The Civil Trial That May Never Be

We’ve heard from a source that a settlement has been reached in the civil trial between Kathy Wone & family, and defendants Joe Price, Victor Zaborsky and Dylan Ward. We’re trying to confirm this with the case principals.

This tip comes just one day after a private mediation session held with retired Judge Howard Chasanow yesterday, instead of the earlier June 14th mediation lifted by Judge Michael Rankin.  Arguments in the case were slate for later this October.

Kathy Wone originally brought the $20 million dollar wrongful death suit on November 25, 2008, around the same time the U.S. Attorney’s Office filed criminal charges of evidence tampering, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy first against Ward, and later with his two Swann Street house-mates.

On June 29, 2010, Judge Lynn Liebovitz foundPrice, Zaborsky and Ward not guilty of all charges. However, mere hours after the surprise verdict, attorneys on both sides of the civil case were hard at work for what was to be this October’s trial.

No details have been released on this possible settlement.  A call to plaintiff’s counsel yielded no comment, and calls to defense attorneys have yet to be returned.

271 comments for “Settled?

  1. mw
    06/22/2011 at 3:50 PM

    Interesting. I suppose its possible that if there was a settlement, it will remain confidential, the court dates will be cleared, and we’ll never hear anything of this matter again?

    • noaharc
      06/24/2011 at 1:33 AM


    • Nelly
      06/24/2011 at 11:33 PM

      Well, you never know what could happen in the future. Maybe someone will finally have some sense of morals and come forward with additional information about this case. Maybe one of those three, Sarah Morgan, or the “friend” across the street will finally break free and come clean. One can only hope.

  2. Boltz
    06/22/2011 at 3:53 PM

    This blows my mind. So many posters here, me included, believed that Kathy would never settle. Are we likely to learn of the terms of this settlement? Aren’t the terms of most O-of-C settlements kept confidential? I was so optimistic that facts and details presented during the civil trial would lead to criminal conviction eventually. This has got to greatly decrease the chances of that ever happening.

    I can only wish that Robert’s survivors achieved the outcome they were hoping for.

  3. alternateguy
    06/22/2011 at 4:06 PM

    From what I’ve heard of Kathy and her motive to sue, a settlement would, it seems to me, be because she has learned the likelihood that the defendant’s may not be responsible for her husband’s death.

    We wait and learn, if we ever do.

    Let’s just hope someone learns WMRW and that, if there is a murderer involved, he/she is brought to justice.

    • AnnaZed
      06/22/2011 at 4:13 PM

      You don’t miss an opportunity to opine do you? Alas, as so often before you are a bit quick off the mark.

      Let’s see “…if there is a murderer involved” really just makes you look like an ass.

      • alternateguy
        06/22/2011 at 4:19 PM


        Folks, who are not me, have speculated on this blog about the possibility of a suicide. Doesn’t seem likely to me though.

        You are quick of the mark to be name calling aren’t you?

        • Alice
          06/22/2011 at 4:26 PM

          Nope, it makes you look like an ass, not that you are trying to look at his death from all angles.

        • AnnaZed
          06/22/2011 at 4:36 PM

          I have never once seen any credible speculation by anyone on this site or elsewhere that suggested that it were even a physical possibility (let alone a psychological possibility) that Robert Wone’s death was a suicide. That’s just dumb, and attempting to float that absurd notion here at this time is not just dumb it obviates whatever vestigial instinct that reasonable people have had to treat you with any deference or politeness.

          Fuck off.

          • alternateguy
            06/22/2011 at 4:38 PM

            I could take the time to look up those postings for you, but will not.

            • AnnaZed
              06/22/2011 at 4:41 PM

              Emphasis on credible. Just because someone posted here doesn’t make the idea credible. Please do not bother, Mrs. Wone has probably absorbed enough insult and mistreatment for today.

              • alternateguy
                06/22/2011 at 5:04 PM


                Who said “Credible?” Not me. I had used the phrase “If there were a murderer” got shot down for that use, Tried to point out that other possibilities HAVE been discussed. And they have, both here, and in the newspapers.

                I even pointed out that I don’t believe in the suicide possibility.

                A WHOLE lot of speculation has also appeared here that Robert might have come to Swann Street for fun and games. I have never bought into that either. Many have said that the death could have been accidental. (Not my speculation in the past.)

                And if I really thought that Kathy Wone might be bothering to read this blog? I wouldn’t be posting anything right now.

                • Linda S.
                  06/23/2011 at 9:26 AM

                  Do you think he stabbed himself in the chest three times?

                  • alternateguy
                    06/23/2011 at 9:42 AM

                    No! That’s clearly impossible!

        • Bill 2
          06/22/2011 at 5:14 PM

          While you’re tossing in somebody’s suicide fairytale, why don’t you toss in the chimney sweep since someone mentioned that, too. Perhaps you should contact Ward’s publishing people. Maybe you’ve missed your calling. No, AZ is not “quick of the mark to be name calling.” She, and many others have shown considerable patience. There’s a huge difference in posting “could have” or possibilities and posting elaborate scenarios that totally ignore already known facts. It’s WMRW forum, not a blog for the Brothers Grimm.

          • alternateguy
            06/22/2011 at 5:30 PM

            Bill 2,

            As I’ve pointed out previously, some of your “…already known facts.” are neither. But I try not to question the value of your posting here.

          • Paul
            06/23/2011 at 3:02 PM

            AZ would rather fucks off few posters here instead of name calling, wouldn’t you agree, Bill 2? Just sayin.

        • noaharc
          06/24/2011 at 1:36 AM

          let theM settle/ then insurance company is cleared and to the lawyers what happens if then a a criminal murder case is brought by DC

    • noaharc
      06/24/2011 at 1:34 AM

      don’t believe that but if noone caves then how else can u get justice–very sad

  4. Neil
    06/22/2011 at 4:18 PM

    Suppose your husband was murdered. You want, most of all, closure.

    You have a choice between:

    a) Go to trial, with a great chance of getting more $$ than you could possibly collect, but there’s also a great chance the defendants stay silent; or

    b) Mediate and accept as much $$ as the defendants are able to give you. PLUS the defendants offer to tell you what really happened and, if appropriate, offer a heartfelt apology. [Because it’s part of the mediation, nothing they say can be used against them criminally.]

    Which do you choose?

    • David
      06/22/2011 at 4:28 PM


      If the defendants offer to tell you what really happened, and they say they murdered him and then offer a heartfelt apology. That just sounds a little odd to me that that’s all it would take for a settlement. Just too strange.


      • susan
        06/22/2011 at 4:56 PM

        Neil, the defendants can still be criminally liable, n’est pas?

        As for DC residents, and residents the world over, we like to know about murderers on the loose. Fine for K. Wone and family to do what’s right for them. But, uh, Who Murdered Robert Wone?! Inquiring residents and neighbors still want to know.

        • Neil
          06/22/2011 at 5:27 PM

          Susan, yes they could still be criminally liable.

          Nothing they say during mediation could be directly used against them; and it’s unlikely that their lawyers would allow anything remotely incriminating to come out during a civil trial. So, for Kathy, there’s nothing to be gained or lost on this issue by settling (or not).

          [I suppose there’s the remote chance that one of the defendants says something during my hypothetical mediation ‘confession’ that indirectly leads to the discovery of new physical evidence.]

          Realistically, we’ve narrowed the murder suspects down to three. I don’t expect the civil trial would change that.

          • AnnaZed
            06/22/2011 at 5:34 PM

            Those are good points. I am pretty sure that I have been expecting too much from this civil action. I can’t think of any other civil action that resulted in pertinent facts for a subsequent criminal charge being uncovered, yet I hoped for it anyway.

            Neil (and Bea); if the trouple conceded that they had been criminally negligent just in having left their door unlocked (or some such triviality) and agreed to pay some sort of additional monies on top of the insurance maximum would a judge require Mrs. Wone to accept that?

            • Cat from Cleveland
              06/22/2011 at 10:25 PM

              No – a judge cannot force a plaintiff to “settle.” A defendant can confess judgment, but that means they must admit liability and pay full damages, in an open pleading. A judge cannot “force” a confidential settlement, period.

      • Neil
        06/22/2011 at 5:13 PM

        David, as I said, an apology might not be warranted. But at least as part of the settlement the defendants would have an opportunity to speak freely – for perhaps the first time.

        And, as I said, that’s not “all it would take for a settlement” – Kathy would certainly get $$ too.

        So my question again: how would Kathy be better off by going to trial?

    • alternateguy
      06/22/2011 at 4:36 PM


      “…a heartfelt apology?” Perhaps, if the death were accidental. Maybe that’s a possability.

      Otherwise no closure whatsoever, would result from knowing that a murderer was running free, in my view.

      I have to admit, a lot of posters have speculated on the possibility of an accidental death.

      • susan
        06/22/2011 at 5:06 PM

        I think there have been some posts about alien abductions, too. Look that up while you’re at it.

      • CDinDC
        06/24/2011 at 9:01 PM

        Altguy, pray tell, how the hell does someone accidentally stab someone 3 time? Hmmmmm?

        • Bill 2
          06/24/2011 at 10:39 PM

          No doubt, Alt will come up with all kinds of elaborate scenarios on accidentally stabbing 3 times. Maybe a lightweight guy meant to stab once but was so light, he bounced on the inner springs in the mattress or maybe he stabbed once followed by two sneezes. (It was that guy who follows Snow White around with his six brothers.)

        • alternateguy
          06/24/2011 at 11:31 PM


          I do NOT believe that an incapacitating drug overdose caused Robert to appear to be dead or that the stabbing was a panicked attempt to cover up that drug attack. THAT’S BUNK in my mind. But if you have been following this blog for long, you will know that that’s just the sort of wild speculation, or some variation of it, that has often taken place and has been discussed seriously by some of the major posters here. Yet who knows what the truth is, or if it will ever be known to the public?

          A couple of days ago, I made the mistake of using the word, “If” where I might have used the word “Since” in expressing my view that a murderer must be brought to justice. I did not suggest that I believed that a murder might not have taken place, but was trying to be technically accurate in my statement.

          For this, I was jumped on and called an “Ass” as well as other things, by a long time poster. I have no Idea what this person’s true motive was. My big mistake was to let that someone bait me into trying to explain myself. Some posters decided that it would be fun to twist my explanations and even went so far as to suggest that I was being insensitive to the Wone family. Never my intention and you really have to distort my words to make it seem so. Besides, the Wones are excellent and upstanding people and really don’t need defending here.

          I now believe that there is not much more reason for anyone not directly involved with the principals to further discuss details of Robert’s death. We know so little. WMRW has, in my opinion, done a fine job of keeping the case open this far. And you probably don’t need my two cents worth anymore. I’ve learned much from all of you. Thanks. (Sure, I’ll keep reading.)

          • Clio
            06/25/2011 at 8:43 AM

            Please, Alt, you’ll be back! And, this unhappy ending — more “cold comfort” for all — will stoke the fires of speculation and critical thinking, I would guess. We do need your devil’s advocate provocations, if simply to finetune any prosecutorial case, and it is not over(probably) till the fat ladies — Sarah and Culuket –finally sing.

            • alternateguy
              06/25/2011 at 9:15 AM


              A very nice post. So much to learn from people like you in your use of succinct language!

              Fine-tune the prosecution, indeed! Always best to take down a murderer using a sniper’s rifle rather than a blunderbuss. The sharper the focus, the less collateral damage.

              And I’ve been thinking about something:

              WMRW is the perfect model of how we the public can have a voice in major issues that need our input. Somehow I feel sure that the Editors will, in the future, involve themselves in creating another very importaint blog. I hope they keep us informed as to what they do in that respect.

              • Clio
                06/25/2011 at 1:25 PM

                I agree, Alt, on the utility of these electronic fora to enhance engaged citizenry, but I believe that the Editors’ other effort is for LGBT fans of professional hockey, certainly a rarefied handful of eccentrics there. Any blog on any topic works best when it attracts a sustained and diverse core of regulars — who are obsessed with finding answers/justice/information.That gradually happened with WMRW. Does/did that work with the hockey blog –is the jury is still out there, Craig?

                IMHO, the Editors should do a book about this case and blog with the proceeds donated to the Wone Trust. And, the book (and ending the blog) must wait for a more satisfactory resolution than a rumored settlement in the civil case!

                • Craig
                  06/25/2011 at 3:13 PM

                  The hockey project is something Doug and i took on just before New Year’s and we’ve tried to avoid promoting it here. It has its own set of challenges but WMRW is where our passion still remains.

                  • susan
                    06/25/2011 at 10:34 PM

                    I am very glad to hear that, Craig.

                    I’m glad and heartened, because this blog is Who Murdered Robert Wone, not Will Ms. Wone Settle.

                    The former has yet to be answered. I and many seriously want an answer and will stay tuned until there is one.

          • cdindc
            06/26/2011 at 9:55 PM

            blah blah blah……you didn’t answer my question….”How the hell does someone stab someone accidentally 3 times?”

            and yes, I’ve been following/participating on this blog for a very long time.

            • Bea
              06/27/2011 at 7:28 AM

              Indeed, cd.

              And to those who don’t recall, cd is one of the originals (not to mention a founding member of the T.P.).

              • AnnaZed
                06/27/2011 at 12:52 PM

                Ah yes, the thought police, who could forget them.

            • Alternateguy
              06/27/2011 at 8:44 AM


              Sorry if my explanation sounded like “bla bla bla” to you. I’ll try again.

              Robert clearly couldn’t have been accidentally stabbed, and I never suggested that he could have been.

              I pointed out that others had speculated that the MURDER might have been an accident in that the killers, thinking that they were guilty of manslaughter because they had administered an overdose of paralytic drugs to him, had stabbed Robert as a cover-up, not realizing that he was not clinically dead at the time.

              That speculation made little sense to me, but it lead me to use the word “If” rather than “Since,” so causing the big flap.

              • dcd
                06/27/2011 at 11:13 AM

                We have seen you, and some others permanent residents, here since the beginning. You are so dedicated to this one case. Ever thought about retiring now the case has settled and not much to talk about?

                Most lawyers “move on” when the case is settled, soon to be disposed. Ever thought of cashing in your “frequent miles” and just “chill out!”

                Alt is being trapped in “war of words” with “senior posters” here. Would you say another 4 years to talk about it?

                • AnnaZed
                  06/27/2011 at 12:39 PM

                  Gee, that fractured syntax is so very familiar.

                • Hoya Loya
                  06/27/2011 at 12:45 PM

                  Absent a revelatory public statement when and if the rumored settlement is announced, the question which is eponymous with this blog has still not been answered.

                  The mystery of who killed Robert and the related mystery surrounding the defendants’ behavior, regardless of whether or not they are involved, continue to puzzle and fascinate. The murderer should not get away with the crime and the defendants deserve to be cleared, if innocent. The settlement may resolve the issue of civil liability, but will not accomplish either of these two other goals.

                  Lawyers, when it comes down to it, are hired guns. Their cases, no matter how compelling, end once they are no longer retained, even if the matter was pro bono.

                  This is not the first or only unsolved crime I have followed and I, for one, will continue to puzzle over it, with or without this blog, unless or until someone is convicted and any wrongfully suspected individuals are cleared. The Martha Moxley case, for instance, was solved after 25 years — what if everyone had just walked away from that one?

                  No one should get away with murder, no matter how cleverly executed or covered up or incompetently investigated.

                  • Alternateguy
                    06/27/2011 at 1:50 PM


                    Last night I watched an Agatha Christie mystery on Masterpiece Theatre. It struck me how like a mystery novel our case has been.

                    Later I woke up in the middle of the night thinking, “I wonder if anyone in the sphere of the Swann Street household is way into the works of a Christie like mystery writer?”

                    What followed then was a really chilling thought:

                    We’ve spent a whole lot of time trying to come up with a motive. But what if some sociopath simply committed the murder just for the fun of it?

                    That person would have to have had both access and knowledge, I’d think. Or blind luck.

                    Hate filled perhaps, seeking silent fame perhaps, some senses of revenge perhaps. But without any clear motive in his/her mind, how will such a person ever be caught?

                    The only comfort we might have is that such a sociopath will likely strike again and might then get caught. Some comfort!

                    • TT
                      06/27/2011 at 2:15 PM

                      Please let us know what kind of medication induce’s such thoughts

                    • Alternateguy
                      06/27/2011 at 2:20 PM


                      No meds. Just a foolish attempt to try to understand the work of psychopath.

