Stop The Presses

(Not) For Immediate Release

We continue to keep an eye out for the plaintiff’s response to the defense motion for a gag order, one that would preclude all attorneys involved in the Wone civil case from speaking to members of the media, both in the mainstream press, and we assume, the not-so mainstream.

As we wait for that reply and Judge Brook Hedge’s ruling, it may be worth looking back to see how the firms that represented Price, Ward and Zaborsky in the criminal case managed the post-trial publicity, such as it is/was.

In two instances, silence; and in the other, a certain degree of pride in winning the acquittal in a trial that they consider was “…the subject of extensive media coverage for the last four years.”

The news pages of Bernie Grimm’s (Price) Cozen O’Connor and Tom Connolly’s (Zaborsky) Wiltshire & Grannis showcase plenty of announcements.  Typical of many firms’ news pages and press releases are their announcements on publications, media mentions, pro bono work, new hires, awards and the bigger wins – dismissals and acquittals.

Yet nowhere on either of their two pages is any mention of what could be considered a rather big win from the summer – the Wone verdict.

It’s only on the Schertler & Onorato news page do we see anything on the obstruction and conspiracy case.  There, along with news of wins on several cases involving domestic abuse, sexual battery, firearms and assault on a police officer is this five line mention:

“July 2010  Schertler & Onorato client acquitted of all charges: The Schertler & Onorato defense team of David Schertler, Bob Spagnoletti, and Veronica Jennings represented our client charged with conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and evidence tampering, stemming from the highly publicized 2006 stabbing death of Robert Wone. Following a five week trial in D.C. Superior Court, our client was found not guilty on all counts.”

It only makes sense that Team Schertler crows about the big win; conventional wisdom says that firm drove the strategy in the criminal trial (with our without the assist from Joe Price).

Now, the criminal trial belongs to the ages, but as far as the three firms that won it, only one seems to be proud of the score, and that news shares space on the same page with other recent big wins for them: Blackwater and Alberto Gonzales.

posted by Craig

Post navigation

79 comments for “Stop The Presses

  1. KiKi
    10/15/2010 at 10:40 AM

    One interesting thing that is not mentioned in this post is that when you look at the websites for both Cozen O’Connor and Wiltshire & Grannis, that this article links to, there is actually not one criminal case “win” mentioned (other than Amicus briefs). It is not like they have conveniently left off the Wone case. I also did not see the dismissals and acquittals that craig spoke of. Maybe I am just blind and missed it in my cursory scan.

    • carolina
      10/15/2010 at 11:09 AM

      No, certainly Craig made it from whole cloth.

      • KiKi
        10/15/2010 at 11:37 AM

        Well I just rechecked and again did not see a “win” in a criminal case mentioned on Cozen’s site in “press releases,” “awards and honor,” or “in the news.” Nor did I see anything Wiltshire, although I only went back until 2008.

        The only reason I even checked is because I often recruit firm lawyers who take on capital cases pro bono and rarely do they want media attention from these “wins” (for a variety of reasons.) So I just was interested in 1. what other criminal cases these 2 firms have taken, and 2. how they phrase their successes. But I couldn’t find anything.

        But I may be missing it, so if anyone else wants to check the websites are linked above.

        • Hoya Loya
          10/15/2010 at 11:59 AM


          This falls squarely in my current line of work, so let me say this is not surprising. A firm’s website is used to carefully cultivate its image. Cozen and Whiltshire, to the extent they handle criminal cases, tend to specialize almost exclusively in white collar matters (corporate defense, government investigations, etc.).

          It was clearly a major step up for Bernie to land at Cozen (kudos to him) and the Price case was most likely one of the last general criminal cases he will handle, apart from possible pro bono work. Similarly, Connolly was dipping his toe in an area far below the complex level of his regular practice, such as that for Stephen Hatfield. Perhaps he expected more scientific elements (blood analysis, etc.) when they first took on Victor’s case than ultimately transpired at trial. I cannot see either lawyer or their firm wanting to crow about this case – it is not typical of their usual work, ended in a “non-acquittal acquittal” that was highly critical of their clients, and does not send the right message to the firms’ most desired clientele. This also explains the absence of other similar wins – even if existing, they would fit with their brand identity.

          At the firm where I work, we occasionally get a win that is nevertheless unflattering to our client (often in the employment litigation context, where we represent management) and/or which will not help us to land new clients. We then need to convince the lawyers to run a toned down description (like Schertler’s) or better yet, not to feature the story at all. To their credit, the lawyers are attuned to this dynamic as well and will often ask us not to feature certain wins on the site on their own volition, sometimes for subtle reasons that would not have been immediately apparent to our department.

          That said, I’m a little surprised by the capital case example you provide — if our lawyers saved a defendant from the death penalty, our pro bono folks would certainly want to crow about it, though possibly on their own section of the site rather than in the general news or experience section.

