“He’s Lying”

“About pretty much everything. “

Longtime reader Hoya Loya has taken to these pages before with two thoughtful and provocative guest posts.  We welcome him back.

Last February, he tackled the thorny subject of whether there was consentual sex on the night of Robert’s murder, and opined that it was extremely unlikely.  

His first contribution here in October, 2009, was a succinct rundown on the key elements that if murder charges were ever filed, who they would more than likely point to, Dylan Ward, was his guess.

Today we share his latest thoughts, based on a fresh viewing of Defendant Joseph Price’s interrogation tapes from just hours after the murder, the “Anacostia Dialogues,” as they’ve become known. He zeroes in on a number of statements that Price made to the police that evening and questioned their veracity. 

With thouse doubts in mind, he applied a Latin phrase well known to those in the lawyer trade,and extrapolated from there on the apparent truthfulness of the larger Price narrative:

“Until very recently, I had avoided viewing Joe Price’s Anacostia interview. I had read the transcript and just didn’t have the time to watch. Big mistake. It was fascinating and possibly revealing in ways the transcript is not, as so many others pointed out when it was originally posted here at WMRW. We do know for sure that Joe is caught in at least one lie, if a white one, when he pretends Victor’s phone is his own.

That called to mind the old legal adage, one that first came to my attention as a summer associate back in 1987, when a partner asked me to research its use in legal opinions over the years. Later on, it had its moment in the sun when invoked by F. Lee Bailey regarding Mark Fuhrman in the O.J. trial: “Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.” Translated roughly, “If one thing it false, it’s all false.”

“It occurred to me that it might be an interesting intellectual exercise to play out the string and, based on the false statement about the phone, assume that everything else Joe said in the interview is false and misleading, mixing in some speculation, much as a prosecutor or plaintiff’s lawyer might in a summation. Where might that lead us? Here goes:

Robert’s parents cornered him after the W&M campus tour — his parents?  Or Robert? Have the Won(e)s ever corroborated that story? Doesn’t sound like Robert would have been the type to hang back and be quiet, even if his tiger mom and dad were in rare form. 

It was just luck of the draw that Robert was assigned to Joe for his overnight visit? Nah.  Joe assigned committee assignments to Robert? Or did Robert seek them out? 

Robert stayed with Joe when he was considering attending UVA Law School? Only then? Not before? How many times did he stay and for how long?

Robert not partner material? Not likely. 

Robert needed to visit the peons at RFA? No, wanted to visit the peons because that’s the type of guy he was … and he wanted to see Joe. And was Joe was angry that Robert stood him up for lunch and wasn’t interested in his pitch to RFA? Especially after all he’d done for Robert, including the birthday party and the visit to bedridden Kathy — and now Robert has the nerve to invite himself over for the night?

Burnt steaks? BS. Half a bottle of wine? Each maybe, or half of a big bottle, plus who knows what else. 

Dylan answered the door? No — Victor or Joe did and Victor was angry.  About what?  About Joe’s aborted party plans, about the surprise guest, about the trouple thing in general?  

Joe didn’t have water with Robert and Dylan in the kitchen or show Robert around. Did he go upstairs to argue with Victor?

Robert was straight as the day is long? Never did anything bad? Joe is playing to public perception — could that perception have been wrong?
In 2006 Robert may have been faithful to Kathy and a non-user, but always straight in the past? No experimentation ever with sex, drugs or alcohol? Or did Joe alone know of secret, private feelings or indiscretions?

One thing Detective Wagner got right — Joe can’t say Dylan didn’t do it if he wasn’t there. Maybe Dylan did do it and Joe knows because he was there.  Or maybe Joe did it. Because contrary to his statements, he does remember pulling the knife out of Robert. And cleaning up the mess because that’s when Victor walked in and screamed.

And more than likely, the three got together and agreed on their story and called 911. Without trying to save their friend because by then they were all in deep together.

So Joe proceeded to lie to the police about everything.  Omnibus.”

