Track 29

The State of the Union at Union Station

Sightings around town of the principals in the Wone case have been sporadic over the last year or so.  Some have been first person encounters, while others have come from very reliable sources.  Some seem to be plausible while there have been others we judged to be suspect and more than likely fictional think could have been cases of mistaken identity.

Not all of these instances are breaking news or for that matter all that significant, but they’re not just idle gossip.  In some way they add small elements to a larger, still-evolving story.

As the case and 2011 trial move forward, these brief and parting glances may indicate the status of the relationships between the three defendants, Joe Price, Dylan Ward and Victor Zaborsky; therefore relevant.

These complicated relationships matter because they may be a window into how the defendants proceed and defend themselves in the civil case as well any possible charges that may surface in a future criminal case.  The relationships were also key to the criminal prosecution and we have every reason they will be to the Covington civil team as well, as evidenced by their pending discovery requests and interrogatory questions.

That said: our latest sighting after the jump.

Last week we learned of a key piece in the post-criminal trial puzzle: Dylan Ward, one-time member of the Swann Street family and sexual partner of Joe Price, is currently out of the area.  Way out of the area.

His signed response to the plaintiffs first set of interrogatories showed a notary stamp from the State of Washington.  Whether Ward has relocated permanently is anyone’s guess.  He left the confines of his in-law’s in McLean, a house that belonged to Victor Zaborsky’s aunt Marcia, and may have moved into the home of much closer relatives, possibly his parents in Seattle.

Zaborsky’s interrogatory response lacked a notary seal so we can’t quite determine where he is living, but the smart money says he’s still in the DC area.  There were rumors last summer, ahead of the criminal trial, that Zaborsky and or Ward were spending significant time in Florida.  While we were never able to confirm that, we were told in no uncertain terms by someone who should know, that Zaborsky did not relocate.

That leaves Joe Price.  The notary stamp on his interrogatory response said Washington, DC and a recent sighting underscored that.  Several weeks ago, Price was seen at Union Station, in the very public boarding area waiting to get on a train.

No big deal, right?  Union Station’s vaulted ceilings and marble corridors have tens of thousands of Amtrak and Metro passengers passing through them daily.  But what stood out in this report, was Price’s traveling companion.  It was not Victor Zaborsky, but another gentleman.

What really stood out in this sighting, from an unimpeachable source, was hearing that the two travelers were close.  Very close, as in PDA – public displays of affection – close.

While we don’t begrudge anyone sharing a public hug or two, this raises questions about the state of the Price-Zaborsky relationship – still registered domestic partners – who were seen wearing their commitment rings throughout the six-week criminal trial that ended in late June.

The threesome hung together closely in the criminal trial, but are they still?  Ward has peeled off, geographically if not emotionally, and Price, too, maybe be moving on.

When questions arise about the relationships among the Swann Street Three, more questions arise about how they may proceed in their joint defense against Kathy Wone’s wrongful death suit.

Is the family still on track or are they now derailing?

 

166 comments for “Track 29

  1. Random Thinker
    09/27/2010 at 10:07 AM

    does anyone really care? Their lives have been ruined because of the tragedy of Robert Wone’s murder. But that pales in comparison to the way Kathy Wone’s life, and the lives of so many others who loved Robert, have been upended permanently. At least the Swann Street Three still have the ability to make changes in their lives. The changes in Kathy’s were forced on her.

    Lets not make these 3 into quasi-celebs – no Lindsay Lohan or Parris Hilton -like sightings, please.

    • Nelly
      09/27/2010 at 2:26 PM

      I care. I don’t think the editors posted this to make the trouple sound like quasi-celebs either. It’s additional information about what has been going on with these three men who probably got away with murder.

      • Clio
        09/27/2010 at 6:41 PM

        Well, unlike (maybe) former Senator Larry Craig of Idaho, Culuket at least was at Union Station for a legitimate purpose: to catch a train.

  2. TT
    09/27/2010 at 10:53 AM

    Victor, wake up…

    • denton
      09/27/2010 at 11:06 AM

      Sounds “derailing” to me! I feel very sad for Victor (alone). If what Dyland did to Joe (withdrawal) had Joe did it to Victor, I just hope at the end of the day Victor can find peace within himself (that is the best that one can do) – and look around, reapply himself to “reconnect” to somoeone new. Very sad, indeed!

      • Josh
        09/27/2010 at 8:10 PM

        I don’t imagine that Victor will find peace within himself until he comes clean. I certainly hope he doesn’t. And if he does, then he’s a sociopath, too.

        • denton
          09/27/2010 at 9:07 PM

          The dynamic amongst the 3 defendants back in August 2006 was quite something else. The emails have yet been revealed. Until we see the contents of the emails, we can determine who was the sociopath. I’m just speaking from my own viewpoint.

  3. Michael
    09/27/2010 at 12:06 PM

    The trouple is not going to like this one AT ALL! Let us know if you get any nasty e-mails.

    • Clio
      09/27/2010 at 8:53 PM

      I do wonder if Joe’s alleged platform love is an acquaintance of Victor, or if boy may have met boy via alt dot bomb.

  4. Eagle
    09/27/2010 at 12:10 PM

    If this is true, I think this behavior tells us something about Joe’s loyalty index. (In addition to what we already knew from his behaviors while Victor was away.)
    With a friend like this, who needs enemies?

    • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
      09/27/2010 at 1:18 PM

      With a “partner” like this, who needs enemies.

      Victor can’t really be THAT much of a chump can he? Sure looks like it.

      • Bea
        09/27/2010 at 1:34 PM

        I think it’s been established that Victor is beyond help in the Joe-don’t-love-you-and-cheats-and-thinks-of-another-as-love-of-his-life department. Wonder how’ll he’ll rationalize having Joe macking with yet another in a public place? Perhaps he’s an emotional masochist. But where are his damned friends and family – they should be screaming ENOUGH! And if Joe wants to make amends PRETEND THE HOUSE IS ON FIRE!

        • David
          09/27/2010 at 2:44 PM

          This is just my own guess, I don’t have any extra knowledge about the state of the relationship than what is posted on the site so far, but I think the Swann Street Three are no more. I think all have gone their seperate ways with the civil trial (and a potential murder charge) the only thing binding them together. I think the rings on Joe and Victor’s fingers during the trial were for show thus keeping the discussion of their private life to a minimum. If anything, I see the Joe/PDA/Union Station story a sign that they have moved on.

          Again, I reiterate, this is just pure speculation on my part.

          David, co-ed.

          • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
            09/27/2010 at 2:47 PM

            If your speculation is correct, then the “marital privilege” should be deeply scrutinized by Mrs. Wone’s counsel.

            If they are not living together, perhaps that would be enough to strike that down.