          A quick review of Schertler’s site shows that they handle a wider range of criminal cases and are not afraid to get down and dirty or take on tough general criminal cases. So it is not surprising that they list the win while the other two firms don’t. For their firm, it would be beneficial for a potential client in deep doo-doo from a violent crime to read the site and think “Hey they got that Ward guy off, maybe they can help me.”

          In the end then, I think Craig is still on the mark, though more for reasons of marketing and commerce than pride.

          • KiKi
            10/15/2010 at 12:38 PM

            Thanks for that Hoya. I agree with everything you said, and while you have much more experience with this than I, I have been told essentially the same thing from the PB lawyers I have worked with.

            As far as the capital cases I rarely have the innocent client problem so the “wins” are often, a new penalty phase due to what some would say is a technicality, or a remand on a mental retardation claim. Certainly very important and commendable results but as you explained not ones that their firms want to use in their branding. Unlike, the innocent cases such as Morgan Lewis’s outstanding work on my good friend JT’s case that was just argued in the Supreme Court.

            I think your explanation exemplifies why the omission of the Wone case is not necessarily because a lack of pride in the outcome but more so because it does not fit with the brand and will likely not entice would be clients.

            I do, however, take exception with craig’s description that the firms showcase dismissals and acquittals, but have left off the Wone case. I am sure it is unintentional, but it appears to mischaracterize what is actually included on the websites. I just wanted all the readers to be clear that the Wone case is likely, not the only case that was left off of the announcements and I think your post explains that perfectly!

            • Craig
              10/15/2010 at 12:58 PM

              Kiki: The Schertler & Onorato news archive shows a handful of acquittals and plenty of dismissals. All right here.

              • KiKi
                10/15/2010 at 1:20 PM

                Right. I saw that and they also mention the Wone case. Right? But the 2 firms that don’t mention the Wone case Cozen and Wiltshire do not mention any other acquittals or dismissals.

                “The news pages of Bernie Grimm’s (Price) Cozen O’Connor and Tom Connolly’s (Zaborsky) Wiltshire & Grannis showcase plenty of announcements. Typical of many firms’ news pages and press releases are their announcements on publications, media mentions, pro bono work, new hires, awards and the bigger wins – dismissals and acquittals.

                Yet nowhere on either of their two pages is any mention of what could be considered a rather big win from the summer – the Wone verdict.”

                In this paragraph when you speak of dismissals and acquittals, it seems to me at least, that you are referring to Cozen and Wiltshire.

                • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                  10/15/2010 at 2:06 PM

                  Kiki, what’s the point of all this?

                  • AnnaZed
                    10/15/2010 at 4:15 PM

                    I’m a bit lost as to the point of this argument myself.

                    • carolina
                      10/15/2010 at 6:20 PM

                      That’s because there is none. Carry on, my good woman!

                  • Bill Orange
                    10/15/2010 at 7:09 PM

                    Her point is that the two firms that didn’t crow about their “win” in the Wone case do not brag about wins in criminal cases the first place, so they’re not really “singling out” the defendants here.

                    • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                      10/15/2010 at 9:48 PM

                      1 sentence to 12 paragraphs.



                    • Cara
                      10/15/2010 at 11:10 PM

                      Absolutely not nitpicking, but I read the “point” as an opinion that today’s post might suggest that more things are typically advertised than are being advertised.

                      I didn’t take Kiki’s comments as more than just being particular about that.

                      If only I were this skinny. 

                    • Rich
                      10/16/2010 at 12:03 AM


                      You Go Girl!

          • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
            10/15/2010 at 12:55 PM

            I work for a well-known international law firm that has a cracker jack criminal defense team. The firm just scored a major win for a very distasteful client that is embroiled in a high-profile international criminal case.

            Usually, when the firm scores a victory they send out a email bulletin to the firm. “We won,” kudos, blah blah blah, etc. Not only did they NOT publicize this distasteful win, but they make “private” any documents created for this case. The representation of this client is completely “under the rug.”

            It was the newspapers that informed me of the firm’s representation of this client AND the win.

  2. Clio
    10/15/2010 at 9:57 PM

    Dylan Ward, Blackwater, and Alberto Gonzales: thanks Schertler & Onorato!!

    Culuket’s dom and W.’s two favorite charities: Priceless!!

    • Clio
      10/15/2010 at 10:20 PM

      BTW, most may agree that Alberto Gonzales was the second or third worst Attorney General, right up there with Harry M. Daugherty (of Teapot Dome fame) and Nixon’s John Mitchell. Reagan’s Edwin Meese was a little better than Gonzales, but not by much. (And, who could forget Jimmy Carter’s Burt Lance!)

      Thus, the one firm that helped to exonerate one Attorney General is the same one that helped to acquit the probable perps in the killing of a friend of the sitting Attorney General. And, CNN still cannot cover this story — shame on you, Lisa G.!

      • Clio
        10/15/2010 at 10:29 PM

        Oops! Bert (with an e) Lance was Jimmy’s Budget Director, not Attorney General. A special thanks goes out to the oracle of Delphi who pointed out that howler of an error. The rest of my above comment still stands, however.