76 comments for ““He’s Lying”

  1. Boggled
    05/24/2011 at 1:33 PM

    Can’t agree more. I’m in the midst of a statement analysis course, which teaches one how to detect specific instances of deception in a written or oral statement. As “practice” I’ve started going over the trouple’s statements the night of the murder. Not surprisingly, pretty shockingly high rate of deception so far (and I’ve started with Victor’s statement, who many seem to believe had the least involvement). I’ll be happy to share my results when I’m done if anyone’s interested.

    • Onyx
      05/24/2011 at 4:24 PM

      I am!

    • Bill 2
      05/24/2011 at 7:00 PM

      Please place me in the “interested” column.

    • cdindc
      05/24/2011 at 7:55 PM

      Let’s hear it, Boggled!

    • Clio
      05/24/2011 at 9:32 PM

      As CD and others have pointed out, successful deceivers use bits of the truth to mix in with outright lies to make a zesty narrative for their defense and memoirs. So, Boggled, how would one filter the truths from the lies in the Anacostia Dialogues?

  2. Dieter
    05/24/2011 at 5:11 PM

    I hate to get all ablative on you, but the phrase is “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.” I guess that ipso facto impeaches the rest of your argument. sorry. omnes enim qui acceperint gladium gladio peribunt.

    • Craig
      05/24/2011 at 5:45 PM

      Fixed. Thanks. PS: He’s fired.

  3. AnnaZed
    05/24/2011 at 5:44 PM

    Mendacem memorem esse oportet.

    Yet, even Joe can’t remember everything; thus the phone.

    • Clio
      05/24/2011 at 9:53 PM

      Why didn’t Dyl have a cell phone in 2006? As a (future?) call person, he may have needed one for last-minute outcalls.

      • susan
        05/24/2011 at 11:09 PM

        Are you sure he didn’t have one, Clio? It’s possible he had a disposable phone. With a massage-plus sideline it would make sense to have an unlisted, untraceable number. And that’s something he could have disposed of, if he felt the need to, on that night in August 2006.

      • AnnaZed
        05/24/2011 at 11:29 PM

        Dylan wasn’t a future rent boy; he was already one. Dylan Ward was a prostitute long before he ingratiated himself into Victor and Joe’s life. I’d stake my reputation (such as it is) on that. As such he would (even in 2006) have been quite familiar with the many virtues of the untraceable throw-away cell-phone.

        • Clio
          05/25/2011 at 9:36 AM

          Perhaps, but Dyl’s priorities that evening did include calling his parents (don’t ask and I won’t tell, Dad!) and calling his official workplace — was it really a telemarketing firm (the joys of globalization)? Did he also have to reschedule long-time and steady johns that morning — if so, what a busy little beaver, indeed!

          When did he have the time to arrange his Thailand tour for 2007? Sheesh!

  4. Bea
    05/24/2011 at 7:07 PM

    Very interesting. I wonder what purpose parsing through the wrong phone played in Joe’s head. If I recall correctly he was looking for emails to verify that it was an ordinary sleepover OR that he’d planned to go to lunch with Robert and Kathy. Either way, they weren’t on THAT phone, which he must’ve realized. Why not say, “duh, this isn’t my phone”? What would have been wrong with having Victor’s phone and realizing/acknowledging it?

    I would argue it goes further. Joe didn’t think twice about looking or pretending to look through Victor’s emails. Or staging a falsehood for the police. I’ll get to the point: did Joe purposely leave HIS phone elsewhere in case someone planned to arrest him and confiscate it? What was on it? We know Robert’s Blackberry was not properly mirrored – was Joe’s? Since he wasn’t arrested, my guess is “no” and that all that could be recovered were emails – not stored photos, certainly. I’m not sure that even texts were archived in 2006.

    Anyone? (And thanks, Hoya!)

    • Bill 2
      05/24/2011 at 9:06 PM

      When and where did the phone handover occur? On another page I mentioned that Zaborsky may have had more than one phone when he walked out front to wait for the emergency truck. Did Price’s phone leave with the photo equipment? Was it handed off to a neighbor for retrieval at a later time. There just seems something off kilter with the fact that Price has Zaborsky’s phone at Anacostia.