            • David
              09/27/2010 at 3:04 PM

              Since they were domestic partners in August 2006, I don’t know how the status of their relationship in September 2010 would affect the “marital priviledge” they are asseting for the August 2006 time period.

              David

              • Bill 2
                09/27/2010 at 7:33 PM

                While they were domestic partners on paper, Price’s e-mail and cards to the “love of my life” bring to mind the “marriage” of Kenny Chesney and Renee Zellweger. She got smart and sued him for fraud. Victor doesn’t have the wherewithall to comprehend what was happening.

          • Rich
            09/27/2010 at 5:49 PM

            Dear David:

            But don’t you think the Civl Trial and the possible addittion of new Criminal Charges is enough to keep them together.

            Maybe, not as Lovers, but, definitely as comrades.

  5. Kate
    09/27/2010 at 12:37 PM

    Hello All – one question:

    Although Mr. Price has been spotted with a new Friend, how do we know that Victor didn’t give Joe the boot?

    Especially after the humiliating revelations in the criminal case: i.e. Sparkly Cat cards and Price referring to Ward as the “love of his life.”

    Price may be moving on, but Zaborsky is in a much better place without him. Unfortunately, their two sons will keep them somewhat connected.

    • AnnaZed
      09/27/2010 at 1:21 PM

      One can live and dream I expect.

      • Kate
        09/27/2010 at 3:04 PM

        Yes, AnnaZ – I’m still dreaming.

  6. Bea
    09/27/2010 at 12:37 PM

    Just a monogamous lesbian here, but query to those more ‘in the know.’ Most of the guys I know with relatively ‘open’ relationships still have RULES, not the least of which is DON’T EMBARRASS ME BY DOING LOCAL. I would think public displays of affection in Union Station is beyond the pale . . .

    As TT so aptly said: Victor, wake up!!!

    • Kate
      09/27/2010 at 1:01 PM

      Bea – just a monogamous heterosexual here, but for Joe Price, based on what we know of his past behavior, it appears that relationship rules of any kind do not apply to him. He has demonstrated that view on countless occasions.

      And yes, I agree, PDAs in Union Station are beyond the pale for a mature man under public scrutiny.

      • Michael
        09/27/2010 at 1:17 PM

        Kate & Bea – just a monogamous heterosexual here, but for me, making out with someone in a train station is “the tits”.

        There are two places I believe PDA is okay: airports and train stations! Okay maybe it’s not okay most of the time, but I find it’s acceptable, considering it may be the last time you see or talk to eachother ever again

        For instance, you take a train to Boston, sleep in the guest room of an old college buddy, and then get intrude-a-murdered. Don’t you wish you had taken the chance to make out with your gay lover back in Union Station when you had the chance??

        • Bea
          09/27/2010 at 1:29 PM

          Understood, Michael, but bear in mind that Union Station (as I recall) is also just yet another stop on the Metro and not necessarily “a long goodbye” spot like airports or long-range trains. Still the tits?

          • Bea
            09/27/2010 at 1:30 PM

            Oh, and the one with whom you are swapping spit is NOT your domestic partner NOR your mistress boy toy but a third. . .

            • Craig
              09/27/2010 at 1:52 PM

              Just to be clear, and I hope the text so reflects, we don’t think this was a full-on make out session, just a public display of a certain level of affection that was enough to get noticed.

              Had we been told it was steamier, the accompanying graphic would probably have been a still from North By Northwest of that train going into a tunnel. I have a certain soft spot for Hitchcock imagery.

              • Hoya Loya
                09/27/2010 at 2:40 PM

                Said Hitchcock of that image: “It’s a phallic symbol — but don’t tell anyone.”

              • Kate
                09/27/2010 at 3:02 PM

                Thanks for the clarification, Craig.

                After re-reading my above posts, I realize that I occasionally lose objectivity when it comes to Joe Price.

                And as for North by Northwest: that film does indeed give great train!

              • Bruce
                09/28/2010 at 12:06 AM

                Although remember….sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

                • Kate
                  09/28/2010 at 7:44 AM

                  Yes indeed – just ask Monica Lewinsky!

              • Deb
                09/28/2010 at 9:45 PM

                And double entendre . . .

          • Michael
            09/28/2010 at 9:59 AM

            Ayo Bea,

            I typed a huge rant about how awesome Union Station is, submitted it, and it was lost! So I’ll just say, there is a Union Station metro stop, but it is separate from the train station. Union Station is actually pretty big, and it has its own mall and food court. I’ve grown fond of it, as I’ve gone there twice a day, five days a week for about a year now.

            Yes, it’s still the tits. 😉 You should check it out if you ever get the chance! I really did the architecture. Way more appealing to me than any of those lame-o monuments.

            • Michael
              09/28/2010 at 10:46 AM

              and by did the architecture I meant dig…

              • denton
                09/28/2010 at 10:49 AM

                1905/1906 lobby, awesome pix here.

            • Kate
              09/28/2010 at 10:55 AM

              Hi Michael – I agree with you about Union Station. The architecture is magnificent.

              I catch the train for New York there frequently. It’s one of the Grand Dames of the time when the Rails were King.

            • Bea
              09/28/2010 at 11:36 AM

              Agree that Union Station is a magnificent structure – it was even before they stepped it up with a food court and updating – my point was only that it’s still not crystal clear why/where Joe-N-Pal were when spotted.

              • Michael
                09/28/2010 at 11:41 AM

                I like to imagine they were in line at McDonald’s, waiting for their McCoffees and McParfaits.

                P.S. Bea Bea I know your avatar is an album cover. My ex would put on the vinyl when we chilled in her room. Can’t for the life of me remember who that is though…!

                • Bea
                  09/28/2010 at 11:47 AM

                  Love the idea of Joe waiting for his McDoubleShake, trying to impress the new boy with loose change McDonald’s delights!!

                  Patti Smith, Horses.

                  • Michael
                    09/28/2010 at 1:30 PM

                    Thank YOU!

                • Kate
                  09/28/2010 at 12:01 PM

                  Okay, I cant seem to stop myself today (practicing work avoidance), so here goes …

                  I like the MacDonald’s idea, but wouldn’t it be more impressive if they were cued up at the Wendy’s kiosk waiting for The Baconator?

                  I just couldn’t resist. Sorry.

        • Bruce
          09/27/2010 at 11:31 PM

          Just a prehistoric unisexual brain eating amoeba here, but I could care less if the Swann 3 are together or not. Doesn’t tell me a thing about the murder. Just my opinion, y’all.