      • Craig
        10/17/2010 at 12:15 PM

        Word had it that Prop 8 Judge Vaughn Walker was palling around with Ed Meese at Bohemian Grove, the weekend before he issued his ruling. Wallker is an Owls Nest guy and so was Reagan, but Meese bunks at Cave Man Camp. Make of that what you will.

        • Clio
          10/17/2010 at 2:17 PM

          Politics does make for strange camp(y?) fellows, but, thank Yahweh, not all Republicans tow the “low-church” line on gays. I do wonder, then, where DADT Judge Virginia Phillips camps — is there an Adamless Eden equivalent of Bohemian Grove?

    • Liam
      10/16/2010 at 1:58 AM

      I would expect the Schertler & Onorato firm to be pretty good at what they do considering several of the attorneys there are former prosecutors. They say you should “know your opponent”. Who would better understand the strategies of a prosecutor than a former prosecutor.

      It seems very unique to the practice of law that one could go from one side to the other like that. In what other profession (e.g., teacher, doctor, accountant, engineer) are you able to “switch sides” so to speak. I suppose that it’s the adversarial nature of the law profession (as opposed to other professions) that permits this.

      That being said, I wonder what might be the philosophical make up of such attorneys who make this switch. Do they wake up one morning and say “I’m tired of putting criminals away, and now I want to set them free.” Is it a plan from the beginning to learn by being a prosecutor and then switch. Or, is it just a job to them and they desire to make as much money as they can at their job (which is fine…no judgment here…as long as they do their job well and do it ethically).

      • alternateguy
        10/16/2010 at 9:35 AM

        Liam, You ask “Do they wake up one morning and say “I’m tired of putting criminals away, and now I want to set them free.”

        You might have asked, “Do they wake up one morning and say ‘Now I want to see innocent men set free.'”

        • Rich
          10/16/2010 at 11:35 AM

          Good One.

        • carolina
          10/16/2010 at 4:52 PM

          No, they wake up and say, “I’d like a summer house at the shore.”

          Altruism–ha ha.

        • Liam
          10/16/2010 at 8:13 PM


          I see your point. However, I guess what I’m saying is that a person who makes the switch from prosecutor to defense attorney may now be defending the self same person they would have been prosecuting (and I really don’t think defense attorneys are (or can afford to be) so picky that they only take clients that are deemed to be innocent. So it seems that this may raise some inner philosophical conflicts regarding the meaning of one’s working life.

          (Oh, who am I kidding. Most lawyers simply go where the money is. There are no inner philosophical conflicts. You need a heart and a soul to have that.)

          As I said above, this seems to be a consequence of the adversarial nature of the legal profession. Let’s say an army doctor (who is working for the gov’t.) wants to start his own practice. After hanging out his shingle, the doctor is still working for the same cause, i.e., the patients. On the other hand, a prosecutor who wants to go into private practice as a defense attorney must “go to the other side” so to speak.

      • susan
        10/16/2010 at 1:09 PM

        Hey Liam,

        Actually, there’s a lot to what you wrote. In fact, it is an issue with federal service at the legislative, judicial, and executive branches and all have criminal statutes, as I understand it, that place time restrictions on what you can do when you leave federal service. There are time restrictions and matter restrictions, etc.

        So when Schertler left the gov. he couldn’t turn around and work on a case he just left working off on or couldn’t do so if he would be in the forefront of the work/case.

        I’ll tell you what seems to be the driver for individuals who leave federal service for the private sector, and it’s the first thing I thought about Schertler when I heard he used to work for the govt: MONEY.

        It happens in the exec. and leg. branch where you see so many former appointees now working as lobbyists for the pharmaceutical or health industries, etc., etc.

        So, I think people like Schertler “wake up one morning and say” I think I’ll take what I learned during my service in the govt and use that information TO CASH IN while working for the other side.

      • Bruce
        10/18/2010 at 11:08 AM

        Hi Liam:

        As to prosecutors becoming defense attorneys, there is one simple explanation that might help.

        As a prosecutor, you will always be a governmental employee (fed, state, county or city). You will have an exciting hard exacting life as a prosecutor, but (generally speaking)your chances of making a salary close to the non-governmental arena, and chances for advancement, may be limited.

        As a governmental employee, you will also have to put up with the organizational “bull” and red tape associated with being such an employee.

        I can only imagine that prosecutors’ lives are exciting and rewarding, and many continue being such through retirement.

        But, some of those prosecutors with growing families, mortgages, kids needing to go to college, yadda yadda yadda, may feel confined by the governmentally set pay schedules, and the bull you have to put up with when you are working for such large organizations.

        Imagine you are a criminal prosecutor, and you decide, for whatever reason, you want to stay in the criminal law area (it is your bread and butter, and what you know), and you are good at it, but you want to leave being a governmental employee.

        There really is no choice than to become a criminal defense attorney, unless you are lucky enough to become a judge (and many judges do come from the ranks of prosecutors). There is no such thing as a
        private sector” prosecutor, under our system of justice.