      • Clio
        05/24/2011 at 9:48 PM

        Perhaps, Joe did not trust Victor to stay completely on message. He probably did not want Victor talking to Aunt Marcia or other family members — just after the catastrophic events.

  5. AnnaZed
    05/24/2011 at 7:22 PM

    What would have been wrong with having Victor’s phone and realizing/acknowledging it?

    Sometimes habitual liars just lie because … well … they are in the habit of lying. It’s like their default behavior. Drug addicts and alcoholics are (of course) famous for this personality trait.

    ” … did Joe purposely leave HIS phone elsewhere in case someone planned to arrest him and confiscate it?

    I would say so, yes, along with his wallet which he gave to his friend in the car.

    • Bea
      05/24/2011 at 8:12 PM

      And just glancing at NPR headlines:

      “Robert Hare, the eminent Canadian psychologist who invented the psychopath checklist, … recently announced that you’re four times more likely to find a psychopath at the top of the corporate ladder than you are walking around in the janitor’s office,” journalist Jon Ronson tells Guy Raz, host of weekends on All Things Considered.”

      • susan
        05/24/2011 at 8:45 PM

        Hi Bea,

        This is the fourth time today I’ve seen or heard a reference to Ronson’s book (he uses Hare’s checklist, apparently, in The Psychopath Test.”

        On the 10/11/10 Goodbye Columbus page on this site someone (“Agatha”) asks about Joe’s wallet being with Lisa Desjardins the night of the Anac. Dialogues. Is that true? If it was, was the phone with her as well?

        Re VZ’s phone, I wonder if it was used earlier to contact attorneys, etc.? When we see him using the phone and speaking to his brother Michael P., it seems as if previous calls were made etc. re attorneys.

        One thing though, re the phone: He is looking through it and continues speaking so clearly his mind was elsewhere. It’s possible he thought it was useless to cooperate with police at that point since he saw everything he said questioned by sseemingly ignorant, inept cops.

        Re the Latin quote re one thing false, I think this is a nice exercise, but just that. Re the phone, though, I think it shows a real ability to withhold the truth in a most serious situation. Being interrogated in the middle of the night about the murder of your friend in your home and you can look someone straight in the eye and pretend something (the phone) is what it isn’t (yours)? That is significant I think.

        • susan
          05/24/2011 at 8:47 PM

          Correction: Re the Latin quote and one thing being fault implying all else is (beginning of first sentence of the last para.)

          • susan
            05/24/2011 at 8:48 PM

            “false.” Sorry my typing is off right now.

  6. Bill Orange
    05/24/2011 at 8:39 PM

    Hmmm. I don’t agree with this analysis. The three defendants told remarkably similar stories. The only real difference between them that I can recall is that Victor thought he heard the door chime when he was on his way down the stairs, while Joe was certain that he did NOT hear the chime at that time. Furthermore, all three were relatively open about the unusual nature of the relationship that they had, and they appear to have been entirely truthful about this. (Yes, they omitted the BDSM aspect of the relationship, but they weren’t directly asked about this, and I think most people would see this as extraneous detail at that point in the investigation.)

    If you think that they were lying during their interviews (and I definitely think that they were), you would have to conclude that Victor and Dylan did a reasonably good job at it. Joe got caught in a few falsehoods (e.g. he didn’t reveal that Michael Price had a key to the house, and he pretended like it was his phone he was looking at rather than someone else’s), but only on points where he wasn’t contradicted by the other two. (I’m assuming the other two didn’t know that Michael had a key.)

    If we assume that this wasn’t a premeditated murder, they didn’t have much time to work out a story. And their stories, while implausible, are certainly consistent. This leads me to believe that most of what they said was the truth. I would say that I believe everything in their version of events up to Robert’s arrival, and probably even the conversation in the kitchen. After that, the story seems to have been that they all went to bed, and then Robert mysteriously ended up stabbed to death. That’s a fairly easy story to remember. We went to bed. We heard grunts. We ran downstairs. We found the body. Dylan heard the shouting and come out of his room. The story avoids contradictions. They didn’t see or hear anyone, so they couldn’t give conflicting descriptions. I can imagine Joe saying, “This is the story. Stick to it. If they ask about anything that happened before Robert got here, just tell the truth, no matter how uncomfortable it might be.”