          • Bill 2
            09/27/2010 at 11:47 PM

            I think you’re right. It really doesn’t tell us about the murder. OTOH, it tells us about three people directly involved with the murder victim, so there is that connection. OTOH, Atticus Finch doesn’t tell us about the murder victim nor the three people involved, yet it was an interesting topic of discussion, too. There have been a lot of topics involving law, lawyers, literature and other murder trials that don’t tell us about the murder of Robert Wone, but they certainly have added a wealth of information to our knowledge as we watch the very slow wheels of justice move along. Just my opinion.

            • Bruce
              09/28/2010 at 12:23 AM

              Hey Bill 2:

              You’re right.

              But I don’t know, I just think that the private lives of the defendants now is not particularly relevant AND goes to a certain prurient interest that does not really provoke or satisfy the better natures of our souls.

              However, in the spirit of full disclosure, I must state that when I’m waiting in line at the Piggly Wiggly to pay for my dead animal meat and cow liquids, I usually find myself checking out the front covers of those literary masterpieces like The Globe, Nat’l Enquirer, etc.

              So, I guess I’m a bit of a fraud to even raise the issue.

              • Kate
                09/28/2010 at 7:58 AM

                Thanks for that Bruce – I must admit to feeling a bit icky after two of my posts yesterday and am torn between wanting to know the nitty gritty details and the sense that its none of my damn business.

                But the dynamics of the Three’s relationships could prove important down the road. What was the Enquirer’s old tag line: Enquiring minds want to know!

                Prurient yes, and sadly an age-old part of human nature, as well. To paraphrase Jane Austen – What are we but to provide sport for our neighbors, and laugh at them in our turn?

                • Craig
                  09/28/2010 at 10:54 AM

                  There’ve been loads of far more purient details we’ve come across that have never seen print. But the Union Station sighting ties in directly to what was a key part of the government’s case: relationships, past and present.

                  And we have every reason to believe Cov and Patrick Regan will pound away on that as well. Voyeurism in and of itself adds little, and I hope this incident was put in the proper context.

                  • Kate
                    09/28/2010 at 11:07 AM

                    Yes Craig – you did indeed put this incident in the proper context and I agree completely that the relationships of the three will be extremely important to the civil case.

                    I was merely feeling a tad uncomfortable with the workings in my own wee mind, certainly not your Track 29 entry.

                    Regards and many thanks,
                    Kate

                  • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                    09/28/2010 at 11:29 AM

                    Craig,

                    I brought up recently the use of “marital privilege” regarding the Arent emails, if they are no longer together.

                    I’d like to hear from the attys on how a severed relationship would effect current actions and future actions (i.e., obtaining the Arent Fox emails, etc.)

                    • Bea
                      09/28/2010 at 11:40 AM

                      Hey CD, the privilege still covers the time periods when the duo were registered domestic partners. Even if Victor has come to his senses – at least to the part under Joe’s control. I’m of the opinion that the AF emails should not be protected since the IT Dept. and the partners who canned Joe’s ass likely “properly” read them and thus destroyed the privilege.

                    • KiKi
                      09/28/2010 at 11:45 AM

                      Spousal privilege covers communications made while two people were married. A split-up now would have no affect(legally speaking) on the prior privileged communications. Also it appears since they are formally still registered domestic partners the union,for legal purposes is in tact. But even if they do legally seperate past communications will continue to be protected.

        • Bruce
          09/27/2010 at 11:33 PM

          Michael:

          Thank you very much for “intrude-a-murder.”

          • Kate
            09/28/2010 at 7:59 AM

            I second that!

        • denton
          09/28/2010 at 7:30 AM

          There are two places I believe PDA is okay: airports and train stations!

          I agree. Even the person that we saw was involved in a crime 5 years ago, his/her PDA with whoever was really nothing significant (to me) to be found guilty of. It’s only my opinion.

          • Clio
            09/28/2010 at 9:53 PM

            Well, in this lifetime at least, I was brought up to believe that PDA, even for married heterosexual couples, was never O.K., but that, of course, was deep in the last century.

            One could make the argument that two men embracing, holding hands, and/or cuddling in such a public place in the nation’s capital is a reflection of how far we have come in achieving legal equality for LGBT peoples, but one of the two men in this particular instance may not be like all of the others striving against such garden-variety bigotry. So, I will hold my nose and my applause here for purely civil rights.

    • Deb
      09/28/2010 at 6:42 PM

      An emotionally monogamous heterosexual here — if you care, there are rules.

  7. Rich
    09/27/2010 at 2:05 PM

    Bruce, Denton, Craig, and any of the Other Guys on this Site:

    We must watch the, “Hormonal,” levels of this crowd.

    Getting a bit out of control.

    Maybe the 27th of the month is NOT a good day for all of these ladies. 🙁

    • Bea
      09/27/2010 at 2:16 PM

      What the heck?

      • Bruce
        09/27/2010 at 2:37 PM

        Too much, Dude. Please immediately apologize. That’s offensive to everyone, and I don’t like my name being in the post.

    • Nelly
      09/27/2010 at 2:31 PM

      Somebody here is begging to be banned from the site.

    • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
      09/27/2010 at 2:38 PM

      I’m beginning to think Rich and Denton are running interference for the other side.

      “Got misogyny?”

      • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
        09/27/2010 at 2:39 PM

        (The other side being pro-defendants)

        • denton
          09/27/2010 at 3:39 PM

          I am so sorry but I am not on the “other side” (pro-defendants) but rather now “neutral.”

          • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
            09/27/2010 at 3:49 PM

            Good to know.

    • AnnaZed
      09/27/2010 at 2:56 PM

      Alright, that’s it.

      Rich, go fuck yourself, and please while you are at it, fuck entirely off.

      • Rich
        09/27/2010 at 2:59 PM

        Formerly Married to an RG. (Real Girl).

        Not sexist here at all.

        However, take an objective look at all of the posts on September 27 and you will find Women on the Attack (generally speaking) and Men on the Defensive begging for forgiveness.

        This is uncharacteristic behavior for this site.

        We do not support hostility nor should it be witnessed here.

        Hence we search for WMRW.

        Maybe the old adage, think before you speak should go into pay here.

        Or even better, If you don’t have nothing positive to say…..

        Maybe you should, “Get a Life,” Anna Zed.

        You’re spinning out of control, AGAIN.

        Off to resuming my life.

        Gotta stay with the positive folks.

        • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
          09/27/2010 at 3:11 PM

          Rich, please aquaint yourself with the definition of misogyny.

          “[Misogyny] is a central part of sexist prejudice and ideology and, as such, is an important basis for the oppression of females in male-dominated societies. Misogyny is manifested in many different ways, from jokes to pornography to violence to the self-contempt women may be taught to feel for their own bodies.”

          Jump on the clue bus, Rich. Your posting had everyting to do with contempt for women, when the postings by women about your ramblings had nothing to do with men.