                    • Bea
                      06/27/2011 at 3:19 PM

                      Alt, which of the three do you peg for the psychopath?

                    • Hoya Loya
                      06/28/2011 at 12:51 PM

                      Ah yes, “The Clocks” — a good one. I remember reading it as a teenager. Which reminds me that Agatha was a master of the locked room murder mystery, a genre for which this case would qualify but for that unlocked back door. That is why I find my self focusing more and more on that curious fact when I ponder this case.

                  • Alternateguy
                    06/27/2011 at 3:37 PM


                    I think that a lot of folks might be looking at the odd man out for that distinction.

                    I myself have no information to that fact at all.

                    But, I’d sure like to know what literature each has been into.

                    I suppose that police could access back library records, couldn’t they? Or is that an invasion of rights?

                    • Bea
                      06/27/2011 at 5:03 PM

                      We know from the items seized under the search warrants that Dylan was “learning” to be a “dom” (S&M FOR DUMMIES?).

                    • Hoya Loya
                      06/27/2011 at 9:13 PM

                      We also know that in addition to the S&M manual, Dylan’s library included a novel about decomposing bodies on a beach and another book about the process of dying, as well as the New Yorker with the article about famous last utterances illustrated by a picture of the dead Shakespeare (who was not stabbed but died naturally btw) posed in much the same manner as was Robert on his Swann Street deathbed.

                • jc
                  06/27/2011 at 6:31 PM

                  Sounds like dcd meant to reply to cdindc, Bea, and AnnaZed above – not to Alt.

                • cdindc
                  06/27/2011 at 9:42 PM

                  speaking of blah blah blah.

                  • chris
                    06/28/2011 at 11:01 AM

                    Blah, blah, blah, yourself, cdindc!

              • cdindc
                06/27/2011 at 9:34 PM

                much better explanation, Altguy. 😀

    • Deb
      06/22/2011 at 8:38 PM

      Defendants in a civil trial can’t stay “silent”. They can opt to not answer a question based upon their rights under the fifth amendment, but I think that’s already been answered here specifically that the defendant himself must assert his right and may not do so through his attorney.

    • Occasional lurker
      06/23/2011 at 2:57 AM

      Myself, I’d choose A, not for the money but because it’s my best shot at the real truth. Where’s the guarantee these ‘friends’ who found it easy to lie at my late husband’s funeral wouldn’t lie again in the settlement? Where’s the taking responsibility for what they’ve done? What would stop these murderers from committing more crimes, or Joe Price from further staining the profession my husband loved so much?

      That said, I’m NOT Kathy Wone, and I for one will not judge her, whichever path she chooses.

  5. Bea
    06/22/2011 at 4:22 PM

    The devil will be in the details. It’s possible that all of it will be confidential, but too, it’s possible that one side has the ability to provide a script or even speak candidly. I am curious if the US Attorney’s office got to weigh in in any capacity – while I seriously doubt there will be any pleas to criminal charges attached to the settlement, it’s not ruled out (although I doubt these defendants would agree to any).

    I second the sentiment that I hope Kathy Wone gets what she needs most, whatever that is.

  6. Rapt in MD
    06/22/2011 at 4:23 PM

    I agree with you, Boltz. I am disappointed but I hope Robert’s family feels they have gotten what they need to to help them to bear the burden of this terrible, sad loss. When I visited the trial last year, I can clearly remember looking at Kathy as she sat in the back row of the room and seeing the incredible pain on her face during the testimony. Maybe a settlement will alleviate some of the stress they have been under for so long and give them some peace.

  7. Craig
    06/22/2011 at 4:53 PM

    We’re now hearing that the settlement has been confirmed by another media outlet. More later.

  8. Craig
    06/22/2011 at 5:34 PM

    Paul Wagner @ WTTG, Fox 5 DC confirms the settlement.

  9. alternateguy
    06/22/2011 at 5:45 PM


    Could WTTG be basing their confirmation entirely on your post?

    • Craig
      06/22/2011 at 5:59 PM

      Wagner: “A source familiar with the case says that his widow has agreed to settle her 20 million dollar wrongful death civil suit out of court.”

  10. Hoya Loya
    06/22/2011 at 5:45 PM

    Kathy was facing a choice of another painful trial at which she might learn nothing new and at best get a large, likely uncollectible judgment. A settlement may get her a collectible sum, which I’m sure will be put to good use in Robert’s name, and/or information that might lead to solving the crime — I can’t believe she would settle without this last item.

    The defendants faced having their names dragged through the mud yet again, possible running from a huge judgment debt for the rest of their lives and continued exposure to criminal charges. A settlement avoids the unwanted publicity and may set a manageable sum certain on their liability. Depending on what, if any, information they provided, it may even help one, two or three of them avoid more charges and lead to the solving of the crime.

    Given the nature of mediation, I have to believe that some important information was exchanged that Kathy thinks may help solve things and that the defendants think may help them avoid charges in the long run.

    • Clio
      06/25/2011 at 9:56 AM

      What could the information possibly be? Knowledge that the Hinton diary and its alibi for Uncle Michael were fake? Knowledge that it was all just a prank gone way bad? Knowledge that Joe really did haunt the bathrooms at Apex? Knowledge that Mr. Hixson played a greater role that night than any one has heretofore believed? Knowledge of Tom and John’s addiction to mid-week network TV? What?

  11. Doug
    06/22/2011 at 6:13 PM

    Enough with baseless speculation. Robert Wone did not commit suicide. Wild imaginations on the net run afoul of hard facts…some of which we have revealed. Don’t be an ass. Try harder.

  12. susan
    06/22/2011 at 6:57 PM

    Hold up! And read on-

    Mediation talks in Wone civil case
    TAGS: civil lawsuitsCourtsCrimeD.C. Superior Courtdylan wardjoseph priceRobert wonevictor zaborsky
    By: Emily Babay | Examiner Staff Writer | Follow her: @emilybabay | 06/22/11 8:05 PM
    Robert WoneThe widow of slain D.C. lawyer Robert Wone and the three men acquitted last summer of covering up his slaying held a private mediation meeting this week.

    Katherine Wone filed a wrongful-death suit against Joseph Price, Dylan Ward and Victor Zaborsky after Wone was stabbed to death in their Dupont Circle townhouse in August 2006. The three were acquitted on tampering with evidence, obstruction of justice and conspiracy charges.

    Patrick Regan, an attorney for Katherine Wone, said Wednesday that no agreement was finalized and the case is still slated for trial in October. The Who Murdered Robert Wone blog reported Wednesday afternoon that the case had settled. Regan said the mediation meeting is “part of the process” and was court-ordered.

    Craig Roswell, a defense attorney, declined to comment. Other attorneys in the case could not be reached.

    – Emily Babay

    Read more at the Washington Examiner:

  13. rummy
    06/22/2011 at 7:00 PM

    Emily Babay posted that at 8:05 pm today? Does she time travel?

    • susan
      06/22/2011 at 7:25 PM

      Strange. Good point.

      P.S. If you are that Rummy, not fun catching you back in the media. Much better enjoyed you in retirement and obscurity.

  14. Bill Orange
    06/22/2011 at 7:15 PM

    Intriguing. I would not have expected Kathy Wone to settle with all three of them unless she could be damn sure that they could convince her that (a) they didn’t kill her husband, and (b) they could provide convincing proof of who did. (And if they could do this, I can’t believe they didn’t cut a deal with the prosecutors to finger the real killers.) I really don’t think she’d settle even if she knew she stood a good chance of losing the statute of limitations argument on appeal. And I can’t imagine her buying an “accidental death” argument, either. “We just meant to drug and rape your husband, not kill him.”

    That being said, I also thought that Joe Price would be convicted of all charges, so my track record isn’t very good here. (I also thought that mediation would be pointless.)

    On the other hand, it would not surprise me if a settlement had been reached with one or two of the three in exchange for truthful testimony against the other(s). Time will tell.

  15. Bea
    06/22/2011 at 7:52 PM

    It’s also possible that the insurance company settled with Kathy and the defendants are still on the hook moving forward with the trial. So much is up in the air. Also, there’s the possibility that if the defendants “swear” to particular facts and agree that if something shows the facts to be wrong that the settlement is set aside . . . A settlement agreement will be VERY specific (whether we’ll be privy is another thing entirely).

    • Clio
      06/22/2011 at 8:48 PM

      Oh, yuck, I’ve never been more disappointed in an announcement than since Herbert Butterfield in his book The Whig Interpretation of History called me a whore to my face. Oh well, let’s hope that Chief Lanier’s criminal investigation will (actually) stay “very, very active.” June 2010 brought Lynn’s “cold comfort,” and June 2011 may bring more — you guessed it, “cold comfort.” Sigh!

      • susan
        06/22/2011 at 8:58 PM

        I’m still curious about the Examiner report that says Regan says no deal has been made.

      • Deb
        06/22/2011 at 9:10 PM

        Ok, this is a definite aside, but someone who seems to claim himself an academician called you a whore to your face? I guess I’d prefer it that way than behind my back — better opportunity to break his nose.

        See Bea’s post. She’s one of the smart ones like you, and I’m making an educated guess that she’s right on the money. It is entirely possible one or more of the defendants may have reached agreement so they may be dismissed. I think there may well be a defendant or two or three hanging around until October.

        If I had to guess, insurance and Ward will be dismissed. I’d choose Victor for dismissal over Ward, but that’s not my prediction.

        • susan
          06/22/2011 at 9:51 PM

          Deb, it’s a book. Look it up. Historians, etc.

          • Clio
            06/22/2011 at 10:40 PM

            Yes, ladies, it’s right there on page 70 of that 1931 piece — “History is a harlot and a hireling …” And, now it’s in pdf form on the Web for all to see; just google it. Tsk, tsk.

            Much more importantly, I hope that Deb and Bea are correct about the limits of any settlement: the notion that the guilty will once again escape justice is abominable!

          • Deb
            06/24/2011 at 8:47 PM

            Well, g-d, I wasn’t thinking muse . . I was thinking real time.

      • kiprian
        06/23/2011 at 8:29 PM

        1931, and you’re still holding a grudge? (Sorry to tangentialize, but I’ve tried for the last day to penetrate this bon mot.)

        • Clio
          06/23/2011 at 9:54 PM

          Kip, please, I am “too busy to hate,” and I hold no grudges. In fact, Butterfield’s analysis from 1931 does bring up some unpleasant truths (although calling me “a harlot” went too far) about theorists who are too willing to fit the facts to their agendas. As you should know, the Whig historians saw the road to English liberties and citizenship as an inevitable unfolding of human progress. Their theory, like that of the intruder theory, had some big holes in it and ignored known facts even as it was being put forth. Why does this all sound strangely familiar all of a sudden?

          • kiprian
            06/24/2011 at 12:08 AM

            My apologies; I had assumed something other than literal truth. As Butterfield is a staple of the first year curriculum (though, alas, not my field) I *am* fascinated.

    • Deb
      06/22/2011 at 9:02 PM

      IF a settlement agreement was reached, I agree with Bea — It’s probably a situation where the insurance carrier(s) have figured out they are on the hook for policy limits AND they’ve sufficiently covered their hindends that they won’t need to provide any extracontractual defense or funds. At that point, why not try to reach an agreement to policy limits and move to be dismissed. Way too costly to continue a battle perhaps already lost.

      The contractual standard for the insurance carrier(s) is pretty straight forward — did the homeowners fail to secure their residence to ensure the safety of an invited guest? If yes, (and the invited guest ends up dead by homicide) then go to “pay policy limits”. The only obligation of the insurer beyond that point is to be sure they have indeed defended the insured up to the limits of liability and to be sure they have fully informed the insured that he may well face the obligation to pay damages above and beyond policy limits and that he needs to seek independent counsel for which he would be personally financially responsible.

      The retired judges who typically mediate wrongful death cases in the greater metro DC area are truly the best of the best. When they are mediating a case, they really put in some extraordinary hours with amazing patience, kindness and graciousness to all involved. And believe me they do this on an every day basis for cases so much “smaller” than Mr. Wone’s.

      I kind of find it hard to believe the complaints against ALL of the defendants were settled in less than 8 hours?

      I can, indeed, see JR advising that, although a bad smell can be emitted, blood can never be drawn from a turnip and that maybe it’s not worth the cost to litigate, but I thought a lot of the legal and expert work was being done pro bono for the Wone Estate? So if that’s still correct, I’m not sure he’d back down. His jaw, I’m told, yields 1500 pounds per square inch of pressure.

      I just have to agree with Bea that perhaps some element has settled, but I don’t see that it’s a total turning of the back.

      • Cat from Cleveland
        06/22/2011 at 10:36 PM

        If the attorney was accurately quoted, note he did not say that the case has not been settled. He said no agreement was “finalized.” Typically, a settlement will be reached “in principle” at a mediation, and a formal agreement is negotiated in the following weeks. The settlement is “finalized” only when all parties sign, at which point the money is paid and the case is dismissed. Until the case is dismissed, the trial is still scheduled.
        If the quote is accurate, it appears to be carefully phrased. He didn’t say, “we have not settled this case.”

        • susan
          06/22/2011 at 10:57 PM

          Thanks, Cat. Very interesting. And I guess as Bea and others have posted, they could settle with some and not all and re part but not all of the charges. All very interesting.

          • Cat from Cleveland
            06/22/2011 at 11:14 PM

            They could, I suppose. There is one homeowner’s insurace policy that provides a defense and coverage. I assume that policy covers Victor and Joe. In my experience, that company will not settle any claim unless the company is out completely, which will mean that all claims against all insureds must be fully resolved and dismissed.

            • Craig
              06/22/2011 at 11:41 PM

              It’s great to see that penguin again 🙂

            • Bill Orange
              06/23/2011 at 1:26 AM


              Are you saying that the insurance company won’t just pay out the max and walk away?

              • Cat in Cleveland
                06/23/2011 at 4:55 PM

                Yes. The company owes a duty to act in good faith to it’s insured. A legal defense is part of what the insured pays for. So, unless the law there is very different from here, or unless this is one strange policy, I’m saying the company has a continuing duty to defend. It cannot simply pay it’s limits, walk way, and leave it’s insured high and dry, personally liable, and without a defense.

                • Bea
                  06/23/2011 at 5:22 PM

                  Cat, in CA I’ve seen more than one instance of the insurance company reaching a settlement with the plaintiff and allowing the “duty to defend” part of the obligation be met with paying the lowball $125-$150 hour insurance discount firms to provide the remainder of defense. I could see a situation here where BECAUSE the insurance likely provides liability only for negligence, not intentional acts, that a DJ may have occurred as to whether there is any continuing liability to defend after paying policy limits on NEGLIGENT acts. I might try to find the attorneys here who worked on the cases where insurance bailed on “duty to defend” after reaching settlement – will let you know how that worked. It sounds shady, yes, but I do think it too had to do with acts that might have fallen outside the policy.

                  • Cat in Cleveland
                    06/23/2011 at 7:56 PM

                    I have seen many cases where the carrier bailed after prevailing on a DJ, but I haven’t seen one one the docket here.
                    If the carrier has to continue to defend, why would they pony up policy limits one minute sooner than they have to, especially if they have a viable SOL defense?

                    • Bea
                      06/23/2011 at 8:00 PM

                      See below question posed so it’s not too skinny. Don’t know answer, just thinking.

                • Deb
                  06/24/2011 at 9:57 PM

                  I disagree The defendants all claim the back door was unlatched. The failed to secure the residence (while a guest was present)Prem. Liab. It comprises negligence — they failed to secure the location with a guest present.

                  • Bill Orange
                    06/25/2011 at 12:49 PM

                    The back DOOR may have been unlocked, but the back GATE was not. I’ve been fairly critical of the defendants’ behavior, but I really don’t see how any reasonable person would say that the house was not “secure”. They were either directly involved in a murder, or they were not. I don’t see leaving the back door unlocked as criminal negligence.

                    • Deb
                      06/25/2011 at 7:03 PM

                      We’re not talking about criminal negligence at all. This is a wrongful death case.
                      For prem. liab., either you are 100% vigilant, OR . . . you have been some how negligent.

        • Deb
          06/24/2011 at 8:53 PM

          I am really most familiar with VA, but have had some DC mediations. Usually everything is worked out in the present with the exception (recently) of Medicare set-asides.

          I’ve worked in other places and it definitely varies, but usually the mediators in the metro-DC area do not leave the stadium until at least part of the deal is sealed. . .