        While I can see some confusion as to how such a person could “switch alliances” in this matter, from my perspective, I don’t think it is much of a stretch.

        By going to private practice criminal defense, you still have a client to protect (of course, now it is the accused person, not the public or the government). And you are applying the very same education, skills and knowledge you honed before as a prosecutor.

        Sorry, but prosecutors do not have “the rental” on all things ethical and above board. The pages of newspapers and the internet are full of stories involving prosecutorial misconduct and abuse of the rights of those criminally charged.

        Someone needs to challenge those abuses and ensure that those criminally charged are treated and tried fairly, under the Constitution and the rules of our advocacy system.

        Ok, I can see that I have set myself up for the “attorneys only want to win and make big $$” backlash, which many hold, and who can blame them?

        So, I guess I will just say that the trip across the courtroom from prosecutor to defense attorney is not such a gulf that thousands have not been able to do it easily.

        It does not mean that you are throwing the shield of justice, truth and the American way out the door. There are many very ethical and consciencious defense attorneys, just as there many of the same in the prosecutors’ office. Of course, there will be abuses on both sides: we are dealing with humans here.

        If you just want to win, you will not make the change. The Prosecutor always has the upper hand on that.

        Yeah, if you only want to make (or have a chance to make) more money, that is a reason to switch also, and I am sure many do it for that reason. Sorry, we do live in a capitalistic society, and ya need bucks.

        Not aware of other areas in the law where the change over is done so easily.

  3. Clio
    10/16/2010 at 2:47 PM

    Crisco does make a fine personal lubricant, as to which Dyl may have alluded, but the lubricant of Big Law in today’s DC does seem to be cash gilded with protestations about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

    The attorney’s milieu in the District then must be a hyper-hypocritical world (that Charles Dickens would recognize!) with secular Elmer Gantrys plying their trade up and down the alphabet streets. It is no wonder, of course, that Mr. Price made partner.

    • Bruce
      10/16/2010 at 5:17 PM

      Hope no one minds, but thought I might barge in, having returned from my foray across the pond.

      I have spent some time catching up on the WMRW msterial accumulated while gone (Yes, the internet tubey thingies are available in Europe, but with it being a mostly family trip, no personal internet device, an impossibly agressive itinerary created by overly enthusiastic siblings, and a wedding to attend to boot, who has time?)

      I was especially pleased to read more about Chilaw, and am impressed with both the editors’ discretion and her family’s allowance of information to the blog.

      I read with fascination the “bitchshlaps” (sic) and randy discourse we are so used to reading on our beloved joyous hotbed of informational discourse.

      I was especially impressed (as always) with Clio’s many literary allusions while I was gone, and believe firmly now that she may very well be the great great great grandniece twice removed (painfully) of John Stuart Mill. 🙂

      Couple Idle Thoughts & Ruminations:

      I must agree with Kiki and Cat (and others I may not recall)that the defense’s motion to dismiss Counts 1,3 & 4 is very serious business indeed.

      What I can’t get out of my head is the following: Instead of holding a press conference on or about the one year anniversary of Robert Wone’s death, why why why didn’t the attorneys for Mrs. Wone spend two hours drafting a complaint and file it by the statute of limitations deadline (again, the anniversary of the death)? It could have been a “no frills” very simple wrongful death and survival complaint, to which amendments could be made later (after the statute of limitations passed) that would have “related back” to the original complaint, with no statute of limitations problems.

      It is extremely troubling to me, and I am sure it will be to the trial judge and any appeals court if involved, to consider the fairly reasonable conclusion that if they had enough information to have a press conference regarding the case on the one year anniversary, they thereby had enough information to file a simple complaint, and thereby completely disabuse the Swann 3 of this potentially devastating statute of limitations defense.

      All attorneys know the importance of statutes of limitations. It is probably the #1 reason plaintiff’s counsels are sued for legal malpractice. Defense attorneys also know to abide by them to the tee because they have statutes of limitations relating to filing third-party complaints or counterclaims, etc. It is most elementary Civil Procedure 101 material (for non-lawyers, this is a usually required course most 1st year law students take in law school).

      Bea mentioned that it is possible that Mrs. Wone received an e-mail or communication from the Swann 3 or their attorneys that could have “waived” the statute of limitations [for non-lawyers, defendants can agree (or “waive”) the statute of limitations and allow plaintiffs to sue after the statute of limitations passes, and this is not uncommon, particularly if the parties are in settlement negotiations and are trying to avoid court filings and involvement]. Bea, that is both an imaginative and an intelligent inquiry. Yet, I think you would also agree that it is speculation at best based upon what we know right now.

      I can’t imagine that if there was something like that “out there,” that the defendants would have not brought it up to the judge in their motion and argued it as being non-effective or non-existent, or possibly subject themselves to sanctions for not pointing out that very crucial information in their motion.

      Of course, as many point out, we have not seen the plaintiff’s response to this motion, and they may have, as Bea reasonably points out, some tricks up their sleeve (I personally hope so).