        • AnnaZed
          09/27/2010 at 3:43 PM

          Rich, I have absolutely completely lost patience with you and your bull-shit and will call you on it every single time you trot it out. I hope that we are entirely clear on that point.

          Saying that female posters are at the mercy of their hormonal cycles when they criticize you and your rambling, self centered (not to mention off topic) adolescent, attention sneaking posts is straight out of the oldest-most-dog-eared-greasy-food-stained misogynist playbook that there is. Most people with any sense, self respect or simple understanding of social discourse proceed as if these ideas have been consigned to the dust heap of history. We at this site (and I suppose Stieg Larsson) know that that (alas) has not happened yet. No wonder you are divorced you asshole.

          • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
            09/27/2010 at 3:53 PM

            ::hearty applause::

            Well said, AnnaZ.

            • Clio
              09/27/2010 at 7:30 PM

              Thank you, AZ! Buh-bye, Rich. Kiss, C.

              • KKinCA
                09/28/2010 at 4:01 AM

                Awesome AnnaZed! Rich – don’t let the door hit you on your way out . . .

        • Bill 2
          09/27/2010 at 3:50 PM

          “you will find Women on the Attack (generally speaking)”

          My thanks to the “Women on the Attack.” I bow to your wisdom and appreciate your gusto in this matter.

          • denton
            09/27/2010 at 4:27 PM

            I woke up this morning to find Gloria’s message from last night that made me realize that I was misperceived. I just wanted to clear my record (didn’t mean to waste your space) and that was all.

        • KiKi
          09/27/2010 at 3:58 PM

          1. How do you know the gender of the posters?

          2. “You’re spinning out of control” and “Why don’t you get a life” – seems like you are on the attack.

          3. I don’t think you are a misogynist, just a moron.

          4. What possible positive, productive result, in your “search for WMRW,” did you think you would achieve with that comment?

        • Roger Sherman
          09/27/2010 at 5:28 PM

          Bad time of the month? Real Girl? WTF is your problem?
          You need to apologize and stop making offensive comments.

        • Deb
          09/28/2010 at 8:45 PM

          How am I on the attack. I’m saying there are rules if you care about your partner. Maybe Joe was behaving within the understanding he has with Victor. Hard to believe, given the circumstances, but who knows?

          • susan
            09/28/2010 at 9:03 PM

            Hey Deb,

            I think you are looking at older posts from yesterday. Whoever made that comment was directing it to someone else.

            • Deb
              09/29/2010 at 12:03 AM

              Thanks! I am definitely behind . . . And tired?

      • Jeana
        09/27/2010 at 8:50 PM

        Thanks AZ for speaking out here. I lacked the courage!

        • denton
          09/27/2010 at 9:02 PM

          I am not “for” or “against” anyone on this site. I think “f” word should not be used publicly here.

          Please save your courage to resolving this case.

  8. TT
    09/27/2010 at 2:32 PM

    Please eds take care of these guys

  9. boofoc
    09/27/2010 at 3:21 PM

    Please note: I didn’t say a word about Hoya’s telling us what Hitchcock said about not telling anyone.

  10. Craig
    09/27/2010 at 3:34 PM

    Too often I ponder the intangibles: Dylan Ward’s father was seen back-slapping and glad-handing Price, his defacto son-in-law, in the Moultrie hallway during the criminal trial.

    I doubt Needham Ward reads the site, but I can’t help but wonder what he and the rest of the Ward family wonder about Price now. Maybe nothing.

    • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
      09/27/2010 at 3:36 PM

      Hopefully. He deserves no more. IMHO

    • Deb
      09/28/2010 at 8:54 PM

      I bet they have had a serious and seriously worried conversation with their son. They love him and they want him to be safe. I would bet all of this has terrified them. I know it would terrify me.

      As a parent of many, I don’t know how I would react in their position. There is at least one of my children whose innocence I would not question at all. There is at least one other of my children whose innocence I would absolutely and immediately question because he lacks confidence and makes bad choices.

      I know either way I would be telling them to just tell the truth because that’s the only way to make any of it better — even if it’s something you can never fix.

      But honestly, as a parent, you have to wonder if they see Dylan as the child they would instinctively believe, or the child they would instinctively doubt. Either way, it would be terrifying.

  11. Bill 2
    09/27/2010 at 3:41 PM

    It’s somewhat of a surprise to see them on opposite ends of the country. And then there’s the possibility that Price and Zaborsky are not together.

    I wrongly figured that they would be very close to each other at all times but not because of love or friendship. I felt that it would be their “secret” that would make each of them not trust the other two to be out of sight. After all, what if Ward gets drunk or high on drugs in Washington state and blabs to someone about what happened on August 2nd? It seems that the men in DC would have that concern. When it comes to Price, doesn’t he stop to think that a PDA with another man could be the final straw that causes Zaborsky to wake up and realize that Price only needs him for two things — to water the plants and not testify against him in court.

    I’ve also been of the opinion that Zaborsky needs protection. After all, if someone has the sicko mentality to murder a good man like Robert Wone and get away with it, what’s another murder if it eliminates someone who could squeal to the cops? Why doesn’t Zaborsky’s family undertake a MAJOR intervention to get him out of DC and far away from the men he lived with on Swann Street?

    On a different note, that’s a beautiful color photo of Union Station. It makes me regret that I never stopped to appreciate the architecture in all the times I hurried through there. OTOH, the black and white photo has a sinister look. There’s a shadow of a man carrying a big suitcase containing camera equipment, bloody towels, a rubber playmat, and a knife. Who would that be?

  12. boofoc
    09/27/2010 at 3:42 PM

    Back to the sighting, did the “unimpeachable” observer observe whether JP was boarding an AMTRAC or a Metrorail; i.e., was he likely going to Miami or Silver Spring? Did the “gentleman” administering the PDA board the train also; were they travelling together? If so, no need for a goodbye hug. Just wondering…..

    • denton
      09/27/2010 at 9:59 PM

      From what I remember, if there is no change and someone can correct me if there is, Track 29 is on the LL (lower level) and is used by all southbound service, including all VRE trains, via the First Street Tunnel, as well as some northbound Amtrak services during the week. We don’t know where Joe is heading to as we don’t know what date/time.

      • AnnaZed
        09/28/2010 at 12:23 PM

        Um, I believe that like many post titles here laden with double entendre or designed as catchy references to pop-cultural markers that the reference here was to Dennis Potter and Nicolas Roeg’s film, “Track 29.”: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096294/ not to the actual platform #29 at the actual station.

        By the way, is English you native tongue? Just asking.

        • Hoya Loya
          09/28/2010 at 12:40 PM

          Even more likely, a Glenn Miller reference:

          “Pardon me boys, is that the Chattanooga Choo Choo?/TRACK 29!”

          • Kate
            09/28/2010 at 12:52 PM

            “! gotta get there on time!”