          Pending medicare set-aside.

  16. Bea
    06/22/2011 at 11:22 PM

    If there are any criminal attorneys familiar with DC code, has the statute of limitation now run on everything but murder (I realize there is no SOL for murder, but possibly something has a five year stretch, taking us to August of this year)? Just curious if there’s any possibility that the settlement is to stop prosecuting the wrongful death until after the statute has run on everything BUT murder, thus allowing the defendants to “talk” frankly (assuming none of them is the murderer).

    I think that’s a long shot, that either Kathy Wone exacted some information and a judgment allowing her to maintain some semblance of control, OR she settled with the insurer, leaving the defendants still on the hook for the upcoming trial. I know at one point we had someone very familiar with insurance law on here – hoping they pop back in.

    • KiKi
      06/23/2011 at 11:06 AM

      The SOLs in DC for felonies are generally 3-6 years. Kidnapping is 6 years, Manslaughter is 6 years. There are enhancements for Fraud issues, allowing some SOLs to be increased to 9 year maximums. However, sex assault crimes can have SOLs of 10-15 years. I say can because this is actually a fuzzy area with very fact specific variables and is still being litigated.

      • Rick
        06/23/2011 at 11:52 PM


        With the settlement on the table (final or not, I’d never know), do you think things can get tweaked, twisted, detoured, or bended back to another litigation to another trial i.e. civil or crim. suit?

        If this settlement is for real, sign, seal, $ delivered, and the case is dismissed, are there any holes that both parties still have to patch up before they can really “moving on with their lives”?

        • KiKi
          06/24/2011 at 4:32 PM

          I can’t really speak to the civil case, so much of that would depend on what the settlement actually contains. Plus I have no real knowledge of the intricacies of wrongful death suits.

          As far as the criminal charges, the Government will have about a year to try to bring any charges against the defendants such as manslaughter (negligent homicide) or assault, etc. If they could prove sex assault or murder they would have much more time, but I think those would both be very difficult to prove. However, at any point, should new evidence surface, the Government could charge the defendants with murder. To be honest, if there is a settlement, I would not be surprised to see the defendants relocate to somewhere with no extradition agreement with the US.

          My personal opinion is that the crime that the Government would have the easiest time proving would be manslaughter, under a negligent homicide theory. I was really baffled that this was not charged in the first trial, the only reason I can think that this was not a charged offense is because if they were acquitted of manslaughter, they would have a very good double jeopardy argument if new evidence was discovered supporting a murder charge.

          • TT
            06/24/2011 at 11:00 PM

            Bea, can you break down what KiKi is saying? KiKi no disrespect, I am slow. I just don’t follow the whole settlement and what that means for finding why I have followed this site for awhile now. I am confused exacty what if the settlement has occured? Where does this leave the defendents?

          • Clio
            06/24/2011 at 11:02 PM

            Will it be either Havana or Caracas for Culuket, Kiki? For both locales, Victor and Dyl’s high school Spanish will come in handy after all. And, for our former players, the men should be “muy caliente”: this is an unfair, cruel world!!

  17. gertiestn
    06/23/2011 at 2:08 AM

    FWIW, the Washington Post web site doesn’t seem to have any mention of the settlement yet. If a plea fell in the woods, would the WaPo hear it?

    • Clio
      06/23/2011 at 6:27 AM

      Oh my Alice B. Toklas, word of this settlement can only be true if confirmed by the WaPo. Secondarily, will (and how will) then the pink press, or what’s left of it, cover this possibly unsatisfactory denouement: is Miss R. Chibbaro still on the case?

  18. Paul
    06/23/2011 at 2:56 PM

    Questions for lawyers:

    Can any, some or all, lawyers here comment the “what if” theories below (I risk getting bitched by many of you here):

    1. WHAT IF all three defendants are really innocent despite last trial and all charges, investigations, exams, evidences, and/or etc. Never mind the ninja, the other

    2. WHAT IF this “not final yet until signed and dismissed” settlement implies that Kathy is satisfied with all answers, findings, and offer.

    We probably will never hear/know results of this case, unless media keeps it up, but soon we will probably hear where this case ends up.

    • Hoya Loya
      06/23/2011 at 3:44 PM

      If the defendants are innocent, I would think they would want the settlement to help in their vindication process.

      A settlement in which the terms are confidential won’t do that –it will tell us nothing and we’d be wrong to infer anything about whether Kathy is satisfied or not, just that she found the settlement to be preferable to trial.

      If she is, in fact satisfied that the defendants are innocent, then I would think both sides would want that aspect of the settlement to be made public, unless doing so would somehow jeopardize the ongoing investigation against the real culprit(s).

      • Rick
        06/23/2011 at 11:38 PM

        Interesting, indeed. Also, Hoya Loya, I would be interested to hear IF you are presenting this case (Plaintiff/Defendants), what inspires you to settle (if you so choose)? Money that the insurance can afford, or something elses?

        And what would that something elses “may be”?

      • TT
        06/24/2011 at 3:27 PM

        Hoya Loya
        Why would Ms. Wone find a settlement more preferable than a trial? Unless she believes the three are innocent? I am stunned that they have settled..

        • Hoya Loya
          06/24/2011 at 7:27 PM

          The defendants have not exactly been forthcoming in the discovery process (as far as we know) and there are no indications that was going to change before or at trial. Another trial means reliving the 2006 nightmare yet again and suffering through unpleasant details in the testimony. A win, even with the lower standard of proof in the civil case, would not be guaranteed. Even if she did prevail, we know the defendants are judgment proof, other than the insurance limits, so she’d be chasing them forever for any amounts not covered (and as insurance lawyers can tell us, there are circumstances when coverage might ultimately be denied or limited, leading to another fight).

          With a settlement, a sum certain is there on the table for the taking. No rolling the dice on a trial, no collection proceedings. If no new information is forthcoming, why would she put herself through the agony of another

          Any of the following could also be possible: 1) exculpatory facts may have turned up; 2) evidence that could lead to prosecution of the real culprit could have been discovered; 3) evidence that she would rather not see disclosed at trial may have come to light, promising to make the trial even more painful; 4) the defendants have had fears of further prosecution allayed so that they have agreed to cooperate again; 5) the defendants were basically opting not to defend and settlement is better than a default.

          If #1 is the case, I can’t believe there wouldn’t be a public statement to that effect, but why would the defendants pay up in that case? Because they didn’t offer effective protection or assistance?

          For #2 and #4, confidentiality may be necessary to protect the subsequent investigation.

          But basically, if Kathy filed the case for information and she isn’t likely to get any, why bang her head against the wall? Take the money and trust that one day the truth will out.

          One thing that has not changed and may not have changed even with a trial: no one has been charged with Robert’s murder.

          • TT
            06/24/2011 at 10:43 PM


            Thank you as always for your wisdom I just do not see Mrs Wone taking money at this point. The defendents, are paying who to make this go away??? It is not Robert Wone’s wife. Then who??

          • Clio
            06/24/2011 at 11:13 PM

            And, at this point, Hoya, the chances are that no one will EVER be charged for Robert’s murder, despite there never being any real doubts who the murderers could be. Only in America could someone get away with this; it’s been a perfect legal and political storm for Culuket and Sparkly Cat from the Anacostia dialogues through today. Horrible!

      • Carolina
        06/25/2011 at 9:09 AM

        Why would they settle if innocent?

        Assuming Kathy is content with what they have to say, enough to settle, why not just drop the suit?

  19. TT
    06/23/2011 at 3:36 PM

    Come on guys, any news? I keep searching the web and can’t find anything new.

    • susan
      06/23/2011 at 11:52 PM

      WTOP, the big news, traffic and radio station here just reported that a settlement was reported (to be in the works or was worked out) on Channel 7 news. They opened with “Breaking news in a five year old case” or something like that.

        • Clio
          06/24/2011 at 9:12 AM

          Thanks, Susan, for posting this link. Note the misspelling of Victor’s last name and the use of the word “lover” to describe both Victor and Dyl: what more crosses will Ma’am continue to bear for her own personal Jesus? And, who was that grouchy old queen who posted the nasty and inaccurate comment about gay community support for the disgraced trouple?

          Editors, most significantly, who are “these sources close to the case” — do they include Judge Rankin’s barber, Sarah Morgan’s nutritionist, Dyl’s travel agent, and/or Culuket’s manicurist?

  20. Bea
    06/23/2011 at 8:00 PM

    This is for Cat and Hoya but also for anyone needing good sleeping material before bed. This article discusses the conflict of an attorney who is being paid by an insurance company to defend insureds – has a lot of information that is relevant here (what if the attorney learns something from the insured defendant that would cut off coverage).

    More germane to this discussion is “burning limits.” There are some heavy hitters for the defendants, and they cost lots of money. Even assuming that the insurance company is paying only for Victor and Joe’s defense counsel (not necessarily so) we have to consider the possibility that the policy limits might well run out before trial considering the large number of expensive lawyers and the need for expensive expert witnesses. A lot of umbrella policies are $2M or $3M. If I’m reading this correctly, if an insurer has “burned off” the policy limits, they may have the right to walk away from even the defense costs (Cat raised the point that the “duty to defend”, meaning paying for defendants’ lawyers, is much more assured than the “duty to indemnity” or paying the judgment if, for example, the jury returned the verdict saying it found the defendants liable for intentional acts which would be excluded.

    But is the settlement we’re hearing about really going to be the end of the trial for the defendants? Could it be that after paying hefty legal and expert bills the insurance company has in no uncertain terms gone to the defendant insureds and said “we want to pay X dollars” to settle the NEGLIGENCE claims BUT you need to deal with the INTENTIONAL ACTS claims including paying for your own defense? This article seems to suggest this possibility (noting in one case, for example, an insurance company was able to “handle” one of the two insureds’ liability but left the other exposed because the policy limits were burned off).

    It’s just a primer (which shows my relative lack of knowledge!) but some of you may find interesting.,%2520G.%2520Nelson.pdf+insurance+company+settles+homeowner+liability+against+defendant%27s+wishes+intentional+acts&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgxZfxDjXaD5E4Mj9JXYJMM87WG7cbdlJFcw-u35DSURVdC0xadq3MfdrtNhuD9EW4u_avpaUxCJZMtVhzPMrMnhiwAquhFtl3ARmqQ8Wc12eBXX0n1ZZ2qa-jUsRgBvItlLBj_&sig=AHIEtbQa0VfG3SS68pqh_2SQavWXeAfT1A

    • Deb
      06/24/2011 at 9:34 PM

      Bea, a carrier has an obligation to defend “up to the limit of liability” as stated on the dec page of the policy. BUT the limit of liability is never diminished by the cost of defense

      • Bea
        06/26/2011 at 1:57 AM

        Deb, I’d assumed that but the “primer” suggests that some policies have clauses to the contrary.

        • Cat from Cleveland
          06/26/2011 at 8:47 PM

          There is a policy (commonly called a burning policy, referenced in the article Bea posted) where the policy limit is reduced by the cost of defense. For example, assume the policy limit is $1million. The lawyers bill $300,000 through trial. If the verdict is $1.5 million, the most the insurance will have to pay on the verdict is $700,000 (the original limit minus the cost of defense). I have not seen burning policies in the homeowners’ insurance arena. It is common in professional liability insurance (malpractice insurance). That said, I haven’t practiced in the personal injury arena for many years (I’ve focused my practice in another area)and can’t say whether Defendants may have a homeowners’ policy with burning limits.

  21. Rick
    06/24/2011 at 10:50 AM

    Time to say “Goodbye” to WhoMurderedRobertWone, all lawyers on this site, the editors, all posters, occasional contributors, readers. Mostly Kathy Wone and her lawyers. Defendants and their lawyers. All the Judges, all MPDC officers, all media, etc.

    Goodbye, and have a good life, to ALL.

    • Deb
      06/24/2011 at 10:07 PM

      How very insensitive of you. Do you have a mother?

      • susan
        06/24/2011 at 10:41 PM

        If I had to venture a guess, I don’t think Rick meant to offend anyone. I suppose he might have had a mother at one time (good, bad, indifferent or absent) and it prob. had nothing to do with what he wrote. His earlier posts seem sensitive enough.

  22. Bea
    06/24/2011 at 1:06 PM

    Just a note on practicality – if you reach an agreement in principle, days or weeks (possibly more) can pass as the written agreement is haggled over. It’s unlikely that it will be derailed entirely but always possible because (I’ll say it again) the devil is in the details. There can be much back-and-forth as to each clause, such as what, exactly, each side can SAY publicly. If there is a provision regarding the defendants having to provide particular information or a public statement as to what they know, the process will take even longer. Rarely is an agreement in the nature of “we’ll give you $1 million and you drop the suit” – the agreement will cover MANY things and will likely be 10-30 pages long. Just sayin’.

    • Craig
      06/24/2011 at 3:14 PM

      Bea: At some point a while back, we heard that the defendants floated a $1million settlement offer.
      We’ve also heard that a certain member of the criminal team was working ‘pro bono’ on the civil case, too.

      Clio: The source will have to remain confidential, but I can assure you it was neither a barber, manicurist… or masseuse.

      • Clio
        06/25/2011 at 9:02 AM

        Hmmm, O.K., then was this source either Aunt Marcia, Mr. Pring, or Mr. Hixson’s auto mechanic? Mercedes, Mercedes, Mercedes, after all!

      • Clio
        06/25/2011 at 10:32 PM

        Is Spag working “pro bono” for Team Price? If so, is it out of pure Schadenfreude, or does he really see them as flawed, yet still framed, innocents?

        • susan
          06/25/2011 at 11:46 PM

          Isn’t it unusual that a defense atty would work pro bono like this? I imagine Clio is right and that it would be Spag here. I mean, even if all three were unemployed (and that hasn’t been the case) they are still not without means. The Florida home is worth more than what an average American would be able to afford.

        • AnnaZed
          06/25/2011 at 11:54 PM

          I very much doubt that Spag or anyone else connected with the defense is working pro bono.

          • susan
            06/25/2011 at 11:56 PM

            See Craig’s post above.

            • AnnaZed
              06/25/2011 at 11:57 PM

              I saw it, I just doubt it.
              (thanks though)

      • Clio
        06/26/2011 at 8:41 AM

        Craig, I could not help thinking of Dr. Evil’s $1 million plan in that insipid Austin Powers movie, when you raise the news of the defendants’ trial balloon for that same (relatively piddly) amount. Spag must have an “evil” sense of humor just to be involved in representing those persons for whom he may be doing it for free (or for free drinks at the Eagle’s happy hour.)

        • AnnaZed
          06/26/2011 at 11:48 AM

          Indeed, yet I am sometimes put more in mind of Jarndyce and Jarndyce.

  23. Bea
    06/24/2011 at 2:55 PM

    While we wait, thought this story was interesting – only here we’re not dealing with teenagers but adult men.

    MISSING COLLEGE STUDENT: Five of those who’ve been involved in the investigation — Jesse Wolff, Lauren’s boyfriend; and friends Corey Rossman, Mike Beth, Jay Rosenbaum and David Rohn, who all saw her during the last few hours before she disappeared — have retained lawyers.

    But the closing of the ranks among these young men and women might be more than just simply following legal advice.

    Experts say a psychological condition often kicks in during these types of crises that prevents people — typically those of college or high-school age — from doing the right thing.

    Lauren Spierer of Edgemont, N.Y., disappeared after a night out with friends June 3. She left a bar without her cellphone and shoes. She dropped her keys as she walked with another student to his apartment building here. And some of her actions and those of her friends were caught on surveillance cameras in Bloomington, Ind., where the 20-year-old was attending college.

    Often when teens or young adults close ranks they do it out of loyalty to someone who might be in trouble if the truth comes out, said Cohen, a former school psychologist.

    “That part that says ‘I have to protect my friend’ kind of kicks in,” he said. “It’s a sense of loyalty.”

    Social retaliation is another possible motivating factor if there is a group coverup at play in Indiana. The results of living a lie under such stressful conditions can be drastic, said Jennifer Spitz, a licensed clinical social worker at Westchester Jewish Community Services in North White Plains, N.Y.

    “I think, psychologically, it has the potential to be come an altered reality,” she said. “It becomes less and less conflictual as you get more removed from the actual event.”

    Police Chief Anthony Marraccini in Harrison, N.Y., said the issue of closing ranks is actually fairly common during investigations — particularly ones involving young people.

