The Truthiness of Sarah Morgan

Does New Information Call Into Question Morgan’s Testimony?

Three months ago today, Joe Price, Victor Zaborsky and Dylan Ward walked away from a prison sentence.  Their freedom granted because the judge in the bench trial was unable to find guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt” based on the evidence in the case.  This decision may sound surprising when the government alone entered more than 4,000 pieces of evidence in its prosecution.

Sarah Morgan on the stand Sketch courtesy: William J. Hennessy, Jr.

courtesty William Hennessy, Jr.

In the 12 weeks since three defendants were acquitted, we’ve seen closely held information (emails and cards) that were entered as part of this evidence but was not available to the public during the trial. 
With this new information, we thought it would be a good time to see how it squares with the testimony of one the trial’s key witnesses, Sarah Morgan.  Does the new information support her testimony or call into question its credibility…or as Stephen Colbert might say, its truthiness?

Sarah Morgan was one of the prosecution’s key witnesses, granted by her status as “member of the family”at Swann Street while residing as a tenant in the basement of the home at the time of Robert Wone’s murder.  She testified she was closest to Victor Zaborsky, having known him for 16 years.   Posts on her testimony from the June trial can be found here, here and here.

After Zaborsky, she was closest to Joe Price, having known him for 10 years and was least close to Dylan Ward having known him for seven years.  Subtract four years for all three to arrive at the amount of time she knew each defendant at the time of the murder.

Morgan testified that she traveled on international vacations, first with Price and  Zaborsky in 2003, and then Price, Zaborsky and Ward in 2005; both excursions to Italy.

In one of the more shocking and revealing moments from the trial, Morgan stated that Ward, who had just moved into the Price and Zaborsky’s Constitution Avenue home in 2003, told her Price was going to break up with Zaborsky and he (Ward) would become Price’s partner.

What her testimony meant depended on what you inclined to hear. It could show that Ward was manipulating Morgan’s close relationship with Zaborsky to achieve his own ends – why else would he tell the person who was closest to Zaborsky information that would have been devastating?  Or, it could also speak to an intimacy between Ward and Morgan despite the relatively short amount of time that they knew each other.

What ever one takes away from her account, it shows that Morgan was considered close enough by Ward to share the inner working of their family dynamics, and in 2003, there was what Colbert might exlaim dramaness.

Of course, we know that Dylan Ward did not replace Victor Zaborsky in the relationship, he was just added to it.

Seven years later, four years after the crime itself, Morgan testified at the criminal trial that she was “unaware” and “didn’t see” any behavior outside of the norm for what she agreed was a “cohesive [family] unit.”

In stipulations that came out late in the trial, and now in the released emails and cards between the defendants, we gained a deeper knowledge about the relationship that might call into question her knowledge of the family dynamics.  We now know Ward was seeking space from Price, and demonstrated flagging sexual interest in him as well.  We also learned that this development caused Joe Price to “obsess” as to how this could happen; forcing  Price to pull out all the stops to keep the “love-of-my-life” Ward sexually and romantically interested in Mr. Price, even including a third sexual partner to their physical relationship that was not Zaborsky.  All of this new information seems to show that Joe and Dylan’s relationship was going through a major readjustment.  Again, sounds like dramaness on Swann Street in the Summer of 2006.

Yet, when asked by defense counsel about whether she saw any unusual behavior regarding the Swann Street housemates during June and July 2006, she said she did not witness any.

There may be several answers for why Miss Morgan chose to answer this way.  First, this could be her truth as she knew it – she did not know of Dylan Ward’s diminishing interest in Joe Price, and certainly did not witness this in their behavior towards each other.  If that is the case, then Dylan Ward seems to also have withdrawn from Miss Morgan as not the same confidant that she was in 2003.  He might have withheld information from her because it no longer helped him achieve an objective.

If not, then is/was Miss Morgan less than candid about her knowledge of the relationship as it stood in June and July in 2006, just weeks before Robert Wone was murdered in her home?

Could it be that Sarah Morgan’s lack of testimony about the dramaness at Swann Street in the Summer of 2006 put her truthiness on the line?

-posted by David

171 comments for “The Truthiness of Sarah Morgan

  1. KiKi
    09/29/2010 at 11:23 AM

    Or couldn’t it just be that a question about unusual behavior is very subjective and is up to many interpretations? I did not hear the testimony but if SM was asked “whether she saw any unusual behavior regarding the Swann Street housemates during June and July 2006;” I can’t say my first thought would be about interrelationship difficulties between the defendants. I think it would be irresponsible to conclude that SM was lying or hiding the truth based on her answer to such a broad and abstract question.

    • mw
      09/29/2010 at 11:37 AM

      True. And I imagine “drama” involving these three wasn’t particulary unusual during the entire time Morgan new them.

  2. Craig
    09/29/2010 at 12:50 PM

    Miss Morgan will no doubt be called as a witness in the civil trial. The consensus was that both sides in the criminal trial agreed to rein in her in on scope of questions and her possible testimony. Her time on the stand, while emotional at points, was met with yawns.

    Is there any reason to believe Cov and Regan won’t work just as hard to widen the scope? Perhaps following the contours of the interrogs – drug use by the twosome/threesome, sexual partners, what usually happened while Zaborsky was away on travel, etc.?

    Can we expect her to be deposed and will the questions posed to her @ trial have to stick to that script? Are there opportunities for ‘kicking open the door’ in a civil?

    Note: Posts on her testimony from the June trial can be found here, here and here.

    • 09/29/2010 at 1:24 PM

      Craig: I didn’t understand, because of proofreading, the second sentence. While I assume you meant “agreed to rein her in on the scope…”, I don’t understand what it means that the lawyers reined her in. What questions did they not pursue with her and why? (I also assume you meant in para 2, “hard” rather than “heard.”) But even then, I’m not understanding the “scope” issue. Why would the attorneys not have asked questions of her if they thought they were rlevant and would help their case and if the judge admitted it? Stick to what “script” — that of the criminal trial? I guess you mean by “kicking open the door” that they could go into totally new areas of questioning, not raised in the criminal trial (or, at least, not seen by us).

      Maybe my mind has been dulled by some of the juvenile (less than adolescent) postings here of late, but I’m not “getting” some of your post. Would you take another pass at the issues, explained in another way, different words. Besos (kisses).

      • Craig
        09/29/2010 at 1:54 PM

        G: The conventional wisdow said that Morgan’s questioning was winnowed down along probative/prejudicial lines. She was an integral part of the family and the questions posed to her were almost antiseptic given what we know and what we’ve have heard about the dynamics of those who lived upstairs.

        Given that the civil trial scope will be wider, I’m wondering how the plaintiff’s team may try and use her inside 1509 knowledge to a greater extent to benefit their case.

        And in terms of kicking the door open, it was brought up a lot during the trial. Attorneys can better explain it than I, but I think it relates to a witness going off script and opening the door for broader questioning during cross. I just don’t know if those rules apply to civil trial like they did with the criminal.

        It seems like that trial was forever ago, but it only ended three months ago today.

        PS: I fixed the typaux – it should read ‘hard,’ not ‘heard.’

        • Cat from Cleveland
          09/29/2010 at 8:32 PM

          I had the impression that sex and drugs were off limit at the criminal trial. In her deposition, there will be long lines of questioning on those issues, I believe.

      • Janet
        09/29/2010 at 2:43 PM

        First time poster, long time WMRW fan. I notice that you recently attacked someone whom I think you have mistaken that person very badly. Do you still want to continue addressing the “juvenile (less than adolescent) postings here of late.” Let’s get that squared away before we move on. Do you really have to have that many “jargons” in your post? Grow up, Gloria.

        • Craig
          09/29/2010 at 3:25 PM

          Janet – Your IP address apparently is also used by another commenter here. One screen name to a customer.

          If there are indeed two of you at the same office or household, please get this squared away by sending us an email to clarify.

    • Eagle
      09/29/2010 at 1:47 PM

      Well, we know how effective the prosecution was.

    • Kate
      09/29/2010 at 3:59 PM

      Craig, et al – I just reviewed the posts from Ms. Morgan’s testimony and was surprised at just how narrow her questioning was. Three months removed does make a difference in the interpretation or understanding of an event.

      The prosecution appears to have limited the scope of Morgan’s questioning to:

      1. The layout and acoustics of 1509 Swann Street – makes sense as none of the other residents would be testifying to this.