      Also, as others have pointed out, this statute of limitations defense and the related “fraudulent concealment” issues plaintiff sets forth in the amended complaint, can be fact sensitive.

      When I said in this post that this motion is “very serious business indeed,” I don’t mean to say that it is an absolute winner for the defense, and I eagerly await the plaintiff’s response. All I am meaning to say is that the motion is certainly not frivolous, it makes fairly clear and compelling arguments, and both sides are likely to have some sleepless hours the night before the ruling.

      If the court denies this motion, expect quite a bit of time being taken by the defense counsel at Mrs. Wone’s deposition as to exactly what she knew and when she knew it, who she talked to and when, what information was provided and when (including documents provided between herself and her attorneys, the documents themselves likely not privileged unless they contain her or her attorney’s impressions or arguments), including when and what was provided by the police or prosecutors, as to this statue of limitations issue for possible motions in the future, including a motion for directed verdict at trial.

      I find the “fraudulent concealment” argument very interesting here. The defendants don’t whisper the issue of 5th Amendment rights to remain silent in their motion. They may be awaiting plaintiff’s counsel to make an expected argument in its response brief that the Swann 3 were essentially “concealing by not revealing,” by not speaking out after they invoked their 5th Amendment rights during or after the police interviews.

      Sometimes when you file a motion like this, you hold back some arguments, wanting the other side to raise them first so that you can “pounce back” in a reply brief, belittling them.

      If the judge grants the motion, the case continues (absent any allowable immediate appeals) on Count II only, which is based solely in negligence, and is a count that would not likely raise the type of monetary award that the dismissed counts aimed for.

      If the judge grants the motion, and leaves only Count II (negligence), it also positions well Joe and Victor as to their insurance company’s assumed reservations of rights, and would be helpful to more fully expose the insurance company both to its duty to defend and to indemnify for any judgment up to its policy limits.

      Sorry to bore. Glad to be back. Missed you.

      • denton
        10/16/2010 at 6:22 PM

        Who said you are a bore? Welcome back, Bruce! Did you enjoy the Euro that went down when you left? You sure missed quite a few actions here. Good to see that you are back in the swing.

      • Clio
        10/17/2010 at 5:43 AM

        Welcome back, Bruce! Thanks for the compliments, and I hope that your concerns about the statute of limitations are wrong.

        It would be a bitter irony if the plaintiff’s case was done in by an oversight of Eric Holder. I had thought that he was too passive or disengaged in that news conference, but if Brook rules for the defense here, then her dismissal of most counts due to an arbitrary deadline may be yet another reason to vote the rascals out this November. At least with the tea party, you know that you’ll be screwed in advance.

        • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
          10/17/2010 at 11:41 AM

          Well, you figure Eric Holder was very busy in mid-late 2007, and the business of C&B may not have been on his mind. He was busy attaching himself to the Obama campaign, which subsequently led to his AG nomination.

          • Rich
            10/17/2010 at 12:37 PM

            It All Comes Rushing Back to Me…

            I made contact with Kathy Wone in early November 2008. Obama was elected moments earlier. Who knew? It took an enormous amount of time to find the email as it was archived.

            Here it goes:

            My Apologies…

            for contacting you at work, however, I’ve followed your grief for over two years now and I am as unsettled and outraged as you are.

            As a gay man, I extend my sincere and deep sadness over your loss. Robert seems to have been a real winner based on everything I have read.

            I write to you because I’m a bit angry to see Eric Holder enjoy such positive press today.

            I have no clue what your relationship is with him, but, in my opinion, he did not serve you well. He is a very powerful man in the Department of Justice and he will soon become the, “The Top Prosecutor,” in this nation.

            I feel Eric has dropped the ball on Robert’s behalf and has not taken full responsibility in finding his perpetrator.

            He has the influence and access to solving this heinous crime.

            I suggest you call him and demand that he take an active role or that you will share your disappointment with the press. I assure you, you will get results. He will probably reassign the case, but, it will go to someone with competence and he will follow it closely as he would not want to generate negative headlines.

            Please, do not back away from this challenging proposition.

            Robert deserves it and he deserves justice.

            I remember being so incensed with Holder at the time. He had so much power and was doing nothing.

            Seems this email will come back to haunt her.

            • AnnaZed
              10/17/2010 at 1:38 PM

              “…I made contact with Kathy Wone in early November 2008… It took an enormous amount of time to find the email as it was archived.”

              My God! You are insane. How dare you impose yourself on Mrs. Wone and her private grief and relationships about which you know nothing.

              I assume that Mrs. Wone did not answer this disgusting invasive email.

              The spending of an “enormous amount of time” to unearth Mrs. Wone’s private contact information then using it to harass her with your nearly psychotic, paranoid crack-pot theories when you are not a person known to her is called internet stalking and is a punishable criminal offense.

              There are many public places where you could have voiced your opinion about Mr. Holder without intruding on Mrs. Wone’s peace of mind like the Washington Post comments section for example.