    • Clio
      06/25/2011 at 8:53 AM

      Yet, Bea, at least two of the three acted like teens — furtively keeping drugs in their drawers, photographing themselves having sex, scoping around for thirds, sending each other dopey cards, going out to clubs, etc. Indeed, their very lack of hosting skills indicates the level of arrested development that Ma’am still has to chosen to manage in her/his self-imposed “martyr-dom.”

    • Deb
      06/25/2011 at 7:08 PM

      Shelley Jones Mook has me intrigued.

  24. Bill Orange
    06/25/2011 at 1:10 PM

    Still trying to wrap my head around this whole settlement thing. Here’s my guess. (And again, I’ll point out that almost all of my predictions about this case have turned out to be wrong, so I’m mostly doing this to keep my streak alive.) This settlement–if it doesn’t fall through, as Bea has noted above–will involve only some of the charges and/or only one or two of the defendants.

    As to whether or not there will be any public statements, I suspect that we’re never going to hear a word about actual monetary sums. However, I would be very surprised if both parties didn’t at least issue some sort of statement to the press. Kathy Wone has accused these three men of being responsible for the death of her husband. If she now believes that this responsibility extends only to leaving a door unlocked, or if she thinks that Robert would’ve been killed regardless of the defendants’ actions, then I think she owes it to the defendants to say so publicly. Similarly, the defendants would want to issue a statement saying that they were targeted for prosecution because of their unconventional relationship, and they are glad that they have finally been able to fully explain themselves to Robert Wone’s widow.

    I wouldn’t buy any line about no one issuing a statement to protect the integrity of the investigation. The very act of settling would obviously change the dynamics there; it’s hard to see how public statements would really change things there.

    • Hoya Loya
      06/25/2011 at 4:11 PM

      Bill O:

      That’s my thinking — if Kathy thinks the guys are off the hook and is not settling simply because she can’t stomach another possibly unproductive trial, she has an obligation to say so and I’d expect the defendants to want to clear the air themselves.I would love to hear the explanations, if any, for some of the behavior we have questioned.

      As for the impact on the investigation, my thought is that if they have provided information leading to another suspect that neither side would want to give details so as not to cause prejudice or tip off the suspect prematurely.

      Overall, I think a settlement with no substantive comment from any quarter would be most telling.

      The idea that the settlement might be less than global is also intriguing. Regan’s statement would make perfect sense if that is the case.

      • Deb
        06/25/2011 at 7:11 PM

        Keep in mind: Lots of defendants here! Sometimes things are, indeed, “less than global”! (Nice turn, Hoya!) Let’s be patient.

      • Clio
        06/25/2011 at 7:42 PM

        Yes, a partial and limited truce may be a manuever by Ben to divide the satellites (Victor, Dyl) from their metropole (Joe). Papa, PapaRazi!

        Even if the settlement is “global”, though, can the transcripts of the depositions of at least Mr. Pring and the Texan be deposited in the National Archives in Philadelphia? The rougher edges of LGBT cultures do need the documentation for future analysis.

    • susan
      06/25/2011 at 11:55 PM


      If it only involved some of the charges my thought would be that a leak to the press would include that sidebar. My other speculation is in line with what I think you wrote in an earlier post–that Ms. W would settle if it came out in mediation that the civil trial wouldn’t bring about any resolution, etc. so. The only thing I wonder is, would Covington and Ms. W have received discovery info. from S. Morgan and all the others on their list by now? Would they have answers to questions from their witness list? If so that might add to their decision on how to proceed.

      • Bill Orange
        06/27/2011 at 11:03 PM

        “…that Ms. W would settle if it came out in mediation that the civil trial wouldn’t bring about any resolution…”

        I just don’t see how this would happen. If they’re in mediation saying that they’re going to invoke their 5th amendment rights, then Kathy Wone should go ahead with the trial. Dylan and Joe are both going to be dragged through so much mud that no one on earth is going to want to touch them without bathing in Purell afterwards, and Victor is going to be tainted by all of this, too. That’s going to be a powerful motivator to come clean. It’s one thing to publish a list of S&M gear. It’s quite another to have a TV newscaster saying, “Here’s how this thing is supposed to work.” It’s going to be totally humiliating. If they want to take the fifth, that’s fine. The penis plugs will pretty much say it all for them.

        • susan
          06/27/2011 at 11:36 PM

          From the news it looks like she/they (Covington and Ms. W) have settled with someone. Giving the benefit of the doubt I agreed with Hoya or you or whoever that perhaps she/they weighed their options and that might have included that nothing further would advance their cause. But who knows. I was speculating on the speculation.

        • susan
          06/28/2011 at 7:43 AM

          Bill O. Was just thinking re your statement re how a trial with the S&M gear info. coming out would be “humiliating” for the defendants. I wonder. The page, DW’s advertisements, the Eyecandy store, personal pics on the office computer, etc. At least two of these guys were already fairly well out there with their business, so to speak. But who knows.

          • Bill Orange
            06/28/2011 at 9:07 AM

            There’s a world of difference between what’s “public” on niche websites (where you’re typically not identified by your real name) and what’s on the nightly news. And I’m fairly convinced that the personal pics on the office computer are what cost Joe Price his job.

            Imagine alternateguy’s scenario, for a moment: Assume that someone else is arrested for the murder, and this person was wearing a helmet-cam at the time, and the video completely exonerates the three defendants of the murder of Robert Wone. Do you think Joe Price would have any reasonable chance of getting his old job back? Or even a similar job with the equivalent prestige or salary?

  25. Craig
    06/26/2011 at 12:25 PM

    From another trusted source, a interesting item: Settlement/dismissal could involve “certain defendants,” perhaps not all three.

    • AnnaZed
      06/26/2011 at 1:06 PM

      “Defendants” (plural), very interesting. (thanks Craig)

      • susan
        06/26/2011 at 1:18 PM

        Very interesting, indeed. If I were to venture a guess, I’d guess that JP will not be left off the hook. By all accts he was on an alleged spider-removal mission and he gave the key out to people he hadn’t named to police before, etc., etc. He was the friend with whom overnight arrangements were made.

        • susan
          06/26/2011 at 1:20 PM

          Re the spider-mission, by DW’s acct and JP’s he likely left the door open while he allegedly broke away from an indoor conversation with his just-arrived guest to off an errant spider.

        • Deb
          06/28/2011 at 6:41 PM

          Susan, I think you are very much on mark there. Robert was an invited guest. A homeowner has an obligation to secure his premises in such a way that the guest’s safety is protected.

          Had Robert slipped on a loose board or carpet on a stair tread and fell to his death, I think we would all easily agree that Joe failed to keep the stair tread in a secure and safe condition. I think we would all agree that Joe was negligent. I think the insurance company would have paid their limits for wrongful death a long time ago.

          The unlocked door is really no different than an insecure stair tread. True, someone could have broken in by force, but that did not happen. Additionally, the defendants themselves hinge everything that happened on that unlocked door. Their basic argument is “Had we not forgotten to lock the door, this never would have happened.”


          Perhaps the insurance has made offers that were rejected, forcing the Estate to file suit because of damages, but I just can’t imagine they’d have denied liability in this.

          The only thing I can think is there is an umbrella policy of 3 million or more, although I find it kind of difficult to believe that Joe would qualify for much more than that. So maybe it was worth it to defend to some degree in order to avoid a payment of their policy limits.

          Anyone who has ever applied for, received, or been rejected for an umbrella policy can tell you they are VERY picky! And they really don’t care how much money you make, or how high of a premium you might be willing to pay or able to afford. The only thing they care about is that they want to collect your premium and never have to pay out on your policy.

          Only the lowest claim risks get approved, and they question EVERYTHING (!) about your lifestyle during the application process. By all reports, Joe and Victor liked to entertain in the home, and that alone knocks you down several notches on the umbrella ladder because you face a larger exposure. I am a puny claim risk — my umbrella application investigator even said he’s never seen a lower risk rating than mine — but over two years of building toward it, I am still working on achieving my umbrella goal.

          Bottom line: big umbrella limits are not just handed out . . . not even to lawyers . . . not even to wealthy lawyers.

          SO! One thing I now fear is that perhaps their was material misrepresentation on some umbrella policy app that has come to light during discovery. If Joe/Victor misrepresented anything that would have altered the insurer’s decision to write the policy, then the policy is void and coverage would be disclaimed.

          The Lawyers would need to chime in here, but my expectation in that scenario would be that the insurer would move to be dismissed from Estate of Wone v. Price, et al, and then Price, et al would need to file against the carrier?

          • Bea
            06/28/2011 at 7:56 PM

            Hi Deb, even if the insurer offered full limits to Kathy, she likely refused in the hopes of getting more info. I really think that the insurer might be more inclined to seek a DJ (declaratory judgment) on the issue that it would not pay for “intentional” acts of the policy holders and that their hands are tied as to what CRIMINAL (and intentional) acts might have occurred because the defendants are not fully cooperating (i.e. taking the 5th on everything asked).

            As to misrepresentations on the policy application, it’s been a long time since I got my umbrella policy and I don’t recall what was asked that could have triggered for them to disclose “dangerous sexual practices” but you might be right.

          • AnnaZed
            06/28/2011 at 8:13 PM

            Hi Deb, thanks for this information. Tell me, wouldn’t having a prostitute live in your house and advertising on the internet for strangers to come to your house for sex constitute negligence?

            • susan
              06/28/2011 at 10:15 PM

              And Deb and AnnaZed, what about giving your key to a person with a criminal history (i.e., M. Price)? I wonder if MP had any prior breaking and entering troubles with the law.

              Also, re the spider, that might be their line, and maybe seeing live spiders on his patio triggers something in JP, but to me it would seem odd to break away from a just-arrived guest to unlock a door to off a spider. But, of course, anything est possible.

      • Bea
        06/27/2011 at 7:25 AM

        Oddly, this gives me a sense of calm.

        • alternateguy
          06/27/2011 at 6:48 PM


          In answer to your later(6/27) question and following comment about S&M.

          OK, at the risk of making a total fool of myself, a layman who is attempting remote psychoanalysis of people I’ve never met and whom I know relatively little about, let me suggest this.

          Suppose that the triple are just what they say they are. People who are gentle, caring for others, without harmful intent, generally liberal and non-violent. Suppose they are, in fact, so non-hurtful by nature, That they can act out their deepest sexual fantasies without fear of revealing anything hidden in themselves. Like innocent boys might play cowboys and Indians. No one gets hurt, it’s just child’s play.

          After all, they really don’t go out of their way to hide their sex play. Where is the guilt? What might seem REAL strange to outsiders like you and me, they openly consider just harmless play among loving, willing participants.

          Now, what if there comes into their realm a real sociopath? Someone, such as a neighbor or a friend of a relative, who has perhaps, in his history, been known to torture and kill animals just for the fun of it. Not child’s play where no one gets hurt including the pets, but real torture and killing of helpless creatures. Such a person can only survive adulthood by keeping his true nature a secrete. If he has hurt and even killed any person for pleasure, that fact must be kept a secret for his very survival.

          Such a person can not casually participate in games like sex torture or domination or the like. Such a person surely can’t advertise that they are into sex torture play or domination for fear of giving themselves up.

          Besides, to them, torture and domination play are simply not games.

          I can well imagine that if such a sociopath came into contact with truly innocent and gentle people who blithely carried out a wide variety of such play games without guilt, and who are so trusting that they don’t even bother locking their doors, then these people would represent some sort of threat to his very existence. They would need destroying. In some very cleaver way. He’ll show them! Because he’s the REAL master!

          Insane, you say? Yes, that we know. The killer was most likely as mad as a hatter.

          • Hoya Loya
            06/27/2011 at 9:24 PM


            As I’m sure you know, there is an animal torturer in the defendants’ orbit, although nobody has placed him at or near the scene of the murdere and his name and history did not come up in the criminal case.

          • Bea
            06/27/2011 at 9:31 PM

            Hey Alt,
            I am fine with anything consenting adults do behind closed doors. There’s been plenty of discussions here about S&M, what constitutes “safe” and the general theatre of it. I am “on board” with this, generally, having nothing whatever to do with the crime. I was being a bit snarky when you asked to look at the reading material of the defendants.

            One thing that has always been a possibility in my mind is that Joe and Dylan invited over a “third” for the twosome from Alt-dot-com and THAT person went nuts. Joe’s ad specifically mentioned that he liked torture and a few other things that might attract someone who was operating outside what they expected. If that was the case, however, I think they’d have told police that night that a “third” had come over and given them all the contact info. I can’t imagine a situation in which one would be so concerned about appearances that they’d let their friend’s murderer run free, concoct stories that would ruin life as they know it. Even if that night they were under the influence and not thinking clearly, once they were clear-headed AND they realized what they’d be facing, surely they would have told the truth – and let’s give them all benefit of the doubt. Maybe they got rid of the drugs. Maybe they got rid of the film/tapes/cameras. They knew that cops might not believe them initially that they weren’t involved.

            But with the high powered defense lawyers, and realizing that NO physical evidence tied them to the murder (and knowing by then that the blood evidence had been tainted by MPD’s screw up) absolutely they would have fingered the true killer – and, as worked so well for them here, it would have been three men’s testimony against the “trick.” And if he was a genuine psychopath, perhaps his resume wouldn’t have been as stellar as the three men.

            But there’s a thing called honor too – wouldn’t they “do the right thing” even if it made them look a little shady? Especially after Joe’d lost his job and everything hung in the balance?

            I don’t agree that a true sociopath or psychopath would NOT advertise for S&M partners. It doesn’t provide “evidence” to me that Joe is innocent – to me it shows that he’d continued going further and further down a path. Not that it would lead to murder, or that it’s “proof” that he was “likely” to murder, but it shows him to be increasingly desperate to please Dylan (and himself, sexually) and a strange sense of duplicity by stating that he “enjoys” torture yet would “rather not say” if he does drugs. That’s the lawyer in him – sex practices are legal provided that there is no exchange of money, but drugs are illegal.

            And, to me, if you WILL NOT do drugs, you simply answer NO to that question, not “rather not say” (and this from someone who “enjoyed” substances in my past).

            If not a “trick” or if not an invited guest (say, for example, brother Michael), then we’re back to the bizarre and incredibly unlikely break-in by a sociopathic/psychopathic killer who picked the right house, passed up on Dylan’s room, and all the rest. . . including that Joe and Victor did not check on Dylan or even call out his name.

            Frankly, if they suspected the “trick” or brother Michael had done this, and later learned of this impossibility, it’s even more likely that they’d explain their initial reluctance to tell the complete truth, IMHO. They had to WANT desperately to be out from under the shadow of criminal charges, of losing jobs, their “station in life” – and they could have done so by telling the complete truth.

            That’s where it all goes awry for me. How can three intelligent men let everything slip away from them to keep friends/family, even employers, from knowing they liked S&M or trolling the web for “thirds” (even putting up an ad) when all this and far worse was rumored then published in mainstream media as soon as the indictment hit?

            I disagree that the killer was “mad as a hatter” in the way you describe – a cold blooded killer, yes, but as you likely know, the two places where most sociopaths and psychopaths can be found are prisons and board rooms of the very successful. Often these folks are as slick as slick can be – and most don’t murder anyone, to be sure, but not because of concern re remorse or wrongfulness, but because some don’t have a desire to kill and others just don’t want to risk getting caught. Spill millions of gallons of oil in the ocean? Oh well. But even those lacking a desire to kill (we’re not talking SERIAL killer here necessarily) might go way off script if under the influence of serious drugs or a combination of drugs. Or if “the love of your life” takes something too far, perhaps that psychopath could behave way outside HIS ordinary boundaries – the very old theory that Robert was raped and so one of them had to “end” the possibility of Robert telling authorities comes to mind.

            I wish I knew what happened. I just can’t see a plausible theory for these three men NOT knowing more than they’re saying (just as Judge Leibovitz said in her opinion, despite the fact that the 3-way stalemate prevented her from finding ONE of them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt – VERY well played by the defense counsel to keep out the evidence of asphyxiation, the needle marks, the semen in Robert’s rectum, under the guise of it being too prejudicial for a jury, knowing then that it was not “of record”).

            We just disagree.

            • AnnaZed
              06/27/2011 at 11:21 PM

              As you say Bea, the possibility of any of these men covering for another person seems nil to me. I think that Dylan Ward is a very disturbed person and that sex games had a very different meaning for him than they did for Joe or any of the millions of others who practice them. I think that Ward murdered Robert Wone and that along with Joe’s shock and horror when he discovered this was his own freight of guilt over his own sexual tastes and that contributed to his defaulting to cover-up immediately.