          • Bill 2
            09/28/2010 at 5:01 PM

            Is there a Track 29 at Union Station in DC? I never noticed. Ever since this was posted yesterday, that song has been going through my head.

            “I’ve got my fare and just a trifle to spare.”

        • denton
          09/28/2010 at 12:55 PM

          I am Chinese, is that a problem?

          • denton
            09/28/2010 at 12:56 PM

            …like Kathy and Robert, in case you ask again!

            • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
              09/28/2010 at 1:22 PM

              According to the Washingtonian, Mrs. Wone is Korean.

              http://www.washingtonian.com/blogarticles/people/capitalcomment/15689.html

              • AnnaZed
                09/28/2010 at 1:29 PM

                Ha, too fast for me CD, and I’m not even supposed to be working.

              • denton
                09/28/2010 at 1:30 PM

                All Asian people (when they are ouuside Asia i.e. in America) are “labelled” “Chinese!” Robert is dead. We need to get back on track. No rooms for biggering!

                • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                  09/28/2010 at 1:54 PM

                  I don’t do that denton.

                  I find that disrespectful.

                • AnnaZed
                  09/28/2010 at 2:14 PM

                  Well, I might have to defer to you on procedural grounds (higher likelihood of knowing what you are talking about as presented by your anonymous persona on an internet blog maybe), but my own experience with my sister-in-law, her father and my two nephews who are all of Chinese extraction, and also with my co-worker who is a Japanese ex-patriot, is that all of these people would be deeply and profoundly offended to find themselves grouped under an umbrella marked “Chinese” that included all Asian persons. To be frank, they would be particularly insulted to be lumped in with Koreans into any group, though that is another matter and obviously something that Robert was able to rise above.

                  The more common universal term “Asian” or “Asian-American” has the additional advantage of being both accurate and not insulting.

                  Additionally, in Southern California where I live there are many varied population sub-sets that are extracted from Asian countries and I find that each are not only distinctive and noticeably heritage proud but also rightly insulted if one simply calls them “Chinese.”

                  Maybe in the 1950s people got away with that oblivious, imperious bull-shit, but not now. In fact this idea has more in common with Rich’s antediluvian ideas about female reproductive cycles and expressions of anger than it does with any experience I have had of any Asian persons anywhere in my entire life. In fact, I am forced by your declaration to consider that you are not being honest (I know! an internet first!) and to consider your previous and subsequent posts in light of that.

                  Please clarify or retract.

                  • Cara
                    09/28/2010 at 2:57 PM

                    I interpreted that comment to mean that people outside Asia (in the U.S.) tend to make that unfortunate generalization (and I agree that at least in my experience, that is an antiquated practice), not that the commenter is suggesting that the generalization is an acceptable one to be made.

                    • AnnaZed
                      09/28/2010 at 3:44 PM

                      See my answer to you as a new post (this thread is too thin).

                    • denton
                      09/28/2010 at 4:59 PM

                      Cara,

                      Finally, THANK YOU!

                • Deb
                  09/28/2010 at 8:59 PM

                  I didn’t know that, Denton, I always say Asian. Unless I’m talking about my sister in law’s Mom who is Japanese — because I know her heritage.

                  But I know how you feel — everyone labels me white, which is completely inaccurate.

            • AnnaZed
              09/28/2010 at 1:28 PM

              Well, actually Kathy Wone is Korean-American, but I get your point (I think). You could read up on who Robert was and get some idea of who Kathy is here: http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/people/15483.html

              • denton
                09/28/2010 at 1:35 PM

                I don’t have to (read their background anymore, I already knew it).

                Asian people “understand” each other “traits” and “cultural background.”

                We need to “get back on that train,” start the engine, and start moving forward!

                • denton
                  09/28/2010 at 1:58 PM

                  All I care is “who did it to Robert,” and “how!” I am not a friend/relative of ANY of the Plaintiff or the Defendants. I am just an interested party to the case.

                  • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                    09/28/2010 at 2:09 PM

                    enough already.

                  • Rich
                    09/28/2010 at 4:02 PM

                    Careful, Denton.

                    I know you’re staying, “On Topic,” and focused on WMRW, but, you’re engaging in conversations with folks who are not here for WMRW and are focused on using, “Big Words,” to describe, “Clouded,” thinking.

                    Can get dangerous.

                    • denton
                      09/28/2010 at 5:13 PM

                      I’m learning, bro!

          • AnnaZed
            09/28/2010 at 1:04 PM

            Ah, ok. Not a problem at all.

  13. Arbiter
    09/27/2010 at 3:49 PM

    Craig, David et al = Ahabs, all chasing Joe Price’s Moby Dick.

    This blog is irrelevant. You people should get a life.

    • Clio
      09/27/2010 at 7:17 PM

      Joe Price may be Moby Dick, Arbiter, but I somehow doubt that he has one.

      We all can get a life, dear, and the blog may be irrelevant to Brook, but Robert can never get a new life and his murderers may get away with their crime, except for this little blog that could — the one thing that Culuket probably never imagined would ever happen.

      • susan
        09/27/2010 at 10:08 PM

        Clio,

        It’s always amusing when people like Arbiter come on this site just to tell people to get off it. Know the names of the eds and everything. Maybe that’s Arb’s life: going on blogs just to tell people they’re wasting their time.

    • carolina
      09/27/2010 at 11:27 PM

      His shirt necks are too tight and he’s mighty fleshy, but I wouldn’t go so far as to call him a whale…

      And let’s not forget that the only thing sadder than people with no life is people who follow them around with apparently no purpose but to tell them so.

  14. Bill Orange
    09/27/2010 at 4:50 PM

    “While we don’t begrudge anyone sharing a public hug or two, this raises questions about the state of the Price-Zaborsky relationship – still registered domestic partners – who were seen wearing their commitment rings throughout the six-week criminal trial that ended in late June.”

    Honestly, if he put up with a live-in sex slave and the cover-up of a murder, it’s hard for me to imagine him being upset about a make-out session, even one in Union Station.

    • mw
      09/27/2010 at 5:07 PM

      “Honestly, if he put up with a live-in sex slave and the cover-up of a murder, it’s hard for me to imagine him being upset about a make-out session, even one in Union Station.”

      So how come I can’t find a woman who doesn’t get all pissed off if I want to watch football all weekend?

      • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
        09/27/2010 at 5:28 PM

        Hmm….maybe you aren’t watching her favorite team.

        • Deb
          09/28/2010 at 9:03 PM

          Touche, CD! It’s the only reason I pay an enormous amount for Direct TV! Sure there are a few other shows I like — House, Modern Family, The Office and a new one Raising Hope which is really great — but were it not for football, I’d have rabbit ears!