              You are an intrusive stranger to her. How can you not comprehend this simple truth of civilized society? I’m amazed, though in your case not particularly surprised.

              I wish to make clear in this post that I disavow any actions on the part of other posters on this site that impose on the private lives of any of the participants including the defendants. To do so is not just sick, it is probably actionable.

              • Clio
                10/17/2010 at 2:45 PM

                I agree with you here, AZ, and not just as a fellow member of the Thought Police.

                Rich may have had a constitutional right to send that or any non-threatening letter, but it is beyond the moral pale, as a complete stranger, to make direct contact with any of the figures, including Culuket, in this case. Speculating here is far different than forcing yourself actually into the story via any available means.

                And, to me, Rich’s last line appears to be creepy beyond comment: “Seems this email will come back to haunt her.” Yikes!

                • susan
                  10/17/2010 at 3:22 PM

                  AZ and Clio,

                  He (Rich) assumes that K. Wone reads all her spam and/or email from strangers. I know I don’t. And I bet she got a lot of strange/stranger email around that time and maybe still even now. I’m sure she’s made friends with that best of all buttons: Delete.

            • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
              10/17/2010 at 5:24 PM

              wow. That’s kinda creepy, Rich. Do you send letters to movie stars, too?

              • Bruce
                10/17/2010 at 5:41 PM

                I got the immediate impression from reading the alleged e-mail to Mrs Wone that we are all being “had” a bit, and at the same time being “poked,” a la Facebook, I mean.

                Smells. Think of it. Who among us would forget that we had sent an e-mail to Mrs. Wone, and a long one at that, less than 2 years ago?

                And then: “It All Comes Rushing Back to Me…”

                A good first line for a bad novel, maybe, or a good beginning of a bad dream sequence in an SNL skit, with the picture getting fuzzy and the actor stroking the chin, but a bit histrionic here, don’t cha think?

                To me, doesn’t pass the infrared mindmeld lie detector test Ap I got from Apple.

                I would just caution everyone to not step in the dog shit. Au revoir!

                • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                  10/17/2010 at 5:49 PM

                  Even if he’s making it up, it’s still creepy as hell, Bruce.

                • Clio
                  10/17/2010 at 6:06 PM

                  Au revoir, Bruce darling. Let’s hope you’re right about Rich’s poorly-constructed “gag”: you have to be right about something (but you did not hear that from me.)

                  • Bruce
                    10/17/2010 at 6:18 PM

                    Hi Clio:

                    Well, I would like to be right about something, someday!

                    Let’s face it. The poster is dog poo whether he sent the e-mail to Mrs. Wone or it is a gag.

                    The stench is just a bit less if it is a “gag,” but it does make it so we don’t have to confront the absolute creepizoid “freak show” of the actual contents of the e-mail (which, by the way, I don’t even dignify in my post).

                    Just giving the poster a possible out?

                    In any case, does any one have any Febreze?

                    • Clio
                      10/17/2010 at 7:06 PM

                      Yes, Bruce,I have it in extra strength in the spray bottle.
                      It’s too bad that Rich ruined a perfectly good line of analysis on Eric Holder. Perhaps, the Editors can spotlight the current AG, if the statute of limitations is upheld by Brook.

                • susan
                  10/17/2010 at 10:12 PM

                  You are funny, Bruce. Part of me thought the same thing.

                  In any case, like with the wife/non-wife re Rich, you can’t claim to be sympathetic to Mrs. W on the one hand and then post an alleged e-mail with the intention of “haunting” her on the other, and expect to be taken seriously.

                  As to your closing note, I must have that App. Send one comp. to the MPD while you’re at it.

  4. Clio
    10/17/2010 at 7:16 PM

    A minor request, Editors: when will Dyl’s “Green” picture from June 2006 be placed in the Media Gallery?

    Also: has Kathy Lanier revised the MPD informational posters for Robert yet? If not, how long does it take to revise a poster?

  5. AnnaZed
    10/17/2010 at 7:21 PM

    Clio, (had to start a new thread) I didn’t say that Holder doesn’t maybe deserve some criticism in this situation and under normal circumstances I would relish a long hard look at him particularly if the Trouple prevails in their pleadings. Don’t most lawyers have basic tools like trigger-books (now computerized) for stuff like this?

    Anyway, Rich’s appalling behavior distracted me for the time being and to be frank I don’t really want to be lead in a discussion of the matter by him. This is not the first time that he has talked about stalking the participants in this trial or sending them themed presents and other communications and I just can have no part in that. If he sends unwanted communications to the Attorney General maybe he will get the attention that he craves, from law enforcement.

    • Clio
      10/17/2010 at 7:33 PM

      Understood, AZ. As we know, Rich is the one who wanted us all to meet, the one who wanted to censure the prosecutor, the one who wanted to meet the trio for drinks in Florida, etc. He may not be on Culuket’s payroll, but he’s sure doing a great job in distracting us all.