              • Bill Orange
                06/28/2011 at 9:18 AM

                Dylan Ward’s interest in sex games has always seemed very clinical to me. He treats S&M manuals and websites the way most college freshman treat their textbooks. It’s like he’s cramming for a test. From my standpoint, it looks like he studies sex games the way he studied massage–he acts like a professional who is interested in satisfying the needs the a wide variety of clientele. I’ve wondered if the books on death were things that he was genuinely interested in, or if they were just things that he was “studying” in order to please Joe. A lot of people have brought up the image from the article in “The New Yorker”. But my recollection from the interviews is that it was Joe Price who commented on the unusual positioning of the body, not Dylan Ward.

                • AnnaZed
                  06/28/2011 at 12:16 PM

                  @Bill Orange re: a narrowing thread above:

                  Bill O, I’m not following you here. First, if memory serves it was Victor who spoke of how odd Robert’s positioning on the bed was specifically making reference to his arms.

                  In any case, it is not a matter of any of the defendants remarking on what they thought of the positioning of Robert after death but rather a matter of investigators making special note that (a.) not only did Robert’s body seem to have been positioned (at all, as opposed just being in a natural position that he might have expired into) but also (b.) when inventorying Dylan’s room they were struck by the significant similarity between the position of The Bard in Steadman’s illustration in The New Yorker found in Dylan’s room and the positioning of Robert’s body just across the hall. Here is the blog’s first post about that where we can see the illustration: David makes the point that if the magazine had been closed and just in a stack that would have been one thing, but that the magazine was open to this illustration was very striking to these detectives. I can certainly relate to any investigating officer who might have been chilled by it.

                  While this illustration is hardly the linchpin of my theory of Dylan Ward as alpha perpetrator in this crime it is certainly a contributing element. In fact, up-thread I gave an indication of my almost completely schizophrenic attitude about this and other Ward reading matter and I can extend that to his sex accouterments collection. Which is to say that while I myself owned that magazine and some of the same books or similar books and may well even have other possessions in common with Ward (knives certainly), as do many thousands of people and that having such reading matter and possessions is not on the face of it an indicator of predisposition to homicide; that I think that the influence of these ideas and the suggestion of these objects combined with unique opportunity, certainly that Joe would go to any lengths to protect him, illegal drug abuse, prescription drug abuse (prescription drugs taken by a person who habitually takes illegal drugs always amounts to additional drug abuse in my book because the practitioner prescribing can not know of the combined effects so can not defensibly prescribe with any expectation of curative or salutary outcome) and mental illness formed a perfect storm of personality and circumstance that lead Dylan Ward to murder Robert Wone.

                  Having said all of that, good point as to Ward’s orientation towards text as workbooks. I now wish that I could find the title of that mystery book that was mentioned as being on the bedside table because that might be more suggestive.

                • Alternateguy
                  06/28/2011 at 2:19 PM

                  I’ve always thought that the magazine tie-in was a REAL stretch. It was the just out current issue of The New Yorker, for one thing. Not something Dylan could have long dwelt on.

                  If Dylan had spent some time in his room after the murder, wouldn’t he have hidden the image away just a bit, if it had so moved him to crime?

                  Except for laying on a bed face-up and being dead, where does the “Exact Position” idea come from? For one thing, both Joe and Victor say that Joe repositioned the arms before the EMT got there.

                  Statements such as that the picture was of a “Stabbed” Shakespeare have run rampant here. That shows the need to make more of the thing than there is. The Shakespeare in the picture is not stabbed.

                  No, in my view, the Shakespeare picture tie-in is just about the thinnest lead that has been discussed. Even if some principal in the case had been a poet, playwright or thespian, it would still be thin.

                  That the investigators made such a big thing of this, rather shows me how intense their need was to prove the household members guilty of something.

                  I wonder. Did the police even take pictures of Robert before the EMTs transported him? How the heck did they know so much about his “Exact position?”

                • Cara
                  06/28/2011 at 5:07 PM

                  Agree with you that Dylan was “studying” up on how to practice a role (and one that may have been required in order to earn his keep, as it were).

                  Would also add that their own representation that they were a “family” or trying to become a “family-like” three-person relationship seems to have been disingenuous.

              • Bill 2
                06/28/2011 at 10:24 AM

                Scott Hixson may have more insight into the interests of Dylan Ward. We know Hixson hopped into bed with Price and Ward, but he also met up with Ward after that. You have to wonder if investigators looked into the Hixson-Ward coupling to learn more about Ward’s S&M interests.

            • Emily
              06/28/2011 at 9:45 AM

              “VERY well played by the defense counsel to keep out the evidence of asphyxiation, the needle marks, the semen in Robert’s rectum, under the guise of it being too prejudicial for a jury, knowing then that it was not “of record”).”

              I cannot believe that facts related to the condition of a suspicially dead body could be ruled to be too prejudicial to be entered into the record. That just flabbergasts me.

            • Alternateguy
              06/28/2011 at 12:04 PM


              You say,

              “I wish I knew what happened. I just can’t see a plausible theory for these three men NOT knowing more than they’re saying (just as Judge Leibovitz said in her opinion, despite the fact that the 3-way stalemate prevented her from finding ONE of them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt – VERY well played by the defense counsel to keep out the evidence of asphyxiation, the needle marks, the semen in Robert’s rectum, under the guise of it being too prejudicial for a jury, knowing then that it was not “of record”).”

              I too wish that we all knew what happened.

              I don’t think that it was any 3-way stalemate that prevented Judge Leibovitz from finding a guilty party. It was an almost total lack of solid evidence and motive.

              I thought I recall reading that the evidences you mention, were presented in court and that the defense rebutted them with their own expert testimony. (Such as that the semen presence was disclosed by a test not designed for that particular use and that it could have been caused by seepage.) Am I wrong?

              I’ve always thought folks give way too much credence to Judge Leibovitz’s unusual remarks that the triple knew more than they were saying. I have no doubt that she was frustrated and disturbed by the case. Personally, I suspect she, being a straight shooter herself, might have placed way too much faith in the police insistence that they had conducted a thorough investigation and that there was zero likelihood of an intruder.

              I see that as a C.Y.A. attempt by police to draw attention from their entirely muffed investigation. From what I’ve read, virtually the entire police focus was directed towards the triple in the beginning. Next-door neighbors were questioned only days later, etc. etc. The victim’s Blackberry lost! What are police going to say? “We totally blew it?” Not the words of any bureaucrats I’ve ever heard of.

              The theory, for the trio NOT knowing more than they said, is the theory that there was an intruder for whom the only evidence found, by they or anyone else, was the murder itself.

              You say that’s not plausible. In my view, it is slightly more plausible than the various theories, which have been run up the flagpole so far, showing guilty knowledge of one or more of the three.

              • Hoya Loya
                06/28/2011 at 12:47 PM


                There was actually a fair amount of evidence — the problem was that very little of it could be directly connected with each defendant individually, particularly on the specific charges of tampering, obstruction and conspiracy, as opposed to murder or manslaughter. Had there been only one person in the house, there might have been a tampering or obstruction conviction.

                As to Bea’s “well played” comment, we should keep in mind that the only major exclusion by the judge were the S&M restraints. The prosecution opted not to introduce evidence of trace amounts of Xylene found in Robert’s blood and opted not to focus on the burst blood vessels in the eyes or semen found (though these came in through the M.E.’s report) — still well played by the defense because they made it clear they were going to dispute the significance of these facts at length and convinced the prosecution to try a more streamlined case on the facts that were tougher to dispute.

                • Alternateguy
                  06/28/2011 at 1:54 PM


                  Thanks for the information and your clear, as always, explanations.

                  I don’t recall that much PROOF of tampering having taken place was found, except for the somewhat oblique admission by Joe that he had cleaned up some blood.

                  Not necessarily a guilty action, except that it would be classified as tampering.

                  I can clearly see how not having verification of that action by the others could have caused the judge to feel that the defendants were not telling all that they knew.

                  But for her to go on and suggest that they are covering up evidence that could lead to finding the murderer?

                  I just don’t know.

                  To me, that’s blaming the police failure to find evidence on the suspects.

                  Which, after all, was probably what the system was doing in bringing the charges. “Don’t blame us for not solving the crime; these perverts destroyed all of the evidence.”

                  • Bea
                    06/28/2011 at 2:26 PM

                    Alt, Judge L could have found against Joe (as Hoya has stated in past posts) on tampering but her opinion is well-reasoned as to the evidence NOT allowing to say which one (or more) of the three did what/knew what. She knew what was “of record” and what wasn’t yet concluded (dicta) that no “unknown intruder” was inside that night. Unless you can come up with a plausible explanation, I think it’s time to put the ninja to bed.

                    • Alternateguy
                      06/28/2011 at 2:45 PM

                      Ninjas, cat burglars, prowlers, disgruntled neighbors, friends, relatives, insane opportunists, contractors; all were put to bed from the very first night.

                      In my opinion, Not a real logical thing to do. But best not to awaken a sleeping embarrassment.

    • Clio
      06/26/2011 at 7:31 PM

      Another trusted source, eh, Craig? Could it be the case’s possible “Deep Throat” himself — Spag?

      Any settlement would have to be with Dyl because Dyl probably has nothing to settle. His (aging) body, a massage mat, and a few spa creams for his customers may make up his primary assets: he must, though, have a phone, car (not a Mercedes), and maybe a laptop to keep in touch with his most loyal clients. He is indeed small potatoes, compared to his upper middle class parents. What ever happened to the American dream in which children always do better than their parents: did it skip a generation in the Ward family? And, Dyl probably has not bought a New Yorker magazine since 2006: one wonders why!

      • Hoya Loya
        06/27/2011 at 1:07 PM


        My thought would be that a partial settlement would be more likely with the two defendants who we know for sure are insured and who have alibis for each other. Or that if only one has settled, that maybe Victor finally tired of defending the matter.

        • David
          06/27/2011 at 1:27 PM

          I am wondering how a each-man-for-himself attitude might affect the trouple’s living situation in Miami Shores, as they are all still living together under the same roof (from most recent reports.)


          • Bea
            06/27/2011 at 2:06 PM

            Can only be good for “the truth” – whether that is good for any/all the defendants remains to be seen.

          • Alternateguy
            06/27/2011 at 3:48 PM

            Yes, I’d heard the same thing regarding their living situation. Perhaps they still know nothing and having seen nothing, consider themselves to be like the “Three Blind Mice.” (See how they run!) Their interesting life stories (Tales) were cut off. But who is the farmer’s wife? One of them, a friend, neighbor, who?

          • Clio
            06/27/2011 at 10:36 PM

            Sharing the same roof? I trust that they are not sharing anything else: why would Victor allow that train wreck to (continue endlessly to) happen?

            Furthermore, if I were a friend, then I would probably not sleep over at their house — even if it be, per chance, in Miami. But that’s just me.

        • Bill Orange
          06/27/2011 at 11:18 PM

          I can imagine any combo of 2 against 1, to be honest. And a skilled mediator could’ve split them an

          Joe and Victor against Dylan makes sense, for the reasons you suggest.

          But also:

          1. Victor and Dylan may have gotten tired of Joe being the leader of the pack and calling all the shots, which has bought them multiple lawsuits.

          2. Dylan–who is nobody’s fool–could have “rekindled” his romance with Joe and convinced him to toss Victor under the bus. The two of them could live happily ever after, and they would only need to hire someone new to water the plants.

          • Cara
            06/28/2011 at 4:50 PM

            Very sensible speculations, certainly. However, I can’t help but think that there has *got* to be a reason why Victor is still in the mix in the relationship, esp. considering that he is at least somewhat employed/employable and has had a supportive family on his side…

            What that reason is, I couldn’t guess. True love? That alone doesn’t seem to explain it. Perhaps he is absolutely sure of what he knows, and what he knows doesn’t implicate his partner in a way that precludes their continued alliance.

            Question: could the possible settlement be predicated on a deal being offered to Dylan, and the other parties’ being informed as to what he will testify under such an arrangement?

            Thanks again to WMRW editors and contributors for your good work and thoughts.

  26. susan
    06/26/2011 at 1:23 PM

    Just as an aside, I heard, for the first time, a report from Lisa Desjardins on WTOP radio. I listen fairly frequently (“for news, traffic and weather”)and I can’t recall hearing her on there before. The topic was Congressional staffer bonuses. Wonder if K. Wone speaks with her anymore.

    • Clio
      06/26/2011 at 4:46 PM

      I wonder why Lisa G. has not made a public statement on the Wone case since the funeral: would such a show of journalistic interest interfere with her air time? And, if she is still supporting Joe, what does that say about her as a reporter?

      • Bill Orange
        06/27/2011 at 11:20 PM

        She can’t cover it as a journalist, because she’s obviously biased. And few other people have made public statements about the case.

  27. Craig
    06/27/2011 at 1:05 PM

    We’ll do some more poking around, but have heard that this could be a long way away from being settled. Don’t go making vacation plans for October just quite yet.

    • Clio
      06/27/2011 at 10:02 PM

      “Poking around,” Craig, does sound a bit age-inappropriate, but do what one must — short of starring in one of Mr. Pring’s tableaux — to get the real story! I was so looking forward to combining the trial with an autumn-leaves tour of the Shenandoah Valley, but your latest bit of intelligence gives me hope that, not only will that particular sojourn be possible, but, much more importantly, that a soupcon of justice for Robert may still be in the cards. At this point, one has to take all the crumbs that one can get!

      • susan
        06/27/2011 at 10:57 PM

        Clio–“Mr. Pring’s Tableaux”-sounds like it could be the name of a film or book. For all we know, it is the latter. The big q is whether anyone from Swann St. stars.

        • susan
          06/27/2011 at 10:58 PM


  28. Bill 2
    06/27/2011 at 3:14 PM

    Off topic for “Settled?” but on topic for WMRW?

    Several months ago the police chief was asked about the Wone investigation during a radio call-in. Her reply didn’t reveal any hint that there is much activity with this case.

    How would she have replied to, “Has anyone involved in the peripheral of this case been re-interviewed in 2011?” I’m thinking of Michael Price and his partner, Sarah Morgan and her TV-watching friends, Scott Hixson and other sex partners, etc.

    Is Robert Wone just a single line on a page listing “Unsolved Murders” on Chief Lanier’s desk? When was the last time she reviewed this case?

    Is anyone asking Chief Lanier if there’s any progress on this case?

    • Bill 2
      06/27/2011 at 9:17 PM

      And when it comes to someone “asking Chief Lanier” about this case, is there anyone above her who even knows enough about this case to ask if there’s any progress? Is the DC Mayor or any DC commissioner aware of the murder of Robert Wone? If not, they can’t be expected to ask if the investigation is still active.

      People in government, no matter if it’s a local or federal government, need a push from the people on the outside to get them to move. For the past five years, I’ve spent a lot of time on the phone with members of Congress regarding the repeal of DADT and the past two weeks became acquainted with dozens of State Senators in New York via e-mail. It’s pressure from the outside that gets the attention of those people.

      If I still lived in the DC area, the mayor’s office and people who work with some of the City Commissioners would know my name. When people in Missouri Congressman Ike Skelton’s (Chmn. of House Armed Service Committee) office heard me on the phone, they knew I was calling about DADT. It would be great if some people reading this forum in the DC area became known in some city offices as a caller with an interest in the progress of the Robert Wone murder investigation.

      • Bill Orange
        06/27/2011 at 11:27 PM

        Reminder: The attorney general of the United States is personally involved in this case. While he has recused himself from any professional involvement, you can be fairly certain that he’s watching this case, and everyone under him knows it. While there may not be much motivation on the part of the MPD to INVESTIGATE this case, there is a VERY powerful incentive for the US Attorney’s office to prosecute it.

        • Bill 2
          06/28/2011 at 10:11 AM

          While Eric Holder has an interest in this case, he’s got a lot on his plate so how often does he have time to call for updates, if ever? If we could be sure that the US Attorney’s office had even half the interest in prosecuting as some of the people who visit this blog daily, that would be a plus, but Robert Wone’s case is one of many things on their “to do” list. Do they ever prod the police chief to put the investigation on the front burner?

          Just as we’re putting out ideas of what changes may have resulted in talks of a partial settlement, there is a possibility that one or two of the people on the peripheral of this case may be ready to tell the rest of what they know; things they withheld from the investigation from several years ago.

