptions of him – Again, I do feel much sympathy for the Wone family and what they are/have gone through over the last several years – but I also for Joe, Victor and Dylan. That have been put through a lot and people should show a little respect for them – again, put your family /friends in their position and see how you would react.

                  • Craig
                    09/14/2010 at 9:40 AM

                    AFoT: Thanks for this. Very much.

                    • Bruce
                      09/14/2010 at 12:08 PM



                      It must be very difficult reading many of the posts here. Thank you for your insights.

                  • denton
                    09/14/2010 at 12:16 PM

                    Dear AFoT,

                    Thank you for coming out.

                    What would you
                    have seen it differently from your point of view about the crime?

                    How would you have liked the outcome to be “in the end of the trial?”

                    And, once again, thank you for reading.

                  • Grrr
                    09/14/2010 at 6:39 PM

                    Well said by a queened pawn on the chess board

            • Liam
              09/08/2010 at 8:12 PM

              I agree that at that time of night after having been interrogated for hours beforehand, I think it would be difficult to say how a person “should” be acting.

              Should they be acting exhausted?

              Should they be in a state of shock (and exhausted)?

              Should they be irritated because they didn’t do anything wrong, yet the line of questioning clearly indicates the interrogator thinks they did?

              Should they be worried about their dead friend and his wife?

              Should they be concerned how the hell an intruder got into their abode, their home, their safe haven, and brutally murdered their good friend?

              Should they be scared?

              I just don’t see any of that in JP. I see a person talking to try to solve a problem.

              • Craig
                09/08/2010 at 9:34 PM

                Liam: To me, active problem solving requires some sense of urgency. I haven’t seen much of that in any of the tapes.

                • Liam
                  09/09/2010 at 6:43 AM

                  The problem (to be solved) was his/their causing the death of RW.

                  The problem solving involved talking his (JP’s) way out of it.

                  But you are right. For example, there is no effort (or urgency) to offer any information/insight that might help the police nab the alleged intruder.

                  I think the only effort was to tell a story that included (or even moreso, lacked) the right details so as not to implicate any one of the three.

        • chilaw79
          09/07/2010 at 9:51 PM

          The video provides a completely different tone than the transcript. For example, what seems from the transcript a straightforward answer that Joe is married to Dylan comes off as something very different on video.

          When you read a transcript, you do not get the sense that Joe is being as sarcastic and dismissive as the video tapes show. The detective who makes the “come to Jesus” statement seems disgusted with Joe and his dancing around the issue. Shortly after that, the detective who made the statement leaves and the other detective continues the interview.

          The detective tries to illicit from Joe the difference between what he heard and saw and what he thinks or assumes. Joe just is not buying it. Joe also tries to impress on them his knowledge of criminal law (presumably fresh from his handling of Louis Hinton’s domestic assault case) and the detective responds that we are talking about murder, not some two-bit burglary.

          Joe comes across to me as defensive and hostile. The DNA questions related to the knife are intriguing, because Joe already seems to be mounting a defense if his DNA or that of Victor or Dylan is on the knife since they all used the knife and Joe moved the knife.

        • AnnaZed
          09/08/2010 at 10:35 AM

          Bill, thanks for this; but I think you are leaving out a few other possible descriptors for Joe’s situation:

          (3.) the love of Joe’s life has just stabbed his friend to death and Joe is hoping that the police are too stupid to nail him for it, (4.) a fifth person known to Joe and known by Joe to be in his home has participated with the love of Joe’s life in the assault and murder of Joe’s friend and left with the physical evidence thus locking Joe into the story he has told and that he hopes the police are too stupid to figure it out,

          and (5.) Joe’s brother has just stabbed his friend to death and Joe is hoping that the police are too stupid to nail him for it. Actually there are more permutations, but I’m just pointing out that Joe as murderer or Ninja as murderer are not the only choices.

          just sayin’

          • Bill Orange
            09/08/2010 at 2:07 PM

            I tend to break it into either (a) Joe was involved and is lying through his teeth, or (b) Joe wasn’t involved and is telling the truth. If it’s (a), then I think he got away with murder, even if he wasn’t the one who did the actual stabbing.