      2. The establishment of the Three as a “caring, cohesive unit.” – i.e. a family capable of circling the wagons and protecting themselves in times of trouble. (Her use of the words “caring, cohesive unit” sounded coached to me at the time .. and still does after three months.)

      3. The establishment of a time table for phone calls, meet ups, etc. in the hours immediately following the murder – essential to their theory of conspiracy and obstruction.

      And not much else of great importance. The prosecution appears to have done little follow up on Ward’s statements to Morgan about being Victor’s replacement, etc. In fact, I’m quite surprised at how unenlightening her testimony actually was.

      She answered only the questions she was asked and in as few words as possible with the minimum of detail. No doubt she was telling the truth. By all accounts she is a fine, upstanding lady. No doubt she was in a terrible position having to testify against her long time friend Victor and “family” (Price and Ward).

      And no doubt she can shed more light on the dynamics of the Swann Street household in August of 2006, IF she is asked the right questions – carefully worded, specific and well-planned questions. Covington may not be able to ‘kick open the door’ with Ms Morgan, but maybe, just maybe, they can put a nice crack in it.

      Perhaps we’ll finally get to hear from her TV-time buddies Tom and John, as well.

      • Craig
        09/29/2010 at 6:23 PM

        Kate – Thanks for the summary. It was as uneventful as I remember it. I’ll look through my notes from those days to see if anything else stands out but I don’t think so.

      • TT
        09/29/2010 at 7:17 PM

        Kate, you are so on the mark. Just another mystery in why the prosecution did not follow through on questioning. So many holes for a layperson who does not understand how the legal system works. Much less, the defendants remain free. This is why I follow the blog. And, will continue to see hopefully that Robert’s murder is solved. You have the Swann3 and Robert. Why would anyone enter the house, without taking anything, and stabb Robert?

        Why did on this exact night, with all the “stuff” going on at Swann Street for how many months we really don’t know…happen on this exact night, a crime. Is is it a crime of passion? Or is it a crime of jealousy? Why would Sarah stay in a house with 3 gay men and know something is not right? If I were her, you bet I would have moved out of the house ASAP and hire a lawyer.

        Come on, she knows something, if not that night, before the murder happened? This is why I participate in this blog. I can not believe our judicidal system served Robert nor his wife or family. And, to think, that Price, is out there blowing kisses, makes me sick.

  3. Michael
    09/29/2010 at 12:51 PM

    I’m sure she encountered all sorts of drama on her trips to Italy.

    • She did it
      09/29/2010 at 8:09 PM

      my heart tells me that she also may have encountered all sorts of carbonara and fritto misto on her trips to Italy.

      • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
        09/29/2010 at 8:12 PM

        Oh, SDI, how I miss you. LOL

        • Craig
          09/29/2010 at 9:22 PM

          It’s like a family reunion when he/she surfaces. And you know how those can go. Love to all.

  4. Bea
    09/29/2010 at 1:29 PM

    One question which comes to mind is IF Joe kept his fear of losing (love-of-his-life) Dylan under wraps to Victor, perhaps this was also hidden from Sarah. Just can’t imagine Joe telling Victor of his worry that Dylan was tiring of Joe sexually (and more) or his “plan” to interest Dylan in a “third” to keep him interested. If Joe didn’t tell Victor, he likely did NOT tell Sarah either.

    Which takes us back to Dylan and Sarah’s bond. I suspect that if Dylan was hatching a plan to fade away, he wanted to fade from all of them (presumably he was most attached to Joe, at least as to “the relationship bond”). It’s still a head scratcher to me as to why he’d have told Sarah that Joe planned to dump Victor for him – to me, that was most likely a conniving hurry-this-up ploy (Sarah tells Victor, Victor pitches a hissy fit to Joe, Joe does double-talk and somehow pulls off keeping both of them). I just don’t see (PURE SPECULATION) Dylan as up-front ‘communicator’ (more secretive and distant) – nor do I see (ALSO PURE SPECULATION) Sarah wanting to listen to the dirty details of the threesome’s sex lives – “no” to Dylan discussing with Sarah how’s he’s tried to get into being Joe’s master but even with the truckload of toys, it’s just lost the magic. But perhaps he went back to the well as with the first “leak” to Sarah, thinking Joe would REALLY start worrying.

    If Dylan DID communicate to Sarah, I think he wanted to “stay” and be “wooed” – if he was halfway out the door, I think he’d have kept his mouth shut.

    • Bill Orange
      09/29/2010 at 2:19 PM

      I’m agree with you on pretty much all of this. Dylan telling Sarah that he thought Joe was going to leave Victor for Dylan seems like a rather obvious 9th grade ploy to get Sarah to pass the information on to Victor, thus forcing the issue. Once Dylan lost interest in Joe, there was no reason to talk to Sarah anymore.

      • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
        09/29/2010 at 4:38 PM

        You have to wonder, though, was his action (using Sarah to pass information) out of desperation? He’d been a concubine for a few years by that point. One has to wonder if the information was even true.

        Joe splitting with Victor obviously didn’t happen.

        • susan
          09/29/2010 at 7:24 PM

          Remember that S. Morgan lived in DW’s backroom/extra bedroom while her basement quarters were under repair. Possibly they became confidantes during that time.

          As well, how often do individual single people live with a young-ish married couple, take vacations with them and become part of their family? It does occur, obviously, but it’s rare. How about a trouple with a single friend? It’s an odd situation, but one it seems in which that single person would know a lot about the relationships and what’s going on. She said she could hear the stairs upstairs, etc. What else could she hear? She had to be home at times when VZ was traveling. What did she see/hear then? How about when S. Hixson came over, or anyone who might have responded to the Alt.dom ad (if indeed, the house was used for these rendez-vous.

          It seems that her testimony could end up working for the defense or the prosecution, depending on what she’s asked and what she decides to share.

          I wonder about the distance in their relationships now. Her atty (as I recall) advised her to move out. If each member of the trouple has nothing to add to their respective testimony to police and are in the dark about Who Murdered Robert Wone, then why weren’t those relationships resumed and fortified by some kind of familial loyalty of defending wrongfully charged family members.

          Unless maybe there is some suspicion there and the desire not to know more. If that’s the case, maybe that’s why there’s been four years (and counting?) of distance.

          • Cara
            09/29/2010 at 7:41 PM

            Agree, Susan. If she was close enough to this group to be going with them on what most people would consider to be very special vacations, then perhaps she was close enough to have been privy to intimate knowledge of their relationship(s), including extracurricular liaisons. I wonder if there were secrets, however legal, that she learned and kept prior to the murder–secrets which may have escalated in “ick factor” as time went on. A murder in the house was understandably the last straw. Looking back, she may be thinking that some of those prior secrets add up to something more, after all.

          • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
            09/29/2010 at 7:58 PM

            Susan says” “….how often do individual single people live with a young-ish married couple, take vacations with them and become part of their family? It does occur, obviously, but it’s rare.”

            As far as the gay community, I wouldn’t say it’s rare. Especially a male couple having a single female friend. i’ve known several young male couples that have had a female roommates. For economic reasons. And personally, I’ve been on several trips with male (coupled) friends.

            In the straight world I think it’s rare for a third person to live with a married couple, but no so unusual in the gay world.

            • susan
              09/29/2010 at 8:08 PM

              Thanks, CD.

              It seems to me that maybe the “trouple” dynamic is more rare, and possibly as a result, brings greater closeness.

              A couple may hold some intimacy in check while hanging out with the family member/roommate (she was “family” she said). But I would reckon JP had to make sure each “partner” got his due attention. And I’d imagine it would spill into time spent with SM.

              Which just adds to my belief that she knows a whole lot about these men. And it would be good to know why the distance now.

              • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                09/29/2010 at 8:11 PM

                Susan says: “It seems to me that maybe the “trouple” dynamic is more rare…”

                Oh, absolutely. I’ve seen it all in the gay community, but I’ve never known a “trouple.” I’ve known couples that are allowed to have sexual activity outside the relationship, but never a plural relationship.

                Is Joe Mormon? LOL

                • Rich
                  09/29/2010 at 10:47 PM

                  Dear CD:

                  Historically, in the Gay Community, “Trouple’s,” were quite common.

                  The make up was primarily a heterosexual Wife with a Gay/BI Husband and his Boyfriend and always with the Wife’s support.

                  O the 80’s up to mid 90’s, she was elated he found one man to minimize any risks associated with HIV/AIDS.

                  Usually, these were married couple’s who chose to stay in their marriages for financial reasons, or kids and the wife allowed her husband to, “Act,” on his Gayness and explore.