          The DC officials who have the final say in the hiring and firing of the police chief need to be moved into a greater awareness of this case. They see blurbs in the media now and then but they need to hear from the public in order to focus greater attention on updating the investigation.

  29. AnnaZed
    06/27/2011 at 10:39 PM

    @HoyaLoya [from too short thread above] In fairness to Dylan I has that copy of The New Yorker on my bedside table that week as well as the book about bodies that you mention, Mary Roach’s book Stuff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers which was a sort of perverse and immensely popular book that year and the mystery novel as well in my house (the title of which I have forgotten). I also have some books about S&M actually; like this one, Different Loving: The World of Sexual Dominance and Submission

    **those urls are to Amazon pages for those books

    That said, I still believe that Dylan murdered Robert (possibly with another person) and that Joe covered for him and that Victor was at first not in on it but subsequently must have been. I also think that settlement or not that we will eventually hear from little Dyl again in a sort of Joran van der Sloot kind of way, but I don’t think this based on his reading habits.

    • susan
      06/27/2011 at 11:01 PM


      I should have finished reading the posts since I wondered about the titles. Still wonder what else was in the collection.

      • Clio
        06/27/2011 at 11:50 PM

        Susan, perhaps, Dyl’s library included Anna Karenina or Geek Love or, most surprising, Colm Toibin’s The Master! But then again, Dyl may be more of a Samuel Delaney fan: one never knows!

    • Hoya Loya
      06/28/2011 at 12:18 AM


      Indeed, no one should be judged based on their library in a free society. Yet, while you and Dylan may have a shared taste in literature, you did not have a dead guest in your home, which can’t help but put his collection in a rather different light.

  30. AnnaZed
    06/27/2011 at 10:40 PM

    **correction** Make Mary Roach’s book title Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers make more sense that way.

  31. susan
    06/27/2011 at 10:54 PM

    Hoya (or anyone else who might know), do you know the names of the books you mentioned? Also, I wonder how large his library was overall and what else it included. In any case, the two you mention seem noteworthy.

  32. Bea
    06/27/2011 at 11:19 PM

    Here Here! I’ve seen far less complicated matters dissolve while writing the agreement – undoubtedly many of the terms will be open for debate (not the least of which is what both sides can “say” and whether there is any condition of the equivalent of an allocution). I don’t see Kathy Wone just walking away with cash.

  33. AnnaZed
    06/28/2011 at 2:25 PM

    “…For one thing, both Joe and Victor say that Joe repositioned the arms before the EMT got there.”

    No they didn’t.

  34. cdindc
    06/28/2011 at 7:41 PM

    Heard a brief news video today…….a local civil attorney was interviewed and her opinion on the settlement was that it was probably settled out of court due to the fact that both sides would be “dragged through the mud.” There would be a lot of negative testimony on both sides. The attorneys representing Price, Zaborsky and Ward would attempt to dish it out just as harshly as the Wone attorneys. She suggested that it would get very ugly in the courtroom……so to avoid the heartache, an out of court settlement.

    • dennis
      06/28/2011 at 10:16 PM

      She was interviewed by “ABC 7 News” and the “news” was already broadcasted earlier. No new content.

      • cdindc
        06/28/2011 at 10:57 PM


    • Bill Orange
      06/29/2011 at 2:04 AM

      The only way I can see “both sides” being dragged through the mud is if Robert Wone really was on the down-low. I’ve seen no evidence of this thus far, and I really can’t imagine a scenario where the defendants would NOT have brought this up during the criminal trial.

      • CDinDC
        06/29/2011 at 9:35 AM

        I thought that as well, BillO. And agree that there is no evidence of Robert being on the down-low. But that doesn’t stop someone from spinning tales to deflect responsibility for Robert’s death. If these men did, indeed, murder Robert Wone (or cause his death), they continue to lie about it. If you can lie about that, you can lie about anything.

        • Jeana
          06/29/2011 at 10:21 PM

          Even assuming solely for the purpose of argument (there being no supporting evidence that we know of) that Robert was either (1) a closeted gay, (2) looking to experiment, (3) agreeing to a threesome, or even (4) meeting up with an as yet unidentified lover, how do any of those scenarios culminating in his murder let the trouple off the hook?

          • Bill Orange
            06/30/2011 at 12:05 PM

            Whoops. I just posted the same thing before I saw this. Thread’s getting too damn long!

      • Clio
        06/30/2011 at 1:19 AM

        I don’t think Spag would stoop that low, but his colleagues may insinuate that Robert put himself in that situation for less than savory reasons. They would blame the victim for leaving his ailing wife at home, and they would muddy the waters just enough for a jury to do a Lynn. Disgusting!

        One would hope that Spag would moderate the natural tendency of defense lawyers to portray any victim as a co-perp, but I’m not holding my breath!

        • Bill Orange
          06/30/2011 at 12:00 PM

          Honestly, the more I think about it, the more ridiculous it becomes. Even if you stipulate that Robert Wone was secretly a gay man who went over to Swann Street that night to party and play, how exactly does that help the defendants? It makes them far MORE likely to be involved in his death, not LESS. Unless you think a man on the down-low called in a secret trick to house at which his was a guest, asked him to scale the back fence, let him in the back door, and then the two of the snuck upstairs undetected, had a falling out that led to Robert being stabbed to death, and then the trick again snuck out of the house undetected and re-scaled the back fence to escape. Otherwise, the defendants HAD to be involved.

          Sorry, but a flock of ninjas makes more sense than this.

  35. Bea
    06/28/2011 at 8:28 PM

    To Alt regarding his comment today at 2:45pm: so you’re saying that the cops gave up on all ninjas too soon, and you disagree with Judge L’s conclusion that there was no “unknown intruder” BUT you dodged my question. In other words, you don’t hazard even a guess as to a theory involving an “unknown intruder” (including your raving psychopath) which would also address at least a majority of the “loose ends” that would need to be mentioned. To me, the biggest ones (other than the amazing luck of scaling a fence with an unlocked door) are (1) why didn’t Joe/Victor see if Dylan was okay or also stabbed; (2) how the intruder could arrive and leave so quickly yet puncture Robert with needles AND cause an eye rupture suggesting asphyxiation AND get Robert’s own semen into Robert’s rectum (not anus, rectum); (3) despite the blood evidence inadmissibility due to misuse of Ashley’s reagent, why and WHEN did the unknown intruder stop to clean blood off the walls and ceiling (and likely Robert himself); (4) why was Robert lying diagonally on top of turned down bed linens and making only one indentation in the pillow yet was sleeping so soundly that the door was unlatched and the killer could stab him three times without any movement from Robert whatever; (5) why the unknown intruder would go to the opposite side of the bed or wiggle behind the headboard in order to make 10/4 o’clock knife wounds – to be fair, maybe he liked stabbing with the blade up; (6) how this could occur without a sound – same with ascending and descending wooden stairs – even though Joe could hear a door chime and J/V could hear “low breathy grunts”; (7) how it’s possible that Robert groaned even when Joe was tending to him if he’d been killed instantly – necessary to explain the lack of any defensive movement OR if he hadn’t been killed instantly via cardiac tamponade why there wasn’t a tremendous amount of blood on Robert’s body and around him; (8) where ALL of Robert’s blood WENT; (9) why Dylan didn’t hear “low breathy grunts” from Robert but instead heard “high pitched screams that sounded like laughs”; and (10) just to cut this list short, why the unknown intruder scaled back over the fence instead of using the gate door – which, remarkably, would have been obvious since it would no longer have been in the “locked” position, AND how Joe came to just “guess” that it remained “locked.”

    It would seem that you’d have to go down the route of someone “framing” these guys – just a guess – but if so, why wouldn’t the three of them “give up the goods” on someone trying to do them such damage? I realize this sounds snarky, and it is a little, but I’ve never seen anyone who genuinely believes that the defendants know NOTHING and did NOTHING wrong be willing to suggest something which would explain these “strange” facts. This is only a partial list – there’s the timeline problem with the neighbors hearing the scream, the “issue” of the knife, that even if Dylan’s knife is tossed out, why a murderer would enter the home WITHOUT a weapon, WHY and HOW did he manage to wipe his prints off all the door knobs and the fence (not just the knife) – and if he was smart enough to enter wearing gloves, wouldn’t he have remembered to bring a weapon?

    I’m sure I’m forgetting some major “problems” that would arise if one tried to come up with a reasonable theory of an unknown intruder – even the WHY would someone pick Robert to kill when most murders are attached to passion or burglary/other motive.

    I do wonder why none of the guys ask Joe “is he alive?” and even when the 911 dispatcher wants to know about pulse and breathing and consciousness, Joe doesn’t really give much of an answer and then Victor appears to change the subject. And that takes me right back to the first words spoken:

    “We had someone . . . in our house, evidently,” Zaborsky said, “and they stabbed somebody.”

    “Are they bleeding?” the operator asked. “Is someone bleeding?”

    “Yes,” said Zaborsky. “Someone is bleeding in our house.”

    I realize that everyone reacts differently, that stress and shock might make for some awkward sentences, but this smelled wrong from the beginning – almost that Robert was “wrong” to bleed on their possessions. Too, too weird.

    • Cara
      06/28/2011 at 8:39 PM

      If, at the time of the call, he even *was* bleeding. :/

      • Bea
        06/28/2011 at 10:07 PM

        Good point.

    • susan
      06/28/2011 at 10:20 PM

      I think Bea, that with every response from Alt you must bear in mind that he has shared on this site that his friend is a good friend of J. Price and the accusations have been hard on his friend. Therefore, no matter what points you make he will find a ninja.

      I don’t know; maybe there was. Having no dogs in this race except justice (“except”? Actually, I think that’s the Big Dog in this race and I’m rooting for it)I’m open to all.

      But back to Alt. Alt: What’s the latest with your friend? Have you met J. Price yet? Full disclosure, please! Does your friend stay in touch regularly? Please share. Thanks.

      • Bea
        06/28/2011 at 11:17 PM

        I’m all for Justice as well – and I would really love it if the gay community didn’t get a black eye from these former poster boys for the gay community (well, except Dylan). I just don’t see how it’s possible they don’t know something more (and meaningful) than they’re saying.

        I too know one person who knew Joe fairly well in a professional context for a period of years. I do have empathy for those who love these guys – must be hell. And much easier to bury your head in the sand about the things that don’t make sense than to ask yourself (let alone the three guys) the hard questions.

        Would love to know what exactly Alt’s tie to Joe may be, whether it’s one or two degrees of separation, and if he has a personal opinion of the guy.

        FWIW, the guy I know wasn’t willing to say much about Joe personally, or even his personal opinion of him, except to say that his “take” on it was that he doubted that Joe did the actual stabbing of Robert.

        • susan
          06/28/2011 at 11:47 PM


          Person A in a professional role and person A in a drug and party role may be two diff. people (as I know you know) and many people have diff. sides. I know I do. I’m sure that each of those guys has had a positive impact on the lives of some others. I’d bet money on it. But I hope those same devoted friends read this website very carefully, including all the legal docs. And then I hope they ask their dear friends about the statement re cleaning up and freaking out about the blood (how was the cleaning up done? When? At what point?), about not checking on DW after finding RW, etc., etc. Lots of good questions out there for good friends to just ask. And then I hope if they get valid responses–perhaps responses that would defend the defendants–they will share them with the police, this website, etc.

          • Bea
            06/29/2011 at 12:07 AM

            Susan, very good point. I didn’t mean to suggest I was in the same position as Alt. I think, too, that his presence here is a positive (even if we engage in online bickering from time to time).

            I do wonder whether the loved ones and very good friends of these three have had genuine “sit downs” (other than a cursory – “did you have anything to do with his death”) with these guys. I’ve read here that Lisa G believes in Joe, yet with her background in journalism, I wonder if she’s ever asked really hard questions. They must pop up in her head from time to time, especially because she was Robert’s friend too. We know that Jason Torchinsky, a friend of both men, began to wonder about Joe as soon as Joe asked him to get Kathy to waive the attorney-client privilege, and that things stopped making sense to Tara Ragone. I’d be curious to know how many people who got the “funds request” email still believe the three have told all that they know – or if some had already began to question the story.

            I understand the immediate pull to side with your loved one/friend, to give him the “I’m with you” support. And I assume that for some, NOT questioning goes without saying. Too, I “get” loving someone no matter what they did, although there (for me, anyway) I’d have to balance reason with love. I don’t know think my love for someone would disappear if they stayed silent on a murder, but I’m fairly certain I’d stay on them to tell the truth. If they’d murdered someone, I suppose I could still love them, but I don’t know if I could remain silent. On that one, I think I’d have to say I can’t say for sure.

    • susan
      06/28/2011 at 10:37 PM


      Good arguments there. Re #6, I’ve always broken down how each woke up and what they heard but I guess it sort of just hit me how convenient it was that All Three Residents didn’t hear anything at all. Of course, when their hearing kicked in, the alleged intruder was out of the house. Great fortune! So much doesn’t make sense from the perspective of an “intruder.”

      Re ABC news report from days ago, I wonder if in fact there was “dirt” that the defense threatened to bring to the fore and what that could mean. Anything or nothing I suppose.

      • Bea
        06/28/2011 at 11:09 PM

        My guess on the settlement is that the two sides might have agreed to a dollar number BUT then it broke down quickly based on whether/to what the “allocution” by defendants might have to include or even what each side was willing to “allow” the other side to say publicly. In a complex situation such as this, it’s quite cumbersome to address the “minor” points which, to an aggrieved party or one defending his “honor”, are no longer “minor” at all. Two businesses settling a dispute are not nearly so invested in the “details” yet settlements often fall apart during the haggling of writing the agreement. It’s not at all uncommon because figuring out the biggest problem doesn’t mean the less important ones are addressed at all during discussions.

        • Bill Orange
          06/29/2011 at 2:22 AM

          I just can’t see this. I don’t see her settling with all three of them on all aspects of the suit. I could see a settlement on, say, the negligence charge. I could see a settlement with Victor if he said, “Look, I came downstairs, found Joe and Dylan standing over your dying husband, and immediately called 911. Joe told me it was an accident, and I agreed to lie for him that night, and I’ve regretted it ever since. I’ll take any sort of lie detector test you want me to take to convince you that I’m telling the truth.” Similarly, I could see a settlement with Dylan if he said, “Look, everything I said was true–I take some really powerful drugs before I go to bed at night, so I went to sleep and didn’t wake up until I heard Joe and Victor arguing. And yes, I’m CERTAIN they were arguing. They didn’t sound panicked or scared or like they were trying to help an injured friend; they sounded like they were screaming at each other over something one of them had done. And I’ll take as many lie detector tests as you want.”

          But a total settlement? I’m not seeing it. It’s also possible that one of the above scenarios was offered to one or more of the three, and they bombed the lie detector test, which would pretty much kill the deal.

        • Bill Orange
          06/29/2011 at 2:25 AM

          Another thought on this. Kathy Wone would’ve gone into mediation and said to the mediator, “Look, I just want to know what happened to my husband, and I don’t think they’re telling me the whole truth.” At that point–and I’m asking this of the pros who work with professional mediators–could the mediator have simply suggested that everyone take a lie-detector test?

      • Alternateguy
        06/29/2011 at 3:26 AM


        It’s funny, but what you seem to see as a good argument suggesting guilt, I see as quite the opposite. Apparently you consider the story of what they heard to be a made up one.

        If that were true, WHY DID THEY NOT SAY THAT THEY HEARD THE SOUND OF SOMEONE LEAVING? That they heard no one leaving was what aroused suspicion. Evidence of an intruder was ESSENTIAL to their story, yet they left all evidence of that out. Where is the good fortune for them? Hearing nothing sure doesn’t sound like a made-up story of much value to them.

        • Hoya Loya
          06/29/2011 at 1:22 PM

          A made-up story would need to be as simple as possible so that it could be repeated consistently. “We didn’t hear the intruder” is a simple as it gets.

          The are doubts about the claim because the house is tiny with an open floor plan and no carpeting. Notably, one defense expert who was dropped from the criminal trial was an acoustical expert, presumably because he could not support the contention that even a quiet intruder would not be heard in the “sardine can.”

          • alternateguy
            06/29/2011 at 3:08 PM

            One can live in a travel trailer and still not hear someone sneaking around the next room, carpet or none. The use of the discription “sardine can.” was clearly an exaggeration.

