Party Games

Penguins Are People Too

While we wait for more news, if any, on the possible settlement, we’ll kick off another post with a question posed by everyone’s favorite cat (or penguin), Cat from Cleveland.  She may not sparkle, but ever since joining us here, she has certainly shined:

“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.”

505 comments for “Party Games

  1. Deb
    06/29/2011 at 6:20 PM

    Good question, and good points. I know back when we heard the decision everyone was unhappy, but I also felt, had I been a juror at a murder trial, I would not have been able to convict.

    Of course, the evidence was not presented in light of a murder charge.

    The tampering charge — for me the forensic evidence that the knife in the room was not the murder weapon and Joe’s statement that he moved the knife may have been enough for me to convict him on that, but I’m on the fence. I’d have needed to have heard the entirety of the testimony.

  2. Bea
    06/29/2011 at 6:40 PM

    Nice post. Between the MPD screw ups and the prosecution being out-lawyered on the issue of the bench trial (not reopening issue of evidence after all the Motions in Limine based on jury prejudice that would’ve been inapplicable in a bench trial) I do understand the verdict (and respect it) although I would have found Joe guilty of tampering at a minimum (as Hoya has posted in the past), likely more. It was interesting at trial that there was hardly any evidence against Dylan.

    Back to your questions – oh so many, but the ones that stand out the most for me:

    1. no one checking on Dylan;

    2. Joe’s series of missteps (statements to Tara re tampering, that they couldn’t tell cops all they knew; claiming to some that he pulled the knife FROM Robert’s chest but not to cops). The latter sticks out for me in relation to the striations on the knife – though it was in dispute from experts, there was testimony that the striation showed blood being wiped ON the knife by a towel. Considering THAT in context of Joe confiding to friends that he found the knife IN Robert’s chest boxes him into having been the one who wiped blood on the knife – no way around that one. If the knife was lying on Robert, why would an unknown intruder wipe blood on it?

    3. the back gate door remained “locked” by a key from the outside even though the “unknown intruder” could have manually locked it as he fled – and that Joe “guessed” that it was still locked and that the “unknown intruder” likely scaled the fence instead of using the gate door to depart.

    • Deb
      06/29/2011 at 8:49 PM

      But it wasn’t a murder trial, Bea. I got messed up at first, too.

      • Bea
        06/29/2011 at 8:59 PM

        I think these elements all go to conspiracy/obstruction/tampering as well. I’d have found Joe guilty of tampering and obstruction, likely conspiracy (with Victor) but I think there were gnarly legal technicalities on that one that I can’t recall). Dylan might have walked simply because he said and did so little (that we have any evidence of).

        • Clio
          07/03/2011 at 11:12 AM

          Lil Dyl was redeemed by doing little that was captured by history: an ode to slackers everywhere, or a masquerade based upon the paucity of written documents?

  3. Bruce
    06/29/2011 at 6:51 PM

    Hi Cat:

    Thank you for your thoughtful insights in to this case, and the questions you pose above.

    My conlusion is pretty much yours: Based upon what we know (and I would agree that there has to be a LOT of things we don’t know), I could not convict the Swann 3 of murder. Same thing for the civil trial….I could not find any or all responsible based upon what we know now. As a juror, hearing and seeing everything, I could come to the opposite conclusion. Further, I would have written the opinion differently, but would have agreed with the actual acquittals by the criminal judge at the previous criminal trial.

    You asked for 2 or 3 “facts” that impressed you the most. Here are mine:

    Fact 1: The fact that nothing in the past of all or any of the Swann 3 leads me to believe that any of them had a murderous bone in their bodies. There is nothing in their pasts, including sexual habits, sexual relationships, alleged and contrived “history” of drugs, history of massage for hire, porno, or any tidbit of fact that supports any reasonable conclusion (in my mind) that they were any more likely to commit a murder or killing than the man on the moon. Now, you don’t need a “history” to kill. But it sure would have helped me be more open to finding them guilty if there was some real “history.” Just how do we make that jump without including prejudices in our thinking?

    Fact #2: The fact that there is no real evidence to support a motive for killing Mr. Wone. Again, you don’t have to have a motive, but it sure would have helped me be more open to finding them guilty if there was some real evidence of “motive.” Any “motive” here is just the most rank of speculation. And speculation is not evidence and is not fair to consider conclusively. You don’t put someone to death, or put them in prison for years, or make someone pay a lot of money based upon speculation. It isn’t American.

    Factoid #3: The fact that so many people on this blog (but certainly not all, and I don’t inlcude you in this, Cat) came seemingly so easily to “moral certitude” in their opinions in this case against the Swann 3, or one or more of them. This was probably the most affecting fact in the whole thing for me. It worried me and worries me still. It is the primary reason that I stopped being active here. It just got too loud. And it seemed so unfair and unkind. This mob mentality seemed to scream “justice at any cost. Frankly, I believe in justice, I really do. But I believe more in fairness and the ability to do reasonable critical thinking without bias, and without a blood lust. It is in those types of situations that people charged with crime or wrongdoing need the most protection. This is something that non-lawyers can fully embrace and understand, but you just didn’t see much of it here. Most disappointing was that some of those trained in the law on here seemed to forget some rudimentary and fundamental rules of genuine fairness, and lost the ability to even consider reasonable doubt or to give anyone the benefit of a doubt. This made me realize that there was more to this matter than what we were hearing from the most verbal on the blog.

    So, we wait to see if there is a settlement. It is my hope that if there is a settlement that Mrs. Wone can live a peaceful and happy life. Considering all she has gone through, it is the only thing that really matters to me now.

    It’s not that I don’t care about justice. I just don’t believe in justice at any cost. And I believe more in fairness.

    • Clio
      06/29/2011 at 8:28 PM

      Bruce dearest, welcome back. Only you could place history in air quotes and, no doubt, with an accompanying arched eyebrow, and not raise my ire. But events do happen within an historical context, and one does hope that attorneys of a defense bent, such as yourself, could appreciate that reality more keenly.

    • susan
      06/29/2011 at 9:05 PM

      Just as an aside, Bruce, before I forget it, I saw some program recently–actually I think on the OWN Network. It was about how many autopsy medical examiners when examining children in child abuse cases/lawsuits see wounds, etc. that aren’t there because of the “bloodlust” type of mentality to convict by the prosecutors. The point there is that bias exists in every profession, despite oaths taken, etc. In fact, one could equally argue that attorneys are some of the biggest abusers of this because they may be hired or fired on their success at winning cases, etc. And on and on and on.

      That said, I hear you about how this site is very skewed in one direction. I think to some degree but not all that that is because of the evidence. Perhaps that’s why Judge L expressed her doubt about an intruder.

      Re motive, as an attorney you must know that there need not always be a motive for a crime to be committed. I think a lot of manslaughter prob. falls into that category.

      Re fairness and justice, I think optimally there shouldn’t be a conflict with their co-existence. Finally, the way to change a mob mentality if you see one is to face what you see as the mob and hope others do the same. Otherwise you contribute to the sameness you claim to dislike.

      My two cents. Glad to read your post.

    • Bill 2
      06/29/2011 at 9:20 PM

      I agree, Bruce, that there’s no indication of the people in that house having a history of violence or apparent thoughts of murder. Further, I agree that there was absolutely no motive for killing Robert Wone.

      On the other hand, it appears that there was drug use by some in the household. In addition there were the puncture wounds on Robert Wone that clearly indicate something could have been injected into his system.

      If he were given a drug that caused a really bad reaction, people with no history of murder, (and no medical training) could THINK that the man was dead. Dead, they could conclude, as a result of their drug use and the drug injected into Robert Wone.

      People who don’t have a murderous bone in their body don’t want to be accused of accidently murdering a friend. Thinking that the drug injected into Robert Wone was responsible for his death could have set wheels in motion for what happened next.

      People with no history of murder can get muddled thoughts when they have consumed drugs and think they have a dead man in the house.

      Too bad the police didn’t do drug tests on the trio that night. Would a test have confirmed that Ward only took just a pill to sleep or something more?

      The injection marks on Robert Wone are at the center of this case. No ninja nor phantom did that. Further, no ninja nor phantum put semen in his rectum.

    • Emily
      06/30/2011 at 9:48 AM

      “The fact that so many people on this blog…[cuts]…came seemingly so easily to “moral certitude” in their opinions in this case against the Swann 3…[cuts]…It worried me and worries me still. It is the primary reason that I stopped being active here. It just got too loud. And it seemed so unfair and unkind.”

      So unfair and so unkind? When was the last time you were called to account for the dead body of an old friend in your guest room? Oh, never! Neither have I! Neither have most of the population of the world.

      How easy is it for the apologists of the Swann 3 to dismiss the enormity of what happened that night? 4 people were in the house. 1 of them ended up dead in extremely suspicious circumstances.

      Why is it unreasonable to demand that the 3 other people in the house account for what happened that night beyond telling the story that an unknown assassin with no apparent motive snuck into the house and murdered a person who wasn’t even supposed to be there and messed around with their body in a complicated manner while cleaning up evidence and leaving no trace of their existence behind.

      On the face of it their story sucks. Anybody who doesn’t think that their story sucks is, frankly, or even evidently, delusional. Evidently.

      • Hoya Loya
        06/30/2011 at 11:12 AM

        Welcome back, Bruce.

        Emily’s point, though a bit forcefully made, is a good one. It’s not as if the door was broken down and valuables stolen with one of the three residents being stabbed to death. It is a houseguest who was killed, with nothing stolen and no other sign of an intruder other than an allegedly unlocked door.

        Or, as I said once ages ago, if this happened at the home of a hetero married couple with a live-in mistress and the victim was a female house guest, would anybody not be looking at the residents of the house as suspects?

        Still not saying they did it, but how can they not come under some rather severe scrutiny?

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

      Glad you’re back Bruce. Poor Alt has had to play “resident contrarian” all by himself lately.

  4. Bill Orange
    06/29/2011 at 8:09 PM

    “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?”

    The body in the guest bedroom is the key piece of evidence for me. A lot of people have tried to claim that the police focused immediately on the defendants because of their sexual orientations, their unconventional (even by gay standards) relationship, or their interest in BDSM, but I sincerely believe that the big reason the police began investigating the defendants in the first place is because someone was stabbed to death in their house.

    • cdindc
      06/29/2011 at 8:32 PM

      BillO, the fact that Robert Wone had his own semen in his rectum (not his anus, but his rectum) is the primary piece of evidence for me. An intruder would NOT have had time to sexually assault Robert. And the semen was too far into his rectum to have been placed there manually (digitally) on his own.

      Combine that with the injection marks, the orientation of the stab wounds, the fact that Joe and Victor did not check on Dylan…..and the defendants general behavior at the crime scene (Joe and Dylan being relatively collected), I’m convinced they killed Robert.

  5. Carolina
    06/29/2011 at 8:10 PM

    Contrived history? Dylan’s adverts tell the hands-for-hire tale. Drugs in the dresser drawers? How did they get there? Left there by the previous furniture owner?

  6. Bill Orange
    06/29/2011 at 8:28 PM

    Here’s how I would have come down on verdicts:

    Criminal trial: Joe Price guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of evidence tampering. I would’ve been on the fence with regards to the obstruction and conspiracy charges against both Joe and Victor, based on what I know, but I probably would’ve found them both guilty. I probably would’ve found Dylan not guilty of all charges–he reported taking sleeping medication that night, and I’ll give him reasonable doubt based on the possibility that he slept through the whole thing. I continue to maintain (and Hoya and I disagree on this) that Judge Leibovitz’s written opinion (not her verdict itself, but rather her reasoning behind it) makes absolutely no logical sense. If you get to the point that you’ve concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no unknown intruder, then I see no way that you cannot also conclude that Joe Price is guilty of obstruction of justice.

    Civil trial: For me, the ability to draw an adverse inference from a fifth amendment invocation, the fact that the defendants have invoked the fifth on all of the relevant counts, the lower standard of proof, and absolutely NO evidence that the defendants are innocent means that I would find for the plaintiff on all counts. That’s just Logic 101. And $20 million seems like a low number to me. Lost income for a talented lawyer over 40 years of practice would probably come out to around $20 million, but I think there should also be fairly hefty punitive damages for slaughtering someone in your house and then obstructing the subsequent investigation. I have no idea how these are calculated, but I like round numbers, so I’d probably throw in another $40 million so that it comes out to $20 million per defendant.

    • Bea
      06/29/2011 at 8:53 PM

      Agree on taking the 5th at trial and what that will mean to the jury. Can only imagine the field day the plaintiff’s counsel will have with that, and truly I can’t imagine Joe Price getting asked “Did one of the three of you stab Robert Wone to death?” and him taking the 5th. If he answers with an emphatic “No!” then that poses its own set of dicey legal questions regarding taking the 5th on what is more mundane on the face of it (“Isn’t it true that you didn’t check to see if Dylan was likewise stabbed?” and “Isn’t it true you emailed Tara Ragone. . . cleaning blood/can’t tell police everything?” and “Isn’t it true that you advertised on a website that you enjoy torture?”).

      I’d tend to agree with you about obstruction in the criminal trial. Definitely would’ve found Joe guilty of tampering.

      Anyone know if Michael Price is on or off the wagon these days? He may be the one to break open the case if he needs a “deal” for some very bad behaviors.

      • Jeana
        06/29/2011 at 9:37 PM

        A bit off topic – sorry – but I read an article in the online Orlando Sentinal a few days ago re a witness’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment in the Casey Anthony trial. In attempting to show that the witness was biased in favor of the prosecution, defense counsel asked, “Were you ever threatened with a felony arrest?” Prosecutor objected on grounds that defense asked a question that could elicit invocation fo the 5th “right in front of the jury.” No specific indication as to the Court’s ruling, except that the Judge commented, “He (the witness) could have simply answered yes or no.” Any Florida criminal attorneys out there that can explain why such a question would be objectionable?

        • Bea
          06/30/2011 at 4:56 PM

          My guess (not being from Florida, mind you) is that typically you are not supposed to ask anyone if they’ve been arrested, let alone whether threatened with arrest.

          • Jeana
            06/30/2011 at 8:42 PM

            Ah….thanks, Bea. I guess Crim Law 101 was way too many years ago.:) I was viewing the objection only as to the 5th A and worrying that it might have some implications for the Wone case.

      • Clio
        07/02/2011 at 12:44 PM

        Yes, Editors, I believe that an update on Uncle Michael would make for a splendid upcoming post.

        The questions abound: Has Uncle Michael graduated from Montgomery College? Did he ever pass that class which he skipped fortuitously that fateful evening? Does he still have at least two jobs? Was his Manhunt ever successful? Are he and Louis still on speaking terms? May he come to Miami Shores for a lunch visit if not a sleepover?

  7. Clio
    06/29/2011 at 9:25 PM

    For me, it’s the lack of blood, and it’s the staging of the knife, and that obvious tampering points toward the fastidious Culuket. And, furthermore, only Joe knew Robert well, and people kill the ones who they “love”.

    Who had to be in control at all times in that house: Joe. Who agreed to Robert’s visit to come over without his spouse knowing until 30 minutes prior: Joe. Who thought he was too smart for the cops: Joe. Game, set, match to Team Covington!

  8. susan
    06/29/2011 at 9:29 PM

    There are so many things about that night that stand out but I’ll just say this: I think couples may invite thirds to their parties, but you hardly ever see the third as part of the domestic household. There’s J saying D is “married” to D, and V sending a card to J that mentions everyone and his brother as part of the fam. EXCEPT for D. And there’s D moving apart from J and J struggling to keep the master-slave bond alive by scouting out a third, and V rushing off to the gym to catch J who has split.
    Meanwhile, J and D have ongoing trysts with S and V has Project Runway. Just not a pic. of domestic bliss or even the “progressive” relationship either SH or SM described.

    According to the documented evidence, J seems to lie with some ease: Mercedes, blood cleaning, V’s cell phone, M. Price having a key, the knife, D being the “love of his life,” not telling V about an overnight guest, etc., etc.

    And here’s a big one: Nothing being stolen, RW having no known enemies, all three sleeping through so much, the short time frame, leaping over a fence, along came a spider, etc. All these and more lead me to find an unknown intruder to be a highly unlikely visitor that night.

  9. susan
    06/29/2011 at 10:29 PM
  10. steve
    06/29/2011 at 10:30 PM

    I have been putting myself in a juror seat on this case since the end of the last crim. trial. I am glad that Cat from Cleveland gives me an “open floor” (I have voice too) rather than being “inundated” by several permanent posters here to “believe” the same thing that they believe.

    Here are my facts:

    1. This blog is biased and has caused me to look the other way–to find justice for defendants “too” (and not just for Robert). Too dramatic, and too much “winning over” others whose voice are not like them. It scared a bird.

    I don’t know who the murderer(s) was/were and I will not “judge” from reading this blog. The three stab wounds were performed to intentionally execute Robert so he would not wake up to tell his wife about whatever happened. He was not meant to be dead to begin with.

    2. No one talked about the security guard, or the last person who “saw” Robert leaving his office. The description of him and whether he/she got a sense of what Robert was like before he left to the dead scene.

    If I were a juror, this settlement, if it goes through, is most likely what I would have wished for Kathy. It will not bring Robert back nor a closure to keep her happy, but it will “put the end to this chapter” so she can “moving on.”

    Since I really could not tell which defendant(s) did the killing!

    • Clio
      06/30/2011 at 8:13 AM

      How did the RFA employees characterize Robert’s demeanor that evening? I cannot remember that detail off-hand, but I doubt that that observation would change the fact that the universe of potential killers still stands at 3. And, I’m all for “justice” for any male trouple living together in a cozy bungalow in a tropical paradise, while their friend and guest has been dead for almost five years! (I love using ironical quotes, too! It’s so existentialist!)

  11. Hoya Loya
    06/29/2011 at 11:41 PM

    Nice post Cat.

    My opinion continually changes, but it’s seldom been firm as to who killed Robert, whether it was one of the three or someone else.

    Based on the original affidavit, I once thought a circumstantial case could be brought against Dylan, though I was not sure he did it. The criminal trial showed that much in that affidavit could not be proved or was overstated, changing my opinion on this significantly.

    Joe certainly appears to be hiding something, if not lying, in his video interrogation. But why? It doesn’t mean he did it, just that there are things he may not want to say or call attention to, for whatever reason.

    Many people seem to count Victor out, but there is really no more nor less evidence against him than there is against the others.

    Though a defense team might try to suggest Robert was on the DL to reduce juror sympathy for the victim, there remains a dearth of evidence that was the case. Just as there is no evidence of some of the more extreme theories raised on this site (that the killer(s) have killed before, that the plan was always to kill Robert that night, that this was some sort of ritual or serial killing). There have not even been any substative comments here to that effect — long ago there was a commenter who said it was common knowledge that Robert was on the DL and had been involved with LGBT groups at Penn Law and that commenter immediately backed down when challenged and said something like “well even if it was true you people wouldn’t accept it.” And as others have noted, if true, it still doesn’t excuse the murder.

    The fact that has me most hamstrung at the moment is the unlocked door. If that door was locked, then there would be no question that one of the three defendants did it. The conveniently unlocked door opens the possibility of the intruder, known or unknown. And isn’t necessary if the intruder was known and had a key. If they were lying about an intruder, whey didn’t they break a window or door to fake a breaking and entering (AltGuy would likely say this proves they are telling the truth). Or if there was an intruder how did he get so incredibly lucky? But why the immediate assumption (in Victor’s 911 call) that this was the case? Why does Joe tell whoever is on Victor’s phone at the beginning of his tape that it was an attempted robbery when nothing was taken? At the moment it is that door that is most keeping me from throwing up my hands and saying “no way they did it.”

    Second, the puzzling demeanor of Joe and Victor in their tapes. As mentioned Joe is clearly being less than forthcoming about many things and dropping plenty of backhanded hints at what might be underlying events or explanations. And shock and fatigue can’t fully explain his offhand attitude regarding the death of his old friend. Again, doesn’t mean he did it, but what does it mean? And Victor has an odd air — as if he is pleased with himself for sticking so well to the story. It just seems off.

    So no, I couldn’t convict either, based on what we know. But have lots of questions. And logic tells me that if alarm records could show that the door was secured and the alarm on, it would change things to point in one, two or three directions.

    • susan
      06/30/2011 at 7:35 AM


      Re no broken window, etc., it seems that whoever murdered RW was concerned about cleanliness and keeping the house intact. Nothing strewn about the room, no rumpled towels, no mud or grass stains about from the shoes, etc.

      • Clio
        06/30/2011 at 7:54 AM

        True, Susan. No plants were disturbed; rather, they were just watered. Only a magazine with a strangely relevant story was found on the floor. All the sex toys had been put away in Dyl’s chest: there were no dusty dildoes lying about. Everything seemed to be spotless: I must get the name of their mythical maid.

      • Bea
        06/30/2011 at 12:40 PM

        Yeah, and it’s always been strange to me that the boys were poised to remember the spider on the light to set up their recollection that the door might well have been unlocked.

        First rule of keeping the story straight: keep it very simple and do not pretend to have heard things or seen things because that can trip you up. The “tossing in” of the spider AND Joe mentioning in separate interviews that the killer might have worn gloves smack of lying.

        The fact that the knife had NO fingerprints on it, not even Joe’s, seems like a big head-scratcher too. I think it’s a WHOOPS just like the big WHOOPS of cleaning blood off the ceiling and walls – someone had a party the night they were told that all the blood evidence had been tainted and would be inadmissible. Why keep talking if you’re guilty??

        • alternateguy
          06/30/2011 at 1:16 PM


          Now they cleaned blood off of the CEILING? Where can I find THAT one?

          • Bea
            06/30/2011 at 2:03 PM

            I don’t know where, exactly, you could find it but it’s out there. Perhaps the Eds. will recall. The Ashley’s Reagent misuse killed off any chance of examining blood found at the scene, which included blood traces on the walls and the ceiling. CDinDC in particular may have a recollection to help you locate documents – CD had good reasoning to support that Robert Wone was stabbed in the shower and then transported and laid down on the (turned down linens) bed. If memory serves, the thought was that the paralytic had been used (which accounted for the “surgical” wounds with no tearing), that most of the blood went down the drain, and that during transport there was blood on the walls. I don’t know if the blood on the ceiling was in the bath, hall, or bedroom to be completely forthright, nor do I know if that information was reported.

            This was discussed at length before the trial but I can’t tell you where exactly to look. I suspect that the prosecution in the criminal case had wanted to try to prove CD’s theory since Kathy Wone said Robert did not take showers at night, that the towel in the bedroom had not been used, and that he was meticulous about folding his clothes (which were not). Lying down diagonally on top of folded down linens is unusual, so this “went” with the theory in general – not that any one element might not have happened in the course of events, except for the blood evidence, which was shortly thereafter contaminated by police.

            • Bill Orange
              06/30/2011 at 8:41 PM

              I’m fairly hesitant to trust in any evidence–even evidence that might have been tainted–that we haven’t actually seen. Or hasn’t at least been seen by both sides. I don’t think I’ve seen anything particularly trustworthy about blood on the walls or semen in the rectum.

          • Gloria
            07/01/2011 at 12:47 AM

            For the record (and so no one else will repeat my obsessiveness), I did a search for “ceiling” through all posts and comments and found no mention that blood had been “cleaned from the ceiling.” Other than references to the style of ceiling at Union Station, the ceiling mounted cameras in Anacostia’s interrogation rooms, etc., the only mention of “ceiling” is repeated mention of the investigators having applied the (incorrect) reagent to the walls and ceiling but found no traces of blood. Which gets us back to ….. my longtime obsession: Robert’s mouth guard being in his mouth. Remember that little detail?

            • Bea
              07/01/2011 at 2:24 AM

              Gloria, it’s good that I’m not the only OCD person on this site! I do know it’s been discussed (blood on walls and ceiling) but I’ll have to think and perhaps the Eds. have better access (and memories) than I do. Perhaps tomorrow’s lunch hour. . .

              Bill O, the semen in the rectum was noted in the autopsy report if memory serves. It was tested and determined to be Robert’s so I’d say that one was definitive.

              • susan
                07/01/2011 at 7:09 AM


                Could that electric ejaculation device from DW’s toy chest have produced that result?

                • Bea
                  07/02/2011 at 1:14 PM

                  Short answer of long-ago discussions: yes.

            • Alternateguy
              07/01/2011 at 12:11 PM


              I think that we are all obsessed.

              Did I also read that misapplication of the reagent wouldn’t have necessarily covered up evidence of blood if it had been there? I’m not sure about that.

              I’ve always thought that the mouth-guard thing is some evidence against the likelihood of Robert having been incapacitated before he went to bed. If the body on bed scene were staged after incapacitation, then the detail of inserting Robert’s mouth guard, (kept in a case,) into his dead mouth, would have been a really thoughtful touch.

              His wife knew that Robert always used it at night, but how would Joe have known that? And, would he even remember such a detail? Even if Robert had slept over in the past, isn’t that a kind of personal and unimportant detail to mention? I can’t see him calling from a guestroom, “Hey, I’m putting my mouth guard in before I go to sleep, I do that every night.” (Joe, from next room,” That’s interesting, I’ll have to remember that.”)

              By all indications, he and Joe had never slept together. And I don’t recall seeing that he and Joe were ever roommates. Could someone incapacitate a sleeping person with a hypodermic without waking him up? So many questions, regarding just this one detail of the mouth guard.

        • Bill 2
          06/30/2011 at 1:19 PM

          As Alt stated: “why accept ANY of their story at all?” That’s the realistic way of looking at it. After all, we know of Price’s alternate stories about the knife, we know of Price pretending Victor’s cell phone was his own, we’ve heard how he held back information from the police. Just that information about Price adds up to “why accept ANY of their story at all?”

    • Bill 2
      06/30/2011 at 9:19 AM

      Hoya, How do we know the door was unlocked? Couldn’t it have been quickly unlocked when someone went downstairs to wait for the ambulance? In creating the excuse of an intruder, an unlocked door would be needed to set up that scene. I don’t think we can depend on the claims of the trio that the door was unlocked.

      • Hoya Loya
        06/30/2011 at 10:29 AM

        Bill 2:

        My point exactly. How do we know? And isn’t it terribly convenient, yet not typical of a break-in? It’s the “it just so happened” scenario again — it just so happened that an intruder stumbled on an unlocked door on a night when it just so happened that a houseguest was staying over and it just so happened that he stabbed the houseguest instead of one of the residents and didn’t steal anything.

      • Hoya Loya
        06/30/2011 at 10:29 AM

        Bill 2:

        My point exactly. How do we know? And isn’t it terribly convenient, yet not typical of a break-in? It’s the “it just so happened” scenario again — it just so happened that an intruder stumbled on an unlocked door on a night when it just so happened that a houseguest was staying over and it just so happened that he stabbed the houseguest instead of one of the residents and didn’t steal anything.

      • alternateguy
        06/30/2011 at 11:24 AM

        Bill 2,

        But – Here we go again. The only story we have concerning that night is, pretty much, the one revealed by the defendants. If we are going to disbelieve the statement that the door was likely unlocked and suggest that they “quickly” unlocked it just before the police arrived, why accept ANY of their story at all? In that case, there was tons of time to unlock the door as well as stage all sorts of additional evidence of an intruder. Why did they only unlock the door, yet not even leave it open?

        • Bill 2
          06/30/2011 at 11:49 AM

          For once, you’ve apparently faced the truth when you ask “why accept ANY of their story at all?” I agree and it’s exactly what needed to be asked from Day 1.

          • alternateguy
            06/30/2011 at 1:08 PM

            Bill 2,

            Yes, I asked, “…why accept any of the story at all?” But, you see, I answered that question in my first sentence.

            I continue to rather accept the triple’s story because, as I said, “It’s the only story we have.” As unlikely as it may seem to some, their story is the only one that makes any sense at all.

            I can imagine the case as a jig-saw puzzle picture, with some obviously missing pieces. The triple’s suggestions as to what the missing pieces may contain, leads to a slightly believable picture of the crime. Albeit with a missing motive. (And, is it at all strange in any way that none of the trio can imagine a motive for killing Robert Wone?)