  15. Rich
    09/27/2010 at 5:29 PM

    Who said I was Divorced?

    And, as for gender, if a screen name has a female name on it, one can assume it’s a girl. Then again, Denton said he made his name up, so, you could be a Joe? Victor? Or, even a Dylan?

    And, as it relates to those guys, this site never had an issue before with folks who supported the Swann 3. Has something changed?

    If you re-read every one of my remarks over the past week you will find very appropriate comments.

    Yes, I have not engaged in ad nauseum conversation about the legal components of the case, but, I have supported those who have.

    Folks are clearly getting bored with little news surfacing on the case and it’s resulting in way too much negativity.

    As for building relationships outside of the conversation or going, “Off Topic,” look at the hundreds of postings to date where folks have introduced recording artists and their music to the site, as provided by Susan yesterday.

    Is she off topic? Does she deserve your vitriol?

    Everyone and I mean EVERYONE needs to get a grip, get a life and move on.

    Keep it positive and leave the hate at home.

    Those of us who have been on this case for over 4 years have seen way too much hate to date.

    We do not have to read it here.

    • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
      09/27/2010 at 5:39 PM

      Rich said “Formerly Married to an RG. (Real Girl).”

      Annulment?

      • Rich
        09/27/2010 at 5:46 PM

        Formerly means NOT CURRENTLY.

        But, that can change, too! 🙂

        She’s Swell.

        • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
          09/27/2010 at 5:49 PM

          Golly. You got me on that one, Rich. You’re good.

          • Rich
            09/27/2010 at 5:52 PM

            My, My…

            CDinDC (Not, CDC) said, “I’m Good.”

            That sure beats, “Contempt for Women.”

            My wife is my Biggest Fan.

            Probably becuase I’m hers.

            • Bea
              09/27/2010 at 6:38 PM

              Confused. You were previously married to a ‘real girl’ and now you have a wife who is not a ‘real girl’?

              • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                09/27/2010 at 8:07 PM

                me too, Bea. Confused over “formerly” versus “not currently” versus “my wife” versus “who said I was divorced.”

                My logic puzzle is missing a column.

      • susan
        09/27/2010 at 5:55 PM

        Rich,

        You are clearly screwed up and don’t get it. That’s too bad.

        Re my post yesterday, which you bring up as a red herring since it has NOTHING to do with the complaints against your post–it was related to that day’s heading Autumn Leaves and the second was related to Doing the Right thing–meaning when you do something selfish and commit a crim–you ain’t reapin’ any rewards-spiritually or otherwise.

        “Keep it positive and leave the hate at home” begins with yourself, Rich. You don’t know sh*t about women (maybe “girls” since you say you were married to a “real” one. Does that mean there was a fake in the picture as well? If so, spare us). In fact I don’t either, because like men, they are varied individuals.

        This site has done it’s damndest to fight gay bashing, etc. The same would be true of any type of bashing–black, Jewish, Muslim, etc.

        But you topped it all: We don’t need over half the human population bashed or stereotyped by YOU. If you spend your time going over one day’s posting and imagining that the world’s women have their cycle on one day and conspired to attack the males posting on this site, then boy, Are You Screwed Up.

        Leave that kind of crap off of this site.

        • susan
          09/27/2010 at 5:57 PM

          Now I just read Rich’s other posts and see that it does seem he is a bit unhinged. So, it’s not worth arguing. We should all just move on and focus and ignore his posts–unless and until he gets his act together.

    • denton
      09/27/2010 at 5:40 PM

      I hope the reply key works this time. No, I am neither Joe, Victor, nor Dylan – for the record. I am a “happy reader” and I use denton as my nickname.

    • Bea
      09/27/2010 at 6:35 PM

      Rich, I know that your comments offended me (and I don’t know which of my comments triggered such a reaction in you – nor do I want you to tell me). I’m not sure why the sudden vitriol (nor the urgings to others to get a life when you and Bruce have been playing the airwaves fairly heavy – BRUCE, no harm meant in the mention). FYI, passed the ‘monthlies’ a couple of years ago, so no Aunt Marcia visiting me, thus your comment was both boorish and inaccurate. And we already established ‘offensive’ fairly roundly.

      Maybe take a long walk or something.

    • Three Strikes
      09/27/2010 at 11:40 PM

      Not at all surprising, Rich, that your charged comments would invoke a strong reaction.
      If you are as positive as you claim, then certainly an apology would follow, in your genuine care and concern for the bloggers you addressed, and others including me.
      But, if this is who you are, and stubborn would certainly describe you, and insensitive certainly would as well, then, continue on your path.
      And sometime again in the future, perhaps you will again mindlessly repeat this pattern of argument in which only you seems reasonable, in which apology is unthinkable.
      Meanwhile, let the blog continue with us all, in a sort of family. Not one big happy family, Rich. But a good one nonetheless.

      • Rich
        09/27/2010 at 11:56 PM

        Geeze…
        Youse guys do not need me.

        I’ve been away for four hours at a ballgame (yea, I know, “Off Topic.”) and you are still entertaining yourselves with such, “Mishegas.”

        Enjoy.

        And, Three Strikes, in all almost two years, I’m not sure our paths have crossed.

        Welcome to the site.

        It’s certainly entertaining.

        As I have repeatedly said to date, time to move on everyone.

        Good Night.

  16. Boltz3000
    09/27/2010 at 5:58 PM

    I sort of resent my Dylan sighting back in July being judged as “suspect” and “fictional.” I suppose there is a small chance that this person was merely a doppelganger but since I knew who he was was even before the murder, I am 95 percent sure it was him. I guess it just goes to show people are going to believe what they want to believe.

    Or not.

    • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
      09/27/2010 at 6:01 PM

      Boltz, was that the dinner at DIK (Dupont Italian Kitchen)?

      If so, I was delighted wtih your sighting.

      I saw Joe Price quite a while back. Walking down 18th Street in Adams Morgan. It was quite jarring actually.

    • Craig
      09/27/2010 at 6:28 PM

      Boltz – It just didn’t add up for us. No offense meant, honest, but this just didn’t fit the Ward profile as we know it – only three weeks after the verdict. And certainly not on 17th Street.

      Nonetheless, I’ll tweek the language and we welcome having you as a reader. Don’t be such a stranger. And next time, dinner is on me, but somewhere better than DIK. 🙂

    • AnnaZed
      09/27/2010 at 6:33 PM

      Boltz! I am not remembering this very well at all. Can someone provide a refresher link so that one may take a position on this sighting?

    • AnnaZed
      09/27/2010 at 8:15 PM

      Ah ok, followed the link already provided. I have no idea how I missed your post at the time, and with all due respect to our dear editors I have no reason to doubt you. There are planes and boats and trains. Mommy could send Lyl’Dyl a ticket at any time and he could flutter home for some motherly TLC and be back on Dupont Circle in time for next Friday dinner, why ever not?