      • Bruce
        10/17/2010 at 8:21 PM

        In my opinion, I do not think that any attacks against Holder or against anyone are merited as to the Wone case’s statute of limitations (SOL) issues at the moment.

        As has been pointed out by many posters, we have only heard from one side so far. No one should make any rush to judgment. To me, the defendants’ motion seems a bit scary. But,the plaintiff’s counsel’s response brief, arguments and exhibits may very well be more impressive, and rule the day.

        I did not mean by my posts to suggest any wrongdoing or negligence on anyone’s part regarding the statute of limitations issue, and if any questions posed or things said in the posts caused a different interpretation, I apologize.

        We just don’t know all the arguments and evidence on the issue.

        Like a good juror having to hear and keep an open mind to both sides of a case, so should we wait, to give the plaintiff’s attorneys an equal opportunity to explain and argue their points on the issue.

        Many on here have supported and praised plaintiff’s counsels in the past, and I just don’t see any reason for that mindset to be changed until we hear “the full story.”

        • Bruce
          10/17/2010 at 8:53 PM

          You can see that AnnaZed is very concerned about anyone contacting or communicating with either side in this case.

          I very much share that concern.

          No one should communicate in any manner to any of the parties or attorneys in this case. If one wants to communicate with plaintiff’s side, please give to her husband’s memorial. If anyone wants to communicate with the defendants’ side, you can do the same thing, and give to the defense fund.

          To do otherwise and communicate in any way with the parties or their attorneys, or any witnesses in this case, is:

          -very possibly illegal and subject to criminal penalties
          -nothing I could ever endorse
          -and something that I believe the editors,posters and readers would find offensive and against the standards of the blog.

        • denton
          10/17/2010 at 10:11 PM

          Bruce wrote:
          Many on here have supported and praised plaintiff’s counsels in the past, and I just don’t see any reason for that mindset to be changed until we hear “the full story.”

          I agree.

          As an outsider looking in, and a non-lawyer, I would “prefer” to hear “the full story” rather than “being led to believe” in something that might contradict to my own judgment and personal experiences.

          Also, “any” press would agree that “every story has two sides.” It is almost a “code of ethics” in Journalism reporting 101.

      • susan
        10/17/2010 at 10:58 PM

        Agree Clio (and AZ)and in his current post I notice he doesn’t criticize the one male who called his post, in essence, sh*t, once again exhibiting a disturbed anti-female/feminine warped reality.

        One another note. He is now trying to twist what he said in his first post. He’s now saying it is EH’s action’s that will haunt Ms. W, but his words are the record:

        “Seems this email will come back to haunt her.”

        Continues to be creepy as you both pointed out, and unkind to boot. Bruce said a lot more, but call him “Brucina” or some feminized version and R would be all over him (and not in a good way).

        • susan
          10/17/2010 at 11:04 PM

          BTW, no disrespect to Bruce at all. I’m just pointing out that he was notably omitted from that diatribe.

          Best to ignore those types of posts from now on, methinks. I just felt bad for the taunt directed at Ms. Wone.

        • carolina
          10/18/2010 at 12:37 AM

          I am fairly sure Clio is of the penised variety. Not that it destroys your theory.

          • susan
            10/18/2010 at 6:32 AM

            Thanks, Caroline. That’s what I meant by “female/feminine.”

        • Bruce
          10/18/2010 at 10:02 AM

          There HAS to be something better than Brucina.

          • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
            10/18/2010 at 10:49 AM

            Bruchetta? Because you’re delicious.

            • Kate
              10/18/2010 at 12:42 PM

              CD – now that’s funny.

              Thanks for the smile.

              • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                10/18/2010 at 3:20 PM

                You love to use quotation marks don’t you. ” 😀 “

                • Bruce
                  10/18/2010 at 4:10 PM

                  I’m afraid our little Denton may be using my euphemism (“rubbish”) but actually meaning what it was replacing.

                  Good for you, Denton!!!!!!!

            • Bruce
              10/18/2010 at 4:12 PM


              • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                10/18/2010 at 4:20 PM

                La Bruce?

                • Bruce
                  10/18/2010 at 6:19 PM

                  I’m afraid you put anything with Bruce and it becomes just way too Paul Lynde/Charles Nelson Reillyish.

                  Let’s stick with Bruce.

                  • AnnaZed
                    10/18/2010 at 8:23 PM


                    I always rather liked her.

                  • Clio
                    10/18/2010 at 11:54 PM

                    Bruce, one cannot be too Paul Lynde (on Hollywood Squares) or Charles Nelson Reilly (on Match Game 75.)

                    Via the magic of reruns, they have managed to live long after their temporal deaths!

          • susan
            10/18/2010 at 10:21 PM

            I know; I thought about how ridiculous (and unimaginative) that was after I wrote that.

            Thanks, CD, for the laugh.

            • susan
              10/18/2010 at 10:24 PM

              I meant to address that to Bruce. Thanks for your good humor, too.