            The doubter’s descriptions of what the various missing puzzle pieces may contain, lead to FAR LESS believable pictures of the crime, in my opinion. (Even though great efforts are made to shoehorn in a variety of highly unlikely motives.)

            No. I have no idea who killed Robert Wone. I just feel that it’s quite unlikely that the trio did it. And unlikely that they are intentionally covering up for someone who they believe to be a murderer.

            This case is a puzzle. One that neither the authorities nor we posters seem to be able to solve.

            Some here blame the three suspects for not having solved it. But that seems unfair to me.

            • Boggled
              06/30/2011 at 2:03 PM

              “Its the only story we have.” Are you serious? It’s illogical to say that because it’s the only story, it’s the “true” or “believable” story.

              And yes, it IS very strange that not one of the trouple could imagine a motive for Robert’s slaying. As we’ve seen here, most people can easily imagine a variety of scenarios–why not them if they’re innocent?

              Fact: The interview transcripts of all three defendants show literally hundreds of indicators of deception. Does this mean one of them killed Robert? Not necessarily. Does it mean that all three of them know more than they’ve revealed? You bet your ass.

              • Alternateguy
                06/30/2011 at 3:24 PM

                Ah yes, Boggled,

                You say, “It’s illogical to say that because it’s the only story, it’s the “true” or “believable” story.”

                I said truEST, MOST believable of the stories. It’s far from the only story.

                Then you say, “As we’ve seen here, most people can easily imagine a variety of scenarios–why not them if they’re innocent?”

                Their stories were taken THE NIGHT OF ROBERT’S DEATH. – ROBERT WAS A FREIEND OF THEIRS. Neither of these conditions apply to people on this site.
                I can really understand that the three members of the household could simply not, at that point in time, imagine why anyone would kill Robert.

                Then you state, “Fact: The interview transcripts of all three defendants show literally hundreds of indicators of deception”

                Either literally or figuratively, I think your fact list is off by, say, at least 195 or more.

                Then you end up asking, “Does it mean that all three of them know more than they’ve revealed? You bet your ass.”

                No Bet! Your statement is true OF COURSE.

                Obviously they know more than they revealed. These can be facts that they felt were either extraneous or not necessary to help the police find the murder, as well as facts that didn’t come to mind or facts that they weren’t even questioned about. But I don’t find any proof that they were hiding guilty information concerning the murder. And neither did the law. (Law has far more resources to work with than we do.)

                • Boggled
                  06/30/2011 at 4:00 PM

                  And I thought arguing with my hormonal teenager was pointless…

                  I guess “truEST, MOST believable” depends on your perspective. Forgive me for thinking a majority of reasonable people would find the ninja intruder story patently ridiculous and insulting to one’s intelligence.

                  And I beg to differ: if someone murdered my best friend tonight, I’d be able to come up with half a dozen scenarios right off the top of my head. ESPECIALLY if it happened in my guest bedroom.

                  If anything, my estimate of the indicators of deception in the defendants’ statements was conservative.

                  And you just can’t have it both ways: if Robert was their FRIEND and they were so upset about his murder that they couldn’t think of how it might have happened in their well-protected house, then as his FRIENDS they should have been willing to go to any length to help. I don’t care WHAT they lied about–they lied. Not helpful.

                  • Alternateguy
                    06/30/2011 at 5:12 PM


                    I know nothing about your teenager’s hormones. But, since you sound like a typical, know-it-all parent in your post, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that many of your kid’s arguments are blown off as being “…patently ridiculous and insulting…”
                    (I think I’m glad not to be your kid.) (And I wonder about your friends, for whom you can think of so many motives for someone to violently kill them,)

                    “I don’t care WHAT they lied about–they lied.”

                    No shades of gray for you; No Sir!

                    • Boggled
                      06/30/2011 at 5:51 PM

                      I tried to respond to your arguments and not your personality. You really are an ass.

                  • Alternateguy
                    06/30/2011 at 6:34 PM


                    Sorry. I thought you said that arguing with me was pointless, and like arguing with a hormonal teenager.

                    And, that you believed that most People would find some of my suggestions patently ridiculous and insulting to one’s intelligence.

                    Guess I misunderstood.

                    If so, I apologies. I know that I’m too quick to jump to conclusions.

                • susan
                  06/30/2011 at 7:53 PM

                  Hmm. According to Zaborsky’s transcript Robert there was not a “FRIEND” he was a “casual” or for some a “CASUAL” friend. His words. And of course, we only “know him through Joe”-Dyl W. also in the transcript.

  12. steve
    06/30/2011 at 11:50 AM

    Cat from Cleveland, “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.” Judge Lynn, you bet, had same hard times convicting one, two, or all three defendents as she knew, you bet again, she may be putting one, two, or all three innocents men in jail. I am with you, Cat, 100%.

    Bruce, I won’t blame you for having been gone this long! It’s kinda understandable!!! It is good to hear your boldness and sound judgment again.

    Hoya Loya, I follow your post very closely. You balance out the rest of bloggers here.

    KiKi, You are the missing one. I need to hear from you because of your true, frank and “sharp,” yes I said “sharp,” statement can really “wake up” some of bloggers here–at least for a day or two.

    • Hoya Loya
      06/30/2011 at 2:34 PM


      I try to examine things from two different perspectives:

      1) Looking at all the facts, what is the most likely explanation.

      2) Assuming the defendants are innocent, how can the more puzzling facts be explained.

      I do not make accusations that have no factual basis, nor do I blindly assume that everything makes sense because the defendants must be innocent.

    • KiKi
      06/30/2011 at 5:20 PM

      Thanks steve. See below.

  13. AnnaZed
    06/30/2011 at 4:51 PM

    To anyone who has taken even the briefest cursory look at Paul Duggan’s extensive Washington Post piece about Robert Wone’s murder proclaiming that there was tons of time to work up a more credible mise-en-scène than the men cobbled together is just an instance of being willfully obtuse.

  14. KiKi
    06/30/2011 at 5:16 PM

    Thanks Cat. Great Post!

    Over the years I have worked with a lot of murderers and a lot of times their actions are irrational and unexplainable. However, for the most part, my clients either work to cover up the crime or they are in such a poor mental state that they just leave everything a mess. It is rare that you see a crime half cleaned, or partially tampered with. In other words, when my clients have altered a crime scene, for the most part, they try to cover up their involvement as much as possible.

    First, I think that we can all agree that these are intelligent men. Second, we also know they take pride in keeping up appearances. If they were trying to cover up a murder and create an intruder theory why did they do such a bad job?

    This is what intrigues me about this case, it just doesn’t make sense any way you slice it. As I see it there are a few possible scenarios where Robert could have been killed by the defendants or someone they knew.
    1. One or more of defendants (or someone they knew) planned to kill Robert before he got there
    2. One or more of the defendants (or someone they knew) decided to kill Robert once he was there either in a heat of passion or for another purpose.
    3. Robert accidentally died during some sort of forced activity (i.e. he was incapacitated) and a cover-up ensued
    4. Robert accidentally died during some sort of consensual activity and a cover-up ensued.

    Just as people have pointed out that the unknown intruder theory does not make sense, I think that there are problems with each of these scenarios.

    I really can’t understand how in any of these scenarios the defendants did not do a better job of covering up the murder. If they had decided to blame an unknown intruder, why not tussle up the house, why not have some import things go missing, why not open the back gate or at least leave it unlocked, why not break a window. Why not get rid of the body and say, “he left our house at X time we never saw him again?”

    Where is the blood? If the defendants went through the trouble of concocting an unknown intruder theory why would they clean up the bloody sheets but leave the knife? Where did the blood go? Where are the bloody clothes worn by the person who stabbed Robert.

    Some people have suggested he was killed in a shower and moved to the bedroom. If this is true then the defendants really do need a cover story. If he wasn’t actually stabbed in the shower and died some other way, why not go with theory he fell in the shower and hit his head. If he was stabbed in the shower and moved to the bedroom, why not do a better job of setting up the intruder theory? i.e. the intruder came in when he was showering and stabbed him in the shower.

    The defendants knew that Kathy knew Robert was at their house. I really cannot imagine that they were planning on killing or assaulting him without any plan of what to do after they killed or assaulted him. If they just planned on incapacitating him and having their way with him and he died accidentally, then how did they plan on explaining to Robert the next day why he had marks on him? If any of this was preplanned, I really have a hard time figuring out why the aftermath was so poorly planned.

    I know that this is a horribly unpopular opinion on this blog but the only explanation that makes any sense in my mind, is that Robert was a willing participant in some sort of embarrassing act, things went wrong and Robert died. The defendants freaked out and acted erratically. They made bad decisions and did not do a good job covering up the death. When the investigation started they knew that they did not want to tell Kathy and the world Robert’s secret. So they covered it up. When they were charged with obstruction/tampering/conspiracy, if they would have then explained what happened they would have been admitting guilt.

    This makes much more sense to me than that the defendants incapacitated Robert and something went wrong because as I said above, if the plan was to assault him they would have had a plan for what to do afterward.

    A lot of the issues brought up here, while interesting, I think can be explained away. The needle marks in Roberts neck could have come from the emt resuscitation efforts, the semen in the rectum could have come from consensual activities or post mortem ejaculation, the lack of blood could have been from cardiac tamponade or been inflicted post mortem from covering up the accidental death during consensual activities. This is all doubt for which I can give a reason.

    That said, I am also not ruling out the possibility that someone completely unassociated with the defendants killed Robert. In that scenario, I really doubt it was a random burglary; it is much more likely that it was either a purposeful attack on Robert or one of the defendants. And I am also not ruling out that despite everything I just said the defendants actually did kill Robert. It is certainly possible, some of you would even say probable or highly likely, but that to me is not enough to say that any of the defendants are guilty of murder.

    • Bill 2
      06/30/2011 at 6:19 PM

      KiKi, you stated: If they had decided to blame an unknown intruder, why not tussle up the house, why not have some import things go missing, why not open the back gate or at least leave it unlocked, why not break a window. Why not get rid of the body and say, “he left our house at X time we never saw him again?”

      All that would make sense. We’re talking about three intelligent men who should be able to accomplish this to give the impression of an intruder. Further, you’re right that it would be a good idea to say he left the house and didn’t return. It’s something they could have considered.

      One little thing could have completely stopped all those plans and caused a total panic.

      Victor Zaborsky’s scream!!!!

      Three men with a dead body in the house could easily imagine that there would be cops at the door in just a couple of minutes after that scream. That eliminates all possibility of discussing the pros and cons of various plans when you’re standing there listening for a police siren.

      • Alternateguy
        06/30/2011 at 7:29 PM

        Bill 2,

        You make a good point about the scream possibly being a game changer.


        If Victor’s scream was due to him coming upon a stabbed bloody body: Why was that the case? If Robert’s assailants had plenty of time to create a scene, why include a stabbing? And if they stabbed him on his bed, why clean up all of the blood? Why not in the back yard or just inside the kitchen door. More importantly why not suggest unknown causes? Find the body in the morning. Or have him fall down the stairs? Far less bloody and easier to clean up than a stabbing, using your own knives.

        Did Victor scream at an un-stabbed body? It would have taken some time to think up the stabbing, find suitable knives then, do all of the clean-up, run clothes through washer and dryer, call friends to arrange pick up of the actual knife, talk Victor into going along with all of this, To say nothing of ditching all of the camera equipment.

        And they say ninja theories are unlikely. I know, we all are trying to come up with something.

        • Clio
          07/03/2011 at 3:15 PM

          Why didn’t Joe or Dyl scream? Wouldn’t they have done so to ward off the attacker, or to draw attention and help from neighbors, even from Mr. Hixson? During the 911 Theater Hour, why didn’t Joe or Dyl raise their voices? Did they think that a paid assassin from the Sultanate of Brunei was still jazzercising downstairs?

          • Alternateguy
            07/03/2011 at 3:35 PM

            Except children and teenage girls, most people don’t scream. Adults call 911 and let the sirens do the screaming for them. If you call noisily, any intruder in the house will be very effectively warded off.

            • cdindc
              07/03/2011 at 4:27 PM

              Altguy say: “Except children and teenage girls, most people don’t scream.”

              In what stereotypical world do you live in?

      • cdindc
        07/03/2011 at 4:27 PM

        I still think it was Robert that screamed.

        • alternateguy
          07/03/2011 at 5:26 PM

          Well, people do sometimes scream when injured. But not if they’re incapacitated with drugs. And if it was Robert’s scream that the neighbor heard, there was simply not enough time to do all of the cleaning/washing/staging/planning/needed to set the scene.

          • AnnaZed
            07/03/2011 at 5:47 PM

            This last I would agree with. In my opinion it was Victor who screamed; otherwise the time-line just is unworkable.

            • cdindc
              07/04/2011 at 11:32 AM

              Okay…I’ll give you both that. Timeline may be too tight.

              However, Altguy, a person can vocalize even if incapacitated. I’ve theorized many times that ketamine was the drug of choice that night. Ketamine does not paralyze vocal cords. A user of ketamine, although unable to be mobile, CAN vocalize.

              • alternateguy
                07/04/2011 at 11:56 AM


                If you are correct, THANKS for the VERY interesting information.

                So, if he could have called for help at any point during the imagined rape, why didn’t he do so?

                I can imagine myself hollering way before an electrical toy was inserted, and of course while it was happening. And if he was calling out, that would suggest that the whole household was involved. Which makes no sense for other reasons.

                And if he was a willing participant up until some point, which most people believe impossible, why kill him?

                You see, that’s the kind of thing that makes the unknown intruder theory seem even more plausible to me, as I continue to hear the arguments.

                • Bill Orange
                  07/04/2011 at 1:57 PM

                  Um, why does the possible involvement of the whole household make no sense to you?

                  • Alternateguy
                    07/04/2011 at 3:15 PM

                    Ur, because,

                    1). That would simply mean that all three are previously undiscovered psychopaths. And the mathematical odds against that are simply minuscule.

                    2). Very few of the scenarios presented have been able to involve all three.

                    3). Such a motiveless murder involving three – Three mature adults rather than a Leopold and Lobe, two repressed teenagers, would be more than historical. Silent serial killers, black bag snuffs and the like are not nearly as rare as this would be. Totally unprecedented! And Leopold and Lobe didn’t even involve the rape of a friend.

                    • cdindc
                      07/04/2011 at 7:47 PM

                      1 psychopath, 2 accomplices. Psychopaths have an amazing way of manipulating people.

              • Bill 2
                07/04/2011 at 3:07 PM

                You’re right cdindc, about being able to vocalize – but that’s just making sounds, not having a conversation — as some may suddenly toss in by twisting what others have said.

                When muscle paralysis sets in from ketamine, that includes muscles needed to form words.

                Of course, ketamine causes users to feel no pain by impeding messages between the brain and body. With enough ketamine, the person who has been given the ketamine wouldn’t even know what people around him/her were doing. A touch to their body may not even register in the brain.

                If the person incapicated by ketamine has no sense of pain, there’s no way their brain is going to tell them to yell “Help! Call 911!”

                Hope you’re having a great Capitol 4th!

                • Alternateguy
                  07/04/2011 at 4:15 PM


                  More information is always helpful.

                  I have to say that the more the talk involves drug use and their affects, the less I know.

                  Particularly if the drugs are said to cause one to behave in a totally bizarre way! I always simply assume that drugs, like alcohol, can bring out some hidden part of the personality that is normally repressed.

                  But, just because drugs are involved, doesn’t and can’t explain everything, in my view.

                  The only real indication that drugs might have been involved is the behavior. And the indication that the behavior may have been drug induced is given as the only clear explanation for that behavior.

                  Is a puzzlement.

                • cdindc
                  07/04/2011 at 7:50 PM

                  that’s correct Bill2. Forming words would be difficult, although possible. Slurred. But possible.

                  I’ve many times encouraged people to go to Youtube to view actual footage of users on ketamine. Walking, talking, etc. Only a high does of ketamine will render a person immobile and a k-hole results. Smaller doses will render a person incapable of defending themselves, however,

    • Bea
      06/30/2011 at 8:00 PM

      KiKi, glad you are back. We disagree on what is most likely but I like how well reasoned your posts are.

    • susan
      06/30/2011 at 8:10 PM


      Just a quick thought re one of your questions. You ask “where did the blood go” and “where are the bloody clothes worn by” whoever killed RW. Possibilities exist to explain both of those questions. One expert at the trial mentioned that the type of stabbings RW received would not produce a lot of blood. That was his explanation for the lack of much blood. Re bloody clothes, according to J. Price, D. Ward was “f-ing” naked under his robe. That’s what he said during his interrogation by police. We know that he too was in his skivvies. No need to explain bloody clothes if there were no clothes on.

      I’m open to all theories but I’m open also to seeing contradictions in testimony and actions, and a surfeit of coincidences that seem beyond coincidence.

      Alt or Dent, uh Steve (one of the two) mentioned something echoing JP’s suggestion that the “intruder” wore gloves. My thought is, if an intruder was so prepared as to come with gloves in August why not come prepared with a weapon as well? Just a thought.

      • steve
        06/30/2011 at 9:06 PM

        Susan: I’m Steve and I’ve never mentioned “… something echoing JP’s suggestion that the “intruder” wore gloves.” Never mind anything else you may “make it up” about me.

      • Carolina
        07/02/2011 at 6:56 PM

        Don’t forget, they were freshly showered lads, and there were clothes in the wash.

        • Clio
          07/03/2011 at 6:53 PM

          Yes, one should always shower before meeting the police at one’s home — rub a dub dub, three “men” in a tub!

          • Alternateguy
            07/03/2011 at 6:57 PM

            Not enouth time any way you look at it. Unless there is an unknown factor.

      • Alternateguy
        07/03/2011 at 7:04 PM

        Who’s to say he didn’t, but found something better, less traceable, more likely to direct suspicion towards the household. People don’t have to be dumb to commit crimes, just evil.

    • Craig
      06/30/2011 at 11:24 PM

      Welcome back Kiki. Thanks. And welcome back to some of the other old timers.

    • Clio
      07/01/2011 at 9:35 AM

      Kiki: Thanks for continuing to strengthen Ben’s strategy; your “contrarian” critiques must be fodder for the interns at Covington. Nevertheless, why would Joe, who to many observers seems to be a self-serving hypocrite, go to such great lengths (killing a friend) to avoid exposure of a consensual tryst gone bad? Was Joe that bad in bed that he didn’t want Robert to go blabbing out that fact? Poppycock! And, why wouldn’t Dyl, who was just a casual friend to Robert, have outed Mr. Wone by now if that tricking aspect of Robert’s visit was really there? IMHO, given what we know about Robert and his character, rape or assault is much more likely than a quick yet failed BJ to have been the prelude to this murder.

    • Hoya Loya
      07/01/2011 at 11:37 AM


      Thanks for your well-reasoned post. The consensual sex opinion is unpopular because there is no more evidence that Robert was on the down low than there is evidence of violence on the part of the defendants. In addition, there is a great deal of evidence that cheating on Kathy would be contrary to Robert’s well-established good character. When a shred of supporting evidence pops up, I’ll be glad to reconsider and I’d be lying if the possibility of a settlement hasn’t made me wonder if maybe such supporting evidence did turn up in discovery. And I agree with you that it would make help make sense of the behavior of the defendants. I will also admit that when I first read about this case in a news blurb several years ago, I immediately assumed that was the explanation. It was only after reading the Washington Post series and finding this site that I began to wonder otherwise.

      As for evidence at the scene itself, taken in a vacuum, Robert’s own semen would seem to be evidence of consensual acts, since it is very difficult to climax involuntarily. However, it just so happens that there was a device on the premises that could cause one to climax involuntarily. It is also unlikely, if he voided at or after death that it would have migrated into his rectum. The defense in the criminal study had put forth a Scandanavian study about migration of semen into the rectum after death, but as part of the long term decomposition process. Robert was autopsied shortly after his death.

      Add to this the needle marks — at the criminal trial most were explained by resucitation efforts, as you suggest, but several could not be accounted for, even by the defense. And there were physical restraints in the household as well. Neither these nor the device were introduced at the criminal trial so the possibility that they were used was never fully ruled in or out. Plus there is the wild card of the mouth guard, which would be hard for another person to insert and which it would have been unlikely for Robert to have in place during sex — it is the square on the Rubik’s Cube that never seems to fall into place. Taking all these factors into account, the seemingly most simple explanation that Robert died or was believed to have died accidentally during consensual sex seems more questionable than at first blush.

      It also seems to me a quantum leap to go from “OMG he’s not breathing and has no pulse” or whatever to “Well, I guess we have to stab him now” even as part of a cover-up, especially if the guys are indeed not violent types.

      But overall you make many good points, as always — thanks again.

      • KiKi
        07/01/2011 at 12:30 PM

        I didn’t think about the mouth guard. That is a great point. But it still doesn’t explain why if Robert died during the forced sex act why there wasn’t a better cover up. I also have a really hard time believing that they were going to assault Robert and not have any explanation in the morning. When Robert woke up laying on the covers with no memory of what happened and possible marks on his neck, what were they going to say? Also, even if this was the plan before Victor unexpectedly came home early, why would they continue to go through with it with Victor home?

        • Bill 2
          07/01/2011 at 1:26 PM

          KiKi, they could have been planning to pass off the needle marks as bug bites in the morning. I would think that the water he drank in the kitchen may have had something in it to make him drop off to sleep fast, so that he wouldn’t notice the needle injection as it was happening. Robert could have popped in the mouth guard as he felt himself dozing off — and thinking that dozing off was simply because he was very tired.

          As far as putting aside the plan due to Zaborsky’s arrival at home, perhaps Price did put aside the plan but Ward wasn’t going to give up on it.

          As far as “the plan,” I think it’s Sarah Morgan who may have some insight into that. Was she asked to leave the house for the evening? Did she contact Victor to tell him of a plan? Is that why he came home early?

          I still think it is peripheral people who can chip away at their intruder fairytale if the peripheral people finally reveal all they know.

        • Bill 2
          07/01/2011 at 1:37 PM

          One more thing, a comprehensive plan for a cover-up could have ended with Victor Zaborsky’s scream. Thinking the police may be rushing toward their home, could make smart people do dumb things.

        • Alternateguy
          07/01/2011 at 1:42 PM

          Yes, and if Victor did show up and go to his room, why would they not have taken precautions, lock the door or at least listen for him to come down the wooden stairs, so that he wouldn’t come unexpectedly upon the murder scene.

          Never made sense to me. And those who try to put these scenarios together are so ready to discount any and all possibility of any unknown intruder.

          • Clio
            07/03/2011 at 8:26 AM

            One might surmise that many “unspeakable” things went on in that house, whether Victor or Sarah were there or not. Thus, when Victor came home earlier than planned, it probably did not stop Culuket’s Schlieflen Plan from going operational. From her own dreadful experiences when Victor was away, Sarah may have known to flee … to the sanctuary of a far less adventurous gay male couple five blocks away, and there is the distinct possibility that she implored her dear Victor to join her there.

            • Bruce
              07/05/2011 at 11:57 AM

              Really, Clio? “Unspeakable!” Things can be surmised that went on in that house. But they are “unspeakable,” you say.

              I thought you had already covered and expressed all the “unspeakable” surmises in your many posts.

              Please don’t hold back!!!

              Please don’t be “unspeakable.”

              Give us a list, please. Or something. We need to know these “unspeakables” even if they are not allowed to be verbalized in Victorian society, and might hurt our delicate ears. You are holding back on us, yes?

              • Clio
                07/05/2011 at 10:30 PM

                Dear, dear Bruce, as one should know as a professional sophist, beauty, justice, and what one cannot mention are all relative. It’s all in the eyes of the beholder, I am afraid. If Victor or Sarah or anyone else was present when intimacies were being shared by others in the house while they were present in said “sardine can”, then they may not have possibly (or naturally) wanted to speak about such goings-on. It has nothing to do with specifically Victorian values. Hope that helps (again).

      • Bill 2
        07/01/2011 at 2:52 PM

        I agree Hoya that it would be a quantum leap to go from “OMG he’s not breathing and has no pulse” or whatever to “Well, I guess we have to stab him now” even as part of a cover-up, especially if the guys are indeed not violent types – and are totally sober.

        If one or two were high on drugs, that could muddle their thinking.

        While I like to think there were no plans to murder Robert, giving him a drug that caused a reaction making him appear dead could have caused a drug-addled mind to quickly come up with a way to make it look as if he were killed by an intruder.

    • Hoya Loya
      07/01/2011 at 11:59 AM

      One more thought: I sometimes think the possibility that there was NO sex — that Robert voided and the ME botched the rape kit test — is more likely than Robert consenting.

      It sometimes seems to me that the prosecution was proceeding under that assumption or pretext in the criminal case.

      • Alternateguy
        07/01/2011 at 1:22 PM


        I keep thinking that I remember that the defense came up with expert testimony that the traces of semen in the rectum could have resulted from natural seepage. But when I try to look it up, I don’t find it.

        People, like myself, hearing about a man’s semen in his own rectum immediately think, “Well that sure proves unnatural activity!”

        But then, after reading the defenses report, I recalled that a man’s prostate gland, which produces his semen, sits right against the very wall of his rectum. I, for one, will have to leave it to the experts to say where in his body; traces of a man’s own semen can show up.

        Hoya, as you know, I’m no lawyer. But I think that this points up a big trouble in our legal system. The prosecution can reveal information from his vast public resources, which seems, on the surface, to lead to an obvious and shocking conclusion. But that prosecutor has no obligation whatsoever to soften that image by providing any alternative explanation, even if he knows it. It is up to defendants to, at their own expense; dig out information to belay the argument. By that time the case has already ratcheted up to the point where everyone is quite sure that the prosecution has revealed an entirely significant point.

        • Hoya Loya
          07/01/2011 at 1:42 PM


          An obscure (Finnish?) study was disclosed by the defense in a pretrial filing. It was of questionable relevance given its obscurity and focus on migration of bodily fluids in decaying cadavers — Robert was just barely dead when examined. It was not introduced at trial as the prosecution chose not to focus on the semen evidence apart from it being referenced in the ME’s report.

          • Alternateguy
            07/01/2011 at 2:06 PM


            Do you have any idea where I can find those pre-trial filings?

  15. AnnaZed
    06/30/2011 at 5:25 PM

    Breaking a window would have created a lot of noise at the wrong time in the time-line; i.e. after Victor screamed.

  16. Alternateguy
    06/30/2011 at 6:07 PM


    Your thinking here, pretty much agrees with what I feel, though I certainly lack your experiance. I do think it more possable than you do, that an outsider intruder could have been involved.

    Such a big attempt to Pooh-Pooh that possibility has been made from the very start, that I feel it has been eliminated more for C.Y.A. political reasons than for simply being very improbable. Posters call such ideas Fairy Tails, Ninja Fantasies and worse. I suspect that they’ve been a bit politicized.

    Most of the incapacitation theories end up with Robert being stabbed three times as some sort of cover-up. I can much more readily wrap my thoughts around some stealthy intruder scenario than that one.

    I do, sometimes think that if it turns out that weird sex is not involved in the murder, there will probably be those who’ll lose interest in it. Where’s the fun in theories that involve no sex?

    • Clio
      06/30/2011 at 10:23 PM

      Alt, you are such a card — no one on purpose could come up with the eccentric yet cute spelling of “Fairy Tails”; and, of course, there is no fun or credibility in the intruder theory, which was intentionally designed to make the sexual temperature at Swann seem to be sub-zero on the Kelvin scale!

      All of those toys, and there one has Dyl exercising in his own room, cleaning the kitchen, reading his article — yawn!!

  17. steve
    06/30/2011 at 9:21 PM

    Hats off to the legal counsels: Cat from Cleveland, Bruce, KiKi, and our local blend Hoya Loya. All come in full circle…until there is another twist in the case, perhaps.

  18. Jeana
    06/30/2011 at 9:24 PM

    Super post, Cat – similar to Doug’s knowns and unknowns – posing a question that leads us to take our thinking in a new direction.