            • Bruce
              09/08/2010 at 4:51 PM

              Hi Bill O:

              I mentioned this in another post a bit back, but the big question for me upon seeing these videos, particularly Joe, but also the 2 others, is:

              THE BIG QUESTION: If I was guilty of this murder or a crime associated with this murder, and, therefore wanted to keep suspicion away from myself, would I act like this and say these things in the interviews?

              My answer to this question is “No.”

              If I was an intelligent heartless conniving conspiratorial (many other words could be used here)lawyer coming off a crime like this, and knowing that I was being videotaped, I would “act” much more shocked and upset at the murder and the whole situation, first of all.

              Second, I would “feign” grief, but not over do it too much. I might ask the cops for just 3 minutes alone so that I could grieve by myself…here, take my cellphone.

              Third, I wouldn’t fiddle with my phone. I would be much more earnest and at least “feign” anger and helpfulness.

              I would be curious as to how other people would answer that same BIG QUESTION, which I understand may be only BIG to me.

              I’m not saying that Joe didn’t do the murder and/or cover-up. I’m also not saying that we can determine guilt or innocence from the answer to the question.

              Just….in the microcosm of Joe’s interviews we have seen on the tapes, are his actions and words consistent with a guilty intelligent heartless conniving conspiratorial lawyer trying to demonstrate through the interview that he is an innocent person?

              • Bill Orange
                09/08/2010 at 11:39 PM

                Two points: First, and I can’t stress this enough, you need to remember that you aren’t seeing all of the interactions with the police. The taping doesn’t start until several hours into the interviews. Any grief–real or feigned–would’ve likely been in the first hour or two. By the time the tapes start, all three of them have to realize that the police are considering the possibility that one of them is the killer. I think that a realization like that would trump grief, in most cases.

                Second, if we assume they’re guilty, the key to pulling off the conspiracy is that they all stick to the same story. If that’s what’s going on here, it is far more important for them to focus on WHAT is being said rather than HOW it is being said. If you put yourself in Joe’s shoes, and you assume he’s guilty, you have to remember that he’s not just the mastermind of his own story, but also the stories of two other people, and he has to make sure that they all fit together. His goal is to appear to be in command of the “facts” of what happened that evening, NOT to appear grief-stricken.

                • Bruce
                  09/09/2010 at 11:43 AM

                  Bill O:

                  Your two points are well taken and described.

                  You mention the moment that each of them should have realized that they were suspects in the interviews.

                  I still don’t understand why Joe, an intelligent civil attorney himself, did not ask to see a criminal attorney at that point.

                  I know, I know, he says that he knows he should at the interviews, but it just doesn’t make any sense to me that he doesn’t. No one’s explanation for that has yet impressed me.

                  Of course, in making our impressions of Joe’s interviews, all of them valid, we are just looking at one tree, not the forest of evidence in the case, against Joe and the other 2.

                  But as to this one tree only, I just don’t react with the conclusion from my impressions that there are “red flags” of guilt on Joe’s part.

                  Again, just my opinion. Not criticizing anyone for holding a different opinion, based upon their own impressions.

                  • chilaw79
                    09/09/2010 at 12:26 PM

                    We know that Joe was trying to contact a distinguished criminal attorney from Arent Fox (without much success through Sarah Morgan and Michael Price). Joe also did some criminal work (including representing Louis Hinton on a domestic assault charge where the victim was Michael Price).

                    • Bruce
                      09/09/2010 at 12:33 PM


                      Doesn’t the fact that Joe did at least that one criminal matter make it even more of a mystery why he didn’t stop the interview and demand an attorney?

        • handypandy
          09/08/2010 at 12:38 PM

          Well, we might not like him, but he was certainly right in gauging the police’s ability to act “intelligently”, whatever the actual given situation was…

          • Clio
            09/08/2010 at 11:02 PM

            I have to agree with you here, handy.

            Detective Wagner, in particular, was both boorish and clueless, admitting that he “didn’t give a shit” about why Robert was murdered. His partner then went off on a fruitless tangent asking about Kathy’s lunch date with Culuket. These two bozos, I trust, are not the epitome of DC public investigators.

            On the other hand, Joe’s arrogance and bitchiness, I guess, served him well at Errant Faux, and those qualities will still keep his legal services in some demand in southern Florida. He may be a monster, but those monstrous traits are pluses in his chosen profession, I am afraid.