    As to the phone, I think Joe was making phone calls all night long. His phone probably really was dead. And he needed a phone when he went back into the interview room, because he needed to know when Dylan got out. His last interview struck me as someone who was simply playing for time. I don’t think he ever intended to take a lie detector test. I think he was planning on leaving the minute Dylan was accounted for, and he even went out of his way to try to have the police put him in touch with Dylan. At that point, he knew the police weren’t buying their story. There was no point in trying to convince them. His only goal at that point was to get Dylan and get the hell out of there.

    • Clio
      05/24/2011 at 9:45 PM

      The phone was such a dreadful intrusion, and the cell phone has only compounded that sense of overconnection. Nevertheless, the now-ubiquitous communication device does enter this story at semi-revealing points. Whom did Victor call that evening? Did he have his cell in Denver, and why didn’t he call ahead to arrange a proper homecoming for himself, the purported angel of the house? Did Joe use Victor’s phone in contacting Sarah? Wasn’t Victor on a landline when making the 911? Where was his cell then? Wasn’t Victor also spotted outside on his cell phone by neighbors just after the “burglary?” How did Scott know to come to the station: did Joe or Victor call him?, or was that Mercedes meeting arranged in person in advance?

      • Bea
        05/24/2011 at 11:37 PM

        I do think Joe was concerned that his phone would be confiscated (don’t forget he asked “are you arresting us?”) and that Victor’s phone was “clean.” If he had pix on his work computer, certainly his cell wasn’t off limits – and did he have phone info and/or photos relating to what happened that night? He knows that if it’s on his person when arrested, then it’s going into storage and a warrant will allow it to be reviewed. If he doesn’t have it, a judge has to think there’s probable cause to issue a warrant and THEN find it and it’s subject to enough time to erase things or “lose” it altogether.

        But Bill Orange – what do you make of the changes in Victor’s testimony after the meeting in Hixson’s car to then parrot the language Joe used in the car? He makes a point to bring that up. I find that highly suspicious – granted, not as much of a “tell” as staring at another’s cell phone looking for messages that don’t exist.

        • susan
          05/24/2011 at 11:45 PM

          Good point about the phone, Bea. You have to be right about the phone pics. I would be surprised if there weren’t more and more risque ones on the phone. So easy to do. Pull out the phone, click, click, click. Get rid of pics? Delete, delete, delete.

          • Bea
            05/25/2011 at 7:25 AM

            One could change the memory card or lose the phone IF the cops ever got a warrant days after the fact, certainly.

            But it makes me re-think Joe in the interviews staring at Victor’s phone while pretending to look for emails. Sure, it’s possible that he thought it was a nice effect for the performance but if he’d actually said “duh, this isn’t even my phone” could possibly prompted them to ask him to get his phone – was THAT why he continued to pretend with Victor’s phone? It’s a clear falsehood but it makes me think a lot more about him NOT wanting them to get a gander at his phone’s contents. Emails would be accessible without the actual phone but not texts and certainly not photos.

            • Craig
              05/25/2011 at 9:59 PM

              IIRC, in a defense filing in the criminal, alleging mistreatment by the MPD, they said Ward was told not to bring his phone to Anacostia. If that’s the case, why weren’t the other two instructed similarly?

              • AnnaZed
                05/26/2011 at 12:32 AM

                I think that the cops focused on him from the beginning as the suspect.

              • Clio
                05/27/2011 at 3:19 PM

                So Mr. Ward did have a cell after all; even though he preferred reading over watching TV (who wouldn’t!), he was not that much of a Luddite to consciously not have a cell phone. Why then would depriving someone of their cellular phone for a police investigation be considered “mistreatment?”