                  Eventually. the guys would break up, usually because over time the second guy would want more, the marriage would continue and the husband would try again.

                  • AnnaZed
                    09/30/2010 at 3:26 AM

                    I know the phenomenon of which you speak, I observed it more than once (funny thing, didn’t work then, doesn’t work now), but never under one roof. At work, often (the 3rd wheel man or male mistress was often an employee spending virtuously everyday with gay exploring Dad), but under one roof; no, that I have never seen.

                  • Bea
                    09/30/2010 at 4:19 AM

                    Like AnnaZ, I’ve never run into the ‘trouple’ of which you speak. They live together, this husband & wife plus male lover?

                    When you wrote “always with the wife’s support” I assume you meant that they lived together – otherwise, I’d wonder if the wives even KNEW of the male lover (and think maybe both ‘always’ and ‘support’ are used very loosely here:)).

                    I know you said it was ‘quite common in the gay community’ in the 80s/90s but that was my heyday, and I never once ran into it on either coast.

                    Nit-picky here, but I find it hard to believe, too, that the women were “elated” with such an arrangement.

                    • Rich
                      09/30/2010 at 11:43 AM


                      No, not livingtogether.
                      Wives were supportive usually because these were marriages that were in existence for 10-15 years or more and Husband and Wife truly were devoted to one another and comitted to the marriage before the husband, “Came Out.”

                      During the pandamonium of the early epidemic of AIDS Crisis, the husband too, was elated he found one guy.

                  • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                    09/30/2010 at 9:07 AM

                    Ditto what Bea and AnnaZ say.

                    I’ve been out since the late 70s. I frequented all the popular places. Pier One. Tracks. Lost and Found. The Phase. The Other Side. I’ve never met a “trouple” as you present them. (A wife and a bi-male couple.)

                    I’ve met bisexual couples looking for third (male and female) on all too many an occasions (not my thing), but never a live in situation couple.

                    Perhaps this is very common in the bisexual circles of which I don’t run in or which don’t intersect with the “gay” world I’ve been in for over 30 years.

                    • TT
                      09/30/2010 at 9:16 AM

                      CD, I came out around the same time. I miss those bars,especially the Lost and Found. I too have not crossed these unusual relationships.

                    • Bea
                      09/30/2010 at 1:54 PM

                      Since I left DC in late 80s I will continue to think of all these places as “open” and just the same. Was so disappointed when on a visit “Food for Thought” was gone (tho not a bar and not ‘just’ gay).

                      Hung Jury still open? The girl places were so spread out compared to the boys’ but that’s not a surprise.

    • Kate
      09/29/2010 at 4:12 PM

      That all makes good sense, Bea. Many thanks for your insights.

      What is unclear to me, even after reviewing the posts from her trial testimony, is when did Ward communicate his “master plan” (for lack of a better word) to Ms. Morgan? Was it way back in 2003 when he moved into the Constitution Ave abode? Or later, at Swann Street?

      Can anyone shed some light on the dates? It would be greatly appreciated.

      Whatever the case, Ward did stick around for quite a long time – three years – without supplanting Victor in the Big Boy bed upstairs. All he had control of was the Toy Box.


      • David
        09/29/2010 at 4:44 PM


        Dylan told Sarah Morgan in 2003 after moving into the Constituion Avenue home that Joe was going to break up with Victor and become Joe’s partner. Sarah Morgan was not living with the threesome at this time in 2003, so it had to be a rather deliberate discussion he had with her and it was not some roommates-bantering-while-the dinner-was-cooking.

        David, co-ed.

        • Kate
          09/29/2010 at 5:54 PM

          Thank You – David.

          Interesting. His/Joe’s master plan was in the works for far longer than I had thought. And the fact that Sarah Morgan was not a roommate at the time rather heightens the sophomoric intrigue of the statement.

          Cheers and regards,

          • Bea
            09/30/2010 at 4:26 AM

            Quick addendum – I agree with the Eds’ post completely that Sarah knows A WHOLE LOT, much of it quite relevant to this case. Kate, too I’m struck by the ‘sophomoric intrigue’ of Dylan blabbing such a thing to Victor’s friend at that time. He’d have been the basement tenant who was visiting the ‘big’ house upstairs at the same time Sarah was visiting her pal Victor – what an odd thing for Dylan to do.

            It will be very good to hear what Sarah is willing to offer up without all the restrictions of the sanitized criminal trial!

            • Clio
              09/30/2010 at 9:33 PM

              Yes, that 2003 statement is rather odd, Bea, but by the summer of 2006, Dyl was not as determined to be Mrs. Joseph Ray Price: this development would be something that any “fag hag” worth her weight in fool’s gold would have picked up!!

  5. Eagle
    09/29/2010 at 1:44 PM

    Sarah Morgan was more able to observe the dynamics of the relationships at Swann St (and before that) than any one person that we know. She saw the daily back and forths. She was part of the daily interactions. At home and during overseas trips.

    This lady was not a naive dumb lady. She worked on Capitol Hill for heavens sake. Daily intrigue experience. Went overseas with the group x 2. Graduate of a college which is right here in DC and whose students and graduates have frequent interactions of one sort of another with what is really going on in the world. Not an inexperienced lady, either.

    I think you are really on to something by raising this issue. And why this frequent leaving of her own little nest during the evening-staying overnight with others. No one has come up with the answer to that strange behavior. If she did not like her basement apartment, why did she leave it and rent another place? Get other roomates? Did she emotionally depend on the group?
    Note how quickly she obtained an attorney and how she just plain cutoff all communications with her former buddies and their supporters after the murder- like right away and completely.

    And her emotional responses on the stand indicates to me that she was emotionally involved in the “family” in some unusual way. Even after her relationship with them put her in a terrible spot, vulnerable to criminal legal action.
    No one has really explored that either.

    If we could read Sarah’s mind, perhaps we would have more answered. Let’s face it, right now we are stymied.
    Readdressing the Sarah role could be very useful.

    • Bill Orange
      09/29/2010 at 2:31 PM

      I don’t think that she’s stupid or naive, but I do think there’s a lot of distance between what she KNOWS and what she SUSPECTS. For example, I suspect that she was told by Victor that Joe and Dylan had a sexual relationship, but I doubt she knew about the BDSM aspect of it, and I doubt that Joe or Dylan got into the details of it with her.

      Remember, there was an effort to keep some of these details from Victor, so I’d imagine there was also an effort to keep the details from Sarah, too. She might be able to talk about the dynamics of the relationships at the time of the murder, but I can’t see how this would be all that illuminating. We already know there was an atypical three-way relationship going on; there’s not much that Sarah Morgan can say that will make it seem more bizarre to the average juror.

      That being said, I think that she SUSPECTS that these three were all involved in Wone’s murder and the subsequent cover-up, and that’s why she’s cut off contact with them. I don’t think you would abandon three friends that you sincerely believed were being rail-roaded by the police, no matter what your lawyer was telling you. On the other hand, if your lawyer and your family were telling you that these three were clearly bad news, and you yourself thought they were involved in a murder, then it makes perfect sense to walk away.

      • 09/29/2010 at 3:07 PM

        Not an insignificant consideration is that investigators were all over that house, including her apartment, for days. Imagine living in that house, trying to live your life, with lots of people coming in and out, carrying out whatever in those evidence bags we see on TV, stair boards disassembled, etc. And I’d also hire an attorney quickly if I lived in a house where someone was murdered, if for no other reason than that I didn’t know what I might be facing in the future and needed someone in the know to guide me, all the while hoping I’d never need it. Attorneys: Would you, if you were her attorney, have advised Sarah not to have contact with the three? (Even before they became defendants, officially?)

        • Clio
          10/03/2010 at 11:01 AM

          Do we really know for sure that Sarah has had no direct or indirect talks with the trouple since that impromptu brunch at Cosi’s? And, now that the criminal side of this case has been decided and the murder charges will never be brought, can one guess that Sarah and Victor will become penpals or Facebook friends at the very least in the very near future?

          • AnnaZed
            10/03/2010 at 12:39 PM

            Clio my love, do you prophesize that murder charges will never be brought in this case? As a charter member of the thought police I would like to table that supposition for a vote.

            My own third eye keeps wandering in the direction of mommy’s little Dyl.

            Will that appalling piece of performance art in re the provenance of Dylan’s ancillary knife be repeated?

            What about more extensive information about his johns (I mean massage clients)?

            What about a clear time-line to indicate when he started his career as a sex worker, when his drug abuse began, when he unmoored from any semblance of a structured life?