  4. Rick
    09/07/2010 at 10:05 PM

    “What webs we weave, when first we practice to deceive”…

  5. denton
    09/07/2010 at 10:59 PM

    Joe tried so hard to talk himself out of the interrogation. He denied, denied, and more denied FOR himself AND his housemates when the detective pushed “How do you know Dylan didn’t touch the body?”

    Joe repeatedly was trying to convince the detectives “WE didn’t do it.” He used the word “WE” quite often. A man was just stabbed in his home. You speak for yourself, Joe! You are a grown man.

    Then a Partner of one of the most well known DC K Street law firm, Joe could not remember “how” he sent Victor to “go upstairs and call 911,” or “call 911” (and Victor ran upstairs on his own). Joe knew how many house phones he had in his own home, and where they were.

    He stumbled on “assume/believe,” and “grunting/yelling.” It must be hard for Joe trying to fit chosen words to his story – and be consistent about it.

    Joe (went to the toilet 3 times AND) washed the blood off his hands 3 times after using the toilet AT THE PRECINCT. Any cops would jump HEARING that. Same as putting his DNA on the knife at the crime scene.

    The “catch me if you can officer” message (if you can find what you were you looking for, in which you won’t because I am so damn smart than you dumb cops) was not appropriate for a “then Partner” of a prestigious law firm that he later paid the price – by losing it all. Not smart at all, Joe. Don’t embarrass your colleagues and your future employments this way anymore.

    He offered (slipped) information to the detectives at every little opportunity, i.e. “WE didn’t do it” sometimes without being asked.

    I am not a lawyer. I know of many good lawyers/cops. I know the love/hate relationship between lawyers/cops. If 3D was not as good as 2D, or PSA305 was not as good as PSA307 (depends on your experiences), this “Partner” was hours after a murder in his own home while he WAS THERE.

    Was it a “lawyer moment” (i.e. “senior moment,” “four year old moment,” “Oprah moment,” etc.) that we saw Joe on this video?

    • AnnaZed
      09/08/2010 at 11:00 AM

      “Joe (went to the toilet 3 times AND) washed the blood off his hands 3 times after using the toilet AT THE PRECINCT. Any cops would jump HEARING that. Same as putting his DNA on the knife at the crime scene.”

      Ha, ha ,ha ~ I believe Lady Macbeth has been evoked more than once on this blog, but really Joe, 3 times?

      • denton
        09/08/2010 at 11:44 AM

        00;53;17 – blood on his finger
        00’53’31 – Joe “assumed” he washed his hands 2-3 times. The detective was trying to go over and over about Joe’s washing his hands, finally 3 times at the precinct. Correct me if I am wrong on this one, AnnaZed.

        • Clio
          09/08/2010 at 11:13 PM

          Perhaps, Joe becomes obsessive-compulsive when stressed. But going to the bathroom seemed more important than the washing of his hands alone. So, Victor may have slipped a few laxatives into the dinner wine to get back at his philandering hubby. Or, the diet Coke at the station started to kick in. Who knows!

          • Deb
            09/10/2010 at 6:42 PM

            Or maybe he feels as Lady MacBeth once felt?

        • Deb
          09/10/2010 at 6:41 PM

          I think the detective may have been trying to go off onto a thread regarding the fact that Joe was very certain about the handwashing details, but not at all certain about what happened in his house.

          It also seemed like he was considering taking it along the lines of “did you wash anything — including your hands — at the house?”

          In the end, he thankfully cut loose the thread because I think that would have gained negative ground.

  6. Rich
    09/07/2010 at 11:00 PM

    Dear Everyone:

    I’m still in Honduras with too much time to think (and not having Gloria to negotiate with merchants for me). In keeping with today’s headline, “Come to Jesus,” it had me coming to terms with my own meshugas (ask a Jew this Rosh Hashanah). For well over a year now, I have often wondered how much longer I would invest in WMRW. Naturally, we all appreciate the fine work of our editors, but each and every one of you have to admit to yourselves (if not to your spouse or spousal equivalent) that you have already sacrificed an enormous amount of time from your work, your life, and other important people.

    There are at least over one dozen seasoned posters who are on this blog day in and day out repeatedly. Have you done the math? The civil trial is not for another year and you know there will be delays. Then upon reaching a verdict, we will have to discuss that as well. Upon its conclusion, we will still not have the answer to this blog (who murdered Robert Wone).