    One fact that has always troubled me is Victor’s comment the nite of Robert’s murder (made to the police as I recall) that his life will never be the same. That is either supremely self-centered or very telling. I really can’t imagine if he were completely innocent that he would think of the impact of the crime on himself rather than on Robert and on Kathy.

    Don’t know what his involvement may have been, but that comment sure smacks of guilty knowledge to me.

    • Bea
      06/30/2011 at 9:38 PM

      Jeana, I’ve always thought the same thing. He’d said repeatedly that Robert was only a “casual” friend – what about life would never be the same? That might make the top ten of questions I’d wished the police had followed up on. Asking Joe “was Robert alive when you found him?” would definitely make the list.

      • Clio
        06/30/2011 at 10:08 PM

        How has Victor’s life possibly changed since 08/02/06? He’s still living with his husband and his husband’s “mistress” under the same roof; he’s still working as a milk marketer; he’s gotten a little grayer and could lose a few pounds, but couldn’t we all!

        On the other hand, he no longer has to go to those boring Equality Virginia cotillions, and he no longer has to endure Sarah’s penchant for paranoia. No one will probably ever stay overnight at Zaborsky-Price again without his express consent in writing three months in advance, and Joe has probably been downright soliticious since he continues to pack on the pounds! Dyl’s been restricted to outcalls, so, perhaps, far fewer gentleman callers stroll on by the Miami Shores home vis-a-vis the number who visited the 1509 Swann of the summer of 2006. My life will never be the same: yeah, right!

        • Clio
          06/30/2011 at 10:14 PM

          Oops — it should read “solicitous” after the word “downright” above; I should never post after a glass of wine. But, at least, I didn’t burn my steak tonight.

        • Bill 2
          07/01/2011 at 6:17 PM

          Clio, His outcalls could be out in the fenced in back yard on the pool deck. Homes in that area have access roads in the rear for parking and garages. His “clients” could ride their bikes over and the neighbors wouldn’t even notice the people coming and going.

          • Clio
            07/01/2011 at 7:13 PM

            You may be right, Bill 2: oh the humanity!

            But, Dyl’s last ad, I could have sworn, was for outcalls (where he would not host the massage or topless facial) only — maybe, just maybe, Victor has finally read Betty Friedan after all. Fingers still crossed!

            • Bill 2
              07/01/2011 at 8:46 PM

              I haven’t seen any of his ads since before the trial, Clio. There was a link to an ad at the DataLounge thread more than a year ago. Does he still advertise online?

              • Clio
                07/02/2011 at 9:38 AM

                Yes, his ad is at Masseur Finder for Miami for therapeutic services only; his creams do sound inviting, and he really believes in the elixirs of touch!

      • Alternateguy
        06/30/2011 at 10:28 PM


        Yep, there are a lot of questions that the police should have followed up on. The ones that really piss me off, however, are the questions where the defendants were starting to say something interesting and got cut off by another question. I’m not sure where I’ve seen that, but it occurs a few times more than once, as I recall.

        • Bill Orange
          07/01/2011 at 1:10 AM

          Um, it’s not as though we’re discussing 200 year-old historical documents here, nor (to my knowledge) have any of the defendants suffered from amnesia or a traumatic brain injury or some other neurologic disease. The answers to any and all of these questions could be revealed by the defendants at any time. Instead, they have chosen to invoke their 5th Amendment rights more than 400 times. If that doesn’t seem like a “tell” to you, then you and I really need to get together and play poker sometime.

          • Bea
            07/01/2011 at 5:27 PM

            Love this.

          • Bill 2
            07/01/2011 at 6:24 PM

            Beware of poker games, Bill O. You’ll be told there all kinds of new twists that he just discovered in the rules. You’ll find that his queens are Elizabeth I and II, thus outranking your kings due to their long reigns.

  19. Clio
    07/01/2011 at 10:00 AM

    Editors, what are your sources now telling you about the parameters of this settlement on the eve of yet another holiday since 08/02? Is it conventional to have rumors of a settlement weeks before it is both sealed and announced? Does a civil settlement of any kind make eventual murder charges even more remote than ever before?

    Has Lanier updated that MPD poster yet? If not, that may tell us how “active” the investigation remains.

    • Bruce
      07/01/2011 at 11:53 AM

      Hi All:

      I have enjoyed reading everyone’s posts to Cat’s fine questions and discussion, and I am quite impressed that eveyone (well, most everyone) seems tempered and polite to each other.

      Emily takes great exception to my use of the phrase “unfair and unkind.” She apparently finds that being in a house where someone died or was murdered to fit a category of people who should not be treated fairly and kindly. I think I can agree with Emily that we don’t have to serve tea and cookies, but I am very concerned about Emily’s reference in her post to “demanding” stories from the Swann 3 other than the story they told. My goodness, what does that “demanding” mean? While I certainly know that Emily would not endorse torture, but where does “demand” end and torture begin? Does “demanding” really mean “advanced interrogation techniques” as our dear former Vice President would chime? I understand he may be available to take over the investigation here. No delusion or apologist there!

      Emily feels that I am both “an apologist for the Swann 3” [what does that mean, exactly? I know it is used a lot, but it makes no sense to me. I am not apologizing for anyone], and that I am delusional. Ok, I’ll accept delusional, but I am no apologist.

      Thank you, Gloria, for reminding me of the mouth guard. That has always been a huge mystery with me.

      Jeana is very concerned about Victor telling the police that his (Victor’s) life will never be the same. Bea and dear dear Clio also pick up on this comment. Everyone hears things and rationalizes them differently. I certainly can’t disabuse anyone of their opinions based upon that. But, I find Victor’s comment to be one of the most truthful and factual things we have ever heard in the case. A moment of sanity in my view.

      Victor was in a house where someone was murdered or died. He has gone through a criminal trial where there was a real possibility that he would spend many years in prison. He has been a defendant in a civil trial where he could lose virtually all his money and his ability to work in the future. He has been the subject of gossip and innuendo, essentially tearing into every part of his life, his family, his friends. He has been accused of being a murderer, conspirator, liar, sexual deviant, milktoast, and worse. There is very little of his life that is not on the internet.

      Our dear Clio, the Muse (but drinking wine again, CLIO!), both ironically and existentially, expresses her deep pity and calls for justice in air quotes for “any male trouple living together in a cozy bungalow in a tropical paradise….” Her heart bleeds at the mere thought that they could be mistreated, or their lives could be so interrupted. Fairness, shmarness! Price is, of course, a “self serving hypocrite.” Everything is a lie. She finds that considering his character, that rape or assault is likely. Did you get that? Likely. Not much prejudice there. She is very concerned about “all those toys.” That definately leads to murder, as we all know. She feels strongly that the only way Victor’s life has been changed is that he doesn’t have to go to those boring Equality Virginia functions!!! Of course, none of them cared about any gay causes. All fake. Didn’t care about the son, he’s just a trophy. All fake. No, Victor has the deal of the century, no thoughts of possible unfairness to him! Why should we waste our time on any fairness?

      So, things sort of stay the same as they change, don’t they? I do enjoy reading the posts, even those and especially sometimes those I most disagree with, and will continue to do so when I can.

      • Clio
        07/01/2011 at 1:30 PM

        Oh, Bruce, your penchant for rip-roaring, campy comedy is really very strong: perhaps, a local club in your area may be looking for new talent. What, to me, is the most laughable in your routine, however, is the idea of the world and the law being “unfair” to Zaborsky-Price-Ward, who will be able to rise like phoenixes after (and despite) this patch of rough water for them. Robert, on the other hand, was not given the chance to make a comeback; his life was extinguished in the most unfair way possible.

        • Bruce
          07/01/2011 at 2:22 PM

          Oh, but Clio, as all others rise like the Phoenix and people involved in this case and on this blog, somehow move on and live on, what will you do?

          WHAT WILL YOU DO?

          No one to wittily play with, to constantly destroy and tear down and expose as complete fakes and killers!

          What will you do?

          Well, I guess you can continue to tear apart their lives more, apply your fatuous moral certitude to come up with some type of proper execution or disposal of the remaining remains. Someone has to do it, right? We must tear down! People are either good or bad, there is no gray, and evil must be destroyed.

          You can continue to expose them as complete fake non-humans from infancy, and now until their deaths or your’s. That seems like fun.

          Oh, and those toys! My God, murderers they must be indeed. Non-fake murderers don’t use toys. And, you know the whole gay thing…sometimes we hate ourselves more than others.

          Or you can take a well deserved rest from the defamation and unkindliness, the panicked urges to destroy, damned be any doubt or truth. That is what I would suggest.

          Oh, I’m sure there is another “gay murder” case out there where you can expose the gay people there as complete fakes in everything in their lives and as the cold blooded toy playing murderers they will become in your unkind and unfair Kingdom of Righteousness against “male trouples” in Paradise.

          I hope that if you take that road, that it doesn’t work out for you so well.

          • Clio
            07/01/2011 at 2:46 PM

            Bruce darling, I am so heartened by your touching concern for my future, but, as you should know, history never repeats herself and that she has plenty of messes (from many centuries of mishaps, cons, and misfortunes) to analyze. With plenty of material always at the ready, I’ll be more than all right — if and when Culuket starts chasing proverbial ambulances again — alas, but Robert will never be back. BTW, dear, discussion of the news is doing history: it is not defamation or libel of any sort. Hope that helps, sugar.

            • TT
              07/01/2011 at 3:05 PM

              Clio, thanks for making me smile today. I needed it.

              • Clio
                07/01/2011 at 5:07 PM

                Thanks, TT, I’m glad that I could be of some assistance.

                An aside: Cat, how could this be “a paid hit?” Who would pay to whack anyone, including Miss Morgan, in that “sardine can?” Unless Culuket and Sparkly Cat have extensive drug connections that we don’t know about (and they’re not telling us about), there is no way that anyone would target the inhabitants or guest of that house!

                • alternateguy
                  07/01/2011 at 7:06 PM


                  You ask, “Who would pay to whack anyone…?”

                  What about Robert Wone, the new head legal man at RFA, who had just replaced a fired attorney?

                  Is RFA, just another well-meaning non-profit?

                  Try goggling, RFA and the CIA.

                  I did and began to think that Robert was the new man at a high-power center of possible cloak and dagger connections. Among interesting comments I found was this:

                  In an article titled “Tibet, the ‘great game’ and the CIA.”
                  By Richard M Bennett, Mar 26, 2008 , Bennett says:

                  “indeed, with the CIA’s deep involvement with the Free Tibet Movement and its funding of the suspiciously well-informed Radio Free Asia, it would seem somewhat unlikely that any revolt could have been planned or occurred without the prior knowledge, and even perhaps the agreement, of the National Clandestine Service (formerly known as the Directorate of Operations) at CIA headquarters in Langley. “

                  I do wish I was making this stuff up.

                  • Clio
                    07/01/2011 at 7:25 PM

                    Radio Free Asia, like Radio Marti, is a Potemkin village put forth by the (self-anointed) “world’s policeman” to make it look powerful: the station has no real influence in any of its intended countries. And, no one, save the nutbag of North Korea, would target this feint’s new legal counsel just a few weeks on the job. And, with his own self-induced famines, that nutbag couldn’t afford the hit!

                  • Craig
                    07/08/2011 at 8:24 AM

                    Paid hit? that’s more remote than suicide. It’s the stuff of Truthers

                    • Bruce
                      07/08/2011 at 10:57 AM

                      Craig, I agree that a paid hit is kinda out there,but the “stuff of Truthers,” I very much disagree.

                      Mr. Wone did not bag burgers at McDonalds.

                      He worked for an organizationwhich has been severely criticized by foreign nations, and the purpose of the organization is to promote democratic ideas in hostile countries, and to cause trouble in other nations.

                      While I don’t personally believe or have the opinion that a paid hit could be involved in these circumstances, I feel no threat to sanity or the WMRW blog if someone at least follows the issue or researches it further.

                      exactly do you feel that you are threatened or the blog is threatened?

                      Isn’t this blog supposed to be an open opportunity for people to discuss issuesrelating to the murder?

                      Why try to censor or diminish the conversation?

                • alternateguy
                  07/01/2011 at 8:26 PM


                  I’ve heard that argument before. But it rather ignores the fact that the Chinese Government also seriously denounced RFA as a CIA operation.

                  And what would our own spooks do to keep information involving “The Company” and it’s actions against China from getting out?

                  Well, they wouldn’t have to outsource the job, would they.

                  I do ask myself, why would the rape/murder of a civilian in Washington get so involved with such high level agencies like the FBI and the Secret Service, if there weren’t sensitive connections?

                  Washington D.C. Conspiracies? Sex-crazed civilian weirdo conspiracies aren’t the ones one first thinks of, coming from down town in the world’s greatest center of power.

                  • Clio
                    07/02/2011 at 9:34 AM

                    Oh please, the CIA of George W. Bush couldn’t find Osama and his porno collection, and, in 2006, they were not exactly focused on China, which quietly became the “workshop of the world” during this time.

                    • Alternateguy
                      07/02/2011 at 10:12 AM

                      So, what were they doing, with those thousands of employees?
                      Nothing illegal, I suppose.

                      But without a “Need to know” we’ll never know for at least seventy-five years.

                • Cat in Cleveland
                  07/05/2011 at 8:53 PM

                  Clio-we live in a world where crazy blends with the sane. A mom (in Texas, I think?) tried to hire a hitman to kill her daughter’s cheerleading rival. I recall a case where a man paid someone to kill his daughter’s husband simply because he didn’t like him.
                  Whatever the truth in this case, the one thing I’m confident of is this-it defies rational explanation.

                  • Clio
                    07/06/2011 at 9:44 PM

                    True, Cat/Penguin, but “a paid hit” lies beyond the beyond; it’s not an irrational explanation — it’s a completely absurd one. The inhabitants and guest of that house were neither significant or villianous (up to that point) enough to warrant a paid hit. Rather, evil is banal, as Hannah Arendt observed (as you know), and as the guest unfortunately found out.

          • KiKi
            07/02/2011 at 10:10 AM

            How I wish there was a like button here. Great comment Bruce!

            • steve
              07/02/2011 at 11:31 AM

              Lol…KiKi. Since you (Bruce) been gone (a Soul Train music), Altguy has been going mad as hell (saw your early post) all by himself. You go…Altguy! “Tell It Like It Is.”

      • Emily
        07/03/2011 at 8:56 AM

        “She apparently finds that being in a house where someone died or was murdered”

        Robert Wone was murdered. Can you get that? He was murdered. Nobody disputes the fact that he was murdered. Someone was responsible for that.

        You truly are delusional if you think that an appropriate societal response to the murder of someone is:

        Police: “What happened here?”
        Member of the household: “I have no idea.”
        Police: “Oh, OK, no problem then.”

        • Alternateguy
          07/03/2011 at 10:09 AM

          In your view, the proper police response is?

          Police: Prove otherwise, or YOU LOSE!

        • Bruce
          07/05/2011 at 12:36 PM


          The world is full of colors! Please apply them in life and thought, as it will truely enrich your experiences and ability for critical thinking and expression, in my opinion.

          I added “died” to “murdered” only because I just read some recent posts suggesting an accidental death scenario may somehow be supporting a settlement now. I am very sorry this offended you to the degree it did. I just wanted to cover all bases. I personally don’t think or have the opinion that it was any kind of accident, but I don’t know all the facts (but you apparently know everything, how is that?) to make any determination with the old WMRW blog style “moral certitude” of the vast moral majority here, which appears impregnated in your post. Ok, he was murdered!

          And your made up conversation with the police never happened, of course, as you know. Why would you put it in your post? Makes no sense to me.

          Is this an example of actual critical thinking of yours, or just knee jerk responses?

          There are blacks, greys, whites and also COLORS! Look at them. The Swann 3 spoke to the police at the home as long as the police wanted. It is my understanding that they refused to answer NO QUESTIONS at the home. Criticize them fairly or unfairly for your perceptions of those conversations or their manner or the failure of the police to ask more or certain things.

          It is my understanding that they then spoke for hours and hours and hours separately at the police station and refused to answer NO QUESTIONS. Again, criticize them fairly or unfairly for your perceptions of those conversations or their manner or the failure of the police to ask more or certain things.
          Afterwards, they gave samples.

          Emily, have you been reading this blog? You know these things. How could anyone capable of reading and critical thought not know these things?

          I would agree with you that someone who would accept your silly fake conversation would possibly be a bit delusional. Based upon what we know happened. Based upon what YOU know happened. But that is simply a point without a point. My opinions only, of course.

          • susan
            07/05/2011 at 7:06 PM


            Surely you see re the quote that Emily is presenting a hypothetical. Read her entire post.

            • Emily
              07/06/2011 at 10:07 AM

              As you aptly commented, susan – look…a bird.

              • susan
                07/07/2011 at 2:24 PM

                Yes, Emily. Making cheap, cheap, cheap noises. But then again the smell? Fishy. Like a red herring.

                Which brings me to…

                • susan
                  07/07/2011 at 2:36 PM

                  More important than some of the cacophony of distraction is this, and it shouldn’t get lost in the muck:

                  On August 2, 2006 here’s what Victor Zaborsky said to police as documented in the official transcript:

                  On p. 9 of one police interview, Zaborsky says:

                  “The next thing I know, I woke up with [a] screams. I did not hear the chime.”

                  Again, he said “I did not hear the chime.”

                  In another VZ interview that night, p. 9 of that transcript as well, VZ says:

                  “When I screamed–when we came down the stairs the first time and I screamed, I thought I heard the door chime.”

                  Remember the parking lot meeting with S. Hixson was between interviews.

                  If VZ changed his testimony after the parking lot rendezvous with JP and Hixson it might appear that that statement would be setting the stage for an “intruder theory” as Joe Price volunteers a few times that he heard the chime and that supports his idea of an intruder.

                  From a defense standpoint “hearing” the chime is an asset.

                  • alternateguy
                    07/07/2011 at 2:47 PM

                    There were two screams, the one that woke Victor and Joe up, variously described as high pitched, low growling, laughing, whatever. And the scream that Victor made after going downstairs and seeing Robert. Am I wrong?

            • Bill 2
              07/06/2011 at 10:27 AM

              Of course Emily’s hypothetical made sense. At the same time it can be an “ouch” to silly persons who may be wanting to discount the lies that are evident in the Anacostia dialogs. Some would rather attack a hypothetical than take a serious look at the “gotcha” in the tales put forth to police by the trio.

              • alternateguy
                07/06/2011 at 11:05 AM

                I don’t know any silly persons, really, but I’ve sure read some silly “gotchas” here.

            • Bruce
              07/06/2011 at 10:45 AM

              Certainly, Susan. But for a hypothetical to have some meaning it must have some relevance or connection to the matter at hand. My point, which I clearly did not make well, was that the hypo which was given doesn’t assist us in any way to critical thought.

  20. Christy Love
    07/01/2011 at 7:25 PM

    Quite frankly, I STILL don’t understand why they haven’t been charged with murder. There is more evidence against them than there was against Scott Peterson.

    • Bea
      07/01/2011 at 9:49 PM

      Hard to fathom, I know, but Joe knows that keeping silent is leverage – it’s like three 10 year old boys standing outside a broken window wearing baseball gloves. You can’t prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, which of them threw the baseball if none of them step up to tell the truth.

      • Christy Love
        07/01/2011 at 11:20 PM

        So how come the law charges everyone in a drive-by shooting who was in the car? People have been charged with murder in drive-bys even when they didn’t know a shooting was going to take place.

        • Bea
          07/01/2011 at 11:42 PM

          Usually it’s established that they knew a robbery or shooting was happening and sometimes they’re charged with “felony murder” (just being part of any felony in which someone gets killed) – the driver and the shooter anyway will get busted. Don’t forget, too, that these defendants had top notch defense counsel and Joe to tell them early on to stay on script, assuming that’s what occurred.

          • Christy Love
            07/02/2011 at 12:33 AM

            you know that’s what occurred.

            one thing I learned from this case…I’m never talking to the police. If they ask my name, I’m going to tell them to contact my lawyer and she can tell them. 🙂

    • Bruce
      07/05/2011 at 12:41 PM

      Christy, in my opinion, you are just dead wrong on Scott Peterson. Lots o evidence with Peterson, much circumstantial, but not all. Totally different case with different facts and circumstances. A folly of a diversion.

  21. Bill 2
    07/01/2011 at 10:21 PM

    I think all of us look at the stabbing of Robert Wone as a violent act. It’s said that it is not reasonable for that act to have been committed by people who have no history of violence.

    In this case, the stabbing may not have arisen from an act of violence.

    Imagine that one or two men, high on some kind of drugs, think a person has died from drugs they administered. That’s a prison sentence for certain. They figure that they need to make it look like he was killed by an intruder. Stabbing a dead man is not, to them, an act of violence. Instead, it’s redirecting the apparent cause of death. If he’s already dead, a stabbing, to a drug addled mind, is a way to stay out of prison. They could be planning to move the body out of the house to another location and say he went for a walk, etc., etc, etc.


    Another member of the household came downstairs and screamed. Suddenly all plans are changed since police may be at the front door in just a few minutes. By that time, it’s a panic mode for guys who are still high on drugs, with no time to create any real sign of an intruder.

    • susan
      07/01/2011 at 10:40 PM

      It really was such a hostile violent act. That makes it that much sadder and worse and horrific. Murder is murder and yet stabbing–and three times at that–seems particularly violent and cruel.

      • Bill 2
        07/01/2011 at 10:53 PM

        It was a horrific and violent act, but to people high on drugs, thinking that the stabbing isn’t killing someone, may have made it possible for a non-violent person to do the stabbing.

        I don’t buy the tale that Ward simply took a Lunesta. There’s no telling how he would act when high on drugs. And I think AZ was correct about Price “going to the gym” to get drugs for use that night. We already know how Price danced around a question about his drug use.

    • alternateguy
      07/01/2011 at 11:16 PM

      Bill 2,

      Pretty good scenario. But that would sure be pretty drug addled! And for people who soon will be questioned by police who don’t have enough suspicion by their look and behavior to even check them for drugs. Or even report that they seemed high.

      If two of the triple had administered drugs to Robert that weren’t traceable after the passage of some time, wouldn’t they have known that fact and waited? Why stab him with one of your own knives, get rid of that only to substitute one of your own knives from the kitchen? Addled isn’t the word for it. (And don’t forget how precise and controlled the stab wounds were.)

      The scream would possibly move them to hasty response. Suppose it came before the stabbing? Not enough time for all of the necessary activity after that, I think.

      I do think that it’s time for us to give up on re-running all of these scenarios the way we do. The principals have settled!

      And I’m not really sure what flames we’re fanning.

      • Bea
        07/01/2011 at 11:47 PM

        It hasn’t been established that anybody has finally settled. You’re right that most of these theories have been bandied back and forth, fine tuned based on multiple reading, further consideration, but it seems you only want the flames to die down when the person posting thinks these guys are guilty of SOME crime (murder or cover up). Because the cover up can’t really be charged if it can be tied to the first trial’s charges, we’re back to what they are worried about in answering the discovery – hmmm, murder charges perhaps?

        • Clio
          07/02/2011 at 10:06 AM


  22. susan
    07/01/2011 at 10:54 PM

    In one interview with police in Anacostia, Joe Price admits that he has trouble turning off the phones, says it’s not his phone it’s Victor Zaborsky’s. In another interview he pretends it’s his phone and pretends to look for info. re a lunch date with Kathy Wone. He talks and scans the phone.

    I just read Victor Z’s second VCB interview. He is asked:

    “And you have a cell?”

    He answers:

    Yes, 202 ___-____ I don’t have it with me. It’s in the house.”

    Come again?

    • AnnaZed
      07/01/2011 at 11:08 PM

      Susan, well caught.

      How I missed that detail I simply don’t know. I can certainly see Joe insisting that he take Victor’s phone, wanting to leave his behind in Scott’s car, and Victor just surrendering it to him without protest. Significantly though, here you have Victor lying to investigators with a straight face. Angel of the House my ass. How, or how did the prosecutors office over-look that?

    • susan
      07/01/2011 at 11:11 PM

      -Just to emphasize that point, Victor says that the phone, the only cell phone he has (according to what he told police) is IN THE HOUSE. Joe Price says that he has Victor’s phone. Of course, he later lies that it’s his phone.

      Is VZ lying too? Or did he not know JP took his phone?

      • Bea
        07/01/2011 at 11:51 PM

        All very interesting! Of course, Joe could’ve pocketed everyone’s phone so they didn’t have a chance to talk to anyone else. Dylan had to ask to borrow the phone to call work and to call Daddy. (Again, what 40 year old man calls his Daddy?).

        • Clio
          07/02/2011 at 9:49 AM

          Given his dirty looks at Dyl, Culuket must commandeered the phones, but he left his wallet (and one would hope a cherished bracelet, perhaps) with Lisa G. Why would he be so concerned about maintaining an official story, unless there was one? Isn’t he our friend, indeed!

          • Clio
            07/02/2011 at 9:54 AM

            Oops — it should read above: “must have commandeered” — insert the word “have.” I should always have my coffee before posting, but Susan’s close reading of the Dialogues has me all in a tizzy this morning.

            • susan
              07/04/2011 at 1:57 PM

              Speaking of phones, in one of the legal docs filed by the prosecutors it is mentioned that phone and email accts were held with Verizon and those should be discoverable. Do the editors (or anyone else) know if they ever got those records?

              It’s interesting to note that around July 9, 2006 email J. Price writes “Work sucks.” And he had just recently made partner.

              • susan
                07/04/2011 at 2:24 PM

                It says right after that that the a/c was not working. I’m sure the two sentences are related. No a/c in July in a DC office. Not nice, Arent Fox.

  23. susan
    07/01/2011 at 11:18 PM

    On pp 12 and 13 of Dylan Ward’s Anacostia transcript (not sure if it was 1, 2, or 3) he states:

    “I saw Joe was in the room with Robert sitting there telling Victor to get the ambulance and Victor was on the phone. So I don’t know if Victor was in the room or just like kind of blocking the doorway…it was like I came out of my room and there was Victor and then inside was Joe.”


    Here’s what Victor Zaborsky says on pp 7-8 of his first interview:

    “…and when I was coming down the stairs, Dylan was in the doorway, and when I came, he had backed up a bit and let me in.”

    A suspicious person might think they got their stories mixed up. In any case those are two divergent accounts.

    • susan
      07/01/2011 at 11:44 PM

      Gets better:

      On p. 5 of VCB-1, Joseph Price says–twice!–that he sees Dylan Ward coming out of his room. The second time he repeats it he says he sees him coming out of his room putting on his bathrobe.

      Wow! He’s supposed to be sitting on the bed applying lifesaving measures to Robert Wone. Huh, and uh, what the hell?

      • Bea
        07/01/2011 at 11:48 PM

        Wasn’t Joe’s back to the door to boot?

      • susan
        07/01/2011 at 11:52 PM



        • Bill 2
          07/02/2011 at 7:04 AM

          Calm down, Susan.

          It’s Victor Zaborsky’s account that Dylan Ward is blocking the doorway. In Dylan Ward’s account, it’s Victor Zaborsky blocking the doorway.

          Once again, their lies are there in black and white. As someone mentioned, “why accept ANY of their story at all?” That phrase needs to be heard by the jury at a murder trial.

          • susan
            07/02/2011 at 8:53 AM

            Hey Bill2,

            That was my way of pointing out to some that there is a time and place for caps.

            But I think this is serious. You left out Joe Price’s acct. Check out that p. 5. He says in “the same time period” that they came downstairs and heard the “screaming”–“the same time period” he saw Dylan Ward coming out of his room (he says this twice) putting on his robe.

            In Dylan Ward’s acct, he first sees Joe Price sitting by the bedside with Robert Wone.

            Serious. WORTHY OF CAPS.

            • Alternateguy
              07/02/2011 at 9:16 AM


              He said the same time FRAME. He was asked, the question,”Where was Dylan?” immediately after he said that he and Victor rushed down the stairs. And he answers Dylan was in his room. Then explains that he saw him comming out of his room, and uses the expression “in the same time frame,” flagging the fact that it wasn’t exactly at the moment he and Victor came down the stairs. (Well, he was a lawyer.)