            It is there in the story of this entitled drifter and his entry into Joe and Victor’s life that the narrative of this tragedy begins and it is with him that the remainder of the narrative will reveal itself. Maybe not now, maybe not after this civil case (though we will know more) but eventually because in my opinion (and Joe’s too I think) he is the weak link.

            Someday he will slip-up, someday he will maybe be unable to resist the urge to do it again, and this is a new day a different day and the record of his involvement in this case (and the cyber thought police) will follow him. I will be there in one form or anther when he falls, I believe this.

            • susan
              10/03/2010 at 12:51 PM


              There is something odd about Dyl, I think. His behavior that night stands out. It just doesn’t jive to say you are “worried” about an “intruder” being in the house so you sit on a couch in an open area by yourself.

              Cops come in, there’s a dying/dead man on the same floor with you when EMT and cops run up the stairs, and Dyl–doesn’t respond to a question and turns and walks into his room.

              There’s the magazine
              There’s the knife set
              There’s the torture devices

              There’s Dyl at the station, in the calmest voice, legs drawn underneath, hands folded in the lap. Leaning slightly forward at one point in such a casual kind of way, that if I didn’t understand the English language I’d imagine he was discussing a tea party–except for the stilted arm movement that doesn’t seem to go with what he’s saying.

              But interpretations of appearance are subjective and that is true. It doesn’t prove innocence or guilt.

              It’s just that that, along with his impassive court face seem to suggest someone who compartmentalizes very well. I don’t know. He just seems a bit odd.

              • susan
                10/03/2010 at 12:52 PM

                Oh, AnnaZed, you are so funny! I just saw your new “Avatar”!

                • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                  10/03/2010 at 1:58 PM

                  ditto…I laughed out loud when I saw it. LOL

              • AnnaZed
                10/03/2010 at 1:03 PM

                That would be putting it mildly I would think.

                Yes, I too made the observations that you have about this peculiar boy/man. His command performance at Ancostia invades my dreams. You may not have been around for this (or reasonably enough simply not noticed), but I went through an “I think I might believe Dylan’s story” phase after the transcripts of the interrogations were posted. However, once I saw him deliver his lines all thoughts of believing his version of events exploded like ions in the ether. There is something very, very amiss with mummy’s boy.

                • Clio
                  10/03/2010 at 1:23 PM

                  LOL! I gladly move to table that previous notion or motion or whatever I saying about murder charges before. Lil Dyl may be the wild card, after all.

                  • Bruce
                    10/03/2010 at 2:05 PM

                    Aye! And, along these lines, I think we should also delve into what criminologists refer to as the “childrens book author/masseur/stabber” syndrome.

                    We all read about it everyday in the papers and the computing thingy.

                    When will these “children book authors/masseur/stabbers” people be stopped?

                    • Clio
                      10/03/2010 at 8:58 PM

                      When indeed,
                      Bruce dearest!

                      Remember that there really is a restless leg syndrome. In Dyl’s case, a syndrome may not capture it — perhaps, a delicious dish of entitlement topped by self-hate.

                • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                  10/03/2010 at 2:02 PM

                  I, too, when watching those jailhouse vids got the sense that there was a lack of innocence amongst the trio.

                  I didn’t get any sense of innocence at all. A person that is absolutely gobsmacked at the notion that someone would think they committed the crime? “What??!? you think I did it? You think I was involved??!!” Not one iota of that. Each of them were completely defensive in their speech, body language, attitude.

                  • susan
                    10/03/2010 at 9:07 PM

                    Or even offering up any more than what was asked. DW and VZ gave the minimum of ansswers, but mostly DW. And the way DW addressed knowing RW was in such a distancing way.

                    BTW, re children’s lit. I am a fan of many of the classics and try to learn about the authors. Of note, both S. Silverstein (The Giving Tree–a classic) and F. Salten-Bambi (amazing and a classic too–nothing like the Hollywood movie) both have porn-related backgrounds in their pasts. Those are just two authors but I’d never think to equate a children’s author with…porn. There’s nothing of the sort in those two aforementioned books.

            • Bruce
              10/03/2010 at 12:52 PM

              Aye, it be the “fever in the blood” dat urges him to Keel, Keel, Keel, Pussycat, Harder, Harder…..

              • susan
                10/03/2010 at 12:54 PM

                Russ Meyer. How do I know these things?

                • Bruce
                  10/03/2010 at 12:59 PM

                  Aye, ye must have the “fever” too!

                  My literary knowledge is for shit, so I have to use something, no?


                  • Bruce
                    10/03/2010 at 9:43 PM

                    To Dear Clio:

                    Re: “restless leg syndrome.”

                    But with our “Lil Dyl,” it seems that several posters feel that he may have “restless stabbing syndrome.”

                    When you add that to his boiling “self-hate,” apparently due to his reaction to his “entitlements,” we do have quite the witches’ brew, eh?


                    • susan
                      10/03/2010 at 10:27 PM

                      When restless leg syndrome is brought up, the image of JP with that soda bottle bobbing on his knee comes to mind (Anacostia Dialogues)

      • Kate
        09/29/2010 at 4:33 PM

        Cheers Bill O – I wrote something rather similar above. I believe she can shed some additional, and perhaps important, light on the dynamics of the household if questioned more specifically.

        I wonder if the rules for questioning a witness in a civil trial are as strident as they are in a criminal case? Could there be less of a difference between what she KNOWS and what she SUSPECTS today, as opposed to the time of the criminal proceedings? Perhaps will she now be more willing to admit to herself, and to the court, additional knowledge she may have always had, but discounted?

        Just thinking out loud here.


        • Cat from Cleveland
          09/29/2010 at 8:28 PM

          At her deposition (assuming she does not plead the 5th), she will be asked every and any thing. She’ll be asked if she has any reason to suspect that. . . fill in the fact. Do you have any reason to suspect that Victor was angry with Joe? Do you have any reason to suspect that the Defendants used illegal drugs? Do you have any reason to suspect that Joe was violent. . . These are not proper questions at trial, but at deposition, they are certainly appropriate.

          • Kate
            09/29/2010 at 8:45 PM

            Thanks Cat for the insight. I begin to understand the process better.

            I like your line of questioning for Ms. Morgan’s deposition. Let us hope that the fine folks at Covington are thinking along your lines.

            May I also ask how you would phrase these questions to be appropriate in a civil trail?


            • Cat from Cleveland
              09/29/2010 at 9:21 PM

              Kate, I couldn’t begin to know how I might phrase the questions for trial until I go through discovery and know the answers. Civil trials are fairly scripted, because everyone has been under oath on the record.

              In criminal cases, the prosecutor questions witnesses in front of the Grand Jury, but they only ask certain questions because they want the Grand Jury to reach a certain conclusion. The prosecutor will refrain from asking questions that will elicit testimony inconsistent with the theory the prosecutor is presenting.

              The prosecutor might interview witnesses before trial, but if a witness doesn’t want to talk, or doesn’t answer a question, then that’s that. The witness will testify at trial pursuant to subpoena, but, again, the questions are asked for the audience, not to elicit information for the prosecutors’ edification.

              The civil arena is a whole different ballgame. Each and every witness will be extensively questioned, under oath, on the record, pursuant to subpoena. A refusal to answer questions can result in a contempt of court (subject to the 5th A).

              The questioning is done in a conference room, and even if the deposition is presented to the jury, the jury will see only the relevant, admissible questions and answers. Thus, the person asking the quesion has no reason to refrain from asking a question because the answer might be bad for his/her case. To the contrary, you ask the question precisely because you want to know exactly what the witness will say at trial.

              If I were representing Mrs. Wone, I’d ask deposition questions on every subject from what Robert was meeting with Joe about to whether Dylan and Joe used illegal drugs to whether Robert was, in fact, gay or bicurious. At trial, I want to know the good, the bad, and the ugly about my case.

              I fully expect some “bombshells” to be discovered by Mrs. Wone’s counsel (and I hope the information is shared with us). Nothing in this case adds up, and there is so much we don’t know. For all of our speculation, I believe that truth is always stranger than fiction. I hope to hell that someday we’ll know the truth in this case.

              • Bea
                09/30/2010 at 12:10 AM

                Good explanation, Cat – agree that the depositions will cover a lot of ground. That’s the best opportunity in my mind for gaining serious ground on uncovering info and new leads (Hixson will undoubtedly be asked to give info on the trick who’d slept with Joe/Dylan the night before and all the sexual details he knows about Joe AND Dylan, including how they ‘wanted’ him to not disclose details to Victor).