    Unless of course, Victor chokes and comes clean. Chances are that will never happen, because his moment of truth was prior to the criminal verdict when he was facing jail time. At worst, he’s looking at a 25% reduction in salary for garnishment. He’ll live, especially at $150k+. Victor can live quite well on $112,500+ in Florida.

    Having been out of town the past two weeks, it’s clear the only way to stay on top of this matter is to live on the blog daily (with 200-500 responses per posting).

    No complaints here. Oddly, the straight women on this blog have taught me more about the gay culture and sex than I have known over the past 25 years I’ve been out. It’s a little humiliating, but educational.

    Although there are times I wish the straight females did not have the sordid details of this case, as often I feel it’s a negative and embarrassing reflection of the gay community and squeaky clean people like me.

    Sadly, I also do not think the husband is going to give me another year plus, as he has been over this case for more than 4 years. He thought I was ass deep in 2006 and 2007, only to have his eyes widened as we approached the criminal trial, not to mention closing it and moving forward.

    Is that what we’re doing, moving forward? I’m curious what others have to say about this ongoing investment. I’m sure this case versus this blog has interfered with our individual abilities to make things happen as we did in the past (like an income).

    Frankly, I always said this blog was designed for a retired person with a significant income. Has anybody else has these same thoughts?

    • chilaw79
      09/07/2010 at 11:16 PM

      Best wishes for the new year.

      I have not been at this for four years; I have no idea whether I could do this for four years, but I can understand a certain weariness, aggravated, in part, from the glacial pace at which justice moves.

      As a lawyer, I believe that helping to determine who murdered Robert Wone and the role the defendants played (if any) is worthwhile. One very promising young lawyer is dead and another has seen his career fall apart. This crime has caused ripples that reach whole families and institutions. Who knows what good Robert Wone would have done with his life?

      Always make time for your friends and family, and have a good time on vacation. When you feel weary, take a break. Others will carry on; then come back fresh and see if your insights remain the same. If you decide you need more time, I will miss your comments.

    • Craig
      09/07/2010 at 11:19 PM

      Rich: We do the math constantly and it used to be intimidating. Next week put us nine months out from the trial. Pretty soon it will be Spring. Balance. Life is for the living. Safe travels.

      • LegallyConfused
        09/08/2010 at 10:40 AM

        Rich, do take a well deserved break from WMRW. Don’t try to monitor every comment every day, and don’t feel like you have to comment on each thread. It’s too much to expect of anyone.

        Last week I was on vacation in CA. I did not feel the need once to get on the WMRW site. When I returned to DC on Labor Day, I caught up on a week of postings in about two hours. (I’m more of a lurker, and an occasional poster.)

        I have only been on the site for half a year, but can understand your frustration at the painfully slow legal process.

        WMRW serves a useful purpose by keeping a hot light on the investigation, and, may lead to eventual justice for Robert Wone and his family and friends.

        While many comments don’t lead anywhere, there are gold nuggets of information and analysis waiting to be mined by capable investigators. My hope is that those attorneys and others directly involved in the civil suit and potential murder investigation are monitoring our comments, and can sift through these nuggets, and build a case that will bring justice for RW.

        In the meantime, take a break, enjoy your vacation, and have a Happy New Year.

    • Kate
      09/08/2010 at 9:50 AM

      Rich – enjoy your vacation … and the time away from the case, the site and all the fine people who gather here. We all need to step back from time to time. I have just returned from a sojourn full of family commitments and find myself still catching up on all the new information that has been posted. It can be a daunting task, occasionally overwhelming, with the answer to the question of “Who Murdered Robert Wone,” still illusive. But the answer is out there and perhaps this site can help to uncover the hidden truth.

      And as Chilaw said so well, the machinery of our law and justice system are glacial in pace. That can be frustrating.

      Honduras is a magnificent country, i’ve been there several times. The ancient ruins at Copan are breathtaking and our favorite scuba diving spots are off the island of Roatan.

      Explore, enjoy and renew. Look forward to hearing from you after your trip.

    • Deb
      09/08/2010 at 6:26 PM

      Happy New Year! Now I’m gonna go read your post.