            • Bill 2
              07/02/2011 at 9:20 AM

              Susan, I was talking about where you said Robert was in the doorway and talked about Robert’s account. You got excited about the errors in their tales and mixed up the names. Understandable when something like that pops up.

              You also mention that Mr. Razi should take note. True. But it’s also time for Chief Lanier to take another look at this case.

              • susan
                07/02/2011 at 7:19 PM

                Same difference. Still two conflicting stories. And the big one WORTH BIG CAPS is Joseph Price saying (once again, see it in J. Price’s priceless words as told the night of Robert Wone’s murder–he’s coming down the stairs with Victor Zaborsky in response to hearing screams and he said he saw “IN THAT SAME TIME PERIOD” Dylan Ward coming out of his room putting on his robe. He says that twice. Dylan says he saw Joe Price for the first time when he goes to Robert Wone’s room and on and on. WORTH MAJOR CAPS AND EVERYONE’S TAKING NOTE.

                • susan
                  07/02/2011 at 7:28 PM

                  So to emphasize, Dylan Ward says he sees Joe Price for the very first time that night in a seated position next to Robert Wone. Joe Price said he saw Dylan Ward for the very first time coming out of his bedroom and putting on a robe. He mentions this twice.

                  This isn’t a fairytale or a Tiger Aunt story. JP cannot be in two places at the same time. D. Ward can’t be in two places at the same time. V. Zaborsky can’t be in two places at the same time. In the accounts each on gives, they each have a double. Nice for sci-fi and the big future but it ain’t happening in 2006 let alone 2011.

                  • Clio
                    07/02/2011 at 7:51 PM

                    I love it, Susan — I will christen your finding: “the Doppelganger
                    dilemma.” And, I thought body doubles were only for motion pictures. But, this reading does raise serious questions about the cohesiveness of the Dialogues — are they full of fact … or fiction? Good job!

                  • Bill 2
                    07/02/2011 at 7:59 PM

                    Your research, Susan, lets us see that even though they worked on the intruder alibii, they didn’t have time to refine their tale to get all the details right.

                    In his memoir, Paul De Gondi wrote, “In a major matter no details are small.” It’s the small details that can trip the trouple.

                  • Alternateguy
                    07/02/2011 at 8:06 PM

                    No, Not sci-fi

                    Joe could have seen Dylan before Dylan saw Joe.

                    (Happens in real-life.)
                    Particularly if Victor was coming down the stairs talking into the phone and carrying a towel. Dylan’s attention could have been focused on Victor at first and not into the guest room.

        • Bruce
          07/06/2011 at 6:39 PM

          Hi Susan:

          You have suggested that some of us are by-passing the general principle that you are trying to expose here, which is that in their statements that each of the Swann 3 said different things than the other in relation to their perceptions of who was where and who moved where with what clothing, etc. and you make a point with that.


          …in that regard.

          Alt, in trying to discuss the issue, raises many times that statements that differ are not always so telling, and I have to agree with him on this point as to this issue of who saw whom wearing what and when, immediately after the murder.

          One would expect the three to not perceive things exactly the same way. People perceive things differently and process them differently. Some people have virtually perfect time lines in short term and long term memory, others not so much.

          When you deal with differing statements of perceptions of people, you really have to do some work to try to separate the peanut from the shell.

          Are the differences in recollection and perception truly relevant? That is the first question you look to answer. Are the differences on important points to the case? Do they demonstrate something clearly beyond jumbled perceptions? Most important, you must examine extremely carefully what exactly was said. Is it possible that the statements while on first blush seem opposite, can be brought into some kind of harmony?

          This is what Alt. and others have done with your scenario of inconsistent statements on where people were in a room and where and when they say they saw others.

          It is called critical thinking.

          It is not specious, stupid or idiotic. Again, it is called critical thinking.

          Many studies by psychologists, sociologists and jury experts and trial advisors show that it would be odd to have a group of people, in their statements, say exactly the same things as to their perceptions and it would be odd for everyone to process their perceptions in the same manner.

          What may be perceived as important to one person can be virtually ignored in the perceptions of another. Did the woman have a rose in her hair? I don’t know, I just saw this woman there! Yes, she had a beautiful rose in her hair, it was like my mother used to do to her hair. She looked to the left, no the right, well, both, but I’m not sure which first. She was around 15, like my grand daughter. She was a kid between 10 and 13, I’m sure.

          In some cases, an eyewitness, because of inherent difficulties with memory or problems with expression, perception and communication skills, can be the worst witness to a case.

          Which is all why differing statements as a general proposition don’t necessarily imply much of anything without some critical thinking applied.

          If someone says “in the same time period,” you might interpret that as meaning “at the exact same time.” But to someone else, that phrase means something totally different. To some, “in the same time frame” means a slightly different time, but around the same time. If you meant to say “at the same time”, why don’t you just say that, rather than “in the same time period?”

          Again, this is not silliness, diversional or moronic. It is called critical thinking.

          Now, if statements are different in a relevant, telling way, it is very logical to examine them carefully, to try to determine purpose, malingering, motive or conspiracy. Granted.

          But just pointing out differences in statements without the analysis and critical thinking, to me is like the proverbial tree that falls in the woods away from earshot.

          If you want people to really take notice and apply critical thinking (which I’m not too sure that you really want to do with your examples, but maybe you actually do), then don’t put it out in CAPS, it’s like the boy crying wolf.

          Show us how it is relevant and important to the case. Point out how it shows that the culprits are all liars and scoundrels and makes it more likely than before seeing the discrepancies in the statements that they are murderers and worse.

          That will get people talking about your discoveries, Columbus.

          To quote our dear Muse…hope that helps, sugar.

          • AnnaZed
            07/06/2011 at 8:26 PM

            Well, she has her theories to espouse and so (apparently) do you.

            • susan
              07/06/2011 at 11:45 PM

              Not theories, AnnaZed. I simply took the words given by each defendant to police, as recorded by the police and placed them on this page. I said it was interesting and noted how the testimony was different. Not theory: Fact. Make of it what you will whoever reads it.

              • Bruce
                07/07/2011 at 12:09 PM

                I’m sorry, Susan. From the way you promoted, CAPPED, and excitedly touted the discrepancies in the statements, I (obviously wrongfully) assumed you thought they were of some true importance to the case or the murder.

          • Bea
            07/07/2011 at 12:04 AM

            Susan has made her point, Bruce, and while we all benefit from others pointing out the need for critical thinking, it’s funny to me that you seem to favor Alt’s critique when he’s not willing to put forth much besides tossing hand grenades from the sidelines. It’s easy to mock those willing to try out theories based on, say, transcripts and logic, but what I always come back to is the FACT that a man was murdered while three other men claimed to be sleeping so close to the bedroom where the brutal stabbing took place AND that they heard nothing but low grunts (or, from Dylan, high pitched screams which reminded him of high pitched laughs).

            Throw in the timing, the blood (or lack thereof), the too consistent statements on minutia but inconsistent statement on other minutia, that J & V weren’t at all concerned that Dylan too had been stabbed, the strange departure choice by the “intruder” – and that the Judge in dicta said there was no “unknown intruder” – and try as I might to come up with a theory which would absolve these three men, I cannot. Nor can Alt, and I know this because I’ve asked him to try to present one.

            When trying to piece together all that occurred that night, we can’t discount these “background” facts – nor what Joe told others – so it doesn’t seem fair to unload on Susan here.

            • susan
              07/07/2011 at 12:16 AM

              Thanks, Bea.

              Again, no theories in what I presented. It’s the trouple’s own words. (BTW, for new readers, some friends of the residents referred to the three as a “trouple” not “triple”).

              And I think their words are interesting and valuable esp. since ones words “can and will be used against them in a court of law.” These words from the transcripts are documented in video footage and paper. Media messengers.

              • Clio
                07/07/2011 at 8:35 AM

                And, Susan, what I find fascinating is the summer offensive to take back the comments section of this weblog by Team Price and their fellow travelers. There must be either desperation for a settlement, or there must be real hopes out there that their “upstanding and intelligent” gentlemen who would never hurt a fly, if not a spider, will never be brought to any justice.

                As the cliche goes, “well-behaved women (and men) rarely make history.” But, from key analysts’ point of view, there was nothing “well-behaved” about the trouple that fateful evening — “going to the gym,” indeed!

                • Alternateguy
                  07/07/2011 at 10:22 AM

                  “what I find fascinating is the summer offensive to take back the comments section of this weblog by Team Price and their fellow travelers.

                  Hey, Look Mom! I’m a fellow traveler now!

                  (And you thought McCarthyism was dead.)

                • Bruce
                  07/07/2011 at 10:42 AM

                  Dear Clio, you have encapsulated perfectly why there are strong responses to your posts. Summer offensive, not so much.

                  I happen to have the opinion that unlike Norman in Psycho, these 3 men would acknowledge the fly and smash it to smithereens if it was bothering them. I can only imagine the tortured bodies of the multitude of spiders that dared invade their Swann Street dwelling. Leaving one alone by the light must have been virtual torture for them that night.

                  And, as to well-behaved “going to the gym,” I guess we can only speculate, huh? Is this the “unspeakable” unspeakables you were suggesting before?

                  Fortunately, in our world and in our country, killing nuisance bugs and “going to the gym” appear wholely unrelated (we would say…not relevant) to murder and those lesser charges and civil claims in this case.

                  It seems that sometimes you need a little “Nothing going on here, Keep a moving” prompting, just to make sure discussion stays on topic and is relevant as to WMRW.

                  I have no stomach for war. Just want a little universal fairness in a chaotic world gone mad, “key analysts'” point of view not withstanding.

                  Wine coolers for all, bartend.

                  • Clio
                    07/08/2011 at 1:16 PM

                    Summer offensives do not always work: see General Lee at Gettysburg or the British at the Somme. But I do feel we’re at a turning point with the case — no settlement would mean to least one more trial; a settlement may mean we’ll never know who murdered Robert Wone.

                • AnnaZed
                  07/07/2011 at 12:40 PM

                  Yes oh wise-one, oh yes.

                  That has been the question that has risen continually in my mind as I watch this escalating distraction. The return to rudimentary facts each one perverted or ignored, the incy wincy parsings, the school-yard invective even the return of Denton (as steve ~ lower case) all serving to obscure and deluge the main page of the blog.

                  What does this signify? I would speculate desperation, but I might be wrong.

                  • Bruce
                    07/07/2011 at 2:10 PM


                    Stay on topic please. Those comments are undeserved and unfair.

                  • AnnaZed
                    07/07/2011 at 5:27 PM

                    Bruce, it’s always so hard to keep to posse in line I know, and Denton is a wild card.

                • KiKi
                  07/07/2011 at 12:47 PM

                  Or maybe after several months of tabloid nonsense, Cat reinvigorated the debate about the actual case by posting this thought provoking “party game.” Maybe the fact that there is more attention to the issues in this post and the comments that follow has made the aggressive majority actually have to have a basis for their opinions instead of the group cheerleading of the past several months.

                  • AnnaZed
                    07/07/2011 at 1:41 PM

                    Sorry Kiki, not taking that old smelly bait.

                    I have explained my thinking and my reasons for thinking what I do literally dozens of times on this site. Nothing that I have read in the last few days is in any way new, insightful or merits any effort on my part to reiterate or defend my conclusions.

                    • Bea
                      07/07/2011 at 8:55 PM

                      Well done, AZ. I learned with Alt that he doesn’t want to know the facts, nor does he want to put forth considered theories or offer insight. He just wants these guys to be deemed innocent as the driven snow, facts be damned. Bruce and KiKi have at least done their homework, but they just want to play “what if” without considering things like the autopsy report, the interviews, or, well, common sense. It gets tiresome. And they speak of us as having “moral certitude”! I’m not interested in “giving” about 50 concessions which fly in the face of the evidence in order to concede a minor point.

            • Bruce
              07/07/2011 at 11:16 AM

              Bea, I’m sorry you think I am “unloading” on Susan. I can understand why you think that.

              But Susan has been speaking quite “tough” of late on here, and making quite a bit of noise, all of which has seemed unusual to me in terms of the “Susan” from before, who in my view was more tempered and retrospect.

              You know that I have trouble with a number of the members of the Church of Moral Certitude on here, when it comes to prostilizing. I’m pretty much an open book on that.

              One who speaks tough has to expect some tough talk back.

              I certainly don’t want to appear unfair, although I’m sure I do to some, including you.

              I read over several times the discussions between Susan, Alt., etc., on this issue of the statements under “Party Games.”

              It appears that at all times, Alt. conducted himself just fine, trying to discuss the statements and applying some critical thinking. If provoked, he hit back, but pretty softly (in my opinion), and usually with a sense of humor or words not necessarily intending ill will.

              And what did he get in return from Susan? He is a criminal and he must not be read. Please read these over carefully again. I think you will see it, over and over.

              Talk tough, expect tough talk back. Comes with the territory. I think Susan can handle herself.

              No one is calling her a criminal on a public blog.

            • alternateguy
              07/07/2011 at 12:10 PM


              You remind us that the Judge in dicta said that there was no “unknown intruder.”

              And then you say, ” …and try as I might to come up with a theory which would absolve these three man, I cannot. Nor can Alt, and I know this because I’ve asked him to try to present one.

              Well, let us not forget that “Alt” has presented numerous theories involving one or another possible unknown intruders.

              May I suggest trying mightily, just for a moment, to imagine that the Judge in dicta could have possibly been wrong?

              • Bea
                07/07/2011 at 12:23 PM

                Alt, let’s see that theory of yours again which will factor in all the head-scratchers. I do recall a week ago your telling me that you couldn’t.

                As for the Judge being “wrong” – pretty funny that you’d question a jurist who listened to all the evidence, ruled on all the motions, yet you can’t find the interviews or transcripts half the time.

                Bruce, I have to say I find Clio’s point to be quite well-taken. The appearance here lately of Team Price is fairly obvious – a call to action? I’m not sure if Alt is “with you” or a lone wolf but so be it – time for you to bang the drum of Moral Certitude again to distract the masses.

                Hey, want to go over the facts again? Why did no one worry about Dylan’s well being? Could Joe forget about Sparkly Cat, the love of his life?

                • KiKi
                  07/07/2011 at 12:43 PM

                  Maybe he was a little distracted by the dead friend in his house whose life he was trying to save. Maybe his first thought was OMG my friend is stabbed I should take care of this emergency. I honestly can’t say that if I walked in on a stabbed friend in my house I wouldn’t first tend to the friend before checking on the rest of my family. Maybe I would, maybe I wouldn’t. But the failure to do so does not seem that odd to me.

                  But when you are so convinced about their guilt it is hard to sometimes see the easiest simplest answer.

                  • Bea
                    07/07/2011 at 3:47 PM

                    KiKi, if it was only that one thing, I agree it might be readily explained. But it’s not one thing, and the person who says he’s unwilling to say more about the case for fear of arrest is Joe himself. They’ve been acquitted on tampering, conspiracy, and obstruction, and yet to this day refuse to answer fairly mundane discover under the claim of the 5th. All that’s left is murder charges – makes me certainly think there’s something there. Me, I’d tell the truth if I were innocent. But that’s me.

                    • Bruce
                      07/08/2011 at 11:35 AM

                      Bea’s statement that “and the person who says he’s unwilling to say more about the case for fear of arrest is Joe himself” is Bea’s interpretation of some e-mails. It is her interpretation. It is not a fact. I have pointed this out on numerous occasions on this blog, setting forth the actuallanguage used in the e-mail. Personmally, I think her interpretation is specious, biased with moral certitude and does not conform to either the wording or context of the e-mail.

                      Please stop trying to pass off opinions as fact on here.

                      It ain’t kosherand it ain’t honest.

                      I do suggest that all read Bea’s posts on here carefully. She has some very good insights. But, also: caveatemptor(buyer beware).

                • Bruce
                  07/07/2011 at 12:48 PM

                  Hi Bea:

                  You have said before on here that you are or were an attorney. You know exactly what “dicta” means. If you are an attorney that has appeared before judges, you know for a fact that judges are actually human beings, subject to biases and prejudices and compromises and rationalizations, just like anyone else.

                  There are judges that are “pro-prosecution;” many times judges were prosecutors in past lives and are very “law and order” advocates. Some are very conservative. Some are liberal. Some are “pro-defense,” and may have a background of representing defendants. A good number, I am sure, try their very best to be objective no matter what their background or personal feelings.

                  Judges make mistakes. All the time. This is why we have appellate courts and the Supreme Court for our federal system of courts. The primary but not exclusive duty of the appellate court system is to review to see if lower courts and judges made errors in rulings or decisions.

                  We are all, even judges, Bea, human. We see things through our own individual perceptions shaped by our own histories and priorities.

                  I respect the criminal judge’s decisions here and even her dicta. Even though dicta has no precedential value, it was placed there for a reason.

                  Originally, I was quite disturbed by some of the things said by the criminal judge in her opinion, including the dicta, and I posted about it here.

                  Reading others’ posts and contemplating it further, I softened a bit. I feel that the judge was certainly hit on all sides by hard choices and difficult decisions to make. She made those hard decisions. Some of it was painful for her. It was her response to that pain that worried me about some things she said in the opinion, including the dicta.

                  While I respect the judge’s opinion and even her dicta, that does not mean that it is the truth. It does not end critical thought as to what she decided or ruled or said.

                  You know that, as does everyone on here.

                  Having a judge say something in dicta that supports your position is a nice thing to have on your side of an argument.

                  But don’t suggest for a moment that it is infallible. That is truely an unfair and untrue assumption of yours. You know better because you went to law school.

                  • Bea
                    07/07/2011 at 3:44 PM

                    But Bruce, didn’t you agree with her verdict? Kinda picking and choosing, aren’t you? Her dicta was very well reasoned, and while I think she could’ve nailed Joe for tampering (at a minimum) which she herself says, I agree with her opinion based on the evidence in that trial – and in that well reasoned review, she said there was no “unknown intruder.” Unless you’re not being up front about who you are, we can agree that she knows more than you know about the trial – and part of her opinion, albeit dicta, includes that there was no unknown intruder.

                    Take it or leave it, Bruce, but despite liking your charm, it’s a bit transparent why you’re here all of a sudden.

                    • Bruce
                      07/08/2011 at 11:41 AM


                      Please explain the transparency of why I’m here all of a sudden.

                      I’m trying to figure that out myself.

                      Enlighten all of us please.

                • alternateguy
                  07/07/2011 at 1:24 PM


                  What you believe are “head scratchers” do, quite often, not lead me to scratch my own head at all, once I look into them.

                  That I see so much attempting here to make a sow’s ear out every silk purse, or whatever, is what draws me here. (Long after you made your own appearance and had become the queen bee?)

                  When I see posters stating “facts” which apparently have no basis in reality, I ask questions, such as “Where did you see that?” Then so often I’m simply told “Go look for yourself,” or sometimes I’m given a lead that leads to no such “fact” at all.

                  I do not find, in the transcripts, any clear indication that Joe and Victor were not concerned for Dylan’s safety.

                  How do we know that they did not call out for him, or worry, or wonder what to do to make him safe? They immediately and noisily called for public help, if we can believe their story.

                  They were not asked if they had called for Dylan, as far as I can see. Yet you seem to know for a fact that they did not.

                  It is the siting of “facts” such as these, that I question.

                  And if I can’t find your “facts,” I’m simply told that I’m not looking hard enough.

                  • Bea
                    07/07/2011 at 3:45 PM

                    Alt, if you want to know the case, learn the case. It’s that easy.

                    • alternateguy
                      07/07/2011 at 3:51 PM

                      OK, I think I’ll chose to learn stuff from othersthan from you, if you don’t mind.

                    • Bea
                      07/07/2011 at 8:58 PM

                      Or you could do the reading like the rest of us and stop asking to be spoon fed. It gets annoying, particularly when we do and then you give some nutty interpretation, kind of like, well, saying it’s like having a hippo or a rocket land in your house:)

  24. alternateguy
    07/01/2011 at 11:30 PM


    Just how close do stories have to dovetail to avoid your suspicion?

  25. Alternateguy
    07/02/2011 at 8:26 AM

    Come ON people,

    First it’s suspicious that Joe didn’t say that he called for Dylan, (even though he wasn’t asked if he had,) and now it’s suspicious that he turned his head to look when he heard Dylan comming, (or Victor who appearently arrived at about the same time.) And of course two men couldn’t block the door at the same time. It’s suspicious when the stories match too closely (rehearsed) and suspicious when people remember small details differently. (As people will.)

    • Clio
      07/02/2011 at 12:06 PM

      Well, Alt, then, which small detail is probably true, and which small detail can be discounted? The job of the detective and the historian is to sort the wheat from the chaff.

      • Alternateguy
        07/02/2011 at 12:08 PM

        And which are we being today?

        • Clio
          07/02/2011 at 12:33 PM

          Alt, detectives are historians; historians are detectives. It’s a tautology, dear.

          Back to the question at hand: Can we say that one account makes more logical sense than the other, or can we make any inferences from the conflicting nature of these details?

          • alternateguy
            07/02/2011 at 1:58 PM


            You ask a good question.

            I try, as I’m sure you do, to put myself into the speaker’s head. For instance, when Victor was coming down the stairs and Dylan coming from his room at the same time, Dylan would have been, at first, looking at Victor, and then possibly into the room as Joe was receiving the towel from Victor and seeing Bloody Robert on the bed. That sure could have centered his attention for a moment .

            And then Joe was kneeling over Robert trying to apply a compress. All of that while Joe might have been saying to him “What the fuck’s going on?” And while Joe and Victor are talking about things like, the ambulance being on the way and the fact that someone had used one of there knives. I’m sure thoughts were racing through all of their heads. They would have been.

            A couple of hours later, one very well might not remember every little detail of every word or action that you or the others took or in what sequence. Just some highlights. I would think that a Detective would look at major things, like exactly how long did Dylan take to come from his room, and who called on the telephone and who attended to Robert. If the stories varied on such key points, then try to figure someone’s motive to fib.

            In my case, the stories make logical sense to me. I do wonder at some details, then I might view the video version and understand something that seems unclear in the transcript. As when a period is placed after the word “Yeah” rather that a comma. That made it seem to some that Joe was agreeing that someone would have had to jump over the fence on the way out of the yard. He was saying exactly the opposite.

            But nothing jumps out concerning the important details.

            As to what Joe may have said to others, such testimony is often not really accurate. Supposed Joe said that he had moved a knife from Roberts Chest. Or even removed a knife from Robert’s chest. The listener could easily think that he was saying that he had pulled a knife out of Robert’s chest and reported that, even if that wasn’t exactly what Joe said.

            Once word gets around that the police are saying, very loudly, that there could have been absolutely no possibility of an intruder having been there that night. People are going to be looking for give-a-way signs coming from the only suspects. And that’s what they are going to hear. (That’s why defense attorneys advise their clients to say nothing.)

            Now, I for one, think that even if Joe pulled the knife out of Robert’s chest and didn’t tell the police that detail, that he isn’t necessarily guilty of anything significant. After all, the police did ask him if he had stabbed Robert and he said that he hadn’t. But I don’t recall that they asked him “Did you pull a knife out of Robert’s chest?” He said that he moved a knife from Robert’s chest, and maybe he thought that was all that was necessary for him to say in order to be giving the police all of the information that they needed to solve the crime.

            All I am saying here Clio, is that I can find explainable explanations concerning everything that has been brought up. Maybe there are suspicious things that have been said, but nothing that I really see as a big tell, once I think it over.

            Of course I could be wrong. But so too can others.

            • Bea
              07/02/2011 at 2:16 PM

              Actually in one of the interviews Joe says that he MIGHT have told one of the cops that he pulled the knife FROM Robert’s chest – it’s like he’s planting a CYA seed in case that comes out. Again, for me, his persona in the video interviews comes across much like a teen lying to get out of trouble. Who REPEATS in separate interviews that it’s “like finding a hippo in your house”? Or that a rocket landed on your house?

              He is lying when he says Victor told him “later” that the 911 dispatcher says it was 11:43 – on the enhanced 911 tape you hear JOE ask and VICTOR tell him the answer. Why lie about that?

              You and I see quite differently Joe being “caught” on his convenient assumption that the back gate door remained locked – no one would “guess” that the intruder scaled the fence a second time rather than use the danged gate door!

              • alternateguy
                07/02/2011 at 2:31 PM


                Perhaps I’m missing something. Please tell me precisely where Joe is caught assuming that the back gate door remained locked. Where does he make that assumption? Where does he say the words?

                • AnnaZed
                  07/02/2011 at 3:32 PM

                  If you are not going to read the statements or watch the videos of the the interviews then why do you expect other posters here to just do your homework for you?

                  • alternateguy
                    07/02/2011 at 3:35 PM

                    I have both read them and watched them repeatedly, and I don’t see that Joe made that assumption.

                    • Bea
                      07/02/2011 at 6:22 PM

                      Read or watch again. It’s the one where there are two detectives and one says “good point” when the other says “how would you know the gate door is still locked?”

                  • susan
                    07/02/2011 at 7:31 PM

                    AnnaZed, why do you bother? Read back and back and people have been doing his homework for ages. And then when presented with facts, he twists them or add his own words, throws in a red herring. There is a pattern.

              • Clio
                07/02/2011 at 7:04 PM

                I have always found the use of the word “hippo” there somewhat odd: why did Mr. Price refer to a hippopotamus twice? At first, I thought that he was referring to either St. Augustine’s city in north Africa (Hippo), or the fountain of inspiration on a mountain in Greece (Hippocrene), or, less likely, a mythical monster (hippogryph). Perhaps, he meant to say “incubus” or “leprechaun” here, instead of “hippo.” But, “hippo” seems over-unlikely: like he was trying too hard once again.

              • Alternateguy
                07/02/2011 at 7:51 PM

                Bea, (Replying here because I’m running out of space.)

                Thanks. That is what I thought you might have been referring to. I interpret the meaning quite differently from the way you do, I’m afraid.

                Others have commented that when hearing the video recordings, many of the transcribed words take on a different meaning. In this case, I feel that this is perfectly true.

                That would be on page 10, starting on line 3 of the first interview:

                SGT. WAGNER. And then this person, they — then
                what did they do? Jump the fence?

                MR. PRICE. Yeah. I was sitting in the living room saying to (indiscernible) like why in the hell would you jump the fence? Why wouldn’t the person going out the back door go through the gate?

                (When reading this transcription, you may assume that the word “Yeah” is a statement-meaning yes. But, after watching the video you realize that the Yeah is part of a continuing sentence and is not followed by any pause, which might indicate an affirmative answer to the question. Yeah is part of the line about sitting in the living room and talking to a previous questioner. After listening to the video soundtrack, it seems most clear to me that the word, Yeah, should have been transcribed by the stenographer as followed by a comma rather than a period. Joe Price is not answering Wagner’s question in the affirmative, but rather indicating that he had previously answered that question with a question and is offering the same question to him.

                DETECTIVE NORRIS. Well how do you know –

                (I have no idea what NORRIS was starting to say, Wagner was answering Joe when he said:

                SGT. WAGNER. Amen. Good thinking.

                (In the next sentence, Joe is explaining that he didn’t get to see the gate closely, but from somewhere, perhaps the kitchen, because he wasn’t allowed to go outside.)

                MR. PRICE. Because I didn’t get to go out there
                but, you know, the gate was — as far as I could tell from
                where I was sitting, the gate (indiscernible) the gate was not ajar.

                (Some have speculated that he was saying that he could see that the gate was not ajar from the living room, since he began be
                talking about sitting there, But it has been noted that he had, when first showing the detectives around, gone into the kitchen with them. And he might have sat in there while they checked outside, and he likely wasn’t allowed to go out with them.)

                Pleas listen again to the video sound-track and see if you don’t agree with this interpretation.

                • Bea
                  07/03/2011 at 1:25 AM

                  Disagree completely. He says the guy must’ve scaled the fence. Caught and questioned about silly assumption. He had to make that “guess” because he knew the gate door was locked since it has to be locked from outside with key. No other plausible explanation.