  6. Rich
    10/17/2010 at 10:28 PM

    To AZ and the Others on the Bandwagon,

    As per usual AZ, you jump in with your caustic comments without knowledge of the facts. I think you perhaps enjoy flaming other posters. Perhaps you behave in this manner on all sites and blogs you visit?

    For your information Susan (and others), I received a lovely response from Kathy Wone thanking me for my kind and very appropriate email. There was nothing about it that was stalking. I merely wished to express my condolences to her for such a horrible tragedy, and to offer my advice regarding what I believed to be a mishandling of the case. (Reread the email in the post people!)

    What is creepy about that? It’s actually customary for people to send condolences to those connected to such a tragedy, and no one considers it stalking. I’m sure Coretta Scott King, Ethel Kennedy, Jackie Kennedy, and other wives of famous murdered people received many letters of condolence from people they didn’t know.

    Do you consider them stalkers as well?

    You are all way too suspicious and way too quick to judge others.

    As for some of your other comments, AZ:

    “It took an enormous amount of time to find the email as it was archived.” “The spending of an “enormous amount of time” to unearth Mrs. Wone’s private contact information then using it to harass her…” The time was lost finding my email to her, not in finding her. You have to read these postings more clearly AZ, so you don’t misinterpret them.

    To, “disavow any actions on the part of other posters,” is quite ironic on your part considering your online conduct. Before you attempt to police other people, take a very long look in the mirror and see what changes within your frame of hatred can be made.

    As for the email coming back to haunt her, I fail to see how that is creepy, if you consider the light in which it was stated. Perhaps you should try viewing life through less distrustful lenses, Clio. I simply meant that I was afraid that Eric Holder’s botched handling of the case may now be coming back to haunt Mrs. Wone, as manifested by the motion by the defendants regarding the statute of limitations. Nothing more.

    Furthermore, the thread regarding Eric Holder was not derailed by me, as that was the entire point of my posting. You can thank AZ for that one instead.

    Considering this backlash, I will refrain from ever mentioning the Kathy Wone email again. I simply mentioned it because it directly related to earlier posts which expressed dissatisfaction with how Eric Holder had handled the case, and I had in fact felt that way for quite some time. Directly ON TOPIC.

    AZ – As I have stated in the past, again I am done with you and will not comment further.

    Let’s lighten it up a bit, people. It’s a blog.

    • AnnaZed
      10/17/2010 at 10:50 PM

      Just because Mrs. Wone was polite to you (if she was) doesn’t make your actions appropriate or less creepy.

  7. denton
    10/17/2010 at 11:24 PM

    For the record and for the goodness sake of WMRW:

    I am an outsider looking in, a non-lawyer, a layperson, and just a plain reader/blogger. I am not a genius and when I see too many things that I can not comprehend, I can not digest.

    Please be so kind to our readers.

  8. carolina
    10/18/2010 at 12:48 AM

    I’m not one to believe in conspiracy theories, but it seems to me there are a number of attempts lately to get WMRW to dissolve into a pile-up of lunacy and passive aggressive superiority.

    I wonder who would want to orchestrate something like that?

    • Michael
      10/18/2010 at 8:12 AM

      Thankfully, the majority of these comments have no bearing on the quality of the blog itself.

      There are definitely users here posting in behalf of the trouple, with or without their knowledge.

      There are also users that have absolutely no connection with either party, whose comments are intended to draw out heated responses. They could care less who wins this case and are only here for argument’s sake.

      Keepin’ it real, on the reel.

      • Bruce
        10/18/2010 at 10:08 AM

        Also trying to “keep it real,” I apologize for bringing dog poo to this discussion. It felt appropriate at the time, but now it sort of lingers in the air, despite the Febreze (thanks, Clio!).

        Thankfully, the editors have brought us a fresh article today!

        Please replace “dog poo” and its variances with the word “rubbish.” And now I will take my daily walk.

        • Kate
          10/18/2010 at 12:44 PM

          A warm welcome back, Bruce – you’ve been missed.

          “Rubbish” – a great word and so very British of you.


          • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
            10/18/2010 at 1:19 PM

            My favorite Bette Davis quote: “Good riddance to bad rubbish.”

            • Kate
              10/19/2010 at 7:34 AM

              That’s a great quote. My favorite Bette Davis movie quote from “All About Eve”:

              “Fasten your seat belts, it’s going to be a bumpy night.”

              That one comes in quite handy, from time to time.


      • denton
        10/19/2010 at 8:51 AM

        Hats odd to you, Michael, to this day. Glad to see someone is staying on the wheel.

        • denton
          10/20/2010 at 12:13 AM

          “Off,” not “odd.”

  9. John Grisham
    10/18/2010 at 9:42 PM

    Joe. Everyone knows you know who murdered Robert.

  10. 04/24/2011 at 5:43 AM

    6. Pretty nice post. I just stumbled upon your blog and wanted to say that I have truly enjoyed browsing your blog posts. In any case I will be subscribing to your rss feed and I hope you write again very soon!

Comments are closed.