    • Deb
      09/08/2010 at 6:44 PM

      Hi, Rich —

      It is an investment — emotionally and practically — and, no, we may never achieve that which we seek.

      I think the best thing to do in this situation is to consult the source (with apologies to my Girls).

      Robert Wone is the source.

      The editors started this thing, as they say in RW 101, IN PART to address some of the gay/straight/lesbian issues . . . but I think they were more taken up with Robert’s very fine character than by any more sociopolitical issues.

      By all accounts, Robert was pretty awesome. He loved well, he was kind, he was responsible, friendly, compassionate and involved.

      The one thing he lacked was ego.

      I think if you ask yourself “What Would Robert Do?”, you’d find that he’d tell you the best way to honor his memory is to love your husband well, blog responsibly, be kind to yourself, and be as involved as you are able after you’ve taken care of the first three.

      I think one of the things we, as a community unto ourselves, need to focus on is keeping Robert’s well lived life alive.

      Will we ever have the answer? Who knows and probably not . . . but we serve more than one purpose, I think.

      You said, “Although there are times I wish the straight females did not have the sordid details of this case, as often I feel it’s a negative and embarrassing reflection of the gay community”.

      It’s not. The gay community did not murder Robert Wone. And the gay community does not hold the patent on “sordid”.

      We’re all human.


    • rich
      09/08/2010 at 11:09 PM

      Thank you for your supportive and insightful comments.

      I sure hope I didn’t give anyone the impression that I was choosing to leave WMRMW. Absolutely, not.

      I’m just a bit unnerved as to how I’m going to spend the next year married to the site, while attempting to get on with my life. We all certainly invest an enormous amount on time on it.

      Sure glad our, “RG,” (Real Girl) friends were not offended by comments about learning too much about the Gay Community from them versus other Gay Men.

      Taking a break when in town is hard, Chl Law, as the addcition runs so deep. 🙂

      Craig: Balance? Glass Houses. 🙂

      Legally Confused: The, “Gold Nuggets,” are pricelss. Every week, I arrive at a new theory based on the postings on this site.

      Kate: Most of my time has been in Roatan on the West End. Paradise. Just returned moments ago from Playa Bay. Stunning/secluded space at the tip of the island. Lasst 5 KM is a dirt road.

      Deb, thanks for taking me and the Gay Community off the hook. I’ve been spooked about it since the case broke. It doesn’t sell well for a class of folks who already have enough to overcome without the bad press.

      I still think we should all meet. I was all over it after the criminal verdict. Not to party or celebrate, just to share and get to know each other better. I advocate we wear our screen names as name tags.

      I’m already convinced Iknow what some of these folks look like. Except for Bill 2 and Bill Orange. I often confuse them. 🙂

      • 09/09/2010 at 12:05 AM

        I’ve been impressed by the camaraderie of everyone — where we are all accepted for what we contribute, not our socially defined labels. While I understand the gay reality is highly salient if you’ve lived the life, it’s not making a bit of difference here that I can see (other than what you know from the life that would help us).

        See, I originally held back, reading only, worried that I (older, straight woman) would not be accepted by what I presumed was a community of hip (hell, I don’t even know the word to use) folk. I was worried I’d be flamed. I’ve sure had an education, not even able to ask my gay friends to interpret some of the exotica for me so I have to breathe deep and ask here. And am never condescended to. Plus we straight women are TOUGH broads.

        I’ve suggested a second time to the editors that we convene in DC. No response. Under advisement, Craig, Doug, Michael, David?

      • Kate
        09/09/2010 at 11:29 AM

        Hey Rich – Paya Bay is indeed paradise. I’ve stayed there on three occasions.

        And that dirt road is awesomely bumpy!


        And Gloria – us middle-aged straight broads are tough, ain’t we?

      • Deb
        09/10/2010 at 6:50 PM

        Just stating the obvious, kiddo, but I think I can appreciate your anxiety.

        Do what’s right for you, and everything else falls into place.


        • rich
          09/10/2010 at 8:36 PM

          Will Do.

          And, now we have way more time to wait.

          Gotta figure out how to do it all.

          We´re gonna be talking for another 15 months.

          And, we still will mot have the answer to, ¨Who Murdered…

          I still say we all meet.