                  • Alternateguy
                    07/03/2011 at 9:16 AM


                    I know that you mean well, but we do disagree.

                    I gave you a most obvious explanation for the conversation you sited.
                    And even copied the actual interrogation for you.

                    But you simply stonewall. You continue to insist that any interpretation but yours is not plausible.

                    Your explanation, based on your interpretation of “Yeah,” involves putting a very unlikely meaning on that word from Joe that would be in total contradiction of the sentence that follows.

                    Furthermore you put words into Detective Norris’ mouth that he SIMPLY DID NOT SAY.

                    And you illogically assume that Wagner’s response of “Good thinking” was directed at Norris, for his unfinished interjection, when it is far more likely that he was answering Joe, who had just pointed out that there was nothing to prevent the intruder from simply exiting the gate.

                    And that was obviously true. And good thinking to boot. (Regardless of any outside lock configuration.)

                    Your interpretation, that this conversation is some sort of “Tell,” involves a really big stretch on your part.

                    I’m afraid that you’ve shoehorned the dialogue to make it fit your preconceived notion that Joe has guilt to reveal.

                    I hope that others will both read and listen to this interrogation with an open mind and decide for themselves what was being said.

                    • Bea
                      07/03/2011 at 11:32 PM

                      It’s even clearer when one watches the video. Joe was caught in a “whoops!”

                    • Alternateguy
                      07/04/2011 at 9:12 AM


                      I had watched the video previously and it bore out my interpretation of the transcript.

                      But, as far as I can tell, the video is no longer available.

                      Can you please tell me where I can find it if you know?

                      I’ll give it another look-see to see if I can find the “Whoops,” that you speak of.

                      It sure doesn’t read that way in the transcript in my humbleopinion.

                    • Bea
                      07/07/2011 at 9:00 PM

                      FYI, Alt, when you paraphrase and add interpretation, it’s not “quoting the transcript.”
                      You called me on that when I said I was paraphrasing, but you don’t even fess up to the fact that you added narrative (and a strange one at that).

                  • Bea
                    07/04/2011 at 10:50 PM

                    Alt, you can do a search of this site and find all the interviews (both videos and transcripts). It would likely help your credibility if you did a little leg work.

                    • Alternateguy
                      07/04/2011 at 11:36 PM


                      One of the video interviews is no longer available; I think it’s the one in question.
                      Apparently you haven’t bothered to check it out recently. I guess my opinion simplyisn’t worth the effort?

                      From your earlier post, it seems you didn’t even bother to re-read the transcript either, being that you quoted it wrong.

                    • Bea
                      07/05/2011 at 4:33 PM

                      Alt, the videos are still available – just watched them. Sorry I paraphrased, and sorry if you don’t think I give your theory enough credence but you’re the same way: you have your opinions. So be it. I’m not calling you out on it.

                  • Alternateguy
                    07/07/2011 at 11:57 PM


                    FYI, Alt, when you paraphrase and add interpretation, it’s not “quoting the transcript.”
                    You called me on that when I said I was paraphrasing, but you don’t even fess up to the fact that you added narrative (and a strange one at that).

                    Paraphrase? Hell, I copied and pasted everything right from the transcript in its entirety.

                    Your didn’t say you were “paraphrasing’ you just put words in someone’s mouth that they didn’t say.

                    So NOW I CONFESS: The “narration,” as you call it, in my post, clearly inserted between paragraphs, were comments on the clearly printed testimonies, separated clearly by parenthesis marks, and were/was mine. “A strange one?” That’s all you can say about my analysis of the testimony? I don’t know why I even try.

                    • AnnaZed
                      07/08/2011 at 12:03 AM

                      I thought you were ‘gonna lay off the all caps.


                    • Alternateguy
                      07/08/2011 at 12:15 AM

                      Learning, Really learning my lesson.

  26. Alternateguy
    07/02/2011 at 8:51 AM

    And of course Joe could have stepped back and looked out the door expecting the towel from Victor since he needed to apply it to Robert as he was being told to do. (In spite of the fact that Robert wasn’t bleeding profusely.) I do suspect that experts from the prosecutor’s office might have looked over these transcripts long ago for any tell-tale information.

    • susan
      07/02/2011 at 9:02 AM

      You must try House of the Tiger Aunt. These nonsequiturs, red herrings, look over there-===a bird! attempts at diversion and done in such a simple way make you a prime candidate for their line of children’s books.

      I urge everyone serious about the facts and reasoned speculation to stop playing in Alt’s sandbox. I won’t waste a post of this idiot again. I urge others to do the same. That sandbox is filthy–esp, after the RW stabbed himself comment. I think he’s trying to impress JP’s friend.

      • susan
        07/02/2011 at 9:18 AM

        Again, I really do urge everyone to ignore Alt’s posts. He is trying to be provocative. He alters facts, makes up facts, and attempts to OBSTRUCT JUSTICE AND TAMPER WITH THE EVIDENCE. Maybe he should be in Judge L’s court.

        So, back on track:

        I urge everyone to go to those pages I mentioned and read what Victor Zaborsky, Dylan Ward and Joe Price said about when Dylan Ward is first encountered and in Dylan Ward’s case when and where he says he first saw Joe Price.


        Again, how does Joe Price see Dylan Ward coming out of his room puttin on a robe when Dylan Ward says he first saw Joe Price at Robert Wone’s bedside? Dylan Ward suggests that Victor Zaborsky was standing in the room’s doorway. Victor Zaborsky says that Dylan Ward was in the doorway.

        Murder, Lies, and Transcript.

        • Bruce
          07/05/2011 at 3:03 PM

          I would urge everyone very strongly to consider carefully Alt’s posts on here.

          Alt does not push his opinions on others here, like some others, as the only opinion one can have. He rarely if ever calls anyone “delusional.” Not really his style.

          He simply and concisely expresses his opinions and his takes on facts… you can agree with him or not. He always has a sensible view, in my opinion. He is not fantastic in any way. He can make a whole lot of sense. I don’t always agree, but I enjoy and learn from his posts. Sometimes I learn even more from others’ responses to him.

          He doesn’t loudly and in CAPS wrongfully, irresponsibly and unfairly accuse people of obstructing justice and tampering with evidence. What a bunch of junk that approach is. So dishonest.

          His opinions are not blessed with the moral certitude of the moral majority on here, that is certainly correct. But he does add much to the discourse, and makes it so there actually is a discourse, rather than the mutual masterbation society this blog sometimes becomes.

          Most important, he doesn’t diminish other people. He respects them. And says his peace. And he is consistent.

          Many Kudos to Dear Clio, who can disagree but still appreciate a different opinion.

          What happened to Susan? Seems like a while ago she seemed reasonable and unfanatical. What happened? Such a cheap irresponsible diminishing of Alt. Don’t be a cheater, Susan.

          If you are going to take Alt. on , take him on honestly and directly. If you disagree with him, explain it. Debate it.

          The old cheap tricks on here of accusations of “having others do your homework” and simply making up untruths about people to try to keep people from reading a poster are so childish, so immature, so lacking in critical thinking. We’ve all heard them before.

          So I would suggest that we all make July 5 Alt. day. Read over some of his posts, they are very interesting. You will probably not agree or embrace everything he says, but you will show that you are not the close-minded horde of, and neither the by-product or result, of those on here blessed with eternal moral certitude in their little chapel of righteousness.

          • Bruce
            07/05/2011 at 5:35 PM


            Reading over my post above, paragraph 3, where I wrote about Alt: “He is not fantastic in any way…”, it seems very odd to me, and I wrote it!

            What I meant was that his posts are not “fantastic” in the definition of that word for “quaint or strange in form, conception, or appearance.”

            I could see how Alt or someone could read that line and think I was saying that his posts are not “fantastic” in the definition of that word for “wonderful, marvelous.”

            One could certainly have an opinion that Alt’s posts are not wonderful or not marvelous, but I wasn’t referencing any wonderfulness when I wrote it (not that you might not be, Alt., sheesh).

            All I meant to say was that his posts are not wierd. Yikes. This explanation is ridiculous and over-long. Probably no one read it the wrong way. bye.

            • Alternateguy
              07/05/2011 at 5:55 PM

              Hey, Bruce,

              I knew what you meant. Thanks a mint.

          • susan
            07/05/2011 at 8:11 PM

            Bruce, you like Alt, have thrown out statements you believe to be fact to see if they stick. Go back and read your old posts. You never did your homework to begin with.

            Note to Vito: You wonder how certain cases like OJ’s are won: Specious arguments and susceptible jurors. Don’t engage in the former and don’t be the latter and you know you will make the world better or at least make a noble attempt.

            Example, Vito: Bruce says that Alt doesn’t “diminish people” he “respects them.” I didn’t think that was the case with Boggled and others. Not at all. My CAPS were in fact in response to Alt’s silly use of them. Go check. Direct quotes from the suspects–cap worthy versus capping one’s opinion alone or random words. Finally, it was mostly to point out that some posters (deduce as you will….) will use red herrings and false arguments, and throw fact to the wind to distract from the case, to distract from verbatim quotes, to detract from fact.

            When it gets to someone suggesting RW stabbed himself they don’t like verbatim quotes so they argue against them, then you know there is an agenda, or dare one say, motive?

            Different viewpoints, beautiful. Insulting the deceased and changing facts, words, etc.? Not so much.

            • Alternateguy
              07/06/2011 at 1:20 AM

              You know, I’ve never found out how to emphasize a word on these posts, since you can’t italicize or underline, so I occasionally capitalize a word in order to emphasize it’s importance to the meaning of what I’m trying to say. Call, me silly, that’s OK. I also use way too many parentheses.

              Now, “Obstruction of Justice” and “Tampering with evidence” are two real crimes, neither which I hope I am guilty of. Also, “…insulting the deceased…” is a way-out charge in my estimation. I made it quite clear that Robert did not stab or kill himself, in my opinion. I feel that those who keep saying that I suggested those things, are not being merely silly, in my opinion, but seem to be actively trying to destroy my credibility for reasons I can’t quite fathom.

              I know that I may have gone too far myself, in the past, such as when I once said that I think it’s a bit insulting to Robert to just assume that he possessed an extremely poor sense of judgment in trusting the members of the household where he chose to sleep over. After all, he knew them far better than any of us do. Robert was, I believe, a FAR smarter man than I will ever be. And HE trusted and believed in Joe and his family. That should say something positive about them that I think is too easily overlooked.

              Well, you all know where I’m coming from. A person whose judgment I respect very much is a good friend of theirs to this day. I do find it hard to accept SOME of the extreme viewpoints that I read here.

              • AnnaZed
                07/06/2011 at 2:56 AM

                “…You know, I’ve never found out how to emphasize a word on these posts, since you can’t italicize or underline, so I occasionally capitalize a word in order to emphasize it’s importance to the meaning of what I’m trying to say….”

                Well, you can’t have looked very hard or very long. Simple HTML tags are accepted on all WordPress pages. I use them all of the time.

                Strike through, bold and italics are very easy to remember and simple to execute. There is an underline tag as well, but most people don’t use it since text that is linked is often underlined. The potential for confusion and the archaic nature of underlining in general make it a poor marker for emphasis.

                Some tutorials, including the one that I have linked, so please make note of this following: recommend utilizing a lower case “i” tag to produce italics, but I have found that WordPress sometimes does not recognize it. Only the “em” formatting tag (short for emphasis and also demonstrated on the linked page) will produce italics on WordPress consistently.


                This is pretty much Commenting On Blogs 101 stuff.

                Typing in all caps recalls the AOL chat rooms of 1996 or the Endless September of Usenet 1993 Something about this blog brings out the aboriginal in commenters I have noticed.

                You are welcome.

                • alternateguy
                  07/06/2011 at 10:16 AM


                  Why, Thank you very much! I had long ago forgotten what little HTML that I knew. I had, at one time. noticed the use of italics in a post (Probably one of yours, and had thought about asking how it was done, but didn’t. Most posters use simple quote marks when quoting here and it makes it a little hard to understand who’s saying what. So I guess they don’t know about HTML use here either.

                  HEY EVERYONE!

                  Read AnnaZed’s post.

                  HTML can still be fun.

            • Bill 2
              07/06/2011 at 10:05 AM

              It’s very easy to see how Susan became exasperated with Alt’s alternative views of facts and possibilities.

              If today is Wednesday and 11 people agree that it’s the day after Tuesday, an Alt-type will tell them they’re wrong because it’s the day before Thursday, and that will come after asking the eleven for a calendar, a pencil to write with and a pad of legal-size paper.

              • alternateguy
                07/06/2011 at 10:43 AM

                If you can find eleven posters who agree, on this blog, you’re a better man than I.

                But Wednesday is the day before Thursday, and sometimes that fact is forgotten. To have one point out that fact shouldn’t necessarily be seen as a threat to your strongly held belief that Wednesday is the day after Tuesday.

                • Bill 2
                  07/06/2011 at 11:02 AM

                  I think you prove Susan correct with your use of “threat.” It’s clear that if people disagree with your constant attempts to discount facts, you consider it a “threat” and will even place that viewpoint upon others as you did right here and now. To you, a simple disagreement on the description of the day of the week is a “threat” by one of the parties. Case closed!!!

                  • alternateguy
                    07/06/2011 at 11:39 AM

                    So your post was a simple disagreement on the description of the day of the week?

                    I know, the case is closed. And you are The Decider.

                  • alternateguy
                    07/06/2011 at 11:48 AM

                    Oh, and please name one fact that I’ve attempted to discount.

                  • steve
                    07/06/2011 at 12:37 PM

                    “It’s clear that if people disagree with your constant attempts to discount facts, you consider it a “threat” and will even place that viewpoint upon others as you did right here and now.”

                    Bill 2: Where is the “facts” in your statement?

                • Bruce
                  07/06/2011 at 3:41 PM

                  Following Alt’s logic: When you have a big operation on Thursday, and you have to prepare much for it on Wednesday, in that reality…Wednesday is the day before Thursday. The fact that it is also the day after Tuesday is of no real relevance or importance.

                  Passively/Agressivley Yours…….

            • Bruce
              07/06/2011 at 4:22 PM

              Hi Susan:

              Your post above is interesting, but you speak in generalities mostly, and I can’t really follow you.

              You say in your first paragraph that I “throw out statements I believe to be fact to see if they stick.” This may very well be true, but I have no idea what you mean. Can you give me an example that sort of hits the nail on the head? I will be glad to discuss, including pleading guilty to the charge if it fits.

              Your second paragraph gives noble suggestions to Vito about the criminal law system and suggests that criminal aquittals you disagree with are caused by “specious arguments and susceptable jurors.” An example there would be good too. Is demanding proof beyond a reasonable doubt, putting the burden on the prosecution to prove a case (not on the defendant to disprove the state’s case) and allowing both sides of a criminal trial to make arguments a specious exercise to gullible susceptable jurors? Please explain. I will be glad to respond respectfully.

              By the way, I did not follow the Casey Anthony case very carefully, but I was interested in it. I learned on CNN last night that the prosecution asked for the death penalty (which is apparently a little odd considering the defendants’ history) so that they could get a jury who all had to agree that they would impose the death penalty if they found the defendant liable for the death penalty. This is significant. This means that in an already quite conservative venue (i.e, prone to follow the prosecutor word rather than a defense counsel), the prosecution got the most conservative of the conservatives, and weeded out any crazy liberals through the jury selection process with the judge’s acquiesence. In other words, the prosecution got the absolute best jury for the prosecution it could get, and yet it still lost. Interesting. Now, many pundits and the state’s attorney’s office is stating how difficile the trial was to try to get a conviction. Wasn’t it “oh, she be so guilty” from them before?

              You infer in your third paragraph that I “use red herrings and false arguments…..throw fact to the wind to distract from this case, to distract from verbatim quotes, to detract from fact.” Very flowery (and I love it), but please Susan, one example so I can respond to your generalities?

              This is easy:

              (1) One example of a “red herring” from me.
              (2) One example of a “false argument” from me.
              (3) One example of how I “throw fact to the wind to distract from the case”
              (4) One example of how I “throw fact to the wind to distract from verbatim quotes (this is what I really really want to see……please indulge me)and
              (5) One example of how I “throw fact to the wind to distract from fact” (your phrase, not mine).

              While your doing it. I don’t know who you are referencing in your next paragraph, where you say someone suggesting RW stabbed himself and they don’t like verbatim quotes, you are being too general again. Is it me you speak of? I have never suggested RW stabbed himself, and I don’t think anyone on here really has done so, although some have just made some reference to it as to why there may be a settlement. Please identify who it is that is suggesting to you that Robert Wone stabbed himself and that they believe that as the core to the murder? And please identify the verbatim quote you reference.

              In other words, put clear and concise examples to your generalized bitching and I will do my best to respond. That’s only fair when you take on someone, isn’t it? Otherwise what you say is just a sham. Thanks.

              • Bruce
                07/08/2011 at 11:53 AM



                You will say all those many things about me in generalities and you won’t provide one example so that I can properly respond, when I fairly asked for specific examples?

                Your sense of fairness is quite unique.

                • Bruce
                  07/14/2011 at 11:04 AM

                  Wow, Susan:

                  As I said a week ago:


                  You will say all those many things about me in generalities and you won’t provide one example so that I can properly respond, when I fairly asked for specific examples?

                  Your sense of fairness is quite unique

        • KiKi
          07/05/2011 at 4:08 PM

          Wow! I agree with Bruce. This is really uncalled for susan. It is one thing to debate points and disagree on specific issues and theories, it is a completely different thing to accuse someone of “OBSTRUCT[ing] JUSTICE AND TAMPER[ing] WITH THE EVIDENCE.”

          Further, if you don’t like what he is saying don’t engage him, or better yet, engage him and explain why you think he is wrong. And if you want to put your head in the sand and only read the posts of those you agree with, fine. Keep on, patting yourself and your friends on the back. But why try to “urge” others to stop reading his posts (three times).

          Maybe you are trying to “impress” your “friends” on this blog. That would be sad.

          Further, how does calling another poster an “idiot” add anything productive to this conversation. Does name calling and accusatory statements to a member of this community help decipher any facts? Does it help us work through difficult issues? Does it help anyone figure out Who Murdered Robert Wone?

          Or does it just make you feel a little better? Are you so insecure that you need to belittle another poster here to make yourself feel better about your contributions?

          Often, Alt calls out the assumptions or leaps made by other posters in their conclusions. I tried to do this early on and it gets exhausting, so I give him a lot of credit for sticking with it and adding at least one contrary voice to some of the clearly illogical conclusions stated on this blog.

          So even if you disagree with him, why/who does it hurt to have someone asking questions, making you have a basis for your opinions? Only one of two things can happen, either you will reassure yourself that you are correct or you will question your conclusion and realize you were wrong. Seems like a win win to me.

          Or you can play in your own sandbox with you head buried in the sand, at least you will never have to justify your opinions to anyone. But then too who will you insult?

          • susan
            07/05/2011 at 6:56 PM

            You’re funny, Kiki. I guess you feel a bit bruised from earlier posts. Ones where we discussed To Kill a Mockingbird, defense attorneys and some of your postings that had unnecessary arrogant tones. That’s too bad.

            But is your reasoning two “wrongs” make a right? Why is the argument I made against some of Alt’s postings ones you have used here against me? My argument is one should NOT be so narrow-minded and biased See, Kiki, I have no horse in this race. If you look at some old posts (must again suggest it) you will see how his friend of J. Price is hurting about all the criticism re JP. My connection is living in DC for most of my life. That’s my connection.

            I certainly hope you don’t use such specious arguments in the courtroom. I know it must be hard defending the clientele that you do (murderers and the like) but our legal system demands it as it should.

            BTW, it’s funny how yours and Bruce’s posts re me bypass the biggy that I posted. Tell you what: I’ll post it again but with more direct quotations from documented testimony.

            • KiKi
              07/06/2011 at 4:53 PM

              It is interesting that you describe both my argument and Bruce’s argument as specious. Is it perhaps that whenever you disagree with something it must wrong and misleading?

              This may be hard for you to believe but you are not the first person who has criticized my profession or my clients. So no, I am not particularly “bruised” by any posts on here criticizing my views or what I choose to do for a living. And really it is not that hard for me to represent my clients. I actually quite enjoy understanding people, why they do things, learning that they are more than the worst thing that they ever did, and I really like the constitution.

              Please tell me when I have used the same arguments against you that you used against alt. Show me a post where I called you an idiot or told others not to read your posts (thrice). Maybe you infer that I am calling you an idiot based on my “unnecessary arrogant tones” but I assure you that I am not making judgments about you personally based upon what you type on an internet blog. And if my tone sounds arrogant to you, why not try copying and pasting my post into a word doc and changing the name to bea, Clio, or Bill and see if the tone changes in your head.

              I will certainly not argue that I am biased. I am a defense attorney, I have made that clear from the beginning. As far as narrow minded, that I will have to disagree with, as I do believe that I, as well as some of the other “apologists,” have displayed a much more open minded view of the defendants in this case than you have.

              My only connection to this case, is as a defense attorney, trying to counteract the lynch mob activity that often occurs in these discussions. Maybe if more attorneys were willing to do that during the Casey Anthony trial, everyone wouldn’t have been so surprised by the verdict…

              • Cat from Cleveland
                07/06/2011 at 6:21 PM

                Well said! I’ll spare the anecdotal accounts (I have dozens), and say this: for every high profile case you can cite involving a highly paid defense team getting a not-guilty verdict despite strong evidence of guilt, I can show you 10, perhaps 20 cases where a person of little means was convicted on little (or very close to no) evidence for want of a criminal defense attorney that isn’t overworked, underpaid and without sufficient resources to fully investigate. Criminal defense attorneys are mostly highly principled defenders of our most cherished rights. We have not too many, but rather too few, of them. Any one of us could be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and we should all be so fortunate as to have someone with KiKi’s knowledge, compassion and understanding there to demand that the state produce real evidence (as opposed to innuendo, inferences or suspicions) to prove us guilty or set us free.

                • alternateguy
                  07/06/2011 at 6:26 PM

                  Hear! Hear!

                • susan
                  07/06/2011 at 11:41 PM

                  Why, Cat, re the first part of your response to Kik I agree. That’s why my post to her reads:

                  “I know it must be hard defending the clientele that you do (murderers and the like) but our legal system demands it as it should.”

                  As to the rest of her reply, a record is a wonderful thing. Seek (on this blog site) and ye shall find. Same advice to Bruce (a two-fer with this response.) The record speaks for itself. For interested readers who have the time and interest, read the back pages. So much to learn. I am still reading them!

              • Jeana
                07/06/2011 at 6:52 PM

                You make an excellent point, Kiki. Perhaps some early criticisms in the press could have kept the Anthony prosecutors from going off a cliff. I, for one, appreciate hearing from you in particular and others from the defense perspective. Having served as a public defender briefly in my early career and having burned out early both from the discomfort of representing people I well knew were gulty as well as the devastation of losing cases where I was convinced of my client’s innocence, I can only look up to and admire those who make it their career to hold prosecutors to their constitutional duty. And, as an opponent of the death penalty under any circumstances, I am particularly thankful for the work of capitol defenders. Your inputs to this blog are interesting, challenging and thought-provoking.

                What I do not appreciate, however, (and I’m not suggesting you are among them) are the tit-for-tat insults that posters from both sides engage in. When the blog gets bogged down in that junk – as it is right now – I just have to go away for awhile.

              • susan
                07/07/2011 at 2:03 AM

                You are funny, Kiki, and prove my points.

                I never said you called me any name. It’s just not there. Making something up doesn’t prove it as true! You know that.

                You say “Please show me where I made the same argument.. re alt” Read your post–that’s it.

                You state that I’m not the “first person to criticize” your profession. But see what I wrote and quoted to Cat. False argument again.

                I will say that there are good attys and bad attys, good plumbers, and bad plumbers. The profession doesn’t elevate a person’s morals or state of divinity. Just doesn’t.

                We’ve had these discussions before on this site. Jurors, judges, prosecutors, defense attys, police, investigators, witnesses–can all be faulty and convict the wrong person or set the guilty free.

                I’m glad you “really like the constitution.” What I like is that there are those who believe it is organic and subject to improvement. Otherwise, DC residents may never have a voting rep. in Congress and congressman may continue to vote their own salary raises. Just two examples there.

      • Bill 2
        07/02/2011 at 9:23 AM

        I agree Susan. By subscribing to this thread, the messages come via e-mail. If I see his name on top of the e-mail, I just delete it. Why bother with that constant nonsense? And it works both ways. If someone doesn’t like my input, it’s easy for them to delete it if it comes via e-mail.

        • Alternateguy
          07/02/2011 at 9:56 AM

          Thanks Bill 2,

          (Although, you’re obviously not reading this.) I now know why you and perhaps some others go on the way you do, as though you hadn’t even heard my arguments.

          I know that everyone has been advised not to play in my sandbox, whatever that means. But I’ll be polite here and try not advising anyone to avoid burying their heads in their own sand boxes, reading only the posts of those who agree with you.

          Makes me appreciate all the more, those posters who, though they may disagree with my points of view, do take the time to hear them. As well as to point out for me where I’m wrong.

          By the way, I take seriously what ALL posters have to say here, and do think over their points.

          • Clio
            07/02/2011 at 10:44 AM

            Alt, you may lack the gentlemanly charm of a Bruce or the technician’s enthusiasm of a Kiki, but your posts, however pedestrian that they may be, do elicit discussion of this case, and that is the purpose of this weblog.

            Nevertheless, one should expect strong responses to blind defenses of conspiracy and intruder theories that are clearly intended to exonerate parties that may be culpable for Robert’s murder.

            • Alternateguy
              07/02/2011 at 11:06 AM


              Thanks for your your comments. I do hope for serious, logical, discussions of this case.

              Any of my arguments are NOT intended to exonerate anyone guilty of either murder or a conspiracy to protect a murderer.

              But concentrating on the wrong people, if that is happening here, and I suspect that it might be, may be letting some real murderer off the hook.

              And, somehow, I don’t think that is right. He/she could murder again. While much of the world is watching the triple.

              • Clio
                07/02/2011 at 11:39 AM

                “Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle.” Thomas Jefferson.

                Having quoted that wonderful statement from whom one could say was one of the biggest self-serving hypocrites in world history, I keep thinking of Culuket’s own choice of words that morning. Didn’t Joe use the tell-tale phrase — “the real killers?” Alt, don’t you find that wording the least bit suspicious?

                • Alternateguy
                  07/02/2011 at 11:48 AM

                  Not if he was speaking to someone who thought that he and his friends were the killers.

                  • Clio
                    07/03/2011 at 8:53 AM

                    And, why, oh, why would someone ever think that?

                    BTW, this talk of a settlement has not diminished the number of responses to this post: why is that the case?

                    • Alternateguy
                      07/04/2011 at 9:22 AM

                      What I wonderabout is why anyone would find Joe’s use of the phrase “The real killers,” in any way suspicious under the circumstances.

                      Can you enlighten me?

                  • Clio
                    07/04/2011 at 10:55 AM

                    O.J. Simpson made that phrase infamous — he’s still looking for the “real killers” of Ron and Nicole. Plus, Alt, the Editors did a long-ago post about that phrase and how it turned off long-time supporters of the trouple. Hope that helps.

                    • alternateguy
                      07/04/2011 at 11:30 AM

                      So, suspicion of O.J. transfers to Joe? Was his response supposed be Freudian? Perhaps saying he was a false killer?


                      Couldn’t he have simply paid no attention to the O.J. Story because he didn’tidentify with the man in any way?.

                      I can’t understand how Joe’s friends would have found those words strange in any way.

                      Unless, of course, they had been undulyinfluenced by someone else saying that those words were somehow an indication of guilt.

                      I guess I’m just dumb. I simplydon’t see it.

                    • Gloria
                      07/04/2011 at 1:42 PM

                      See the July 8 2009 posting — The “REal” Killer — for this discussion.

                    • Alternateguy
                      07/04/2011 at 3:25 PM

                      Thanks for the lead.