                To me, the trouple was given way too much autonomy in those first few days and weeks — they may have had ample opportunity to make sure that the discarded debris from that night never resurfaced.

            • Bill Orange
              05/30/2011 at 10:13 AM

              I think you may be applying 2011 standards to what was going on in 2006. Joe had a Blackberry didn’t he? Could you even display photos on those on 2006?

              • susan
                05/30/2011 at 3:58 PM

                Bill O. I don’t know about Blackberrys but you could get cell phones with cameras back then. Even before then. Hopefully someone here will shed light on Blackberrys and cameras.

              • Bea
                05/30/2011 at 4:33 PM

                Pretty sure Blackberry had camera in 2006. Palm Treo and Blackjack (competitors) had cameras.

                • Craig
                  05/31/2011 at 10:25 AM

                  It makes me wonder what ever became of, discovery-wise, those pictures found on Price’s Arent Fox computer, and if they may surface in some way during the civil.

  7. Michael
    05/25/2011 at 11:20 AM

    I imagine the trouple has a hard time reading posts like this. You know, since they’re innocent and all.


    • AnnaZed
      05/25/2011 at 12:47 PM

      Leibovitz locuta est. Causa finita est.

  8. rummy
    05/26/2011 at 2:48 PM

    I can’t find the videotape that you’re talking about. It’s not under “multimedia” and when I enter “Anacostia interview” I get dozens of posts talking about it, but no video. Maybe I’m being stupid, but I’d appreciate a link I could click on.

    Also, it seems to me that if Victor were really innocent, he would have broken by now. No matter how much he loves Joe, he could not continue to live under such a cloud of suspicion, knowing that if he spoke up, his life would be back on track. I can see him sticking it out for awhile, but not this long.

    • Craig
      05/26/2011 at 10:32 PM

      Rummy – We should’ve added the links earlier. They’re in the post now and here they are: Part 1; Part 2; Part 3.

      Dieter: We just got two sets of docs from the Court today and will have them up early next week.

      • Clio
        05/27/2011 at 8:48 AM

        How intriguing, Craig and Dieter: more documents may mean even more fodder for future scholars!

        The most revealing and compelling documents remain the Anacostia Dialogues, but they have not/will not propel their main characters to reality TV stardom.

        One useful exercise between document dumps may be to trace the travels of Mr. Ward between the murder and his indictment: where did he go in Thailand? Where did he hang out in Florida?

  9. Dieter
    05/26/2011 at 3:22 PM

    Eds, what is up with flood of new docs at dccourts?

    • Jr
      05/30/2011 at 8:44 AM


      Claudia Thomas and William Thomas are being supbpoenaed to appear before court. Jeff Baker (it probably has been discussed in length already since I have not been keeping up) was also subpoenaed. Someone has to jog my memory!

      The Judge also cancelled the Mediation Session (Civil 2) on 6/14/201 at 9:00 a.m. I always wonder about this Mediation because it has been sitting there on the court calendar for so long and whether or not it is going to take place. Now it will never happen.

      • Bill 2
        05/30/2011 at 9:03 AM

        Jeff Baker is the DC EMT who was first to arrive at the scene of the crime. It was discussed here in “A Butcher, A Baker…” It was introduced here by Craig on May 13, 2011.


      • Clio
        05/30/2011 at 10:57 AM

        Do the Thomases still live on Swann? How old are they now?

        Does cancellation of the mediation session mean that a settlement is unlikely and that a trial will take place? Is this Culuket’s final gamble? Or, does it reflect the court’s respect for leave time for its officials?

  10. Clio
    05/26/2011 at 9:27 PM

    Did Uncle Michael have a cell phone in 2006, and was he the one to call Victor about the kid riding the bike for the first time? Have his phone records been examined — both with regard to August 2-3, 2006, and the “burglary” around Halloween?

    Being so petite, Scott could not have carried off all of the really incriminating stuff by himself, and Uncle Michael was playing hooky from his class. Hmmmm.