  7. susan
    09/07/2010 at 11:13 PM

    JP is very confident in relaying what happened which leads me to believe most of what he said happened did happen. But, of course, something is missing. When he mentions the blood on the finger, he still acts absorbed in the Blackberry and he isn’t looking up. Touches his face then too. Again, uses distancing language re RW (“someone” on our couch, and Victor didn’t touch “it”–RW’s body). And then there’s that most important Catch-22 letter to T. Ragone. They have information for the police. Bringing it to the police could involve in the arrest of one of them. That is the message in a nutshell. What’s the info.?

    Maybe someone will perform a “random act of kindness” the kind of which R. Wone was committed to, and share something that might help shed some light on the missing info.

    • denton
      09/08/2010 at 8:10 AM

      It was almost 2 minutes of first checking K.Wone’s Daily Grill lunch meeting that he could not find on his calendar, then he kept on reading something without looking up but still answering questions from the detective. I was annoyed seeing him doing that. It appeared that the detective noticed that Joe just didn’t check his calendar, he checked something else too.

      • AnnaZed
        09/08/2010 at 11:07 AM

        Yes, the coal-fired nerve of the way Joe behaves is pretty much breath taking; while being interrogated in connection with the murder (only hours before) of his guest and friend Joe takes time to check his messages, amazing and amazing that the police allow it.

        • denton
          09/08/2010 at 11:14 AM

          Looking from the cop’s side, if he choked up Joe or said something, Joe would have immediately fired back without hesitation. The cop was patient with him knowing what he was doing and just kept on asking questions. eeerrrrr

  8. susan
    09/07/2010 at 11:18 PM

    Regarding the blood on the finger, we know from what T. Ragone said in her testimony that JP is not being forthcoming with police in that moment:

    “There’s a difference between tampering with a crime scene and wiping away blood because you’re freaking out.”

    • 09/07/2010 at 11:59 PM

      Re: “There’s a difference between tampering with a crime scene and wiping away blood because you’re freaking out.”
      If there are nuggets of truth in words, one or more “freaked” out and stabbed RW.

  9. Grrr
    09/07/2010 at 11:56 PM

    Oh, dear me, what a lousy interrogation. The “come to Jesus,” thing is so out there. Many of us ‘mo’s nowadays have straight friends that we welcome into our homes, become life-long friends with, enjoy each others families, etc. No they were oldtimey gum shoes dealing with a very sophisticated criminal. The first rule as a lawyer is never talk to the police, even if you are innocent. JP knew he could manipulate the situation even while breaking a fundamental rule of dealing with the cops. It worked!

    I am not saying a gay cop would have helped, well yes, I’ll say it, a gay homicide detective (sounds like a movie) would have been so much more insightful. The detectives didn’t once mention shopping, travel, fine dining, bias in life, family opinion, awkward work situations or anything to get into this bitch’s head. No, they tended to focus on their own perverse ideas as gay people as generally predators. They lost because they are stupid. Pure and simple.

    • Bea
      09/08/2010 at 12:56 AM

      Grrr, I agree that the detectives really stunk it up. I think the ‘come to Jesus’ comment comes off as silly but I think I understand his ‘real’ point – which was this was not blissful domesticity. “Happily married” to two men just sticks out for further questions – for me especially because it’s not genuinely a 3-way but two couples with a common partner.

      And the cop’s comment that Dylan WAS downstairs “with Robert” seems to really get Joe’s goat in a big way. I sensed genuine jealousy, thus the arrogant comment that Dylan was happily married to Joe when they were neither domestic partners nor (apparently) all that ‘happy’ (at least Dylan wasn’t).

      It’s all speculation, of course, and I go round and round in my head, but I wonder if Joe was “offering up” Robert to Dylan (the other part of me wonders if one can genuinely be THAT high to think he can get away with his with a friend/lawyer). I don’t see Dylan as instigator – simply put, and a bit crass, but he doesn’t seem all that motivated or moved by much.

      If the Swann residents (one or more) did murder Robert, Joe’s interrogation makes sense to me. He knew shutting up really made him look guilty to his friends/Kathy and it was his best shot at directing attention away. Sadly, it worked. He didn’t get caught in enough meaningful lies (or so said Judge Leibovitz).