                For the non-legal types, it’s the most intriguing ‘sleuthing’ there is (outside of what the investigators find). For example, if Scott Hixson discloses names of “thirds” he knew of (assuming Joe and Dylan take the 5th on even this), then THOSE guys may be deposed (they will be questioned beforehand but they want it ‘on record’) – how were arrangements made, drug use, toys, concerns/oddities about the interactions between Dylan/Joe, etc.

                I expect that NEEDLES will be a hot topic, and if there are deponents who can put IV drugs in the hands of Joe/Dylan, that’s worth more exploration. Really, any sexual partners who have info about the role any/all drugs played in the sexual experience with Joe/Dylan (together or alone) will be valuable. It’s one thing for someone to take a hit of ecstacy or a snort of cocaine, but another if there was IV ketamine use. Or any IV.

                • Clio
                  09/30/2010 at 9:23 PM

                  Mr. Hixson, I assume, also emailed Mr. Price to arrange their steamy encounter(s); I trust that Scott had the sense not to use his professional email account.

                  Mr. Hixson must have been a successful interior decorator in order to afford the Mercedes of the infamous Mercedes meeting.

                  Shouldn’t one of the headlines for the local evening TV news for August 1, 2006 have read — Local Design Star Does Lothario Lawyer: Details at 11!

            • Kate
              09/30/2010 at 9:24 AM

              Cat and Bea – as always, you provide excellent insights and we all gain a great deal from your professional viewpoints.

              Based on your above posts, do I understand correctly that the only reason the answers to the interrogatories were entered into the public record is because they were filed as exhibits attached to the Motions to Compel?


              • Bea
                09/30/2010 at 1:45 PM

                Kate – you are correct.

                • Kate
                  09/30/2010 at 10:34 PM

                  Thank you, Bea

      • Eagle
        09/29/2010 at 4:58 PM

        HI Bill O:
        I suspect we are pretty much in agreement.
        However, I do not think that everything about Sara has been either covered or revealed.
        She obviously cared about her housemates. She had no emotional investment in RW.
        Thus, her memory is less likely to be jogged under any interrogation which would
        implicate her friends (and perhaps reflect on herself).
        Going back to before the murder, what does it say about a friend who suspects behaviors which are being hidden from her and does not investigate- yet continues to live in the same household with these questions unresolved?

    • susan
      09/29/2010 at 7:35 PM

      Missed this when I scanned the posts earlier, I agree with you Eagle. She had to know a lot about the dynamics there, etc. Also, it would be good if she is asked about how often she went over around six in the evening on weekdays to stay over at her friends’ home and if she made arrangements contingent on evening plans of any of the trouple on those occasions.

      • Eagle
        09/29/2010 at 11:43 PM

        Excellent questions.
        Wish we could see all the answers.
        Who decides what happens to information revealed in depositions.
        Just left in a folder?. Or what?

        • Bea
          09/30/2010 at 12:24 AM

          Agree too that Sarah knows A LOT. Just being around the guys gives insight about what she ‘noticed’ over the years. She’s a treasure trove of info, provided of course that Covington listens carefully to ask the necessary follow ups (my hope is they send a highly knowledgeable person and not just ‘a good interrogator’ with little background info). This assumes, too, that Sarah won’t lie – at least not outright (the reason for needing a very good listener with loads of knowledge of this case).

          Eagle – interrogatory answers and discovery depositions aren’t “filed” at the court so there’s no public inspection option (they may be made part of the public record during trial for specific purposes, but aren’t stored at the court as the complaint, answer, motions etc. are). I’m sure the defense wants protective orders in place to prevent plaintiff from just photocopying the deposition transcripts and sending them to the press (including our Esteemed Editors) but absent the transcripts being under seal/protective order Kathy Wone would be able to distribute copies as she wishes. Earlier we saw the defense try to keep EVERYTHING away from ‘public’ inspection but the Judge seemed to lean toward reasonableness – in other words, she may limit certain parts (obviously, ‘we’ the public don’t need or have a right to Dylan’s social security number but there shouldn’t be a wholesale suppression of information disclosed during discovery – my opinion).

          • AnnaZed
            09/30/2010 at 4:37 AM

            Thanks for this info Bea. I agree that this special friend can not but know a lot, a lot that was necessarily not revealed during the criminal trial.

            What I want to know first and foremost is why she left her little lair so often for those friendly, chatty sleep overs with Tom and what’s-his-name (equipped with just a toothbrush) and how often these forays aligned with Victor’s business trips. Perhaps the prosecution team could create a time-line for her sleep overs?

            I wonder:

            Did she keep clothes over there?

            How did she groom herself and prepare for work the next day?

            What did she wear?

            You can’t just show up at a respectable job in DC in the 100 plus heat in whatever schmatta you were dragging yourself around in the day before ~ hair a mess with no make-up and laddered hose ~ that’s not on.

            I have never lost the conviction that she flat out lied at trial about not having been either specifically asked to make herself scarce one that very particular night or having been habitually accustomed to absenting herself on Joe and Dylan’s play nights, understood to be those when Victor was expected to be away ~ one or the other, but coincidentally away? That I categorically do not believe.

            Now, why did she lie about this? That I have never quite understood. Probably, it’s just as simple as her belief that saying anything, anything at all, might impact Victor negatively. I know of such love and loyalty, yet I can’t imagine placing emotions like that (even for a real blood family member) above the need for clarity in the aftermath of a vicious crime like this. Truly, it’s amazing and I hope that if they trip her up in her lying that they throw the book at her for perjury. Yes, I am absolutely convinced that she perjured herself.

            • Rich
              09/30/2010 at 12:02 PM

              I never really understood why so many people bought into the notion that Sarah had to leave every time the Boyz (any combination thereof) were entertaining.

              She lived in a separate dwelling and, at best, only heard the footsteps to the door and the knock from the overnight guest.

              She wasn’t down the hall?

              She could have stayed in the basement apartment for every trick regardless of whether she had knowledge of their impending arrival.

              • carolina
                10/03/2010 at 5:25 PM

                Everyone who lived at 1509 reported that there was little acoustical privacy. A ball gag only stifles so much.

            • Bill 2
              09/30/2010 at 2:12 PM

              When it comes to telling “the whole truth,” that’s what we didn’t hear. One reason we didn’t hear the whole truth is because they didn’t ask questions that would reveal any more. I agree, AZ, that there was a specific reason for her to leave the house that night, not simply her desire to watch TV elsewhere and spend the night with friends. There was something that let her know that her presence was not desired at Swann Street. It could have been past experience with times when Zaborsky left town, dropped hints from Price or Ward, or a direct request to begone from her home in the basement.

              Her view of the trio will be different from when she was questioned prior to the previous trial. This time, she has the analysis of Judge Leibovitz that there was something rotten in Denmark. Sarah Morgan also knows Price’s not-so-flattering description of her. Will that influence her to be more forthcoming with additional information?

              There’s no doubt that her two friends will be questioned about her previous sleepovers, how and when she notified them that she would be staying with them, and what excuse she gave for not staying in her own apartment that night.

              • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                09/30/2010 at 2:17 PM

                Bill2 says: “One reason we didn’t hear the whole truth is because they didn’t ask questions that would reveal any more.”

                I agree, B2. I remember thinking “WHAT? That’s it? That’s all they are going to prod her on?”

              • AnnaZed
                09/30/2010 at 3:02 PM

                Ok, I’ll take that for truthiness: “Gosharooney judge I didn’t tell before about the regular hairy eyeballs, heavy hinting and offers of cab-fare indicating that I should absent myself from my own home where I pay rent from Joe and a certain person who did not pay rent who will remain unmentioned because, jeez, they just didn’t ask!”

                I’ll take that instead of perjury for a scenario if it gets the truth out of her.

                • Bill 2
                  09/30/2010 at 4:23 PM

                  We only know that they didn’t ask what we consider “all the right questions” at the trial. I can’t believe that those questions weren’t asked prior to the trial. There seemed to be a segment of the whole scenario that was “off limits” and that both sides were stepping around that. Why? I have no idea.

                  It would be nice to think that they have a good reason such as they’re saving it for the murder trail in order to nail the guilty party. At the same time, I think we’ll be getting a lot more information the next time Sarah Morgan is testifying. Even if she gives short, precise answers, there is sure to be additional questions that will elicit more complete information about that household.

                  • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                    09/30/2010 at 4:37 PM

                    Here’s a question…..does the civil trial count toward double jeopardy?