    • susan
      05/26/2011 at 9:50 PM

      Hi Clio,

      I don’t think Scott is petite. Re the bicycle call, I think when V got home he was told about that and something about the child’s tooth so he allegedly called the children’s mom’s home (as I recall reading).

      • Clio
        05/27/2011 at 9:00 AM

        I think that Scott was/is quite short and slight and would have no problem navigating the tight spaces of 1509 Swann. This would in contrast to Culuket post-murder or Sarah pre-murder.

        If Victor called Silver Spring after he had been told news by Joe or Dyl, then who had told Joe or Dyl? Was it Uncle Michael on his way over anyway?

        • susan
          05/27/2011 at 10:26 PM

          Thanks, Clio. I could see Scott was slight but thought he was not short. Re the call, I thought JP let V know that news. Didn’t bother to tell him there was to be an overnight guest though. Hmm.

    • PeteMcLeanVa
      05/28/2011 at 3:01 PM

      Scott is tall, 6’1 or 6’2. Average build but not a gym specimen.
      He could easily carried off the incriminating items. He and I have attended many parties, non-drug and non-sex. Just alot of S&M, stand and model.

      • Clio
        05/28/2011 at 3:40 PM

        Thanks, Pete, for that clarification: a recent photo posted here made Scott seem much skinnier and shorter than what you report.

        Stand and model is the best S&M ever — one may wish that Culuket and Sparkly Cat would have stopped there!

  11. Hoya Loya
    05/27/2011 at 11:31 AM

    Thanks to everyone who has commented on this post and for taking it in the spirit intended, as confirmed by Susan, as an exercise, to try and look at things a little differently after all this time and stimulate some fresh discussion. It is a bit surprising to me that it seems to have focused attention on Victor’s phone, but still interesting. Bea raises a point about the phone that could apply more generally — if Joe is lying, why is he lying? Does he know something, just suspect something or is it just convenient?

    Boggled: Count me among those interested in the results of your analysis. I find Victor’s tape equally interesting, though in a different way from Joe’s.

    Dieter: Thanks for the Latin refresher and heads-up on the new filings. I had the phrase correct in my drafts, had even triple checked it, and then it was corrupted somewhere along the line, so touche. My copy editor is fired, lol.

    Bill O.: You could be right about most of the story being true, but I find the account of the early events strange, particularly the burnt steaks and the glass of water in the kitchen, both of which have been analyzed to death on this site. For instance, Victor was asked “Go ahead and tell us what you remember about what happened tonight” when a friend had been murdered in his house and he starts out with the long narrative about what happened earlier in the evening. I adhere more to the theory that the collective stories contain “kernels of truth,” amidst a coordianted narrative, that may be revealing.

    Michael: It may indeed be hard for some people to read this post. Regardless of guilt or innocence, hopefully it will serve as a reminder of arguments that they may very well face at trial and how their statements and actions may be perceived by a jury. Perhaps their current strategy of silence and stonewalling should be reviewed, particularly if one or more are innocent of the murder. Again this is an exercise, written from the point of view of an aggressive plaintiff’s lawyer, in attempt to stimulate fresh thought, regardless of one’s perspective on the case.

    Rummy: Interesting thought about Victor. I would also note that Dylan did not break even while he was incarcerated (the only one of the three who was).

    Craig and co-eds: Thanks for the space!

    And thanks again to you all.

    • susan
      05/28/2011 at 12:39 PM

      Hoya (and Clio, who addresses this in another post),

      When Victor Z. goes back to the beginning of the evening in his interview my impression was that he was trying to make sense of that evening himself and making a personal case that he didn’t even know Robert Wone was going to be staying over that night. He’s walking into a scene. He’s walking into the tableau. Interesting that the other two didn’t give full accounts of that evening. It would have been interesting to see how that matched up.

      • Clio
        05/28/2011 at 3:47 PM

        I think that you are correct, Susan: at Anacostia, Victor tried to fathom the madness that he married. We’ve made our beds, and now we have to lie (literally!) in them. Beam me up, Scotty!