      If the Swann residents did NOT murder Robert AND knew nothing as to who did, Joe’s interrogation makes far less sense. I know it’s speculative to know how any of us would behave, but striking the arrogant-cocky pose doesn’t ring true to me. Dead friend: grief, outrage, desire to get the cops moving in the right direction. He’s a lawyer yet HE’S the one of the three who refuses to directly admit that he DOESN’T know what the other two were doing when he was asleep – just plain refuses to say it out loud when both Victor and Dylan know that this is an ordinary answer (much as one immediately ADDS how unlikely they think anything untoward would be). For other lawyers, remember back to when YOU may have been deposed – it’s happened to me maybe a half dozen times. It’s discovery, and one gives skimpy answers – the ‘witness’ never offers up anything. I’ve been deposed too for “testimony” depositions in an administrative proceeding – far different from the ‘hiding the ball’ done during discovery depos. As a ‘witness’ you give your side of the story, tell everything in full. Do your best to come across as forthright and honest and DO NOT hide the ball.

      Joe approaches this as a discovery depo – he gives the basic facts but doesn’t elucidate. Some skeptics might say – ‘well, what if he doesn’t know anything else?’ In my sense of things he’d be racking his brain for missed details, asking to go back to the house to help, ‘thinking out loud’ on maybe a possible shady trick had picked up a spare key – anything. Instead, he gets nasty and plays word games.

      • Grrr
        09/08/2010 at 8:00 AM

        I know this is not really PC, and may even be repugnant in some circles, but part of me wanted detective Dingleberry, or whatever his name is, to reach across the table & punch Mr. Sarcasm off Joey’s face.

        • denton
          09/08/2010 at 9:24 AM

          Grrr, …sophisticated criminal, indeed (whether he did it, or not)

          Bea, …(JOE) gets nasty and plays word games.

          I saw to it too! I am not a lawyer/cop. Watching Joe saying that the cop was trying to do his job and obviously knew his rights (in his head at that moment), disgusted me.

          That was what any cop would do, Joe (seeking information so he can resolve the crime), you idiot! Have a little respect, man! We have arrogant cops/lawyers anywhere, anytime. This was not the time to play games. Your game was over when EM took Robert’s body out of your house.

    • Craig
      09/08/2010 at 10:29 AM

      Very early into the investigation, from the evening of the murder I believe, MPD Gay Liaison Sgt. Brett Parson, was on the case. And if I recall correctly, Parson even shuttled Ward to and from the VCB to the FBI for the lie detector test.

      • Clio
        09/08/2010 at 11:19 PM

        Craig, what impact, if any, did Brett have on the case? Did his involvement stall the investigation — which was off to a bad start anyway with Wagner and Norris, who were certainly the latest Starsky and Hutch?

        Is Brett still with the MPD? If not, why?

        • Craig
          09/08/2010 at 11:40 PM

          Clio: Impact might not be the right word considering the four fruitless years of MPD casework. I think the gay liaison unit was either dissolved or incorporated into another squad in some sort of MPD adminstrative shuffle of the deck.

          • David
            09/09/2010 at 9:46 AM


            Brett is still with MPD, though he is not the gay liaison any longer. He is now, if I am correct, with the 6th precinct.

            David, co-ed.

            • Clio
              09/09/2010 at 9:02 PM

              Thanks, David and Craig. I guess we’ll never know Brett’s impact — window dressing, “boys will be boys” obstruction, victimizing the victim, etc. then all remain as troubling possibilities, especially for that strange media lacunae between August 5 and 14.

  10. Michael
    09/08/2010 at 8:46 AM

    Joe screwed up.

  11. denton
    09/08/2010 at 9:31 AM

    FTC Takes Action Against Employee Bloggers – It may not be of your interests, or new, to you but I just got this in my mail.

    • 09/08/2010 at 11:43 AM

      And the implication, for us, is ….?

      • Michael
        09/08/2010 at 1:52 PM

        Every time we post something negative about the trouple, we must state that we have no connection with the Estate of Robert Wone! 😉

        • denton
          09/08/2010 at 3:30 PM

          Michael and Gloria – Sorry, I don’t why I did that. There is ABSOLUTELY no implication; and No, it has nothing to do with Estate of Robert Wone. Thanks for giving me a chance to clear myself.

        • 09/08/2010 at 5:37 PM

          Uh, oh. I made a financial donation to the Estate of Robert Wone. I hear the FTC agent knocking at my door right now…..