                    • Cat from Cleveland
                      09/30/2010 at 8:57 PM

                      Nope. Apples and oranges.

          • Eagle
            09/30/2010 at 8:32 AM

            Thanks Bea.
            Lots of possibilities in the depositions depending….

          • Craig
            09/30/2010 at 11:13 AM

            Everything we’ve heard about Sarah is that she’s a stand-up gal. I think she’s the daughter of two attorneys, so while she may be careful and deliberate in her responses, lying in a preceding such as this probably isn’t in her DNA.

            We’ll know for certain within a year’s time.

            • Clio
              09/30/2010 at 9:06 PM

              A stand-up gal? Please, Craig! Sarah was apparently too down-winded to walk five blocks; her primary pasttime was sitting and watching TV with random gay men.

              Lying is in human DNA, and, as big as she was, she was/is still human.

              On the other hand, I would love to see published any cards and letters from the trouple to her and from her to the trouple. She would not rate a sparkly cat, of course, but perhaps just one of them sent her a card with a loyal St. Bernard as her symbol or avatar.

              Editors, could the pictures from Italy or 2005’s Commonwealth Dinner be published in order for readers to assess the depth of Sarah’s connections with the Swann Street Three?

              Also, did Sarah keep a diary or an email account: could those be netted in a Covington fishing expedition?

              • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                09/30/2010 at 9:17 PM

                Or did she own that nice camera that doesn’t seem to be around anymore.

              • TT
                09/30/2010 at 9:24 PM

                Clio…I love you. No, she did, not walk a few blocks. Someone is covering for her

              • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                09/30/2010 at 9:28 PM

                Let’s not forget that weird “don’t go home…will explain later” phonecall.

                Wasn’t she at Cosi with the rest of the crew? Wasn’t Hixson there?

                • Clio
                  09/30/2010 at 10:29 PM

                  Yes, there apparently was no need for nametags that morning; the trouple and their closest sisters of whatever gender could easily skip the obligatory going-around-the-table introductions.

  6. Rich
    09/29/2010 at 5:10 PM


    Back to real posting/case discussion.

    Just like the old days.


  7. Three Strikes
    09/29/2010 at 10:10 PM

    “It’s a good thing”. Today I agree with you, Rich!

    • Rich
      09/29/2010 at 10:38 PM


  8. Rich
    09/30/2010 at 11:55 AM

    Let’s Try Again. Really hate these one word paragraphs:

    There is a support group still in existence on Dupont Circle for over for 40 years called, “GAMMA.” Gay Married Men Association.

    It’s a national organization.

    They meet every other Friday night on P Street.

    This is where these relationships normally form. GAMMA does not have a platform.

    You will find me, who are still committed to their marriages, leaving them and coming out or they were abandoned in the marriages.

    In the 80’s/90’s, there was a sub group called, “Trios,” which was for the 3 person couples.

    See how much we all learn on this site.

    You didn’t even know it was such a formal entity?

    Did you?

    • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
      09/30/2010 at 12:26 PM

      Sure, Rich. Support groups for men/women coming out of marriages have been around for decades. One of my former partners went to one.

      Men and women coming out of marriage and coming out in the gay community are nothing new.

      This and your first “trouple” posting are apples and oranges though.

      But I get your drift. 😀

      • Rich
        09/30/2010 at 12:37 PM

        Just so we know, “Trios,” do exist.

        • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
          09/30/2010 at 12:57 PM

          I know, Rich. Never said they didn’t.

  9. CDinDC (Boycott BP)
    09/30/2010 at 2:07 PM


    I silently weep everytime I walk by the space that “Food for Thought” occupied. What a unique place. Re The Hung Jury, the last I heard it morphed into a hip hop dance bar. And the old lady at the door passed on. She never uttered a word. Only silent gestures demanding your cover. LOL I spent many an evening there in the late 80s/early 90s. I’m sure we rubbed elbows on the dance floor! LOL

    • TT
      09/30/2010 at 2:12 PM

      OMG Bea what a trip down memory lane and the “old lady”. Thanks for making me smile.

      • Bea
        09/30/2010 at 4:25 PM

        There’s a thought: CD, TT and Bea all busting moves at the Hung Jury in 1988 to the sound of “Beat It” – and as I visited regularly in early 90s, I’d like us to be dancing to EMF’s “Unbelievable.” There was a time before BETTY moved to NY that one of the twins (Bitzy?) was a regular at HJ and I smile thinking of one particular encounter. . .

        The thing I loved most from Food for Thought were the wait staff’s crazy colored/cut hair – all worth the often painful “open mic night” and obligatory hat being passed (secretly thinking ‘I’ll pay you FIVE dollars if you don’t do a second set’).

        • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
          09/30/2010 at 4:50 PM

 wild thang. LOL

          Mary Chapin was probaby the most talented singer to come out of FFT.

          And the Hung Jury was the birthplace of DJ extraordinaire, Tracy Young.

          I drove by the old Rogue last weekend. I can remember watching the shows and feeling the floor heave as the dq’s strutted across the stage.

          Ahh, the hallowed halls of WDC’s queer entertainment venues. LOL

          • Bea
            09/30/2010 at 5:08 PM

            Didn’t know Mary Chapin (as in Mary Chapin Carpenter?) played FFT. (Saw her, a very young k.d., an older Laura Nyro, and many others at Birchmere in Alexandria then). I guess I picked the wrong nights at FFT! Loved the crappy pool table on the second floor, sloppy burritos and cheap Rolling Rock.

            • susan
              09/30/2010 at 8:05 PM

              Love Laura Nyro–just listened to her greatest hits a while ago.

              But speaking of Food for Thought, the owners opened the Black Cat on 14th Street and opened a tiny version of FFT inside.

              In fact, the Black Cat is just down the street from GoMamaGo, where M. Price works and not far from Swann and 15th. (Almost) All things lead back to WMRW.

              Loved FFT. Great, great place.

              And while I’m commenting on earlier posts, I recall Rich posting that he was “Formerly Married.” Also wonder whether the happy/miserable wife/non-wife was bathing in the sun in Honduras with the other sister-wife James. I doubt it; which leads back to the trouple under discussion here. Have never heard of a happy threesome. In the trouple case, JP and DW had to plot while VZ was away. What kind of trouple is that? It’s a trouple in trouble, it seems.

              • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                09/30/2010 at 8:25 PM

                That posting lead to my best laugh all day. Using “sister-wife” to describe the DW/VZ dynamic is priceless. I’m sure their relationship isn’t nearly as convivial as the Sister-wives on TLC though. No family meetings to decide who marries daddy or who does the dishes.

                (And if “formerly married” doesn’t mean divorced, what DOES it mean?)

                • Jeana
                  09/30/2010 at 9:04 PM

                  Please – don’t get him started again.

                  • Rich
                    09/30/2010 at 9:14 PM


                    He has WAY TOO MANY opinions of thse people.

                    • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                      09/30/2010 at 9:22 PM

                      Feelings are mutual.


                    • Rich
                      09/30/2010 at 10:21 PM

                      Very Cool!

                      That makes for even playing field.

                  • denton
                    09/30/2010 at 10:13 PM

                    Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see.
                    – Mark Twain

                • susan
                  09/30/2010 at 9:26 PM

                  Hi CD,

                  Glad to contribute to a good laugh.

                  BTW, re Betty (Bea’s post), they’ve been back to DC a couple of times for their Betty/memoir-type show at the DCJCC.
                  They shop at Whole Foods (and eat there) too!

                  Speaking of Whole Foods (15th and P) and DCJCC (16th & Q)-all in the general vicinity of 15th and Swann…..

  10. TT
    09/30/2010 at 2:10 PM

    Bea, yes Food for Thought was a unique place. Hung Jury has been closed for a long time. The nightlife for gay woman in WDC is slim pickings…..

    • susan
      09/30/2010 at 9:28 PM

      And they closed Lammas bookstore way back when. Laundry now.

  11. TT
    09/30/2010 at 2:15 PM

    I meant to say CD not Bea, sorry.

  12. susan
    09/30/2010 at 10:02 PM

    I recall reading that Ms. Morgan worked in “Finance” on Cap. Hill. Is that correct? Do we know if she still lives in DC?

    • Clio
      09/30/2010 at 10:34 PM

      Yes, Susan, and I would add: is Sarah still living with a gay couple? Did she herself get married … to a man? Has she compared notes with Aunt Marcia, or has she ever met Needham and Di?