            • AnnaZed
              06/29/2011 at 3:12 PM

              What is a travel trailer?

              • alternateguy
                06/29/2011 at 3:39 PM

                Just about the smallest home one can live in. Generally a portable home with kitchenette and tiny bath, towed behind a truck for camping or vacation. Many poor people end up living in old travel trailers, at least temporarily. An Airstream is an example of a high-end travel trailer.

        • susan
          06/29/2011 at 7:18 PM


          “Apparently you consider…” I have no idea what your referencing but unless I give a definitive, categorical opinion, please don’t supply one for me.

          I’ll put this in lowercase for you because the point stands just as well without caps: J. Price did believe he heard the door chime at some point. You really should read the testimony, etc. I’ve suggested that before.

          • AnnaZed
            06/29/2011 at 8:02 PM

            Susan, you are too polite (though it is graceful).

            I am left again to wonder why, oh why, at this particular time we are being induced to break down every single item of minutiae (again and again and again) for someone who claims to be so close to the case that he knows the defendants yet instigates ten then twenty posts of back and forth to establish then reestablish then ignore the basic facts of the murder? It is tedious in the extreme.

            • susan
              06/29/2011 at 8:48 PM

              I completely agree with you, AnnaZed. I generally only skim those posts. I don’t have the patience. I’m all for different voices but not when those voices suggest RW stabbed himself. At that point there’s too much root-root-rooting for the (Swann) home team to the point of absurdity.

    • Alternateguy
      06/29/2011 at 2:39 AM


      Thanks for taking the time to give me such a comprehensive list. I admit that I don’t have a theory that accounts for all of these things, but, as far as I can tell, neither does anyone else. Let me begin by trying to tackle these one at a time, giving my opinion.

      1. The fact that Joe didn’t check on Dylan, while, it may seem a bit strange, is far from being unexplainable under the circumstances.

      Was Joe ever asked if he had called for Dylan?

      2. If the killer did do all or some of the things suggested by the original autopsy report, that would have taken more time than the two minutes in the guess of the time frame as given by the half-asleep Joe’s recollection of the amount of time between hearing the chime and the grunts. And the findings of the autopsy report have been disputed.

      If Joe were lying and knew that more complex activity had taken place regarding Robert, why would he so limit the time frame?

      3. Of course an intruder would not have done a clean up. There was little or no SOLID proof that a clean up took place. There was a report that Joe had admitted to a clean up of some blood because he had “Freaked Out.” We do not know when and where that could have happened.

      Did Joe say that HE had freaked out or that SOMEONE freaked out? (Dylan?)

      4. Robert went to sleep quickly and soundly because he had had a full day? Maybe he thought that he’d lie down for a while before he took his shower and simply fell asleep. Doors can be opened rather quietly. Wouldn’t an intruder attempt to be stealthy?

      5. Is there a right way to hold a knife while stabbing? Knife handles have indentations for the fingers to grip. It seems to me that the kitchen cutting board position to use the knife would be with the fingers curled around the handle’s finger grips with the cutting edge down. When using the knife in the stabbing position you would find your fingers also curled around the handle on the finger grip side, but now the cutting edge is on the upper side.

      6. Intruders with evil intent do try to be stealthy. The door open chime was right in Joe’s room and always woke him.

      7. Even dead bodies have been known to make groaning sounds due to escaping air. In Robert’s case, he wasn’t clinically dead. His heart may have stopped beating. Joe said that he searched for a pulse but didn’t say if he found one. The moan might have been very soft. The EMTs found electrical activity and so transported him immediately.

      8. Those questions about blood quantity are in dispute and have been explained in various ways. Chest tubes, a heart that stopped beating, etc. Explanations regarding incapacitating drugs, then elaborate sexual attack, followed by methodical stabbing then elaborate cleanup simply involves more time than was available from the time Robert arrived. Particularly unless the attack was immediate, and yet there was no sign of struggle.

      9. Dylan was closer and half-asleep. Joe was half asleep. We don’t really know if Robert made the sounds or if they heard the same sounds. We can’t say the story was rehearsed, agreed upon and inconstant at the came time can we?

      10. As I have explained before, my interpretation of the interviews is that Joe never guessed that the door remained locked but rather suggested that the killer COULD have gone out that gate.

      You wonder at Victor’s stating that someone has been stabbed and is bleeding in their house. Sounds to me like a simple effort to get the precise facts of the matter across during an emergency call for help.

      You ask why none of the guys asked if Robert was alive. (Neither did the 911 operator ask.) Perhaps no one in the household asked for the simple reason that they were afraid to hear the answer.

      For Joe to clearly state, “He’s not breathing.” “There is no pulse.” Would be like pronouncing Robert dead. I, for one, can surely understand his “Failure” to want to do that. In his mind, that might give the responders an excuse not to hurry.

      I can remember a case where an acquaintance of mine was pulled out of a burning house. The EMTs were there in the ambulance working on him when I arrived. I called his father, who arrived in minutes. We all stood around watching the EMTs work on him. The line on the scope remained flat. During those many long minutes, no one asked, “Is he alive?” Finally, after at least five or ten minutes, they removed the breathing apparatus and electric paddles and folded his hands over his chest and then transported him. None of us said a word throughout.

      All sorts of human behavior can seem suspicious depending on our mindset. I have learned nothing, so far, about the triple, to believe that they are capable of murder. Simply to say that no one else could have done this is just not good enough for me. Not one of them had an apparent motive. Not one of them had a history of violent crime. Nor was there a history of compulsive behavior. Much of their known behavior seems UNexplainable if they were guilty. Why would they call 911 with their own knife lying in/on/beside the victim? Why would Joe wipe up blood but leave his own fingerprints on the knife? If Joe believes Dylan is the murderer, why are they all still living together? (If they are.) Why would they be so willing and anxious to be interrogated at great length without lawyers present? Knowing that their entire alibi depended on there being an unknown intruder, why would they tamper with the scene but concoct no sign whatsoever suggesting the presence of an intruder?

      I guess that I have to admit, that my suspicion would point to Dylan, if I thought that the deed HAS TO have been done by one of the three suspects. But I don’t think that. Without any real solid evidence at all, I can’t begin to rule out an intruder of some kind. What kind? I don’t know. I would guess, it very possibly that someone who hated the triple because or their life-style killed Robert in order to destroy them, or perhaps simply to strike out at them, assuming him to be a part of their group.

      To all who ask: Someone whose opinion I trust, a levelheaded person not into drugs, is a friend of the suspects. That friend believes in them but doesn’t discuss the case with anyone. And doesn’t know that I’m posting here. Really, I’ve never met the suspects and just want to know the truth, while seeing them get a fair shake. And the benefit of any doubt.

      • Clio
        06/29/2011 at 9:04 AM

        Thanks, Alt, for this detailed critique, but, for me, all roads of inquiry lead back to the overweening ego of Culuket, who had accomplished a great deal since coming to the federal city at the turn of the century. He had secured a partnership at a respected law firm, and he had married well and had kids. Joe, to me, may be a sexual addict (much more than a sociopath), ready to throw all of that outward success away in an instant for the next quick and dangerous thrill of a sexual nature. Why would one advertise for “thirds” AFTER one is a person of interest in a murder with possible sexual overtones? Why would one keep intimate glamour shots of oneself on a work computer? At first, I too thought it was Dylan, but, to most observers, Mr. Ward is but a pitiful reflection of his much more successful family members — he couldn’t get anything done more complicated than a ninety-minute outcall or a 1,000-word children’s fable! And, when he was needed — either for lifesaving or home defense or clean-up/cover-up, he sat catatonic on the couch.

        • Alternateguy
          06/29/2011 at 10:26 AM


          I must admit that you make good points, particularly so in your discussion of Dylan. I’m a bit puzzled at your saying, “(Much more than a sociopath.)” in discussing Joe and sex addiction. I might agree in regards to Joe perhaps being a sex addict. However Bill Clinton and John Kennedy were sex addicts. A sex addict does not a murderer make.

          Sometimes a sex addict will commit crimes such as telling lies in order to cover up their sex lives. But it seems to me that Joe wasn’t into hiding much about his sex life. He was being, some would say, “Ridiculously” open about it.

          I really think that the VERY unusual sexual practices, of the suspects involved in this case, tend to distract our thinking. I think it was their sex live that made them the only real suspects from the beginning. If an upstanding heterosexual married couple of two had an overnight guest killed mysteriously in the guest bedroom, the search for answers would have taken on a very different nature from the get-go, and would have been more likely directed towards looking for evidence of an intruder rather than for evidence that there had been none. (A thin difference perhaps, but we humans tend to find what we are expecting to.)

          In my view, killing is a rather ASEXUAL thing to do. Just as Rape, they say, is not a sexual thing, but rather a power thing. A sex addict gets pleasure from sex, a sociopath from destruction.

          And there is, I think, likelihood that their notoriously open and unusual sex lives made the household a target. Perhaps Robert just happened to be the victim because he was there that night. For what a murderer, seeing him enter the house, may have just assumed was sinful activity? Sexual crime? Don’t look for a camera, do look for a white collar.

        • Alternateguy
          06/29/2011 at 10:49 AM



          Hey, thanks, I’ve learned a new word. Unfortunately, one that could apply to many of us.

          • jackie
            06/29/2011 at 11:00 AM

            TOTALLY AGREE, Alt! The word must have been used in a historian collection somewhere in an Irish museum!

            Also, I would be curious to know if our editors would announce “who” is the “source” of this “settlement news,” rather than just crating “rumor mill.”

            • AnnaZed
              06/29/2011 at 12:51 PM

              In what world is overweening a difficult or obscure word? Now creating that’s a tough one.

            • Craig
              06/29/2011 at 4:07 PM

              Jackie – We assured the source anonymity. And we’re confused with the 6 nicknames that seem to share your ISP.

              • alternateguy
                06/29/2011 at 4:28 PM


                I’ve been thinking about something: I really hope you guys are keeping the identity of posters on this site VERY secure. Any one of us may be actually ticking off a MURDERER here.

                (Hey, Ninja Psychopath, Just kidding, really, never meant to upset you.)

      • Bill Orange
        06/29/2011 at 9:58 AM

        As I’ve repeatedly posted here, a very good woman that I deeply respect–Lisa Goddard Desjardins–was involved in this case early on and (at least at the outset) believed that these three were totally innocent of any wrongdoing and were largely being targeted for persecution because of their unconventional lifestyle. Lisa is one of the most moral people that I know, and she is also one of the most loyal people I have ever met. If I had just spent the night in a police interrogation room and needed somebody to come and get me, she would be high on my list of people to call. I also consider her to be highly intelligent, and a capable journalist.

        And I think her judgement is totally misplaced in this particular case.

        I will immediately concede that the police completely botched this investigation. They reportedly tore that house apart and still had very little to show for it. I have previously stated that I thought they were so incompetent that they wouldn’t have caught an intruder even if he/she/they had been standing on the living room coffee table when they arrived.

        But to say there is little or no “evidence” in this case is just absurd. Robert Wone was found stabbed and dying in these three people’s guest bedroom. No one disputes this. Generally speaking, the authorities will have questions for the occupants of a house in a situation like this. The defendants have a constitutional right to refuse to answer these questions, and have invoked this right repeatedly. But you’ve got to be awfully loyal to not look at this situation and have a WTF? moment with your friend(s).

        Lisa is obviously a much better person than I am.

        • CDinDC
          06/29/2011 at 10:45 AM

          Nice post, BillO.

          It’s certainly not unusual for a person to swear on their mother’s eyes that whoseywhatsey could never do this. “Not in their character,” they say. And then a dead body is found under the bed that person sleeps in every night.

          Some of the most notorious serial killers/murderers in history lived undetected, unnoticed, unsuspected for decades before they were caught due to a slip up.

          • Alternateguy
            06/29/2011 at 11:36 AM


            Killing a guest in your home, leaving your knife in/on/beside him with your fingerprints on it and then calling the police to come, while having no clear explanation, would be a PRETTY BIG slip up.

            If there is a serial killer involved, I’d guess that he is more likely someone living in the unsuspected, unnoticed decades of his life and is NOT one of the, high profile so called, “obvious” suspects here.

            • CDinDC
              06/29/2011 at 12:09 PM

              Altguy, you totally misread my posting.

              I did not say that a serial killer was involved. Nor did I say killing Robert was a slip up.

              I said many murderers/serial killers live life undetected.

              I was not implying that Joe et al were serial killers.

              Please reread Bill O’s post and mine and perhaps you’ll grasp the intended meaning of my post.

              • alternateguy
                06/29/2011 at 12:33 PM


                I’m sorry if I misunderstood your post.

                Essentially, I was agreeing with your post while pointing out that the facts you state regarding serial killers point AWAY from the likelihood that the trio are of that nature.

                If killing Robert was NOT a slip up, then there is a likelihood that a successful killer WAS involved. Probably not one of the trio.

                • CDinDC
                  06/29/2011 at 12:55 PM

                  no problem, Altguy.

                  The “slip up” I’m thinking of is usually a misstep taken by a killer after the fact. Sometimes killers get so comfortable wtih their lack of detection they get careless. Say things, etc.

                  But just to be clear, my comments regarding serial killers are not pertaining to Joe et al. Simply personal commentary on how many killers live life undetected.

            • Hoya Loya
              06/29/2011 at 1:28 PM


              There were no fingerprints on the knife.

              • alternateguy
                06/29/2011 at 2:53 PM

                Then Joe wiped them off yet still admitted that he had handeled it? Interesting. Even less likely to be the actions of a guilty person, in my view.

                • Hoya Loya
                  06/29/2011 at 3:01 PM

                  He told the police that they would probably find his fingerprints on the knife — but they didn’t. Actually, I’m not sure what to make of that — just clarifying the record.

        • Bill 2
          06/29/2011 at 1:48 PM

          Bill O,

          Do you think that Lisa Goddard Desjardins still believes they’re innocent of all involvement? I’m wondering if the decision of Judge Leibovitz may have instilled a WTF moment in her thinking. Have you seen any comments from her since the trial last year?

          Judge Leibovitz had access to a huge amount of information that we’ve never seen, so I put my faith in her determination that there was no intruder. I don’t know how any thinking person could consider that some mystery phantom sneaked into the house, killed someone, posed them on the bed, and then performed like the Maid Brigade cleaning up all the blood and fingerprints.

          • Clio
            06/30/2011 at 1:27 AM

            Editors, I would love to see a guest op-ed from Lisa G.: with some sort of settlement on the horizon, is there any way such a “coming out” can be arranged?

          • Bill Orange
            06/30/2011 at 12:04 PM

            I haven’t seen her in years, and I’ve never talked to her about this case directly. Everything I know about her opinions on this has been second-hand through the William and Mary grapevine, and I haven’t heard anything lately. She isn’t stupid, but she’s VERY loyal. My guess is that she still supports them, especially Joe.

            I doubt we’ll ever hear anything publicly from her, though. I think that if she was going to speak out, it would’ve happened in the “Washingtonian” article. From a professional standpoint, as a CNN reporter, I think she would see it as unethical for her to make public comments on this case. She isn’t just a friend of Joe; she’s also “the media”, and I think she’s very sensitive to this fact.

      • Bea
        06/29/2011 at 12:56 PM

        At some point logic and reason have to enter the picture, Alt. I suspect if photos and videos showed up of a drugged Robert, some apologist would say “well, he must’ve taken drugs on his own and then the defendants were worried that it would look bad so they got rid of the photos/video.”

        And then they got rid of the still and video cameras except for that one disposable no one had bothered to use.

        While I’ll grant you it’s possible that a man scaled the fence of the house that happened to have an unlocked door, that he wore gloves but didn’t bring a weapon (unsure if he’d burglarize or murder, but picked up the kitchen knife), decided to pass on the first possible victim, happened upon a man lying diagonally across turned down bed linens, stabbed him and killed him with the first blow such that he bled internally, stabbed him twice more for good measure, poked him with needles, found enough semen on him (or jerked off a dying man) and inserted it into his rectum, left the knife both in his chest OR on his chest, walked swiftly but delicately down wooden stairs, opened and closed the kitchen door behind him, and scaled the fence instead of using the gate door – and then thought CRAP, I HAVE NOTHING TO SHOW FOR MY CRIME until he remembered that he’d changed his mind from burglary to murder and thus the murder was its own reward.

        Or these guys aren’t telling the complete truth about what they know.