          • denton
            09/08/2010 at 8:56 PM

            …that was ssooooo funnnnnnyyyyyy

  12. Deb
    09/08/2010 at 6:51 PM

    When Joe goes to the cell phone to look up his calendar entry for lunch with Kathy prior to the murder . . . Hmmmmm. Seems like it’s not Joe’s phone.

    Again, EPIC FAIL MPD.

    • AnnaZed
      09/08/2010 at 7:10 PM

      Now that is an interesting point. If the phone that he consults could be demonstrated (and I think it can) not to even be his phone ~ ergo he is lying about looking something up on it right there in the same room with the detectives ~ then (Good God) what else is he capable of?

      • 09/08/2010 at 7:22 PM

        He’s capable of claiming he’s retained an attorney when he has not. (Several of you convinced me that he was blowing smoke, aka lying, when he claimed he had retained an attorney, in the context of “my attorney told me not to talk but I am talking so as to show you how cooperative I am being.”)

    • susan
      09/09/2010 at 1:00 PM


      That is a great observation! He KNOWS it’s not his phone. Even if he had a momentary lapse, and that’s possible given the circumstances, the moment he goes to the calendar or sees messages coming in he knows. I keep trying to give him the benefit of the doubt because I see things in his life before then that to me are admirable, but this point to me is glaring. He kept looking at that phone and NOT at the calendar because He Knew That Was Not His Phone! What insolence.

      And the cops–totally screwed things up. I agree with Grrr that they should have had someone in the know about gay culture in DC or even someone more contemporary age-wise question the trouple.

      BTW, our chief Kathy Lanier has been charged in some whistleblowing case out here. Since she’s never followed up with new police contact information for this case, I weep not a tear for her. I hope that case against her is “active” but in a real sense, not in the way she used the term to describe police activity on this case.

      • Clio
        09/09/2010 at 9:14 PM

        Say it ain’t so, Cathy with a C!

        How long does it take to update a poster? I guess the “very, very active” investigation has made them all
        overlook that telling detail.

        Are Norris & Wagner still with the MPD? Their performance here, I trust, was just a bad night: otherwise, I do feel embarrassed and alarmed for the District’s citizens. Perhaps, these snippets can be used as a training video on how NOT to interview a “witness.”

        • denton
          09/10/2010 at 11:47 AM

          … and the murderer(s) is/are still out there!

  13. Deb
    09/08/2010 at 7:48 PM

    Just opinion, I found the come to jesus stuff to be softer on video than in transcript. It was much quicker and much more monotonously delivered than I imagined while reading the transcript.

    As I’ve said before, I really feel the underlying question was essential. Regardless of all other things, this was a domestic murder. I don’t think you can leave sex out of any domestic murder.

  14. boofoc
    09/08/2010 at 11:34 PM

    Assuming the “come-to-Jesus” interrogator (forget his name at the moment)is typical of the MPD, Sgt. Bret Parson, the department’s Gay Liaison (whom I know to be a “cool dude”)has his work cut out for him. Would that he had participated in the interrogation. (Craig says he took DW for his test.)

  15. AnnaZed
    02/16/2011 at 7:36 PM

    Reviewing this looking for something that I was thinking about posting on another thread I suddenly just thought that (Jesus) all is lost.

    These cops are so dumb and their questions are so dumb that I just don’t see any possibility of anything substantive ever emerging from this police force.

    Joe obviously thought the same thing. He gets so bored at the end that he first lies about looking up something on the blackberry (phone, whatever) that isn’t even his and then continues to look at the messages on it while the dumbest of the two cops continues to ask idiotic questions about whether it was “Rob” or Kathy that told Joe that Robert had a meeting and couldn’t attend a lunch date a week before.

    Joe even testily points out that whomever said it it wasn’t an “important fact;” he has such withering contempt for this idiot cop who (sorry if I offend) can’t even string together a simple sentence in plain English. Poor Mrs. Wone must have despaired when she saw this.

    • Clio
      02/16/2011 at 10:32 PM

      Is Mr. Price as haughty today as he was at Anacostia? Or, has that alleged haughty “hottie” turned into a broken, bitter old troll? Dorian Gray is still worth a reread, Joe.

Comments are closed.