                      Read it.

                      Oh, I see now, Unduly influenced by a Forensic Psychologist!

                      Well, that makes sense.


    • Clio
      07/04/2011 at 10:24 AM

      Lifetime Moms, real women, and Victor: he’s landed on his feet, Susan! Now, if he could only get a new man … South Beach, watch out if he does decide to dump the duo!

      One may wonder if the trouple (even including Dyl this time) will gather around their Zenith, however, to watch the premiere of the latest season of Project Runway on July 28. I’m sure that they’ll “make it work” somehow.

  27. susan
    07/04/2011 at 1:03 AM

    And this from June 1. So if there is a settlement, there’s not only the insurance co. but VZ income to consider:

    Shaq O’Neill even makes an appearance here:

    • Clio
      07/04/2011 at 6:38 AM

      But, Susan, I had thought that Mr. Zaborsky’s life would never be the same, as per his “moment of sanity” at Anacostia. Yeah, right!

      • Clio
        07/04/2011 at 3:42 PM

        I heart Oreo cookies, (skim) milk, and Lifetime TV, and I cannot wait to blog with those “real” women, the backbone of the great United States whose birthday we celebrate today! Just add motherhood and apple pie, and perhaps a game of baseball, and we need a Norman Rockwell to capture Victor’s “American century” moment! But, thanks in part perhaps to another Victorian moment in time, one mother will never see her son again, and another woman may never be a mother: triple sigh!

        • susan
          07/04/2011 at 4:12 PM

          Plus, if “real” women follow that kind of diet, they might have a limited number of Fourths to celebrate.

          I wonder how much $ S. O’Neill was paid to give his endorsement.

          • Alternateguy
            07/04/2011 at 4:24 PM

            Don’t you find the use of “real women,” just a bit suspicious?” (Just kidding.)

            • Clio
              07/06/2011 at 9:21 PM

              Given that the 911 operator thought Mr. Zaborsky was a real woman, I find that use in the marketing pitch a bit cheeky and ironic — Victor probably does have a devilish sense of humor after all. But then again, what happened on 08/02 was not high camp, but high tragedy!

    • Bill Orange
      07/04/2011 at 3:21 PM

      I have to say that I’m surprised that there was a settlement prior to Kathy Wone playing hardball, at least with respect to Victor. Joe’s career has been devastated by all of this. He’ll be able to find work, but nothing compared to what he had before. Dylan’s work is mostly, well, let’s just call it freelance, and will likely continue as before. But Victor seems to be maintaining a fairly respectable career in advertising. Kathy Wone could wipe that out with one press conference. How long do you think Victor would keep his job if she started saying things like, “Victor Zaborsky is out there telling you how great milk is, but he won’t tell me who stabbed my husband to death. Is this really a man you can trust?” It would take one viral photoshopped picture of Victor with a red mustache and a “Got Murderer?” caption to send the whole dairy industry running for the hills.

      And before anyone starts lecturing me about the 5th Amendment, I will say that I believe that Victor absolutely has a right to remain silent here. But by the same line of reasoning (1st Amendment), I believe that Kathy Wone has a similar absolute right to tell the world–including Victor’s employers and clients–exactly what he is doing. He has a right to remain silent, not a right to pretend like nothing happened.

      • Alternateguy
        07/04/2011 at 3:45 PM

        No lawyer here, as everyone must know by now.

        But I believe that the First Amendment right does NOT give one the right to purposely destroy others.

        Anyway, you apparently see Kathy in a different light than I do. Do you see burning firebrands and torches there? I don’t.

        • Clio
          07/04/2011 at 4:59 PM

          I actually agree with Alt here, and such press conference stunts, however creative and tempting, would give away the moral high ground to the possibly immoral. And, any boycotts of Oreos or milk, to me, would be counterproductive and unbearable. How could anyone give up those comfort foods — just look at Mr. Zaborsky’s husband, perhaps!

          Nonetheless, I am sure that Covington will factor in Victor’s renaissance in any terms of settlement, wishing him well in the process.

        • Bill Orange
          07/06/2011 at 10:39 AM

          The first amendment gives Kathy Wone the right to free speech. If she wants to tell the world that a prominent advertiser was (a) in the house when her husband was murdered, and (b) is refusing to answer any questions about the death of her husband, she is well within her rights. Both of those statements are true, so there is no slander here. It wouldn’t be Kathy Wone’s free speech rights that were destroying Victor Zaborsky. It would be the simple truth of what an awful person he is.

          • alternateguy
            07/06/2011 at 10:57 AM

            Bill O,

            “(b)…is refusing to answer any questions….?” (Emphasis is mine.)

            Victor Zaborsky did answer many and all questions willingly, through long hours of questioning. One has to be very careful about what one says about a person in public. And very, very careful about what one says about an industry. (There are special laws about that.)

            • Bill Orange
              07/06/2011 at 11:42 PM

              Actually, what I said was “…is refusing to answer any questions ABOUT THE DEATH OF HER HUSBAND…” (emphasis is mine). As far I know, this is a true statement, although I will immediately concede that I have not seen the actual deposition transcripts. If it isn’t a totally accurate statement, I’m sure Kathy Wone could edit it to meet her needs.

              As for being careful about what one says in public, I doubt anyone really has anything to worry about. What are the defendants going to do? Accuse someone of slander or libel? Sorry, but a plaintiff in a civil case can’t go into court, accuse someone of defaming them, and then invoke their fifth amendment rights when asked if they’re a cold-blooded killer. It just isn’t going to happen.

              • Alternateguy
                07/07/2011 at 10:12 AM

                Oh, and I suppose all of those hours and hours of answering each and every question at Anacostia involved questions concerning the death of someone else?

                And, if it is true that the defendants have been willingly answering questions through their attorneys, than that suggests to me that your statement may not be accurate at all.

                “What are the defendants going to do? Accuse someone of slander or libel? Sorry, but a plaintiff in a civil case can’t go into court, accuse someone of defaming them…”

                You make it sound like open season on defendants.

                No, I wasn’t suggesting that one would sue Kathy.

                But if you or I say would say something libelous about someone on this blog?

                Does our anonymity protect us? And talking about the Dairy Industry, I’d be surprised if warning letters haven’t gone out already.

                • Bill Orange
                  07/08/2011 at 3:07 AM

                  “Oh, and I suppose all of those hours and hours of answering each and every question at Anacostia involved questions concerning the death of someone else?”

                  Again, my quote was, “…IS REFUSING to answer any questions about the death of her husband…” Please note the use of the present tense. While it is true that Victor co-operated with the police and answered questions about this matter for less that 12 hours over 4 1/2 years ago (i.e., in the past), he does not appear to be answering any questions NOW, in the present.

                  “if it is true that the defendants have been willingly answering questions through their attorneys…”, then I have seen no evidence of this fact, nor do I consider this to be “answering questions” in any true sense. Does Victor speak some unusual language dialect that only his lawyers can interpret? And by all accounts, Victor’s lawyers have be specifically advising him NOT to answer questions, and he has been taking this advice by invoking his 5th Amendment rights dozens (if not hundreds) of times with respect to questions concerning the murder of Robert Wone.

                  “Does our anonymity protect us?” Not at all. But the bottom line is that the Dairy Industry is giving money a man who is very actively impeding the investigation of the murder of a man who was stabbed in his own home. That isn’t libel. That’s an accurate statement about what both the Dairy Industry and Victor Zaborsky are doing right now. If the Dairy Industry would like to send me a letter advising me what part of these statements are incorrect, then I’d be happy to retract them. If they’d like to sue, I’d be happy to sit with them in depositions with Victor Zaborsky. And, if Victor is willing to waive attorney-client privilege, I’d be happy to sit in depositions with his lawyers so that the answers can be obtained “through his lawyers”.

      • susan
        07/04/2011 at 4:17 PM

        Bill O,

        I really imagine those guys aren’t doing too badly overall. There are those who haven’t heard about DW’s history with this case and then those who are probably intrigued in a dark sense (look at all the “fan” mail convicted criminals receive in prison. Not everyone is turned off by a person’s connection–innocent or not–to crime, even if that crime is murder.

        Based on his crim. defense of L. Hinton, JP strikes me as a person confident enough to advertise himself as an all-purpose atty, not one limited to intellectual property. I’m sure he could and possibly is earning $ taking on basic cases, etc.

        • Clio
          07/04/2011 at 4:44 PM

          I agree, Susan. Both figuratively and/or literally, they probably are sunning themselves around their postage-stamp-sized pool right now, after a mid-day cook-out: life has been good to them so far!

          And, yes, Bruce, they don’t have to go to those tedious Equality Virginia events ever again — that is a big plus.

          • susan
            07/04/2011 at 5:06 PM

            If there is a cookout today, Clio, I can’t help wondering (I am really trying not to) whether or not VZ is still the “grill man,” esp. after those burnt steaks.

            Maybe those EV meetings are boring but I’m sure they do some good work. Incidentally, re JP’s former pro bono work, the Wash. Post had a report re the Miller-Jenkins case. The child and her mom are hiding out in Nicaragua, apparently. Here’s an AP acct:

            • Clio
              07/04/2011 at 9:49 PM

              Well, Susan, all we can hope for is that Victor has sworn off using the cell phone while cooking: no one should be forced to eat burnt steaks again!

              One wonders if the trouple, on a future, possible humanitarian mission to atone for their sins, will try to track down Ms. Miller and her daughter; does Nicaragua have an extradition treaty with the United States — if not, Managua and its delectable rum may be in Culuket’s future. Chivalry and self-preservation could go hand in hand.

          • Bruce
            07/05/2011 at 1:11 PM

            Seems, Clio, that it would be a “big plus” to you.

            • Clio
              07/05/2011 at 10:12 PM

              Bruce dearest, believe it or not, the spirit of Clio must salute the contributions of Joe and Dyl to the LGBT rights cause in her own benighted province. Having said that (many times on this weblog, BTW), if one has ever been to these Equality Virginia events and functions (and, in my present human form, I have attended or helped to organize many of them — even when EV was Virginians for Justice — the pre-Price advocacy group), that extra burden of fund and friendraising wears on one after a while.

              There is no doubt that Joe and Dyl helped to bring the fighting for gay civil rights in the Old Dominion into the modern age, but that historical footnote does not begin to answer all of the questions that still remain about 08/02.

              Furthermore, not all of us can flee to lovely Miami Shores to ride out an embarrassing scandal. And, none of us should be able to use the mercy of the law (possibly) to beat any rap. It’s just not fair!

              • Bruce
                07/06/2011 at 3:50 PM

                Whoa. Wait, wait wait…….did I just hear Dear Clio say something that in some reality could be considered not a kick against Price for his motives in one area of his pre-death house days?

                Of course, followed by several kicks…..but even still….Colors! Hope that helps. Have another wine cooler, sugar.

    • Bea
      07/06/2011 at 12:28 AM

      Good find.

  28. Vito
    07/05/2011 at 5:43 PM

    Hi Folks,
    I was a regular lurker all of last year and have recently returned to “prepare” for the civil trial, which now might not happen, and once again, I believe the system has failed us.

    I will apologize in advance for being a bit off topic (Ed’s: feel free to move this to another more relevant page), but I am having a hard time really understanding what is happening in our society regarding our judicial system and the ability of the defense or the inability of the prosecutors to successfully attain guilty verdicts on some of these defendants, who to those of us on the outside, seem to be guilty of “something” but are found innocent over “everything.”

    Having just heard of the acquittal in the Casey Anthony trial, it makes me think of O.J. Simpson, and it makes me think of our local case involving the trio. I mean, really? Are they really not guilty? Acquitted? Did you really not know what happened that night to Nicole, to Caylee, to Robert?

    I know we have a justice system and I know I must believe in it, but what I don’t understand is how these defendant’s can get away with the crimes and just walk away and live out the rest of their lives when they have stripped others from enjoying the life that they took from us. How can you continue to believe that this system works? Are we really keeping the “innocent” people out of these prisons?

    Not guilty they say; really? Not Guilty?

    • Bill Orange
      07/05/2011 at 6:28 PM

      I didn’t follow the Casey Anthony trial, so I really can’t comment on that verdict, but I followed the OJ trial fairly closely, and at the conclusion of that trial, I was convinced that (a) OJ Simpson killed his ex-wife and Ron Goldman, and (b) there was substantial misconduct on the part of the police force during the investigation. Had I been on that jury, I would’ve rendered a “Not guilty” verdict. When the prosecution is putting up police officers who are telling bald-faced lies to the jury, it taints their whole case. That’s very hard to recover from.

    • susan
      07/05/2011 at 7:40 PM

      You make some really good points, Vito. In fact, there are a number of national organizations and local ones as well concerning the wrongfully convicted, judicial misconduct, false confessions, police corruption and or like this case, police ineptitude. There’s good and bad in the system just like in any system that is man-made. Then the sentencing of crimes varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction as well. Lots of people have made the comparison re O.J. and the Casey Anthony trial but as one legal commentator said today, unless and until the jurors speak it will be difficult to know why they voted as they did.

    • Jeana
      07/05/2011 at 10:48 PM

      Vito – I hadn’t been following the Casey Anthony case until late in the trial, but I think it parallels the Wone case in this respect: Like the Metro Police’s misapplication of Ashley’s Reagent in the Swann St. townhouse which rendered the likely presence of blood on the walls and elsewhere inadmissible as evidence, the Orlando Police’s dissregard of the reported discovery of possible remains in August of ’08 by the meter reader (who finally convinced police to return to the same location in December ’08 when the remains were found) left investigators with a completely skeletonized boyd lacking in vistal forensic evidence. The Anthony case was lost on the inability to establish a cause of death. I can only hope those police officers – in both cases – have been severely disciplined.

      • Jeana
        07/05/2011 at 10:51 PM

        Sorry – should read “completely skeletonized BODY lacking in VITAL forensic evidence. What can I say, it’s late – g’nite all.

      • Bill Orange
        07/06/2011 at 11:44 PM

        After reading a little more about this case, I have to agree with Jeana. If you can’t figure out how someone died, you’re going to have a hard time making a murder charge stick.

    • CDinDC
      07/06/2011 at 8:46 AM

      I followed the trial. And, folks, bite my head off if you will, but I believe the verdict was just. You can’t convict someone based on your level of hatred for them. The prosecution didn’t prove a capitol murder case. Period. Their bad.

      • Vito
        07/06/2011 at 9:19 AM

        Thanks for the many thoughts, I can understand the fact that the prosecution didn’t prove a murder case, but that really wasn’t my point. What my comments were reflecting on is what has happened to the mea culpa? Where is the responsibility from one’s actions? From my corner, I can only see people committing the crimes and then standing back and saying “prove that I did it” and then letting the incompetency fly. I just don’t understand how someone can know the truth and not confess; maybe it’s my Catholic upbringing that has ruined me. If I was any of these defendant’s and I committed one of these heinous crimes, I just know that I wouldn’t be able to not confess, even if my life depended on it.

        There are many days that I wonder how someone can just stand up in a court of law, after having been accused of a crime that they did commit, and say that they are “not guilty.” I just stare back at the TV and laugh! As an attorney, I know that there are standards that I am held to which would require me to help that person; to believe in that person, but I just couldn’t do it because I don’t believe them, and I wouldn’t look for a technicality or a mistake to get them off,(obviously I don’t practice law). No disrespect to those that do, and that can represent these people, my only point is that it seems that the days of telling the truth are gone and forcing someone else to find out the truth is our “new” standard (new is in quotes only because it’s new to me, but its probably been going on for decades).

        • Logan
          07/06/2011 at 9:36 AM

          I think you are treading on some dangerous territory here. You seem to be suggesting that prosecutors should not have to prove their cases beyond a reasonable doubt. This is part of the foundation of the American justice system.

          Look- in my heart and mind I am extremely sure that Casey Anthony and the trio are guilty. Did either prosecutor prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt? Absolutely not.

          Do not declare the justice system broken because of two cases. Two cases are probably less than one percent of all cases so we are nowhere near seeing a majority of the cases go wrong. The system was designed to free ten guilty parties rather than imprison one innocent person.

        • CDinDC
          07/06/2011 at 10:51 AM

          Vito, I mean no disrepect, but that’s a fantasy world. How I wish I lived in a world where everyone owned up to their own wrong-doing. And maybe even self-punishment so no one else would feel the pangs of capital punishment or imprisoning an innocent person. Just doesn’t exist. Never has.

          I commend you for your belief in honesty. Truly, I do. As you point out, it’s a trait that many people lack.

      • Jeana
        07/06/2011 at 9:43 AM

        Agreed, CD, absolutely. But, once again, had the cops not screwed up and the remains been recovered closer to the time of death, examination may have revealed a definitive cause of death. Having that, the prosecutors might not have over-charged the crime as capitol murder.
        A lot of “but fors” and “maybes”, but my point is that in any case, the initial investigation is crucial. Just sayin’.

        • CDinDC
          07/06/2011 at 10:56 AM

          Totally agree, Jeana. I’m not saying she’s without fault, but in this capitol murder case, the authorities botched things up. Over-charging and under-investigating.

  29. susan
    07/05/2011 at 7:34 PM

    This is very interesting to me. I posted this in pieces earlier but the transcript for all three concerning this one moment is all together here:

    On August 2, 2006:

    Dylan Ward: PP 12 and 13, Anacostia transcript excerpt:

    “I saw Joe was in the room with Robert sitting there telling Victor to get the ambulance and Victor was on the phone. So I don’t know if Victor was in the room or just like kind of blocking the doorway…it was like I came out of my room and there was Victor and then inside was Joe.”

    Victor Zaborsky’s transcript excerpt (pp 7-8 of his first Anacostia interview):

    “…and when I was coming down the stairs, Dylan was in the doorway, and when I came, he had and when I came, he had backed up a bit and let me in.”

    Joe Price, #II of the Anacostia transcript:

    JP: “We saw the door was there, it was open, there was Robert laying on the bed, the cover was pulled back.”

    Q. And where’s Dylan?

    JP: “He was in his room. I saw him, you know, in this time frame, come out of his room. He–you know, I don’t think he heard the chime.”

    Q. You don’t know if–

    JP “I don’t know. But –I don’t know. I saw him come out of the room. He was putting on a bathrobe when he came out.”

    Interesting, isn’t it?

    • Bill 2
      07/05/2011 at 8:22 PM

      IF Price was in the room performing life-saving measures, he could not have seen where Dylan Ward was coming from.

      The photos that were taken at a recent real-estate open house show that there is not a sightline from inside the guest room to the door of Ward’s room.

      They all agree that Robert Wone was lying on the bed, so that’s probably one of the points they went over prior to arrival of the police. The whereabouts of each member of the household is very iffy since their accounts differ. As someone stated: “why accept ANY of their story at all?”

      • alternateguy
        07/06/2011 at 11:19 AM

        Real life isn’t blocked and orchestrated, like actors in a play. People percieve things differently and remember things differently. Now, if that weren’t the case here, the lines and blocking were rembered precisely the same way by each, I would perceive that to be as suspicious as hell. In this case, the essential points agree in the different accounts, but not the small details such as who saw who first.

        • Bill 2
          07/06/2011 at 2:26 PM

          Let’s skip over your Elaborate Apologist Scenario where different people perceive things differently and go straight to a fact. This was not the set for a play. The house has real walls. Price does not have x-ray vision (though in your alternate universe you’d probably like to make that a fact).

          Price, supposedly inside the bedroom attending to Robert Wone, could not see Ward coming out of Ward’s bedroom. There are walls that block the view. (No doubt, you’ll find some reason to have the architecture of the house changed for your next EAS.) If he saw Ward coming out of his room, he was not performing lifesaving measures on Robert Wone.

          Price states: “I saw him come out of the room. He was putting on a bathrobe when he came out.”

          How do you plan to twist this one? Are there ghosts in the house coming out of rooms that are visible through walls? That matches the ghost of Victor coming down the stairs while viewing the ghost of Ward standing in the doorway of the death room prior Ward Ghost 2 coming out of his bedroom seen via Price’s talent for ghost spotting.

          • Alternateguy
            07/06/2011 at 2:45 PM

            “Alternate universe” is an oxymoron.

            • AnnaZed
              07/06/2011 at 2:49 PM

              …“Alternate universe” is an oxymoron.

              No it isn’t. Maybe you don’t understand what that designation means.

              In any case, (really) you don’t want to attempt to set yourself up at this late date as an expert on parsing language, I mean surely not.

              • Alternateguy
                07/06/2011 at 3:01 PM

                According to my dictionary and to my belief, and to the belief of many philosophers, and theologians, there is but one Universe. And it is both infinite in time and size. No room for alternate universes. Others may disagree. So be it. Just throwing in another “fact” to ponder on.

                • Bill 2
                  07/06/2011 at 3:14 PM

                  So a cheap dictionary is going to be your reason for all your comprehension problems?

                  “Alternate reality” is another term used to designate “alternate universe.” The nickname you use, and your fan fiction certainly sets you up for placement in an alternate universe.

                  • Alternateguy
                    07/06/2011 at 3:27 PM

                    Now you’re banishing me to an alternate universe. (And you say I’m no threat.)

          • Clio
            07/06/2011 at 9:28 PM

            “Ghosts in the Text: The Doppelganger Dilemma and the Anacostia Dialogues” will be a title of a scholarly paper given at a future Modern Language Association meeting: you betcha!

      • KiKi
        07/06/2011 at 3:24 PM

        I don’t understand what you are saying, Bill. From the recent open house post it seems that there was a view from the Ward’s bedroom to the guestroom.

        • Bill 2
          07/06/2011 at 3:56 PM

          You’re absolutely right. I thought the doorways didn’t line up and should have looked at the photos from 5/3/11. I apologize to all for my error.

          • susan
            07/06/2011 at 11:55 PM

            I don’t know that you’re wrong Bill. That photo is of the hallway. The editors or anyone who has visited the house would be best able to describe the view. But it still contradicts what DW said and what VZ said. They all say things that contradict each other.

            Speaking of which–another interesting contradiction in the testimony given that night.

            On p. 9 of one transcript of Victor Zaborsky’s statements to police he says:

            “The next thing I knowm, I woke up with [a] screams. I did not hear the chime.”\

            On another transcript from that night, also p. 9, VZ says:

            “When I screamed–when we came down the stairs the first time and I screamed, I thought I heard the door chime.”

            It has been discussed here before re the break with Hixson in the parking lot but it is really worth noting here and again–especially for people who haven’t gone back and read this or read every detail.

            • susan
              07/07/2011 at 12:41 AM

              Note in the transcript for J. Price he mentions hearing the chime a few times and says for him that was the proof that someone entered the house.

              If VZ changed his testimony after the parking lot rendezvous with JP and Hixson it might appear that that statement would be setting the stage for an “intruder theory.”

              That is a proposed supposition based on the JP’s and VZ’s statements.

  30. AnnaZed
    07/06/2011 at 12:44 PM

    Ah yes, steve, that fractured syntax is so very familiar. Just how many log-in names for WordPress do you have?

    • steve
      07/06/2011 at 2:19 PM

      Speak for yourself, AnnaZed. Just how many avatars and weblog do you post from East to West coast? You are “too” familiar everywhere.

      • AnnaZed
        07/06/2011 at 2:38 PM

        Ah Denton, hi (!).

        I can’t exactly say that you have been missed.

        I would imagine that it is more like Craig is probably too busy to notice your shenanigans. Do you never rest? How many log-in names have you had banned from here to date? My last count was five.

        It has been something of a relief around here that team trouple has tasked a new apologist to the blog who can form sentences in English (sort of); so really you’re presence is just not required and naturally (as usual) you aren’t contributing much.

        • CDinDC
          07/06/2011 at 3:55 PM

          I love how he gives himself away with his gratuitous use of quotes. Or should I say “gratuitous use of quotes.”

          • CDinDC
            07/07/2011 at 10:41 AM

            Oh, “Steve.” “Learn” “how” “to” “use” “quotes,” “will” “you?”

            By the way……around which word were the quotes properly used?

            • CDinDC
              07/07/2011 at 2:29 PM
            • CDinDC
              07/07/2011 at 2:29 PM


  31. Bill 2
    07/06/2011 at 3:17 PM

    An alternative universe fan fiction (also known as alternate universe or alternate reality), commonly abbreviated as AU, is a type or form of fan fiction in which canonical facts of setting or characterization in the universe being explored or written about are deliberately changed.

  32. Alternateguy
    07/06/2011 at 3:40 PM

    Oh, so your speak in “fan fiction.” Sorry, I don’t know about that. Does that explain what you mean about all of those “facts” you speak of?

    I have to admit that my dictionary, although not “cheap,” is perhaps a bit out of date.

  33. Hoya Loya
    07/07/2011 at 2:48 PM

    I’ve been staying out of the back and forth because, quite frankly, we’ve been here before and it’s not interesting. We’re way off track from Cat’s Party Game.

    There are reasons for the speculation about the defendants. It is not as if Robert was randomly found dead somewhere on the streets of D.C. and looking around at his circle of friends the police decided to scapegoat the defendants. Robert, a self-invited guest, was found in the home of the defendants, who called 911 and were the only ones home with the exception of a possible intruder. The only evidence of that intruder — an alarm chime and an unlocked door — can be testified to only by the defendants. There are no outside witnesses as to whether or not the defendants locked the door before retiring. There seem to be no corroborating alarm records or eyewitnesses to the intruder entering or fleeing. The lack of evidence of an intruder or other intruder activity in the neighborhood may be due partly to an inadequate police investigation that failed to fully consider other suspects. But under the circumstances, it is not unreasonable for the defendants to come under at least some scrutiny just as it is reasonable to find facts such as their friendship with Robert and calling 911 as possibly exculpatory.

    Further, five years later, there is a considerable amount of water under the bridge, not least of which was the criminal trial on obstruction, tampering and conspiracy.

    The judge’s declaration that there was no intruder unknown to the defendants and that the defendants have information they are not disclosing for reasons known but to themselves, are clearly dicta. But the judge also made many findings of fact, necessary to her final decision, some of which favor the defendants and some of which do not. While not controlling in a hypothetical future murder trial, where the defendant(s) would once again be treated as innocent until proven guilty, the judges findings of fact and dicta, coming from a judicial authority, who heard, considered and ruled upon the evidence, does form a foundation for a rational opinion on the defendants and their conduct, a foundation that did not exist prior to that trial. And no, Judge L. is not infallible. One can disagree with her negative factual findings and dicta, just as many disagree with her ultimate acquittals. But we can’t pretend that we are discussing things in a vacuum in which those findings don’t exist, as was the case when this blog started.

    Everyone, no matter what their view, should be open to well considered opposing views and to new evidence, should it arise. More responses to Cat’s original question, from either side, would be welcome at this point.

    On a side note, Dershowitz has an excellent piece in today’s WSJ on the Anthony case which has much relevance here and which everyone should read.

    • Jeana
      07/07/2011 at 5:13 PM

      Thanks, Hoya, for attempting to get things back on track.

    • susan
      07/07/2011 at 9:41 PM

      Hi Hoya,

      Re the chimes I thought that was very significant as well and so the testimony given by Joe Price and V. Zaborsky concerning the times is something to look at and consider. Others have posted about that before.

      And it’s interesting to note that concerning facts and evidence the Supreme Court presents a supreme example of how individuals can sit through the same case, hear the same arguments and come to different verdicts. It’s also interesting how politics sometimes comes into play.

      • susan
        07/07/2011 at 9:44 PM

        concerning the “chimes” (above) though the time does factor in, esp. when that is one of the questions for the 911 operator.

    • Clio
      07/07/2011 at 11:03 PM

      Huzzah, Hoya, for blunting the opposition’s advance with sagacious objectivity. Realize, however, Miss Tara’s own epiphany — one cannot be “a Switzerland” in this rather drawn-out contest of wills and not always of facts!