        • alternateguy
          06/29/2011 at 3:24 PM


          My views,

          There is little evidence of the defendants getting rid of any evidence because it might make them look bad.

          It is pure speculation that they got rid of photos/video. Or any such equipment. Not one witness has come forward and said that they kept such equipment in their house. If they got rid of anything, why not their kitchen knife, with Joe’s fingerprints on it?

          It is likely that any murderous intruder would have his own weapon, but could have chosen not to use it if he saw a less traceable weapon available which would point the finger away from himself and cloud the investigation. Murderers wear gloves in order not to leave fingerprint evidence. Thieves do this as well, but, while there is no evidence of a thief having been in the house that night, there is clear evidence of a murderer’s presence.

          You grant that it is possible for a man to have scaled the fence but you seem to deny that either a man or woman could have just as easily slipped the gate latch, or the front door latch, or picked a lock or entered via the use of a purloined or unauthorized key.

          How do we know that Robert was lying diagonally across his bed when the murderer encountered him? Would it have seemed less suspicious to you if his bed clothes had not been turned down? Robert would hardly have been the first man to sleep on top of his covers on a hot summer night.

          If all of these medical conditions were exactly as the pathologist reported them, then that still doesn’t explain any logical sequence of events. But we know that these findings you sight, have been disputed by qualified defense experts.

          The stabbing thrusts are reported as being very methodical and were likely done quickly. The assailant could have held Roberts head in place with his other hand while doing the deed.

          Intruders often try to be sneaky, stealthy, and as silent as possible. And in this case the murderer was apparently quite methodical, and so would not have caused a clatter when he hurried off.

          He could have just as easily gone out the front door. WOULD have closed whatever door or gate behind him, both to discourage pursuers and to hide evidence of his presence.

          As we have discussed before, I believe that although the back gate was reported as remaining locked, that doesn’t mean that one couldn’t have gone out of it. The only key cylinder was on the outside. When was asked if the gate self- closed, one of the triple said that it didn’t. No one asked if exiting the gate then re-closing it, somehow left it unlocked on the outside.

          These guys might not be telling the complete truth about everything they know. But that fact doesn’t necessarily mean that they know who the murderer is or significant details necessary to solve the crime. Then, again, they may have, by now, told authorities every significant thing they know.

          • Bea
            06/29/2011 at 6:26 PM

            The stab wounds were “done quickly”? They were described as being “with surgical precision” which doesn’t tend to suggest “quickly” – an expert at trial said he’d never seen a stab victim lie perfectly still for stab wounds to be without tears/jagged cuts.

            The killer held Robert’s head? What about his arms and legs? No thrashing, no pushing off the killer or scratching at his face/arms?

            I agree that it’s weird the killer didn’t go out the front door (but maybe his BatMobile was in the alley) – but I can’t make any sense of scaling the fence instead of using the door on the way out. And you’re wrong about the key. He could’ve left by the gate door but the door would’ve remained “unlocked” since he didn’t have the key to re-lock it. To me that says there wasn’t anyone who left out the back door/fence that night except someone the defendants knew about (possibly taking camera equipment). Yes, it’s speculation that they had cameras and video cameras since they had over $8000 worth of electronics, Joe listed dirty photography as a hobby, their home had many photos of them on vacation, and Joe had many S&M photos on his work computer – typically one must use his own camera and doesn’t ask the neighbor lady to take the shots. Too, he was actively trolling on Alt-dot-com, which tends to involve sending digital pictures back and forth (just ask any congressman – and in 2006, cell phones that had cameras had very poor ones – 1 or 2 mp at most).

            I’m not saying it’s IMPOSSIBLE that an unknown intruder killed Robert – I’m saying that there are MANY, MANY unexplained facts which don’t support it (as the Judge who heard it all said) and that logic and reason fall on the side of some level of complicity by one/more of the defendants. I still haven’t heard a plausible theory to support the unknown intruder. One or two head-scratchers might be met with the shrug of the shoulder, but not fifteen or twenty.

      • Hoya Loya
        06/29/2011 at 3:24 PM


        As always, your alt views are appreciated as a stimulus to fresh thinking about the case. But it does often help to review key areas of the site before posting, such as the interview transcripts, trial summaries and Judge L.’s decision, since not all of us have the memory to command all the complicated facts, twists and turns of the case as does, e.g. Bea.

        1) Neither Joe nor Victor mention giving any thought to Dylan in their interviews, nor does Victor in his 911 call — he is first mentioned when he shows up looking like “he has no f**king clue” according to Joe while they are tending to Robert. Dylan does not report anyone checking up on him, only that the noise roused him from his medicated slumber. This is the basis for the conclusion that nobody was worried about or checked on Dylan and it is a logical conclusion based on the defendants’ own statements.

        2) The findings of the autopsy report largely have not been disputed though conclusions drawn from its findings have been. It is generally agreed that Robert died from his stab wounds, that at least several of the needle marks were unexplained, that burst capillaries were noted in his eyes and that his own semen was found in his rectum. Whether the needle marks indicate drugging, the burst blood vessels indicate asphyxiation or the semen indicates assault have been disputed, though never on the record in court.

        3) Joe’s comment to Tara was that there was a differnce between cleaning up a crime scene and wiping away blood because you are freaking out. No, he didn’t say who was wiping, though it can be inferred he is talking about himself. There was a lack of blood at the scene — we know there have been various medical explanations for that. Signs of blood were noted on the walls — the application of Ashley’s Reagent rendered this evidence inadmissible, but it was noted. Put it all together and it points to a clean-up.

        4) We don’t know when Robert went to bed, never mind when he actually fell asleep. Dylan says he heard Robert’s door latch from his room across the hall. Robert wouldn’t have heard an intruder unlatching the door to come into his own room, if indeed “latching” didn’t mean “locking?”

        5) The angle of the knife and positioning of the wielder were established by experts and have never been challenged by either side.

        6) We don’t know that the chime always woke Joe and it certainly didn’t wake him when the intruder entered. It was the grunt/screams/whatever that woke him. There are also conflicting statements as to how many times the chime was heard — if there was no missing it in the master bedroom, that would not be the case. Plus Dylan’s intial “shushed-by-Joe” statement to police that “we heard the chime.”

        More later.

        • alternateguy
          06/29/2011 at 6:13 PM


          You are clearly correct that we all can benefit by checking our facts more. I know that I do.

          1) I had asked if anyone had asked the defendants during the interrogations if they had called out for Dylan. Did they ever actually SAY that they had not? Just wondering.

          2) Thanks, I clearly should have said, ”the conclusions that you mention from the findings have been disputed.” Not that the findings have been disputed. It’s good to have the advice of a lawyer.

          3) I have always thought that Joe was speaking for himself, but I now think I recall reading someplace that Dylan was a cleanliness freak. Could Joe have been explaining some action of Dylan’s? Where was Dylan while Joe was showing the cops around. Did he start washing walls?

          4} If latching meant locking, then CLEARLY there is a problem. But doesn’t a door, latch every time it was closed? I can’t understand why Dylan wasn’t asked more specifically to state exactly what he heard in this respect. The failure to ask more specifics on questions such as this, are astonishing to me.

          5} So, apparently some impossibly awkward position such as Bea suggests, wasn’t required?.

          6} At the bottom of page two of Joe’s first interrogation, he states that the chime woke him up.

          Then starting on page six, line twelve, of his second interview, Joe once again explained that the chime woke him up, and how he thought that it was Sarah coming home. He then explains that the chime almost always wakes him up, since it is right there in his bedroom. He further states that the scream/groan sounds didn’t wake him up, that he was still awake after the chime sound.

          • Hoya Loya
            06/29/2011 at 8:14 PM

            Big oops on #6, but it just goes to show how important it is to always double check our sources here on wmrw. I was on my way out the door when I posted and should have waited. I unwittingly illustrated my own point — this case is complicated enough without elisions and misstatements of our own.

  36. Cat in Cleveland
    06/29/2011 at 7:58 AM

    I’ll answer one of those qs. There is no shortage in this world of people who live with people they know or suspect have committed murder or some other violent crime. Notorious murderers frequently get love letters from people on the outside, who would jump at the opportunity to have a life with them should they get released. For some, being that close to danger is a real turn on. Joe might just be one of those guys.

    • Alternateguy
      06/29/2011 at 9:02 AM

      Cat in Cleveland,

      Those jail-house-groupies you describe are, I would think, people with no real life of their own. Joe was, (is.) an accomplished person who does not need to hang on someone’s coattails in order to bring meaning to his life. Besides, I’m sure his brother has offered him enough excitement of a criminal nature.

      Joe has lost much, including a close friend’s life, due to the crime. Does he live in a dream world of denial? Possibly. But I really hope not, for the sake of his remaining friends and for the rest of society.

      • Bea
        06/29/2011 at 1:04 PM

        Alt, if Joe had taken and passed a polygraph that night or in the days after, cops might have “cleared” him. It’s not a certainty that Dylan failed the polygraph, but likely. Two days after the murder Joe wants Kathy to waive her attorney client privilege so Jason can speak freely to Joe about what the police told her/Jason. Joe tells two stories about whether he pulled the knife from Robert’s chest (I think you remember that FOREVER) and later heavily implies that he cleaned up blood. Joe states unequivocally that he can’t tell cops everything he knows for fear one of them will be arrested.

        Indeed Joe has lost a tremendous amount – but you see it as suggesting innocence where I see it as evidencing that “telling the truth” would put him in a far, far worse place. To this day he hasn’t told “everything he knows” and he hasn’t taken a polygraph (unless he failed a private one) – it’s not a “small” thing he’s hiding IMHO.

  37. jackie
    06/29/2011 at 12:54 PM

    If, in fact, the “real case” has been settled, when would “this website” be “actually settled” (someone already said goodbye to the case somewhere here) even if the results of the murder will never be found or published? Few more years of debate? Just sayin.

    • CDinDC
      06/29/2011 at 12:56 PM

      jackie, you’re welcome to never post again.

      Just sayin.

      • jackie
        06/29/2011 at 2:17 PM

        cdindc, Duh!

        • CDinDC
          06/29/2011 at 3:51 PM

          Duh. No truer words spoken.

    • Bea
      06/29/2011 at 1:07 PM

      Jackie, there will be a public record if this case is settled. The Eds reported “news” that there was a settlement in principle which may lead to a final settlement or may fall apart. Or it may be only as to one/two of defendants or only some of the counts of the complaint.

      But you don’t need to read this site if it irks you.

      • jackie
        06/29/2011 at 2:18 PM

        Bea, Meh!

  38. AnnaZed
    06/29/2011 at 2:58 PM

    Something really intense must really be happening in the settlement negotiations for the last 10 days or so to unleash this unprecedented tsunami of trouple appologists on the blog, interesting.

    • Clio
      06/29/2011 at 8:37 PM

      As a fellow member of the original “Thought Police” — as deemed by a fellow traveler of Team Price, I agree!

  39. Bill 2
    06/29/2011 at 3:35 PM

    If I were writing an Agatha Christie mystery, I would have the accomplice of the killer tell the police that he handled the knife that stabbed the victim. That lie would focus attention on a knife that did NOT stab the victim and the police would not realize they didn’t have the murder weapon. In my Agatha Christie mystery, I would have the murder weapon taken away from the house while the rest of the knife set, belonging to the now-missing knife, would be placed high on a shelf in a nearby bedroom so the cops would think it hadn’t been touched in recent times.

    • alternateguy
      06/29/2011 at 4:12 PM

      Bill 2,

      But how the heck would that draw attention away from the killer and/or his accomplice? I mean, if they had the wrong knife, but thought mistakenly that it was yours? And that it was the murder weapon to boot? Sure, you’ve fooled them, but to what end? If you are able to get rid of the murder weapon, then why leave a substitute that points the finger at you and away from an outside intruder? Why leave a knife set in your room with a missing knife that might also be thought to be the murder weapon? Most murderers that I’ve read about try to get rid of clues that point the finger at them, not to leave a multiplicity of them. Yours would truly be a unique mystery. Confuse the cops enough and maybe they’ll go away. Some plan!

      • Bill 2
        06/29/2011 at 4:56 PM

        Excuse me, but I stayed out of your Agatha Christie mystery. This is mine. Tomorrow, I may call in the spirit of Margaret Truman since she used DC as the settings for her murder mysteries. And the next day I may post a dream I had about a murder mystery.

  40. Craig
    06/29/2011 at 3:47 PM

    To Cara from above: We have every reason to believe all three defendants remain together living in the Miami Shores home.

    • Clio
      06/29/2011 at 8:51 PM

      I am “shocked, shocked, shocked” in the manner of Casablanca that our Triple Entente has migrated for good to the gateway to Latin America. And, this is happening AFTER their infamous greeting cards of 2005 and 2006 have been placed in the public record. For Aunt Marcia’s sake, one hopes that Victor has become the “man” of the house and is keeping his two pets on a very short leash.

    • Bill 2
      06/30/2011 at 9:20 PM

      Since the trio lived together on Swann St. they sat in a courtroom and heard Sarah Morgan tell how Dylan Ward wanted to replace Victor Zaborsky in Joe Price’s bedroom.

      At first you think that could cause a few problems in the relationships in the Miami Shores household. Then with thoughts of the loving couple seen in the William and Mary video, you realize Price can spin just about any type of tale and Zaborsky will sit there nodding his head in agreement like Mortimer Snerd in some alternate universe.

      • susan
        06/30/2011 at 9:41 PM

        Speaking of Florida, we haven’t heard from Boofoc in a while. I hope all is well with him.

        Re the Florida arrangement, maybe that equal relationship they were working on (according to VZ’s Anacostia testimony) has finally been achieved. Or maybe it’s a living arrangement of convenience. DC is a small city. I’m sure the Fla. home is a refuge. But someone earlier posted (not sure and don’t want to incorrectly attribute it) that perhaps once the civil trial or settlement is over with, he/she wouldn’t be surprised if the three men leave the country or go someplace far, far away. I wonder too if then they wouldn’t go their separate ways. At least DW, perhaps.

        • Clio
          06/30/2011 at 10:33 PM

          They did go their separate ways for a while, but absence (and indictments) may have made their hearts to grow fonder. Also, sex may no longer be an issue — with all three becoming possibly abstinent due to stress and premature aging.

    • Hoya Loya
      07/01/2011 at 11:09 AM

      If indeed they have relocated, that would provide additional incentive for Kathy to settle as it is a clear indication of an intent to claim the Florida homestead exemption.

  41. Cat from Cleveland
    06/29/2011 at 4:30 PM

    I’m not much for party games, but reading the back and forth here about the New Yorker article, the spider, whether the knife was the murder weapon, and all of the less important details, as well as all of the things we suspect, but don’t know, leaves me trying to focus on what facts are known, and what I consider most important of those facts.

    I’m interested in other’s opinions: what are the top two or three facts that lead you to your conclusion (whatever that is) about what happened that night?

    For me, I don’t know what happened, and if I were a juror and everything I now know was learned from the evidence, I could not convict anyone of murder.

    I agree with those that have noted that in times of high stress, people act in bizarre ways. Personally, I am calmer in a real crisis than I am when some little thing happens to disrupt my day (I’ve not encountered any dead or dying bodies in my guest room, but I suspect I’d be more like Dylan than Victor).

    That said, the fact that Joe and Victor repeatedly insisted they were afraid the murderer was still in the house, but never called out to Dylan or expressed any concern for his well being, is pretty hard to explain. It leads me to conclude that they knew they weren’t in danger. And there is only one way they would know that.

    Also, given that nothing was taken and anyone breaking into the house that night would have had to pass Dylan’s room to get to Robert, I’m left feeling that either Robert was a paid hit, or one of the housemates was involved.

    That’s my summary. There are a lot of other facts and suspicions I find relevant, but if I had to pick a few facts that jump out to me, I guess those are it.

    • Craig
      06/29/2011 at 4:33 PM

      Cat – Thanks for this. These threads are getting bulky and skinny here so I’ll move this to another stand-alone post to make the reading easier.

  42. 06/05/2012 at 5:30 PM

    I not to mention my friends were found to be looking at the nice tricks from the blog and then at once got an awful suspicion I had not expressed respect to the blog owner for those strategies. These women had been consequently passionate to learn them and have in effect seriously been enjoying these things. Appreciation for indeed being quite kind and for pick out some decent subject matter most people are really needing to understand about. My personal sincere apologies for not expressing gratitude to you sooner.

Comments are closed.