  12. Rick
    05/27/2011 at 4:24 PM

    Good reading from all of you, thanks for your different perspectives.

    • susan
      05/28/2011 at 8:07 PM

      Thanks for your feedback to everyone, Rick. Thanks to Kim for her earlier comments as well.

  13. Clio
    05/27/2011 at 8:01 PM

    Why would Culuket lie about Uncle Michael having a key to the house? That seems very immaterial to the murder, unless Uncle Michael skipped class to party that night with Big Bro — only to end up as the bag man for this botched assault.

    Or, in another scenario, Joe lied about Uncle Michael to deliberately set up the blame-it-on-Michael diversion, which hit its apogee with the November 2006 arrests of Phelps and the lesser Price. One wonders!

    • Bill Orange
      05/28/2011 at 11:51 AM

      I’ve always wondered whether or not Joe was intentionally trying to cast suspicion on Michael. He practically beats the police over the head with the fact that he’s got a violent, drug-using brother, and then he forgets to mention that Michael lives within driving distance and has a key to the house. Didn’t he say at one point that the police would probably find Michael’s fingerprints in the house? And then it turns out that Michael had an alibi, which was backed up by a journal entry. It might all be legit, but it just feels really odd to me.

      • susan
        05/28/2011 at 12:32 PM

        Bill O. There’s very little about this case that isn’t odd. It’s odd when JP says something to the effect of Dylan W. (and I paraphrase) “not wearing anything under his f-ing robe” during his Ana. interview. The emphasis that’s been made public was actually on him being in his skivvies when the police arrived that night.

        • Clio
          05/28/2011 at 5:08 PM

          I know, Susan: given the bad AC in the house and the soupy conditions outside, I would be shocked if Dyl was wearing silk pajamas, slippers, an ascot, a cape, a monocle, and a nightcap, along with his “f-ing robe.” Was Joe’s fashion sense offended, or was it just another attempt to subtlely shift blame/guilt to a “loved” one?

  14. Kim
    05/27/2011 at 9:27 PM

    My goodness, this is the worst post ever. well, actually, there are plenty of aweful posts, so I shouldn’t say that.

    • Bill 2
      05/27/2011 at 9:31 PM

      What is truly awful, Kim, is that a man is dead and three people know the why and wherefore and aren’t telling. That’s what’s awful.

  15. Kim
    05/27/2011 at 9:28 PM

    My goodness, this is the worst post ever. well, actually, there are plenty of awful posts, so I shouldn’t say that.

    • Gloria
      05/27/2011 at 9:49 PM

      Folks, these (Kim and Rick) are spams that have crept in past filters. I report them to the editors when they pop up, so they do not take up space on the index of Comments, at the top.

      • Craig
        05/27/2011 at 11:38 PM

        Actually these are legit. We haven’t seen Kim since the trial and Rick has been here before.

        • Kim
          05/28/2011 at 10:53 AM

          Thanks Craig. It is not surprising to find people that think that because someone else has a different point of view, it must be spam and it must be censored. Fortunately, we have something called the First Amendment, which by the way, is heavily used here by those who refuse to accept the fact the defendants were acquitted. Craig is correct, I have participated in the past, and now that I am on leave from my job for a few months, I plan to contribute to the marketplace of ideas.

          • Gloria
            05/28/2011 at 11:11 AM

            Don’t overinterpret or overreact. Your brief emails read exactly the same way as the actual spams that arrive daily. This is not a First Amendment issue but an invitation, from me, for you to provide actual substantive content, expressing your thoughts. If you feel it’s the worst post ever, I’d appreciate knowing why. You may find that others agree with you. Otherwise, it’s the spitting image of the usual spam.

          • Hoya Loya
            05/28/2011 at 12:42 PM


            I am on record here, numerous times, as supporting Judge L.’s acquittals of the defendants in the civil case based on the case presented by the prosecution — the facts presented did not meet the requirements of the D.C. statutes under which they were charged. But the defendants were not acquitted of murder, nor, in fairness, have they been charged with murder.