      Bruce, Kiki, and Alt: I must say that both the rhetoric and “game” of the “Price Is Right” gang has improved greatly — you all should get a job with Victor’s marketing pros in selling a less than appealing product; and for all of that Jesuitical elan, you all (even Alt) ought to get an A for effort, but you still haven’t begun to chip away at the totality of the particulars of the probable case against the trouple in my book — hence, all the tired smokescreens about McCarthyism and tabloid journalism: yawn! To avoid that stultifying boredom, I will have a late-night wine cooler: thanks, Bruce, for that kind suggestion.

      Kiki’s proposed exercise may also provide relief from yet another expected reference to the Senator from Wisconsin: Editors, I say — bring it on!

      • susan
        07/07/2011 at 11:40 PM

        You have a great way with words, Clio.

        Maybe Kiki should be the first player of her game. She also set the rules I imagine. But who’s to be judge? Or will there be a judicial panel? Then again, the game is limited to murder. No obstruction, tampering, conspiracy, etc.

        Will there be jurors as well? One thing that would definitely help: A civil trial. In a civil trial maybe we’d find out about cameras and sleep-overs from S. Morgan and S. Hixson. Maybe we’d find out if the one prospect from the Alt website ever did come over–on a night, as J. Price proposed, when Victor was not scheduled to be home. A night like Aug. 2, 2006 was supposed to be. That list of proposed witnesses was long. There are many questions yet to be answered.

        • susan
          07/07/2011 at 11:58 PM

          BTW, I realize “k” set forth a statute (presumably the applicable one) and limited her game to murder, not to the crimes for which the defendants were tried. Hmmm.

          Only who decides reasonable doubt? The arguments have been broken down on this site and continue to be broken down and there are those who will find fault with ANY and ALL factors that weigh against the defendants.

          Circle games.

          • KiKi
            07/08/2011 at 9:14 AM

            The name of the site is who MURDERED Robert Wone. There have been allegation after allegation in these comments that the defendants MURDERED Robert Wone. Murder is a legal term. It has a definition.

            It is mighty funny that everyone claims to want to talk about the issues but then when I suggest a way to do so with some organization and relating it back to a specific goal all of the sudden it is a “circle game” and no one could ever win. Interesting…

    • Bruce
      07/08/2011 at 12:19 PM

      Hiya Hoya:

      I agree with everything you say in the above post, Hoya. Everything.

      I don’t quite understand your conclusion near the end of the 2nd paragraph, where you say….”But under the circumstances, it is not unreasonable for the defendants to come under at least some scrutiny….”

      Good lord in heaven. Does anyone here think that I don’t think, or everyone doesn’t think, that the defendants should be subject to scrutiny???????

      Of course they should!!!! To the highest extent allowed by law and due process!!!! Each one without exception. They were in the house where a murder took place! While there is no clear fact showing that they killed Robert Wone, there is no clear fact showing they didn’t. The case has been and continues to be a puzzlement.

      There is no diffference of opinion here on this, as far as I can tell. I don’t think there ever was.

      My point is that this scrutiny must be based upon proper due process and some civilized application of prosecutorial fairness, not a mob mentality gone mad with moral indignity. And my other major point is that applying proper scrutiny to the defendants is not in any way inconsistent with following all possible leads in the case, whether considered somewhat fanciful by some or others. Everyone is capable of multi-tasking in this manner.

      Why do some people feel that they must limit the inquiry? How does that help answer the question posed in WMRW?

      • Hoya Loya
        07/08/2011 at 12:52 PM

        Thanks Bruce.

        I sensed some sentiment here (not necessarily from you) that it is wrong to speculate on their involvement so felt the need to set forth why they are under scrutiny in the first place.

        Other leads should be followed, but they should be based on something, not just pure supposition, e.g. “Well it could have been a Ninja” as opposed to “Ninjas were in the area and known to target RFA employees and so it could have been a Ninja.”

        • Bruce
          07/08/2011 at 3:52 PM


          I am frankly baffled by your saying that you sense sentiment on here that it is wrong to speculate on the Swann 3’s involvement.

          Nothing…nothing could be further from my mind set. I can’t speak for others, but I don’t sense any such sentiment from anyone, Alt., Kiki, or anyone on here.

          Now, speculation is not fact, and the two should not be confused. But, of course the Swann 3 should be and have been fully investigated, and they should be charged if the authorities feel that they are guilty of criminal charges.

          I’m afraid that maybe you and others on here totally miss my reason for being on here. You are seeimg me in in black and white, and I should be seen with color.

          Speculate away. Investigate! Question! Challenge! BUT, don’t give up on theories or avenues that seem strange or sometimes even fanciful. This case is full of the strange and fanciful. As Cat in Cleveland recently expressed, paraphrasing: this case is so strange that it’s resolution is also likely to be very unusual and strange.

          Don’t necessarily hook yourself to a theory now and dismiss all others, keep an open mind. How can that possibly be harmful to the goal of WMRW???? How can it possibly hinder the need for critical thinking in this matter? How does it hinder finding the truth?

          The human dynamic on this blog is very complex and interesting. Is it so human a reaction that one automatically looks at something as either “us” or “them?” Must there be a summer war when none is intended? Why is it that people are either “for the defense” if they say anything in favor of the defense, or “for the prosecution” if they say anything in favor of the prosecution?

          Aren’t we all humans that have the abililty to think and analize on several different levels? Even at the same time?

          The interactions of the people on here are one of the most interesting things. We can see how communications can, through a blog like this, ultimately be very limiting and confining, rather than freeing and inspiring.

          And for you, whose opinions I very much respect, to think that people on here feel that it is wrong to speculate on the Swann 3’s involvement is a terrible disappointment. As far as I can tell, no one has suggested that. If they have, I don’t join.

  34. KiKi
    07/07/2011 at 5:09 PM

    I like it Hoya. So let’s take Cat’s game a little further.
    One of the first assignments I give to our new capital defense attorneys is a hypo and crime. I then ask them to prove to me each element of the crime using the info in the hypo. There are of course, useless facts and red herrings in their hypo and part of the assignment is sorting through which info is relevant.

    In order to prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt the prosecutor must prove each element of the offense. She can do so through direct and circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence directly links one fact to another, no assumptions or inferences necessary. Circumstantial evidence requires an assumption or inference to connect the facts. I think I have used this example before but let’s say I make cookies for my children and one goes missing. I attempt to find out which of my three children committed this horrendous crime. I find crumbs in A’s bedroom. This is circumstantial evidence. My husband sees K steal the cookie and snitches, this is direct evidence. Either type of evidence may be used to prove an element of the crime but it is important to remember that circumstantial evidence allows for other assumptions. i.e. K decided to blame the theft on his sister and ate the cookie in her room.

    So below are the elements of 1st. degree Murder and 2nd degree Murder in DC. I have broken them down in a way that I think is easier to understand, but here you can find the statute in its original form:

    First Degree Murder
    Whoever, being of sound memory and discretion,
    1. kills another
    2. purposely,
    3a. either of deliberate and premeditated malice or
    3b. by means of poison, or
    3c in perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate an offense punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary,

    – you must prove 1 and 2 and either 3a,b, or c


    1. kills another
    2. without purpose to do so
    3a. in perpetrating or in attempting to perpetrate any, first degree sexual abuse or
    3b. in perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate a felony involving a controlled substance,
    – you must prove 1 and 2 and either 3a or b.

    In order to prove B,3a, you must prove first degree sex abuse.
    1a. engages in or

    1b. causes another to engage in
    a sexual act by
    2a using force against that person or
    2b. threatening that person or
    2c. rendering that person unconscious or
    2d. After administering to that other person by force or threat of force, or without the knowledge or permission of that other person, a drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance that substantially impairs the ability of that other person to appraise or control his or her conduct.
    – you must prove 1a or b and 2a,b,c,or d.

    Second Degree Murder
    1. kills another
    2. with malice aforethought
    – you must prove 1 and 2

    So if you want to play, pick a crime and a defendant and state the evidence that proves the elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Use direct or circumstantial evidence. But be mindful of the other assumptions that could be made from that evidence. Let’s see if, based on the information we know, there is enough evidence to prove any of the defendant’s guilty of these crimes.

    • Jeana
      07/07/2011 at 5:18 PM

      Great challenge, Kiki! Eds: Doesn’t this deserve a thread of its own?

    • Hoya Loya
      07/07/2011 at 5:26 PM

      Thanks Kiki.

      This is excellent, though consistent with my opinion stated (way) above that I couldn’t convict, I don’t know if anyone can make any of these work based on the facts we know. It will be interesting to see if anyone picks up the gauntlet and rises to your challenge.

      I’m also thinking a similar exercise with the appropriate statutes would work quite well to demonstrate why Judge L. held as she did in the criminal trial and why many of us think she was right (and would show just how fine a line she walked on the tampering charge against Joe).

      • KiKi
        07/07/2011 at 5:37 PM

        True – Reasonable Doubt is a high standard and we don’t have all the information, but it is interesting to see how close we can get. I also think it might help separate the important/relevant facts from some of the more speculative or collateral information.

        I have no expertise on civil law but it might also be interesting to look at the jury instructions or elements that need to be proven in the wrongful death case and see if we can find evidence to show liability there, with the lesser burden. But I have no ability to explain wrongful death elements.

        • Bill Orange
          07/08/2011 at 3:25 AM

          Based on your post above, I would say that the evidence simply doesn’t exist to make any of your proposed charges stick in a criminal trial, so it’s not a very interesting exercise for me.

          A civil trial, on the other hand, is a different ball of wax. The lesser burden of proof isn’t as big of a issue as the negative inference that can be drawn from a 5th Amendment invocation.

          Frankly, if I could draw a negative inference from a 5th Amendment invocation in a criminal trial, and the defendants were specifically asked about each element of the charges and invoked on every single one, then I would find them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

  35. Bea
    07/08/2011 at 1:59 AM

    Alt, the paragraphs were too narrow to continue the discussion above, so I moved it.

    As to Part 1, Page 10, of the Price interrogations where you claim that Joe’s “Yeah” might NOT have meant that he was saying that the unknown intruder left the premises by scaling the fence instead of using the door – due to inflection or rapid sequence – in your viewing of the videotape, I ask you to consider the overall context. Your interpretation would be nonsensical. If we leave out the word “Yeah” entirely, the conversation would be:

    “Wagner: And this person, they — then what did they do? Jump the fence?

    Price: [Delete “Yeah”]. And I was sitting in the living room saying to (indiscernible) like why in the hell would you jump the fence? Why wouldn’t the person going out the back door go through the gate?

    Norris: Well, how do you know —

    Wagner: Amen. Good thinking.

    Price: Because I didn’t get to go out there, but, you know, the gate was — as far as I could tell from where I was sitting, the gate (indiscernible) the gate was not ajar.”

    Alt, it seems your position (and correct me if I’m wrong) is that Joe DISAGREED that the unknown intruder jumped the fence? If Joe believed he went through the gate door, why say “why wouldn’t the person going out the back door go through the gate?” and then discuss how the gate door was not ajar? Isn’t his point that the intruder must’ve scaled the fence?

    Moving past whether the stenographer should have placed a period or a comma after the word “yeah,” you then comment that you don’t know what Wagner was going to ask when he posed “Well – how do you know –” when I think it’s clear (as does Joe) he’s asking how Joe would know the unknown intruder didn’t use the gate door. Wagner understands, too, because he says “good point.” Joe, the litigation counsel who has conducted many depositions, knows that if he doesn’t understand the question that he should say so and/or ask for clarification, as he does in other instances.

    I really, truly, don’t understand your point. Is it your position that Joe meant that the unknown intruder DID use the gate door, and, if so, why did he note the importance of the heavy gate door which was not self-closing?

    Moving on to how Joe could have known whether the gate door was closed, let alone locked, you explain that Joe had been showing the officers around and had had a vantage point previously which would have given him this information without casting aspersions on his veracity.

    You claim that Joe, in his answer to the direct question “how would you know?” is best described (quoting you directly) as follows:

    “In the next sentence, Joe is explaining that he didn’t get to see the gate closely, but from somewhere, perhaps the kitchen, because he wasn’t allowed to go outside.”

    But Joe’s VERBATIM answer is very simply:

    “Because I didn’t get to go out there, but, you know, the gate was — as far as I could tell from where I was sitting, the gate (indiscernible) the gate was not ajar.”

    Repeat: “as far as I could tell from where I was sitting”

    You might say, Alt, that perhaps he had been sitting in the kitchen previously, but the direct antecedent had just been uttered by Joe:

    “And I was SITTING IN THE LIVING ROOM saying to (indiscernible) like why in the hell would you jump the fence? Why wouldn’t the person going out the back door go through the gate?”

    My point, other than be tired of this and wanting to move on, is that I stand behind my opinion NOT because I won’t listen to reason but instead because I think it’s the only reasonable interpretation of the exchange. I think Joe knew what he was being asked, and I think his statement is fairly clear on its face, namely that he gave his opinion that the unknown intruder scaled the fence instead of using the gate door. And that this act by the unknown intruder was itself “unreasonable” since he could have departed via the gate door. I also think that Joe promoted this theory was because he knew the gate door remained locked (and it was locked) – had anyone departed the gate door, the gate door would’ve remained unlocked since it had to be re-locked with a key from the outside.

    You’ll have to go through the site to find the testimony about the state of the door being unlocked, and I don’t have it handy. But whether it was locked, unlocked, off its hinges or painted red, Joe’s answers to the questions are what they are. The use of a comma or a period after the word “yeah” doesn’t matter that much. Norris did not finish the question, but both Wagner and Joe Price understood it sufficient to continue the conversation in no uncertain terms. You can speculate about whether Joe saw that the gate door was “not ajar” when he was giving tours but what he said was that he wasn’t allowed to go outside but “from where he was sitting” it did not appear to be ajar.

    And there’s even a bigger “logic” problem here. So what if the door wasn’t “ajar” – is it genuinely LESS believable that an unknown intruder would close the door behind him (whether because he was courteous or because his hand opened it hurriedly and in passing through let it shut through momentum) than it was believable that in his haste he decided to climb the very high fence?

    I’m simply stating my opinion. We can disagree, we can interpret things differently, but because you didn’t persuade me doesn’t equate to my being unwilling to consider others’ opinions. It’s true I have some pretty steadfast opinions (no name calling is really necessary, Alt) but they don’t come from thin air. They come from having studied this case for years now, from re-reading and re-viewing and watching and listening and thinking. From doing “homework” and considering every angle I can think of. I applaud you for trying to find ways to believe there could have been an unknown intruder who stabbed Robert Wone to death without the defendants having any more information than they’ve told the police (despite Joe telling at least one friend that there is, in fact, information that they’ve withheld out of fear of one of them being arrested).

    I do hope you continue trying to figure this case out – and if you come up with a plausible explanation that you want to put out there – and be willing to entertain questions and listen to others’ arguments about inconsistencies with other “facts” – I would genuinely appreciate hearing it. I am not being facetious. And even if one of the member of the “summer offensive” actually know the story from Joe or Victor or Dylan and wish to pass it off as a “theory” I’d like very much to hear it that way too.

    • Bruce
      07/08/2011 at 12:36 PM

      Bea’s post is quite interesting and should be read.

      Caveat Emptor (“Buyer Beware”), however, as to the words at the end of the second to last paragraph relating to what Joe told someone, which, unfortunately (since Bea has been reminded of this numerous numerous times, but still insists on saying these things) is not a fact, and in my view, it is a very specious, non-sensical and unfair interpretation of an e-mail in the case. In my view, Bea says some insightful things on here which are sometimes undermined by her insistence on relying on things that are not always insightful or even true. It’s a shame. Caveat Emptor.

      I will continue to point it out when someone, like Bea here, tries to set forth interpretation or opinion as fact. It is a shame, consciously or unconciously dishonest, and people of good will should be warned.

  36. KiKi
    07/08/2011 at 9:42 AM

    In response to Bea above at 07/07/2011 at 8:55 PM:

    “Well done, AZ. I learned with Alt that he doesn’t want to know the facts, nor does he want to put forth considered theories or offer insight. He just wants these guys to be deemed innocent as the driven snow, facts be damned. Bruce and KiKi have at least done their homework, but they just want to play “what if” without considering things like the autopsy report, the interviews, or, well, common sense. It gets tiresome. And they speak of us as having “moral certitude”! I’m not interested in “giving” about 50 concessions which fly in the face of the evidence in order to concede a minor point.”

    – I once heard a judge ask a defense attorney “Where did you go to law school?” The attorney replied “LSU”. The judge retorted: “You should ask for your money back.”
    Bea – honestly if you are a lawyer, you may want to take this advice. Or maybe you just slept through crim law, con law, crim pro, legal reasoning and just about every other class that taught you to think like a lawyer. Lawyers are taught to question facts, to question assumptions, to ask what else could this mean. I am sure, if you are a lawyer, you have been faced with situations that at first appear, based on your common sense, to be clear cut. When you start thinking critically you find yourself questioning some of these assumptions. Things aren’t black and white. As I said in my first post on this topic, I am open to the possibility that one or more of these three defendants murdered (legal term) RW. I just have not heard any theory that does not look like swiss cheese.

    You want examples of “common sense,” “Interviews,” and “autopsy reports” getting it wrong.
    Here is a list – each of these men spent years in prison or death row (or in Todd Willingham’s case was actually executed)based on common sense, interviews, and science that turned out to be flat out wrong.

    Eddie Joe Lloyd – Confessed to a murder he did not commit – later exonerated by DNA
    Gilbert Alejandro – Crime lab report showed his DNA matched victims, a subsequent test of the DNA exonerated him.
    William Dillon – This case had it all: eye witness ID, forensic scent matches, confessions, snitches everything added up to Dillon, except of course that his DNA did not match.
    Todd Willingham –

    So yes, I am “playing what if” and I am concentrating on “minor points” and I am questioning your facts and it is “tiresome”. It was what I was trained to do as a lawyer. If you don’t like it, don’t play. But don’t use the sorry excuse “we have done this so many times and I am so tired because I know I am right.” That is not what lawyers do, and it is not what intelligent thoughtful critical thinkers do. It is what a lynch mob with a “moral certitude” does.

    • Clio
      07/08/2011 at 11:08 AM

      Kiki, you were doing well (for your perverse cause of “every cop a criminal, every sinner a saint”) until your last throw-away, tag line. How dare you appropriate the term “lynch mob” to describe the tough questions asked on this weblog and the carefully-done scrutiny that the Editors and their citizen-pundits have tried to draw to this forgotten cold (colder than Vicki’s milk) case! As I have said before in slightly different ways, not many “victims” of a lynch mob could ever hobnob with professional basketball stars, or spoon in a cozy bungalow in a tropical paradise, or practice their “craft” in luxury hotels. Instead, real lynching victims were often mutilated both before and after being killed; people brought their kids to watch the horrific violence as if they were at a ball game; people would take away limbs and other appendages as souvenirs to be pickled and stored; and postal cards with pictures of the occasion were sent back to loved ones. Intelligent critical thinkers with a high school class in history would know that and would know not to use it here.

      And, dear, Lynn found a moral certainty in their guilt, and she is certainly not a leader of a lynch mob or of an evangelical church. Hope that helps (again), doll.

      • KiKi
        07/08/2011 at 2:40 PM

        Clio, I have made this point before, and as someone who seems to have a strong understanding of history, I am surprised I have to make it again. The term lynch mob derives from a man named Judge Charles Lynch. Judge Lynch was a Virginia judge around the time of the revolutionary war. Judge Lynch would gather a group of citizens together who would go and gather up people accused of being British loyalists. Hence, Judge Lynch’s Mob. Judge Lynch actually coined the term lynching to describe his actions. Judge Lynch claimed his actions were excusable because he allowed the people to determine the fate of the accused loyalist. Some of the “victim’s” of Judge Lynch’s Mob were in, fact respectable members of society. So while the term has in fact been used to describe the mobs of people who hung victims during the civil rights era, that is not the origin of the term. The original definition of lynch mob or lynch law was the administration of justice by the people without the rule of law. Sometimes we need to go a little further than our high school history classes. A good place to start on this subject is “The many faces of Judge Lynch: extralegal violence and punishment” in America By Christopher Waldrep

        • Clio
          07/08/2011 at 5:18 PM

          Kiki honey, thanks for the assignment, but this above response is why some defense lawyers should not do history. Why would anyone in 2011, about 110 years after the heyday of lynching, use your originalist definition of “lynch mob”? You of all people, and your patron-saint Mr. Price, would not use original definitions to interpret the Constitution (what did the Founders exactly mean by that phrase?): please! But given that constrained reading, how are the citizen-pundits of this weblog, the Patriots if you will, gathering up the Tories, the supporters of disgraced royalty (queens in our case, perhaps, in the stretched analogy), for harassment and/or slaughter? Has anyone been tarred and feathered even in a virtual sense? No, we still have to put up with the inane and the arcane: yes, Cat, a paid hit makes perfect sense; good job, Bruce, even if your posturing could only come out of the legal version of a K hole. Oh, and by the way, dear, the Patriots did eventually win … against all odds. Hope that helps times three.

          • susan
            07/08/2011 at 6:41 PM

            I’m very disappointed in Kiki. Let me say that five more times. Her use of “lynch mob” was utterly unacceptable. The tragic irony is that she claimed to be a fan of To Kill a Mockingbird but maybe she skipped over the key parts. One can’t help but think Harper Lee would be mortified to have her as a fan.

            Her specious arguments and projected moral certitude make me think she really shouldn’t be casting stones concerning attending law school. For instance, she points to wrongful convictions, but she doesn’t point to defense attorneys for sometimes having a role in those wrongful convictions. She also doesn’t mention that in her role she is sometimes responsible for rapists raping again, murderers murdering again, pedophiles abusing children again. It can run both ways when you’re a defense attorney, can’t it? A coin has two sides, n’est pas. One doesn’t need Law 101 for that fact. Just common sense.

            • susan
              07/08/2011 at 6:51 PM

              And let me mention red herring again. We have “waa, waa, waa no one wants to play my game and some foot stomping” from KiKi and some delusional reference to the Andy Griffith show from Bruce (I mean, really? Really? These guys are defense attorneys?!) and everything to divert attention from serious attention to the murder of Robert Wone, all while we wait to see what happens regarding a potential settlement.

              I also want to say that one thing I have always admired about Bea is how kind she is in general and how open, really open she is to different viewpoints. I’ve stated before that from seeing the defendants on tape I could see having had them as friends and former friends of theirs have written in and she has been more than kind and understanding to them. She also gives reasoned viewpoints and she’s been following this case before the thousands of visitors who have come to this site ever heard of 1509 Swann Street.

              I do disagree with one thing Bea recently posted: That Bruce and Kiki have done their homework. Not so, really. When B first posted, like I wrote before, he’d throw things out and hoped they’d stick. Anyone doubt it go back and read his old posts.

              • KiKi
                07/09/2011 at 12:31 PM

                Susan if you have some actual evidence that is more than just some semantics throw it out here. You don’t have to play my game to do it but please just do it.

                I would much prefer to discuss the evidence with you but your constant personal attacks in people that disagree with you are forcing me to respond to your nonsense. Hilariously, I think a review of time and date stamps may show that it was in fact you who first started this back off subject banter.

            • KiKi
              07/09/2011 at 12:24 PM

              Yes please tell me how I should feel about my ancestors being hung from trees and enslaved.

              9 times out of 10 if my client was convicted I did something wrong. And I could give you 100 examples of bad defense attorneys being responsible for wrongful convictions however I picked a few cases that went to bea’s points about science, interviews, and common sense.

              And finally, I am certainly not responsible, nor is any lawyer who represents defendants, for rape murder or abusing children. Just like when alt disagrees with you he is not obstructing justice. Let’s try to tamper the hyperbole.

              • AnnaZed
                07/09/2011 at 12:30 PM

                Ok Bea, I’m here with my Thought Police badge on and ready to temper the hyperbole, but where to start? I feel like Pontius Pilate.

                • Bea
                  07/09/2011 at 12:53 PM

                  Excellent point. You have your work cut out for you!

              • Clio
                07/09/2011 at 1:52 PM

                LOL! “Tamper” with a bit of temper: isn’t that part of what may have happened on 08/02? The Freudian Hall of Mirrors, noted by AZ, continues in cyberspace, I am afraid.

                Kiki, you have intentionally escalated the hyperbole and now you want it lowered: is your real intention to provoke a bout of electronic chaos on the “Island of the Flies” (a previous pro-Price name for WMRW) in order to shut it down? Again, PapaRazi is not shaking in his Pradas.

                • susan
                  07/09/2011 at 3:10 PM

                  Yes, Clio, kiki was intentionally provocative and now she is somewhat backing down. She still waa, waants everyone to play her game (everyone but herself, that is) and has the audacity (again, example of her specious arguments) to mention personal attacks after she’s lobbed her ad hominem insults at a number of folks. And she abuses the term lynch mob and pretends her family were victims. I don’t buy it. And I’m sure Harper Lee would be repelled by her statements here.

                  Legal factoids fine; credibility otherwise–zero.

    • Hoya Loya
      07/08/2011 at 11:52 AM


      Of course mistakes can be made. That is why we have an appeals process to weed out at least some of the mistakes. That is also why I have been against capital punishment since I was a teenager.

      But if anything looks like Swiss cheese in this case, it is the intruder theory advanced by the defendants, and at least one judge so far has agreed. And that conclusion has been reached by critical analysis of the statements and evidence.

      Again, that does not mean any of the defendants did it and even if they did there probably are not enough facts to support murder charges — the authorities obviously agree since no murder charges have been brought to date. But I think the general theory that at least one or more of the defendants stabbed Robert, who didn’t bleed much due to tamponade (per the defense’s own theory) and that a freak-out followed cannot be ruled out. Tangential matters such as consensual sex vs. assault vs. no sex, screams and grunts, clean-up, use of the shower, possible preceding accident, number of towels used, can all be debated, but don’t negate the general thrust of that possibility.

      • Bruce
        07/08/2011 at 12:48 PM

        Hiya Hoya:

        Again, I find myself agreeing with everything you say, but questioning the reason you make a conclusion you make.

        The conclusion is: “But I think the general theory that at least one or more of the defendants stabbed Robert, who didn’t bleed much due to tamponade (per the defense’s own theory) and that a freak-out followed cannot be ruled out.”

        Who in the world is ruling that out???????

        I don’t know of anyone who is ruling that out on this blog. Everyone on here is able to multi-task with their thinking, and consider and weigh different theories and facts. No one that I know of here is suggesting that its not possible for the defendants to have been involved in this murder, in the way you suggest or other ways.

        Of course, it is! What a number of people are saying is that an open mind and critical thought can be engaged in on virtually any theory in this case, and none should be censored or restrained. And only facts should be discussed as facts, opinions and interpretations should be so designated.

        • Hoya Loya
          07/08/2011 at 1:01 PM

          I spoke a bit too strongly. I should have said that that theory, in its most simple form, is not full of holes.

    • Jeana
      07/08/2011 at 12:43 PM


      While I understand and share your fury at wrongful convictions, and while I truly admire – as I’ve previously posted – your work as a capitol defender, I am saddened, and quite frankly furious, at your personal and professional attack on Bea.

      It is merely tiresome when these kinds of attacks come from the likes of Steve/Denton; it is truly disturbing when they come from you: someone who I have always seen as having the guts to stand up to the tide of popular opinion, to point out the flaws in others’ logic, and to school us all in constitutional protections, without losing your cool.

      But this is over the top. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you’ve been working too hard and are perhaps exhausted and in need of a good night’s sleep. But before you go to bed, you need to apologize to Bea.

      • KiKi
        07/08/2011 at 3:36 PM


        I understand your reaction to my post. And I appreciate your honest response. However, I hope you understand that I do not believe I owe Bea an apology. Maybe it seems that I am harder on Bea than I am on other posters, but there is a reason for that. Bea claims to be a lawyer, right or wrong, I hold her to a different standard. As a lawyer, she really should understand the importance of our constitutional protections. She should be questioning the facts and the evidence, that’s what lawyers do. It honestly saddens me when I turn on the TV or read these blogs and see someone claiming to be a lawyer acting as puppet for popular opinion. It is just not what we were trained to do.