    • Deb
      09/28/2010 at 11:29 PM

      It happens, Boltz. In my hometown, a girls own mother in law mistook me for her own daughter in law — to my face AND with confusing conversation.

      She really believed I was her daughter in law — with whom she visited weekly.

      My doppleganger and I were mistaken for each other throughout childhood — then years later she resurfaced at my wedding.

      It’s weird.

      But I don’t think anyone thinks you were inventing it.

      As for me, I’ve never had an encounter. Now I’m kind of encouraged to go ring a doorbell.

  17. Rich
    09/27/2010 at 7:17 PM

    The natives are getting restless.

    I’m sure the use of that word will garner more negative reaction.

    Susan, reread the post. No one was slamming you for linking us to Eva Cassidy.

    You were just one of hundreds of posters who, at the moment, was not focused on WMRW. One of your fellow posters would call that, “off topic.”

    Sitting at a Nats game against the Phillies (I know, god forbid, off topic) and will enjoy the game no matter how hard youse guys (back to Philadelphia) work to bully me.

    Unfortunately, pretty thick skinned here, so I find most of the negativity to be sad, but amusing.

    Hang in there Denton.

    • denton
      09/27/2010 at 7:22 PM

      Ok, brother!

    • Bea
      09/27/2010 at 7:27 PM

      Rich, double header against the Metropolitan Martyrs?

      • Deb
        09/28/2010 at 11:34 PM

        I tinkled a little.

        That was funny.

  18. AnnaZed
    09/27/2010 at 7:57 PM

    I am beginning to wonder if there might be some method to this latest iteration of Eternal September (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September) ~ not the first by the way ~ at this site.

    What (I wonder) is so very special about this latest bunch of filings that fifty ~ nay a hundred ~ distracting, irrelevant, insulting, juvenile and even puerile posts are needed in the hopes of burying them? I think I need to go back and read them again.

    Interestingly, in some recent correspondence that I have been having with a writer for a publication with a very large readership with whom I have discussed the Wone case (of which he was aware) and this site (of which he was not) and broadly intimated that it would be worth his time to look into it; I got a response only yesterday in which he expressed some amazement that I would spend any of my time here at all. He said (and I paraphrase, but the citation is his) the level of commentary there brings to mind AOL Usenet 1993 why on earth are you wasting time there? So, this currant torrent of adolescent babble more suited for a VH1 forum than a serious ongoing inquiry into a convoluted unsolved crime has certainly had one tangible real world consequence that I am aware of ~ the abrupt disengagement of a serious journalist and the loss of possible expanded interest in the case that his interest might have provided, maybe more.

    I don’t know what to suggest. Obviously being told flat out that the parties in question are derailing the discussion, burying the facts, pissing off the participants and generally boring the crap out of all assembled isn’t working.

    • Bill 2
      09/27/2010 at 8:10 PM

      I agree. It’s like a couple of boys in 3rd grade who hear the word “smut” and get the giggles and won’t shut up about it.

      • Bea
        09/27/2010 at 8:13 PM

        Well said, AZ and Bill2. It gets tiresome. Not that we haven’t weathered this before, but it remains truly irksome.

        • Kate
          09/27/2010 at 9:19 PM

          Ah yes, I recall tasso junior, for one. He was quite the character.

          • Craig
            09/27/2010 at 10:04 PM

            And before Junior (and Ben Franklin) was Lance. A semiotics professor we think. He would argue any point no matter how inconsequential. All are long gone; drive by shooters who left few if any lasting tire tracks in the snow. Cheers to those who stuck around.

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

              I tangled with Lance in the early days of the blog — boy did he hate our first definition of “culuket.” We were young and stupid then.

              David, co-ed

              • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                09/28/2010 at 4:18 PM

                I have to say Lance was my favorite antagonist. He was maddening at times, but he did make good arguments occasionally.

              • Kate
                09/28/2010 at 4:19 PM

                Lance was before my time on WMRW, but I do recall having read his in-depth diatribes, um, I mean discussions, of the culuket origin. It made my brain hurt.

                As for dear ol’ Ben Franklin, he was a one-man show on the cyber circuit Theater of the Absurd.

                So absurd that I often wondered if he wasn’t just pulling our legs.

                • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                  09/28/2010 at 4:32 PM

                  Benign Franklin. I’d forgotten about him. LOL

    • Jeana
      09/27/2010 at 9:15 PM

      Agreed, AnnaZed. I’ve referred a number of colleagues to the site, but in recent weeks have become embarassed and hope they’ve forgotten about it. While many of the posters are serious commentators on the issues or are asking appropriate questions to further their knowledge of the case and/or the law, there are others who seem to appear here solely for their own entertainment. I find my self more and more using the ‘recent postings’ tool so I can skip the time-wasters.

  19. denton
    09/27/2010 at 10:02 PM

    With the respect to the Editors of WMRW, we should get on board and stay on the same track, shall we?

  20. AnnaZed
    09/28/2010 at 3:45 PM

    With reference to Denton and his strange assertions about how Americans of Asian ancestry self-identify: I know what he was attempting to say at the end of the conversation, but recall that initially he said it himself; calling Mrs. Wone Chinese and subsequently asserting that he knew perfectly well that she was of Korean extraction and attempting to make light of it by asserting that “all” Asians are called “Chinese,” which is bull-shit and something that I have literally never, ever seen or heard.

    In addition the use of curious misspellings and sentence constructions seemingly designed to imitate the sound of a Chinese national speaking English (“biggering” for example ~ all internet browsers have automatic spell-check on them now, why leave that in?) yet he knows what a PDA is without asking and can construct a decent sentence when he chooses to, all leads me to wonder if his posting persona as self described is a construct and I am starting to conclude that it is.

    • Cat in Cleveland
      09/28/2010 at 4:54 PM

      Hate to jump into the fray here. . . Really hate to, but in fairness, I recall that long ago Denton noted that English was his second language. Also, I want to note that if my browser has spell check, I have no idea how to use it, which (in part) explains my many typos (falling asleep at the computer explains the others. . .). I’d hate to be accused and attacked because of them.

      The level of vitriol on this site is, often, shocking to me, and I’m no wallflower. I work in a field appropriately labeled the “adversarial process,” and I’ve been accused of having both fangs and claws. Nevertheless, I often take the time to cut and paste from a word processing program so I can avoid being personally attacked because of typographical errors. Everyone certainly will find posts to which they take exception, but please – treat other posters / bloggers / commentators / HUMAN BEINGS with respect, or, if you are unable to do so, simply ignore them. Just because the people on this site are anonymous does not mean that the ordinary rules of civility no longer apply. The long term impact of these types of attacks is to cause those of us who simply want to understand what happened to Robert Wone without having to weather and/or observe insults and wordy personal attacks to stop posting (or whatever this is called).