            The goal of this site is not to see any or all of the three convicted of murder but to solve the murder. Until any or all are exonerated by facts or law, they remain suspects and their statements, actions and motives should be examined and reexamined.

            Again, this post was an exercise, applying an old legal adage as it might well be at trial to reexamine Joe’s statement in a different light and see if it raised any new ideas. If you think the exercise has no value, so be it.

            Perhaps, rather than calling it the “worst post ever,” you could comment on why you find Joe’s video statement credible despite the nondisclosures about Victor’s phone and Michael’s key. I promise I’ll be all eyes/ears.

          • Bill 2
            05/28/2011 at 12:44 PM

            I don’t think that anyone here is unaware of the verdict of the last trial. You seem unable to accept the fact the defendants got off on a technicality. The judge left no doubt that there was a possibility that one or two of them could be innocent of the charges but NOT all three. Why is it that you won’t accept that fact? It would be interesting to know of your reluctance to heed the judge’s reasons for her ruling.

            In regard to “something called the First Amendment,” that has nothing to do with your right to post here nor my right to post here. I haven’t noticed that people seem to “heavily” cite the First Amendment on this forum since it doesn’t pertain to our discussions. It would be interesting if you would point out where it is being heavily cited here.

            • KiKi
              06/02/2011 at 4:42 PM

              I always find it depressing when people talk about constitutional rights as “technicalities.”

              • Clio
                06/03/2011 at 8:32 PM

                Kiki dearest:

                Welcome back!

                The amendments themselves are not technicalities; it is rather the Jesuitical interpretations of these amendments by well-paid defense attorneys (such as yourself, perhaps?) that give rise to the unforeseen opportunities called “technicalities.” I hope that that helps!

          • Clio
            05/28/2011 at 3:42 PM

            Hi, Kim! Welcome back, and bring it on!

  16. Clio
    05/27/2011 at 11:14 PM

    Why did Victor give a soup-to-nuts narrative of the night that, he said, changed HIS life forever? Did he want to fill up the questioning time to give as little coverage to the actual murder as possible without being suspicious?

    Wouldn’t a less coached or scripted person start from the murder and then work backwards or outwards? Maybe.

  17. Rick
    05/28/2011 at 4:55 PM

    My name is Rick Vaughan, I live in NC and have been reading this site for over 2 years and have posted just a few times. Gloria, I don’t know why you would say that my comments are spam, I have not, nor will I ever make comments criticizing or demeaning anyone posting here. I’m intrigued by this sad story of Robert’s death and have enjoyned reading everyone’s posts to learn more about Robert and his horrific murder. Sorry if you find my simple comment offending..but trust me, I am not spam, just a layman with an interest in how our court and laws work. And thank you editors for allowing me to follow your site. I guess if you’re not a lawyer, you need to keep you ideas to yourself and your mouth shut!

    • Bea
      05/28/2011 at 6:05 PM

      Keep posting, Rick. Sorry you were mistaken for Spam – likely just that there was nothing in the actual words tying to the subject matter – though clearly NOT like some that try to draw you to a link or something bizarro world.

      • Rick
        05/28/2011 at 6:25 PM

        Thanks Bea…I’ll continue to read this site daily and if I have something to add, I will…meanwhile, I really appareciate reading everyone’s perspectives and arguments of how it happen and who killed Robert Wone.

    • Linda S.
      06/02/2011 at 7:04 PM


  18. Mary M. Webster
    06/02/2011 at 3:38 PM

    Not to nit-pick, but…

    In Paragraph 2, isn’t it ‘consensual’?

  19. Bill 2
    06/02/2011 at 4:17 PM

    I saw an explanation of consentual sex as a sexual situation of “dubious consent.” Though it probably was not intended for that spot in Paragraph 2, it’s possible that there was a sexual situation of “dubious consent” on the night of August 2nd.

    • Bill 2
      06/02/2011 at 4:22 PM

      Belay that! The page where I saw that was not formatted properly so that information is not correct. Sorry.

Comments are closed.