  13. susan
    09/30/2010 at 10:44 PM


    Yes, wonder about her living sitch now.

    She probably did meet the Needham Ward’s at their anniversary party hosted on Swann St. It would seem knowing VZ that long she’d know Auntie M as well. She must know P. Dernbach, D. Mason, C. McGee–the whole gang. Wonder if she knows any of the candidates, or why she left so early that evening…or why she left at all…..

    And when she stayed in DW’s spare room, (or “spare oom” courtesy of C.S. Lewis)did she see all the torture gear? If so, did she notice a play mat? A full set of knives? Hear of any violent tendencies? Know of M. Price showing up unannounced often? Hear of him coming around that night?

    So many things she might know…..

    • Bruce
      10/01/2010 at 1:10 AM

      In looking over the topic article and all the posts on this subject of “truthiness” and Sarah Morgan, I can’t help but ask myself: “where’s the beef?”

      From all accounts she is a very nice person. She answered all the questions asked of her at the criminal trial. I couldn’t find any unusualness to her responses to examinations at the criminal trial. Like many, I wonder about why the attorneys did not ask more of her. But that is not her fault.

      I hope no one expected her to say anything at the criminal trial other than answering the question posed to her.

      It is my understanding from previous posts on this blog that she had an attorney. That attorney would have told her to simply truthfully answer the question asked, and do not volunteer any information whatsoever.

      Those asking you questions at a trial are only entitled to answers to their questions. It is up to them to ask the right questions.

      I’m at a loss to figure out upon what basis anyone has to reasonably conclude she lied at the criminal trial, or that she engaged in “truthiness.”

      A great inquiry is as to what she will be asked and how she will answer at a deposition, where the questions are likely to be fast and many.

      Cat put it very well in the post here that Sarah will likely be asked questions on many areas in a deposition, as opposed to her criminal trial testimony.

      When I read the title of the main article, I thought we would see some material that could lead a reasonable person to conclude that in her previous testimony she lied or engaged in “truthiness.”

      Lack of “beefiness” trumps legitimacy of “truthiness” inquiry here, at least in my opinion.

      • She did it
        10/01/2010 at 9:48 PM

        Bruce writes: In looking over the topic article . . . . . . and Sarah Morgan, I can’t help but ask myself: “where’s the beef?”

        I suspect she ate it.

        • Bruce
          10/01/2010 at 10:18 PM

          I hear a rim shot.

          • She did it
            10/01/2010 at 10:22 PM

            it’s a rim job, darling. and i suspect that is on michael the masseur’s sandwich board.

            • Bruce
              10/01/2010 at 10:26 PM

              several things just wrong with that post, dear.

              suggest one more glass of wine. fill it to the rim!

              • Clio
                10/01/2010 at 10:45 PM

                No, Bruce, if I were you, I would suggest that SDI “fill it to the rim with Brim,” as per the 1976 commercial for instant coffee.

                At any rate, I do wonder what kind of wine that the trouple had with their burnt steaks that evening. Shiraz or merlot? What’s your guess, Bruce dear?

                • Bruce
                  10/01/2010 at 10:48 PM

                  The Devil’s Wine.

                • Craig
                  10/01/2010 at 11:02 PM

                  We’ve poured a few bottles of this here in honor of the effort.

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

                    Great one, Craig.

                    How about Dr. Lector’s Blood Red “Nice” Chianti, with a delightful bouquet of burned flesh,baby liver and fava beans. The baby liver of course being from the sacrificed baby [a/k/a the cook out fire]

                    • Clio
                      10/03/2010 at 11:09 AM

                      I heart fava beans, but this wine, Bruce,would not rescue the flavor of the burnt steaks, I am afraid.

                • Kate
                  10/02/2010 at 8:24 AM

                  Great suggestions for your wine pairings.

                  May I add to the list Fat Bastard, vintage October?

            • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
              10/01/2010 at 10:32 PM

              touche LOL

  14. Clio
    10/01/2010 at 9:18 AM

    Police sympathy for a modern-day version of one of George Gissing’s Odd Women, coupled with prosecutorial ignorance of the dynamics between straight women and gay men, probably allowed Sarah to spin her “facts” in the best way for darling Victor and herself. Evil, though, can come in a jolly power suit, Bruce.

    • Bruce
      10/01/2010 at 6:34 PM


      Dear, all I can say is thank God we have you on this blog to fight the forces of EVIL embedded in all those who know or interact or are related to the Swann 3!

      It IS a tough job, but someone has to do it, and I’m just glad that person is YOU. 🙂

      You will undoubtedly suppress all EVIL and make EVIL speechless with your literary allusions. Poor old EVIL! Probably rendered deaf, dumb and blind just from trying to figure out who George Gissing is, from your EVIL warning post above.

      Sarah’s testimony regarding “Satan’s Progeny,” a/k/a our own “Lil Dyl,” and his conversation with her regarding his designs on “piercing the veil” so to speak of Joe/Vic’s arrangement, was certainly not something in their favor, and something I would expect that the Swann 3 did not care to hear.

      Even demure little Sarah would know that this little tidbit was not helpful to her EVIL mongering friends. Yet, she said it, blast the wench, right dab in court, under oath.

      I can only suggest that you aim your powers against EVIL against those who are possible more appropriate. And remember, dahlink, save the best for last.

      • Bea
        10/01/2010 at 6:40 PM

        Okay then.

        • TT
          10/01/2010 at 7:16 PM

          Would meet you ladies anytime. And, I don’t mean to resemble any others posts. I still think it would be too over the top for all of us to meet at some point. Thank you ladies for the memories.
          Have a great weekend.

          My wish, Sarah and Michael Price are questioned.
          Lawyers, can they bring Michael to the forefront?

          • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
            10/01/2010 at 7:28 PM

            YOu too TT. 😀

            • TT
              10/01/2010 at 7:39 PM

              Always CD

            • Bea
              10/01/2010 at 9:33 PM

              Would love it too.

              Also, would love to meet up with the Original Thought Police – CD, was that you, me, AnnaZ and Clio or were there more/less?

              • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                10/01/2010 at 9:45 PM

                I think you’ve got it right, Bea. We were lambasted not too long about for being very present early on here at WMRW.

                If only I had the powers they claimed we had.

          • Bea
            10/01/2010 at 9:36 PM

            Oh, back to the subject matter – YES, as to bringing in Michael Price. He can (and will) be deposed. If he takes the 5th, then that is a REAL eyebrow-raiser (someone help out – didn’t Louis Hinton try to take the 5th at the criminal trial? I can’t remember specifics).

            • david
              10/02/2010 at 5:41 PM


              Louis Hinton’s attorney was prepared to have Hinton take the 5th at the criminal trial, but then questioning was narrowed to the point that he felt it was not necessary to assert the 5th, so he actually never took it, but was prepared to.

              David, co-ed.

              • Bea
                10/02/2010 at 6:06 PM

                Logically, I’d assume Louis would be taking the 5th on an accessory or perjury concern that he’d lied to police about Michael’s whereabouts that night. If Michael takes the 5th, he’s likely saying he was at Swann at least some point that evening – which could include post-murder to assist with evidence removal.

                • Bruce
                  10/02/2010 at 9:21 PM

                  Hi Bea:

                  “If Michael takes the 5th, he’s likely saying he was at Swann at least some point that evening….”

                  I disagree. Respectfully, of course.

                  If Michael takes the 5th, in my opinion he’s likely saying NOTHING.

                  Or, more precisely, if Michael takes the 5th, he is saying that he will not answer anything that could touch upon any possible criminal charges that the cops and prosecutors may be planning against him (not that he thinks they are “true” or thinks he is guilty).

                  As a definite subject of the prosecution’s case in the criminal trial [as the possible murderer], can you blame him for taking the 5th?

                  Certainly, assumptions and guesses go a plenty if he pleads the 5th.

                  But the assumption or guess that if he pleads the 5th he’s likely saying anything, is a jump, skip and a hop.

                  Just wanted to clear that up, since, as a legal beagle, people might think you are applying a legal analysis.

                  You are, of course, entitled to your opinions in this regard, which I respect and enjoy.

                  Up With People!

                  • Bea
                    10/02/2010 at 9:32 PM

                    Of course he’ll try to take the 5th for no reason at all – if he can get away with it. My experience is that judges don’t just say ‘okay, whatever’ when the 5th is raised – often they’ll delve to at least see if there’s something rational underneath. For the defendants, I see it. For Michael Price, not so much, if what the police have been told by Michael and Louis is that Michael was home all night. How can answering questions about that night be a problem UNLESS you’ve lied to police and thus put yourself squarely back into the fray.