      • denton
        09/28/2010 at 5:10 PM

        Cat,

        THANK YOU (many of them).

      • Rich
        09/28/2010 at 5:12 PM

        You go girl!

      • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
        09/28/2010 at 8:56 PM

        And perhaps becoming aquainted with diversity sensitivy wouldn’t be a bad thing.

        • Cat from Cleveland
          09/28/2010 at 10:16 PM

          Good point. I don’t know that I’ve ever met anyone (and I run with a pretty liberal crowd) that couldn’t benefit from some diversity training!

      • Clio
        09/28/2010 at 10:19 PM

        Cat, I am heartened to learn that fear of embarrassment has forced (at least some of) our “family” members to check their grammar and spelling; if only such fears could persuade another unconventional family, formerly of the District, to come clean about the Wone murder, then we could all return, like Cincinnatus, to our proverbial plows in the fields. XO, Clio.

        • Deb
          09/28/2010 at 11:20 PM

          Hey Muse —
          I actually “get” this one.

          It would also tie in nicely with one of Craig’s comments and at least my response — if not others. . . a son accused.

          For Cincinnatus, his son was convicted but not present.

          Cincinnatus was real and worthy of acclaim, but his story of human worthiness always reminds me of Rhiannon, who may be invented. Invented or not, I still love her story.

          Peace,
          Deb

          • Rich
            09/28/2010 at 11:33 PM

            Dear Deb:

            Rhiannon, the Queen or Rihanna the vocalist?

            • Deb
              09/28/2010 at 11:53 PM

              The woman had been a goddess but married a mortal and was accused of causing/allowing (depending on the version of the story) the death of the child she had with the mortal. After that, she was relegated to a slaves life, carrying visitors to the castle on her back.

              Legend says she did not kill or allow the killing of her child, but yet fulfilled her “sentence” with humility and dignity.

              • Rich
                09/29/2010 at 12:00 AM

                Cool. The Queen, I think.

                If it was Rihanna, the vocalist, I’m kind of an expert on the subject as I went the distance with her on the Chris Brown story. (Domestic Violence.)

                Thought it was Rhiannon.

              • Rich
                09/29/2010 at 12:03 AM

                Just Googled Rhiannon:

                In Welsh mythology Rhiannon is the name of a queen, a daughter of Hefeydd. She figures in the first and third Branches of the Mabinogion. In the first part, she is married to Pwyll, in the third part to Manawydan.

                Scholars of comparative mythology have compared her to the horse goddess Epona of Gallo-Roman religion.

  21. Deb
    09/28/2010 at 10:45 PM

    We do not know the whole truth of this encounter. We can only speculate as to its true nature.

    But it’s valuable!

    Most in this community seem confident that “the powers that be” monitor our thoughts and observations here on this blog.

    This encounter could lead police to a new witness who might have something to share that, regardless of admissibility, might lend information toward a new lead.

    On the civil end, with an artful questioner (and Irish guys tend to be artful questioners), this could be brought into the civil case as possible material to at a minimum reflect negatively on the character of the defendant or at a maximum impeach his credibility entirely.

    Once long ago — wow, like 23 years ago? — I was in court on a case that was probably a 50/50. (I’m not a lawyer — I was SIU at the time, just to clarify up front). We had surveilled this kid/defendant to an extent that exhausts me to even think about . . . and still our case was 50/50.

    No wonder he wanted a jury trial — he knew he was good.

    We used fee counsel — yes, and Irishman who was also a bit of a randy fish. We anticipated things would not go well for the home team, when . . .

    ALL OF A SUDDEN!

    Fee Counsel asks the kid, “Would you describe yourself as honest or dishonest?” We are all freaking because we like yes/no questions at court. We don’t like handing the defendant the soap box, but that is exactly what fee counsel did.

    We were pissed. But there was no objection from defense counsel (wow on that!)

    This kid went on ad nauseum about how honest he is. How he goes to Catholic school, how his parents hate dishonesty, how he goes to confession, blah blah blah blah blah blah.

    Then . . . ALL OF A SUDDEN . . . fee counsel asks, “How frequently do you pick your nose?” (Again, NOT the yes/no question we want)

    Kid starts to answer as defense counsel is finally objecting that the question is irrelevant and overreaching or overbroad — something like that. I’m not a lawyer and it’s been a long time. Irrelevant was definitely in there though.

    Fee counsel says he has contrary information that will impeach the credibility of the defendant. The judge allowed him to continue.

    Then . . . ALL OF A SUDDEN . . . fee counsel pulls down a slide screen and starts rolling through photo after photo after photo of this kid with one finger or another up his nose.

    The beauty was, we had turned over every single one of those photos to defense in discovery. The irony was, we who had so diligently photo’d this kid for who knows how many months, never really thought of him as a nose-picker.

    We never “saw” it for its value.

    Fee counsel ended with 3 questions — which I thought was a brilliant “trilogy” allusion, but he said that thought had never been in his mind:

    “Would it be fair to say that you are at least sometimes dishonest?” Yes

    “Would it be fair to say that you have been dishonest at least once today?” Yes/objection — the question was rephrased to having been dishonest about picking the nose specifically — Yes

    “Would it be fair to say that you were dishonest about picking your nose while you were sworn to tell these people (artful gesture to the jury) the truth?” Yes.

    The lawyers need to chime in on this — this particular trial was actually civil with the company seeking remedy to be made whole for fraudulent damages paid.

    In this case, the kid exercised his 5th several times, but was only allowed to do so in relation to the crimes of which he had been or might be accused.

    Remarkable that nose-picking is not a crime in this particular jurisdiction . . . but LAWYERS: What do you think about the possibility of employing the Union Station encounter to impeach Joe’s credibility?

    Could it be safely/effectively done in DC?

    • Michael
      09/29/2010 at 8:10 AM

      Maybe if we had pictures of the encounter… ‘cuz ya know… pix or it didn’t happen.

    • Michael
      09/29/2010 at 8:14 AM

      P.S. You have a great memory! Really enjoyed that story.

    • denton
      09/29/2010 at 11:24 AM

      Let’s just say, if Joe was shopping for a new bow tie at Macys with a lovely someone and PDA’d a “very” affectionate/passionate kisses or something with that cute guy next to him.

      I would not “admit” his behavior to the crime that he was involved 5 years ago for the fact that – it was a separate incident, and there was no relatioinship to that “particular August 2006 murder.”

      The behavior that we saw at union station (Heatrow, Narita, or Penn Station) was his private life (as I saw it). But it was just my opinion.

Comments are closed.