                    • Bruce
                      10/02/2010 at 9:46 PM


                      Despite what he and Louis told the police, the prosecutors seemed quite “interested” in him at the criminal trial. And not in a good way.

                • susan
                  10/02/2010 at 11:42 PM

                  Speaking of L. Hinton, was just reading excerpts from his testimony and a few things seem to stand out.

                  From the Fox News (sorry) report:

                  “n the witness stand, Hinton told the court he and Michael Price had been together for nearly nine years.

                  The two of them frequently socialized with Joseph Price, Dylan Ward and Victor Zaborsky.

                  When asked about what he knew about their relationship, Hinton said, “Victor and Joe were in a relationship, Dylan was a friend.”

                  Hinton told the court Joseph Price would support Michael by paying for his HIV drugs and would sometimes give him money.

                  He confirmed the two were living in a condo owned by Joseph Price.”

                  Here’s what stands out to me:

                  1. L. Hinton seemed to have a steady job in IT, and was together with M. Price for Nine Years, yet JP paid for MP’s HIV drugs? Why not his long-time partner?

                  2. L. Hinton characterizes “L’il Dyl” as a “friend.” It’s possible he was just a “friend” at the time, but if he gave that answer it was an incomplete one. If he was asked what he knew about the relationship the straightforward, honest answer would have been more complete. He was with MP for Nine Years, lived with the trouple during their troupledom (after assaulting M. Price), was represented legally by M. Price. Certainly he knew the extent of their collective relationship, esp. as they “frequently socialized together.”

                  Also, until recently, it seems, he was Facebook friends with P. Dernbach, friend of D. Ward. Certainly he knew about their relationship. And I’m sure the question referred to their relationship at the time of the murder. Wonder why L. Hinton was less than forthcoming in his response to that question on the stand.

                  • susan
                    10/02/2010 at 11:47 PM

                    To answer my own question, perhaps it was his attorney, Barry Pollack’s attempt to weaken the theory that they were

                  • Clio
                    10/03/2010 at 10:25 AM

                    I do wonder how Uncle Michael met Uncle Louie. Did the handsome matchmaker Peter make yet another unfortunate love connection?

                    Or, more likely, did a mutual love of life in the fast lane (a perpetual manhunt with the requisite party favors and drama) draw the two together and to orbit around the larger star of Culuket?

                    • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                      10/03/2010 at 11:47 AM

                      I have reliable reason to believe it is the latter. One Mr. Hinton enjoys the club scene.
                      He’s no stranger to the special events at local nightclubs.

          • Cat from Cleveland
            10/01/2010 at 10:33 PM

            I have every expectation that Michael will receive a subpoena. He will be able to dodge some questions about conversations with his brother on the attorney/client privilege. He may plead the 5th A. But he will be deposed.

            • Bruce
              10/01/2010 at 10:46 PM

              Heavens to Mergatroid! [thanks Clio and Snagglepuss]

              Of course Michael will be subpoened for his deposition.

              The real question, as you rightly point out, is whether he will follow Big Brother’s strategy. My guess? Lots and lots and lots of 5’s will be involved.

      • AnnaZed
        10/01/2010 at 7:23 PM

        Alrighty then.

      • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
        10/01/2010 at 7:30 PM

        Whew. I was hoping someone would take care of that pesky Clio. ;>

        • Bea
          10/01/2010 at 9:32 PM

          Good one.

          • Bruce
            10/01/2010 at 9:43 PM

            “take care of..” What could you mean? I am beginning to worship Clio. I could certainly be wrong, but I doubt Clio would take the least offense at my post. Just a little good natured blabber, tis all it tis.

            • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
              10/01/2010 at 9:47 PM

              My post was playful too, Bruce! We all love Clio.

              • Bruce
                10/01/2010 at 9:53 PM

                How could one not?

                • Clio
                  10/01/2010 at 10:13 PM

                  Thanks, all, for the compliments and love.

                  There is still time for Sarah “to come to Jesus” and to tell the truth about the house: if she can change her hair color, surely she can ditch her allegiance to Culuket.

                  Signed by a charter member of “The Thought Police,” all the way “from the ladies’ room at Ziegfield’s,” just after “a visit from Mother Nature.” Quotes provided by (or paraphrased from) statements of surprisingly misogynistic supporters of the trouple, of course.

                  • Bruce
                    10/01/2010 at 10:21 PM

                    And they are athletic supporters, also.

                  • Bea
                    10/02/2010 at 3:03 PM

                    So, needing a refresher, were the Original Thought Police you, AnnaZ, me and CD? Or am I missing someone?

                    • Rich
                      10/02/2010 at 3:07 PM

                      There were quite a bit more.

                      Many have moved on.

                      possibly, Bill.

                    • Clio
                      10/02/2010 at 3:11 PM

                      Yes. The four originals of the Thought Policewere Bea (as lead singer
                      Joan Jett), CD, AZ, and Clio.

                      And none have left, to the particular chagrin of Rich, Lil Dyl, and Uncle Michael.

                    • Rich
                      10/02/2010 at 3:31 PM

                      Who said I was disappointed?

                      i find all of yu quite entertaining.

                    • Bea
                      10/02/2010 at 3:53 PM

                      Love I get to be Joan Jett. Always had a crush.

  15. susan
    10/02/2010 at 3:30 PM

    The “Original Thought Police” rock!

    (Apparently, so does J. Jett, who has received rave reviews for her recent performance here.)

    • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
      10/02/2010 at 3:45 PM

      LOL Thanks Susan! Whenever I hear that comes up it always make me laugh. I think it was Ben Franklin that said it.

  16. Rich
    10/02/2010 at 3:33 PM

    Didn’t realize there was an original, “Thought Police.”

    I thought you were referring to folks who were on board since the beginning.

    Not a click, just posters.

    • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
      10/02/2010 at 3:43 PM

      It was a comment a poster made regarding Bea, Clio, AnnaZed and myself a while back. The poster was being snarky and named the four of us “The Thought Police.”

      And, yes, each of has been “on board” since the beginning.

      • Bea
        10/02/2010 at 3:54 PM

        We need t-shirts. And then go bust a move at whatever girl bar may be left.

        • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
          10/02/2010 at 4:01 PM


          Sadly, it’s The Phase. LOL

      • Rich
        10/02/2010 at 7:20 PM

        Yes, knew you were on baord since the beginning.

        And, not chagrined, as Clio referenced.

        I’m amused by you ladies.

        • Bruce
          10/02/2010 at 9:28 PM

          Ha! Yes. The old “You amuse me.”

          Used much by Q in Star Trek Next Generation, as I recall.


        • Bea
          10/02/2010 at 9:29 PM

          I cannot speak for the posse of Original Thought Police, but I for one am not a ‘lady.’

          • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
            10/02/2010 at 10:00 PM

            A lady would never go to The Phase. LOL There is a pool table there, afterall.

            • Bea
              10/02/2010 at 11:15 PM

              A pool table where one performs mating rituals, if I recall correctly.

        • Clio
          10/02/2010 at 11:21 PM

          I am a lady, Rich, but I am not biologically female (at least not in this lifetime): just like Victor, perhaps.

          Unlike Ma’am, I would NOT have enabled Culuket, even if I took solemn vows to obey him; it is imperative that a lady in a same-sex arrangement has to set limits to her/his voluntary subordination. Are you still listening, Victor?

  17. TT
    10/02/2010 at 6:04 PM

    Yes the lovely Phase…

    • Bea
      10/02/2010 at 6:08 PM

      Was that close to Eastern Market metro, roughly 8th? If so, I remember it well. . .

      • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
        10/02/2010 at 6:39 PM

        8th Street. Exactly!

  18. Clio
    10/03/2010 at 7:54 PM

    Sarah may have blabbed Dyl’s 2003 admission to Victor right away. Hence, in 2006, Dyl knew not to confide in the thoroughly modern Miss Morgan, who was/is probably still rooting for Team Zaborsky.

    And, if Sarah was truly worried about security, then she probably had stated concerns about the alt dot bomb tricks and whatnot literally coming and then going from Swann at all hours. So, why the coy reticence after the murder about the real roots of her summer focus on security?

    What “lady” with an art history degree from Trinity would want to be part of the family of such a house of ill repute! Then again, if she only played the piano or harp, then she could have entertained the gentlemen callers and clients as they waited in the cramped kitchen.

Comments are closed.