        Since you gave me your honest response, I will be honest with you. While I continued to read this blog, I had stopped commenting because it was exhausting and I really did not want to argue with anonymous commenters anymore. But what really made me start commenting again is an article I read on one of my favorite blogs.
        Here is the quote that really got me:
        “Those of us sitting back in wonderment over the frenzy, the comments, the lawyers acting like they’re on Broadway, should remember that sitting back is part of the problem.”

        So, yes, what I said to Bea may have seemed offensive, and maybe it was, but I stand by the comment. And hope, even if you don’t agree with me, you can see my point.

        • Bruce
          07/08/2011 at 4:34 PM


          Right after the Casey Anthony verdict, I found myself watching Nancy Grace (a rare guily pleasure) and actually heard her say words to the effect: “Another Guilty defendant found “Not Guilty.” I had to laugh out loud. What insanity! How corrupt and comedic!

          Then, I was watching CNN with old Marcia Clark from the OJ trial, discussing how since Casey Anthony had lied repeatedly that the jury should have found her “Guilty” of murder. What a perversion. She is hilarious (Also, Ms. Clark was looking very good, don’t ya think? Very relaxed, esp her face, and that nice shorter straight hair…the years have been good to Ms Clark).

          Back to Nancy Grace, discussions had been had with jurors, and one juror’s words were listed on the bottom of the page…..”I don’t think Anthony is innocent!” and the topic, among lawyers, was how that indicated fraud in the verdict. Everyone seemed to forget that the jury was not asked to determine if Casey Anthony was innocent. Their only duty was to determine if the prosecution was able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey Anthony was guilty of murder, not innocence (a virtual impossible burden to put on a criminal defendant).

          So, the world has gone mad and we are just a part of it. What looks like a duck and walks like a duck, ain’t a duck anymore.

          The job of trying to quiet this madness down is just a losing proposition, probably. But thanks for trying.

          • Bill Orange
            07/08/2011 at 8:10 PM

            My current opinion on the Casey Anthony verdict is almost identical to my opinion on the OJ verdict: I would have found her not guilty of murder, but if a civil trial is ever conducted (and there may not be one–the statute of limitations may be up), I would find her liable for her daughter’s death, given what I know of the evidence, if she either lied on the stand or invoked her fifth amendment rights.

          • Clio
            07/09/2011 at 2:10 PM

            Bruce, Marcia Clark does look great nowadays; I did not catch her on Nancy Grace’s program, of course, but I did admire her updated demeanor and deportment on another, more respectable show. So, we can agree on something after all: who knew!

            • Bruce
              07/11/2011 at 11:18 AM

              Indeed, Clio. I didn’t recognize good ole Marcia Clark at first on CNN. Talk about a completely different look, but a good one. I’m sure my memory is clouded, but I recall her from OJ as being very angular and frizzy, too much make-up and whatever. Now, she has a soft and almost seductive look. Good for her, and yes, we can agree on some things, for sure. I would prefer that.

        • Bill 2
          07/08/2011 at 7:47 PM

          After my total screw-up on the position of the doors in the Price home the other day, I went back to working on the DADT repeal and stopped paying attention here for awhile.

          But, KiKi, as I glanced over this page this evening, your statement that “Bea claims to be a lawyer” is so over-the-top bitchy that I actually had to laugh. She must really be getting to you if you have to resort to being so downright tacky.

          • susan
            07/09/2011 at 3:21 PM

            Good characterization, Bill 2 (re Kiki). Her statements re Bea seemed out of control, tacky and more, as you said.

    • AnnaZed
      07/08/2011 at 12:52 PM

      Kiki, I am stunned and I do wonder what level of hysteria you have attained that you have stooped to a vicious and poorly reasoned ad hominem attack on Bea and why.

    • Bea
      07/08/2011 at 1:47 PM

      Dear KiKi,

      Really? Do you want me to start crying and leave the blog in a fit of teen girl “KiKi can be so mean!” histrionics?

      My law school was just fine, thanks, and my law practice is thriving.

      I guess the “summer offensive” is getting angry that they’ve not won over the masses just yet so personally attacking old-timers is the next tact? Or is it just sour grapes, “if I’m going down I’ll take a few with me”?

      And your new motto: that those of us who feel the defendants are NOT telling the whole truth (at a minimum) are too blind to see the truth, too “dug in” to be persuaded by Alt’s game-changing “yeah” should be followed by a comma instead of a period. And nice touch using the new buzzword “moral certitude.”

      So I’ll stick with Clio’s coined term “the summer offensive” and continue to wonder why the sudden uptick, why the heavies returned after Alt failed to gain much traction. I can’t be sure of anything, as you’ve pointed out, but I can believe what I believe.

      Don’t know which to say this to, be it Bruce, KiKi or Alt: Say hello to Joe. And tell him he can kiss my ass.

      • Bruce
        07/08/2011 at 2:42 PM


        No one wants you to leave or cry. You, Susan, Emily, Alt, others are big “girls” and “boys” who talk tough. You can take some tough talk back. No one is challenging anyone on here who hasn’t talked tough themselves. There need be no protective society for tough talkers on here. It’s just not needed. Place sympathies where they are fairly deserved.

        I assume that since you have said several times on here that you are an attorney, that you are an attorney in fact, despite the anonymity of this site.

        But, you can’t help us wonder:

        (1) Lawyers that go to law school and have any experience in reading and analizing judge’s decisions, cases and arguing before a judge, particularly anyone who actually does a trial, knows that all judges make mistakes and that dicta is not precedent or of any real value. For a real lawyer to continually place so much reliance on dicta is extremely unusual, and something usually the un-corrupted (those not trained in the law) would do. So, that is a most very curious thing indeed, about your posts.

        (2) Those trained in the law don’t scoff at critical thinking. The one thing that lawyers do learn in law school is to apply critical thinking. In doing critical thinking, lawyers usually do not dismiss things out of hand, they multi-task and are able to apply logic.

        (3) Lawyers are usually not threatened if someone challenges their thinking. They welcome a question to an hypothesis. In fact, they enjoy it as it gives them the opportunity to show the reasonableness of their points. They don’t back away. They don’t put down others on irrelevant points (can’t find a transcript), but take them on directly and honestly. So, that is curious too about a number of your posts.

        (4) Lawyers trained in the law do not normally state opinion or interpretation as fact. Lawyers are trained to understand that difference and protect it. Lawyers know what facts are, and they know what opinions are. You have shown several times that you don’t. That is very un-lawyerlike and the most curious thing about you, to me.

        (5) Lawyers almost always have to take a course in criminal law. In criminal law, you learn archaic strange things like “due process” and fundamental fairness and rights of defendants in cases. Lawyers have a natural suspicion of both sides to a criminal controversy….they don’t usually adopt the prosecution as their pet, or the defense either. They have the ability to look at and appreciate both sides of the picture. Lawyers understand mob mentality as a destroyer of personal freedoms. So, curiousor and curiouser we go.

        Despite these qualifications, I assume you are a lawyer and you are not a liar in this regard, because you say that you are a lawyer. I respect most of what you say, but have very little tolerance for your real or claimed ignorance of the difference between facts and opinion. That’s when you see me get mad.

        I’m sure that you had a fine law school and have a great practice as you say. I hope you keep posting and I will read your posts with interest.

        • Bea
          07/08/2011 at 4:31 PM

          Bruce, I’m usually quite mindful of making clear that I am stating my opinion. And not to worry, there’s no getting rid of me here.

          Personally, the personal attacks seem to me to be obfuscation. I stand solidly behind my post from last night where I called into question Alt’s interpretation of the back gate/door interrogation of Joe Price.

          • Bruce
            07/08/2011 at 5:13 PM


            You continue to falsely set forth your opinions, interpretations and paraphrasing of Joe’s e-mail as fact on this blog. Lawyers normally don’t do irrespnsible things like that. Caveat Emptor, folks, caveat emptor.

            Also, for all of those so worried about Bea on here: I’m afraid you are confusing our Bea with Aunt Bea of Andy Griffith fame. Just a reminder:

            AUNT BEA…Aunt Bea was a very sweet charming self deprecating loving Aunt.

            OUR BEA….Our Bea suggests to posters here to “KISS HER ASS.” In posts here under “Party Games”, she stated affirmatively that Alt. “doesn’t want to know the facts, nor does he want to put forth considered theories or offer insight. He just wants these guys to be deemed innocent as the driven snow, facts be damned.”

            So, let’s ease up on the pity parties and apology demands. You talk tough on here you should expect tough talk back. Comes with the territory.

            Caveat Emptor.

            • Bea
              07/08/2011 at 5:39 PM

              Oh, dear. How is it that I “falsely set forth” MY OWN interpretations and opinions? They’re my interpretations and opinions. And clearly identified.

              I said “kiss my ass” to Joe Price if he’s feeding someone to post here. Not as you’ve indicated, so who’s misquoting and misinterpreting?

              I read a great article about the obfuscation tactics of the Tea Party/far right which reminds me of this recent spate of the pro-trouple trio. Don’t have any facts? Make some up! Change the subject! Goes with the nasty name calling and smear tactics as well. I knew a salty litigator once who said that if you have no chance of winning on the facts, spend the closing argument confusing everything and then maybe the jury will get tripped up on BARD or other relevant standard.

              How’s that working for you so far?

              I don’t want an apology from KiKi, Bruce, nor a pity party. But this has devolved into an unpleasant realm. All this because I disagreed with Alt’s interpretation of the stenographer’s placement of a comma instead of a period? I offered to remove the “yeah” word entirely! Alt himself said he appreciated that I took the time to respond reasonably.

              Again, how’s the obfuscation working for you?

              • Bruce
                07/08/2011 at 6:08 PM


                You do NOT clearly identify your opinions and interpretations separate from facts, in this example with your interpretation of the e-mail.

                In your post which references the e-mail above, you say:

                “(despite Joe telling at least one friend that there is, in fact, information that they’ve withheld out of fear of one of them being arrested).

                That is stated as a fact. But it is not a fact.

                Do you really want me to bring out the actual e-mail and show in detail how your interpretation does not fit well with the context of the e-mail and the actual wording of the e-mail?

                Weren’t you embarassed when I have had to do that in the past and show everyone what you are actually trying to get away with in that regard? Any shame?

                I know it is your interpretation or opinion of certain wording which you paraphrase but do not quote (because the actual quote does not help you with the deception), because I know your history of doing this with this exact same issue in the past.

                Someone new to the post or a news person looking at the post, or someone who has not followed your practice of doing this in the past, could easily think that you are stating it as fact…., since you are. And it ain’t a fact, as you well well well know.

                Again, lawyers very much know the difference between facts and opinions, quotes and paraphrasing. They don’t mess them up with each other, confuse them, even for a moment. Unless they are idiots, and I certainly do NOT think you are that.

                • Bea
                  07/08/2011 at 6:33 PM

                  You’re talking about a very extensive post in which I included this as an aside in a parenthetical? Seriously? And on a topic that has been exhaustively rehashed? If you genuinely think new readers who wish to stick around will not go read for themselves, you underestimate people.

                  So, my bad, the parenthetical should have had a footnote:
                  Joe Price to Tara Ragone, as reported in The Washingtonian,”The police get to accuse us of not saying all we know, but we are not allowed to fully respond for fear they will retaliate by arresting one of us.”

                  If I’ve been remiss in not identifying my opinions, apologies; I will try harder to so identify. Often I end my lengthier posts with exactly that notation.

                  I don’t ever recall being embarrassed or shamed by you, Bruce – actually I don’t recall being embarrassed or shamed by anyone here. Maybe you wanted to embarrass or shame me or you’re threatening to do so? I’m now having to reconsider your negative comparison of me to “Aunt Bea” – I suppose I assumed no one would make such a misidentification since the Patti Smith avatar’s persona is decidedly not much like “Aunt Bea” at all:) but we can just leave it at that you don’t think me sweet or charming.

                  That’s fine, Bruce, but is your description of Aunt Bea a fact or an opinion?

                  • Bruce
                    07/08/2011 at 7:33 PM

                    That you would ask that last question really really really makes me question whether you have ever gone to law school, Bea.

                    Sorry, I just can’t believe a real lawyer would ask that question in this context.

                    Red flag.

                    • Clio
                      07/08/2011 at 7:51 PM

                      Really, really, really?

                      Bruce, you’re losing the blogging battle when you always have to have the last word. Quit while you’re ahead — Victor might be able to help you with
                      guerilla marketing, and say hello to Joe for me.

                    • Jeana
                      07/08/2011 at 8:34 PM

                      Oh for God’s sake this is getting more ridiculous by the minute. Give it up.

                  • Bea
                    07/08/2011 at 7:43 PM

                    Dear Bruce, apparently a sense of humor was not allowed in your law school, just a sense of entitlement. Please feel free to have the Eds. get back to you on my law degree and admission to the bar. They have my real name and can access my firm’s webpage and check bar records.

                    Are you going to take your ball and go home like you did the last time? What is this, the third time you’ve fallen into name calling and a desire to bully?

                    I accept that I am sometimes cranky and that others sometimes get under my skin. I’ve regretted certain posts. But we’ve danced this dance before, Bruce, where you get downright nasty. What’s up with that?

                • Alternateguy
                  07/08/2011 at 6:38 PM


                  I’ve long heard that “Withholding information for fear of being arrested,” “fact” and have wondered about it. Can you tell me where I can find the actual email?

                  • Bruce
                    07/08/2011 at 6:42 PM

                    Alt, I will find you the actual posts over the weekend and you can review them.

                    Have a good weekend.

                  • Alternateguy
                    07/08/2011 at 6:54 PM

                    Never mind,Bruce. Bea answered it.

                    As far as being “fact” that sounds like witness hearsay, which is hardly fact.

                    And furthermore the “we get to say…” reference makes it likely that he was frustrated because their lawyers told them to say nothing to anyone, as defense lawyers have a way of doing.
                    (Been there done that.)

                    • Bill Orange
                      07/08/2011 at 8:15 PM

                      The lawyers can correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think that something the defendant himself wrote is “hearsay”.It’s, well, what the defendant himself said.

                    • Alternateguy
                      07/08/2011 at 8:50 PM

                      Someone said that Joe said it.

                    • Bea
                      07/09/2011 at 12:58 AM

                      No, Joe wrote it in an email if memory serves. If properly authenticated, it should be admissible, or so I would think from a quick review of articles on email admissions from criminal defendants. But not my area.

                  • Craig
                    07/12/2011 at 3:34 PM

                    Jesus tap dancin Christ Alt – It’s been said for you to do your homework and maybe you’ll finally take that advice and assignment to heart. That “fact” was in a Price email to Tara Ragone, that Harry Jaffe first broke the news on over a year ago and to which was entered as evidence.

                    Frankly, you’re boring me to tears here and when you first floated paid hit or suicide, it told me that you weren’t at all that serious. I’ve discounted nearly every word you’ve written since. Quite possibly, when you’ve lost me, you’ve lost America.

                    • Bruce
                      07/12/2011 at 4:12 PM

                      Craig = America?????

                      Jesus, Mary, Joseph tap-dancing Jesus! Who knew dat?

                    • Bruce
                      07/12/2011 at 4:55 PM

                      The only facts are that an e-mail was sent and the exact wording and context of the e-mail.

                      Everything else is paraphrasing and opinion as to what it means.
                      People can interpret it anyway they want.

                      I find that the most reasonable interpretation to me is that there is no bark to that dog.

                    • alternateguy
                      07/16/2011 at 12:04 PM

                      Sorry ’bout that, Uncle Walt.

              • susan
                07/08/2011 at 7:24 PM


                Bingo! You’ve nailed it. Goes back to my post in general and to AnnaZ where I’ve said, there’s a pattern and it’s one of OBSTUCTING JUSTICE, making things up, etc. (btw, I “like the Constitution.” I really do. It allows me to freely capitalize the words I choose to cAP! WhOoHoO, there I go AgaIn!)

                And Bruce writes to Hoya that he likes “civilized” discussion but has anyone forgotten Bruce’s name calling, even back when he initially blew into this site? I can’t help but think of a petulant child the way he calls you names or refers to a comment as “bitchy” or “assholy.” I can’t help but wonder if maybe he isn’t a kid pozting here. I mean, ick, he’s calling you “Aunt Bea” and deliberately being provactive. Meanwhile he has nothing to contribute about the case. It is tea-partyish and it reeks of the kind of moral certitude they aspire to have while they tear down reason and actual justice.

                • Bea
                  07/08/2011 at 8:10 PM

                  Yes, please let’s have some dignity.

                  “Aunt Bea”

                • Clio
                  07/09/2011 at 10:14 AM

                  Agreed. XO to all.

                  From the ladies’ room at Ziegfield’s,

                  The Reverend Clio, Church of “the Moral Certitude.”

                  • Bea
                    07/09/2011 at 10:48 AM

                    (We need CD or AZ to sign on behalf of the Thought Police)

          • Alternateguy
            07/08/2011 at 5:30 PM


            Your interpretation of the gate/door transcript is one that you’ve been waving around for days/months/years. It is the basis on one of your biggest “tells”.

            It is I who have tried to call your interpretation into question by providing an alternate interpretation of my own. But no one answered that call to question, as far as I know. (I had questioned that in the past, but you just blew me off.)

            My interpretation has never been the generally accepted one, yours apparently is. (Accepted by Hoya and others.) And for reasons I never quite understood.

            As far as I know, no one has done anything but question my interpretation, while yours is generally accepted. How can you say that you brought anything into question, when it has never been accepted by anyone in the first place?

            A small point, perhaps, but one that grates.

            • Bea
              07/08/2011 at 5:43 PM

              Then by all means keep explaining your position. If it has merit, people will believe it. But don’t expect everyone who thinks differently to simply roll over. Your explanations are fine – I just don’t happen to agree. As I’ve said countless times, we can disagree. I’m fine with that and no disrespect to you.

              • Alternateguy
                07/08/2011 at 5:57 PM

                Thanks, Bea, and no disrespect to you either.

                I do respect lawyers; I wasn’t smart enough to be one. As someone suggested, I’m trying to bring a pedestrian view where I think one might be needed.

                If anyone has specific questions about my interpretation of the intruder going out the back gate/door dialogue, please let me know. Perhaps I can better explain my view.

            • Bill Orange
              07/08/2011 at 8:19 PM

              I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure the issue was covered during the trial. My recollection is that the gate had a deadbolt with one of those twisty-type latches on the inside; it had be locked by key if it were to be locked from the outside.

              • Bea
                07/09/2011 at 7:23 PM

                Bill O – I missed this yesterday. Yes, it was established that to lock the back gate door, one had to use a key from the outside. I believe that may have been in Judge Leibovitz’s opinion, but don’t hold me to it.

                It’s why this particular element of the case as told by the defendants never made sense – you can depart by opening the door (latched style deadbolt is my recollection) but that DOES leave the gate door in the unlocked position. It jumped off the page for me that Joe would “guess” that the intruder scaled the fence simply because the door wasn’t “ajar.” The mind might balk at why the intruder would shut it behind him (maybe so it wouldn’t be clear which way we went out or wouldn’t make the neighbors wonder) but not so much as to assume it more “reasonable” that someone who’d stabbed a man to death would go to the effort of climbing over a 7 or 8 foot fence.

                I know that the debris on top of the fence was undisturbed but too one would think the killer might have blood on him that would’ve transferred from his chest to the fence. Maybe he wore a body glove or a Hefty bag jumpsuit that was later disposed of. Still can’t figure out why he wouldn’t use the gate door.

                Or why Joe would “assume” that he didn’t, unless he was primed for the question “why was the gate door still locked since it takes a key to lock it from the alley?”

                An olive branch to Alt, here, in that it’s his position that Joe didn’t say that he thought the intruder went over the fence instead of using the door.

            • Bruce
              07/12/2011 at 6:51 PM

              Was runnning out of space, so put this post here.

              For any newbie’s, etc., there has been some discussion in here about an e-mail sent by Joe P to a friend.

              This has been called the “Catch-22” e-mail because Joe uses that phrase in it.

              This has been discussed on here many times in the past, and I would recommend that people go back and read the article by Craig entitled “Catch-22 @ 1509” dated 6/7/10, where the entire e-mail is set forth and discussed.

              With apologies to Hoya Loya, I will quote his post under that article, which states:

              [Hoya Loya on 06/07/2010 at 11:11 AM]:

              “Now I get why the “Catch-22″ email was not used by the prosecution. In context, Joe is clearly saying he can’t tell all he knows “about the investigation” — in other words, his criticisms of the alleged failure to investigate the intruder theory — in fear that they’ll be arrested in retaliation for speaking ill of the police. Either Jaffe or his editors left out the first paragraph that gives the context — very misleading.”

              The reference to Jaffe in Hoya Loya’s post is to an article in which the author Jaffe discussed the e-mail and made conclusions, but did not include the first paragraph of the e-mail and did not describe its context. That was misleading.

              Many people on here rely heavily on the Jaffe article — buyer beware!

              I agree entirely with Hoya Loya’s interpretation as to that e-mail. To me, it is the only reasonable interpretation, but anyone is more than free to disagree — just don’t paraphrase the e-mail to your advantage or state an interpretation of it as fact, please. Just apply fundamental fairness in discussing it, and no one will complain in the least, no matter what [crazy???]interpretation or emphasis you may put on it. God bless us, everyone.

              • Clio
                07/12/2011 at 7:35 PM

                Bruce, what was Tara’s interpretation of those calculated lines?

                • Bruce
                  07/14/2011 at 11:36 AM

                  Hi Clio:

                  Don’t recall but should be in the criminal trial transcripts if she was asked during the trial.

                  If you are relying on Jaffe, and his reporting regarding the e-mail, I don’t put much stock on anything he says about that e-mail, since Jaffe clearly, in my view, had an agenda, and as Hoya Loya pointed out a long time ago, Jaffe left out the first paragraph of the e-mail and gave no context — misleading at the least.

                  Tara’s interpretation, or Jaffe’s interpretation of Tara’s interpretation, whatever it is, is not relevant in my opinion.

                  Frankly, in my opinion, if properly objected to at the criminal trial, the judge should not allow her to give her interpretation in court.

                  Why would I care what Tara’s interpretation of an e-mail was? Does she have a Ph.D. in e-mail interpretation?

                  I know she was a friend and the e-mail was directed to her and all, but I don’t think that gives her interpretation any evidenciary value.

                  Under the circumstances, her opinion of interpretation is just guess and speculation.

                  I’m very serious here. Why should we care what her interpretation was?

                  The document speaks for itself.

                  Kiki, it is certainly possible that I am wrong on this as I don’t do criminal defense.

                  Any thoughts?

                  • KiKi
                    07/15/2011 at 9:54 AM

                    I really don’t see how Tara’s interpretation of the e-mail could ever be entered into evidence. It is speculative, and not relevant. Unless we are discussing why Tara did one thing or another, and that reason is relevant there is no way that what someone thought of what someone else said could be admissible. The only interpretation of the e-mail that matters is a jury’s interpretation.

                  • Clio
                    07/15/2011 at 10:13 AM

                    Well, B. and K., here is where historians and defense lawyers differ: to place the email in context, I would want to know what the recipient thought about what was being said in the email. To me, that’s not speculation, but comprehension.

                    But, of course,defense attorneys and the courts in general “merely” have the “tunnel vision” of only interpreting the document in the best possible light for the sender.

                    • Bruce
                      07/15/2011 at 10:44 AM

                      Well, dear Clio, bad historians make bad history.

                      In addition to Tara, let’s get President Obama’s and Casey Anthony’s opinions about the Catch 22 e-mail.

                      Both of their opinions will be less than relevant and eye opening, but they are historical figures, so….go for it, Ms. History.

                    • Clio
                      07/15/2011 at 3:28 PM

                      Bruce, surely you jest: your above post does indicate that you would make a bad historian, if a good (if not great) mouthpiece for any, and I do mean any, concern. XO, Ms. History.

          • susan
            07/08/2011 at 7:31 PM


            Your point is excellent and as Hoya posted before, the defendants are relying on the purported unlocked door and chime to make their case of an intruder. Only they have nothing to support that argument. And as for the chime VZ’s recorded statements to police call into question the veracity of that argument–no I didn’t hear a chime–parking lot rendezvous–yes I did hear a chime!

            • Alternateguy
              07/08/2011 at 8:46 PM


              I haven’t looked it up, but as I recall, there were two chimes. Joe was awaikened by the first, not Victor, is was the scream sound from downstairs that woke him. Later, he thoulght he may have heard the chime again sometime after he himself screamed. Am I wrong?

              • Bill Orange
                07/09/2011 at 11:35 AM

                I haven’t looked it up, either, but my recollection is that the first (alleged) chime is what woke Joe up–and he was absolutely certain that it was the chime. Victor was not awake for the first (alleged) chime. At some point, Joe woke Victor woke up (or Victor woke up on his own) and the two of them went to the top of the stairs. They heard the three grunts, and they went racing down the stairs to find Robert stabbed in the guest bedroom. Victor said that at some point AFTER they heard the grunts, he heard the (alleged) second chime. Joe specifically said that he knew that Victor said that he heard a(n alleged) second chime, but that he (Joe) himself did not. So Joe alone reported hearing the first (alleged) chime, while the other two defendants were (supposedly) asleep. Victor alone reported hearing the second chime, and Joe said that he did not.

                The discrepancy between Joe’s and Victor’s stories here doesn’t seem very meaningful, to be honest. I suppose you could argue that it shows that Victor screwed up the cover story (especially when combined with Dylan’s statement that “we” heard the chime), but if I were a juror, I wouldn’t make to much out of this. If it happened the way they say it did, then Joe and Victor would’ve both been terrified, there would’ve been a lot of activity, and I would expect memories to differ slightly. Furthermore, Victor ran upstairs to get the phone, so he would’ve been closer to the chime box in the master bedroom at that point. So either Joe could’ve simply not heard the second chime, or Victor (who doesn’t seem terribly bright to begin with) could’ve mistakenly thought he heard it during all of the commotion.

                • Bea
                  07/09/2011 at 12:06 PM

                  My recollection of sequence is basically the same except that some minutes after Joe was awakened by the chime (and he did not fall back asleep) he then heard the low moan, as did Victor, and they got up as a result. I think both of them are counting the one which woke them as one of the “three” grunts described to Kathy Wone but in the interrogations it’s less clear as to the number of grunts/groans/yells. Joe hears one later when he’s next to Robert.

                  Dylan describes them as “high pitched screams or laughs” but he doesn’t get up until he hears what appears to be the commotion of Victor and Joe finding/responding to Robert on the bed.

                  Other than the chime and the grunts, no noise is reported by any defendant (except their own noises).

                  • Hoya Loya
                    07/10/2011 at 7:38 AM

                    Let’s not forget to add to the mix of the chime reports Dylan’s initial statement to police while still at Swann Street that “We” heard the chime, which was, allegedly, quickly shut down by Joe.

      • KiKi
        07/08/2011 at 3:20 PM

        Again Bea, a ridiculous accusation that if someone disagrees with you they must somehow be involved with the parties is exactly the lack of critical thinking skills I am referring to. You can have your opinion, that is great. But there is a chance, that there are people out there that disagree with you, Clio, susan, and the rest of the masses who got there through there own critical thinking and not some diabolical conspiracy theory.

        How about instead of using cute terms like “apologists” and “summer offensive” you take me up on my challenge and prove to me with facts and evidence that one or more of the three murdered RW. If it is so obvious, if it is all here in the transcripts and the posts point it out to me without invoking opinion, conjecture, or irrelevant attacks on the defendant’s physique. I’ll listen, I’ll consider, I’ll question my assumptions.

        • Bea
          07/08/2011 at 4:25 PM

          So you’re making an analogy between my “cute terms” and your comment (quoting):

          “I once heard a judge ask a defense attorney “Where did you go to law school?” The attorney replied “LSU”. The judge retorted: “You should ask for your money back.”
          Bea – honestly if you are a lawyer, you may want to take this advice. Or maybe you just slept through crim law, con law, crim pro, legal reasoning and just about every other class that taught you to think like a lawyer.”

          I don’t need this. Have a good life, KiKi. A word of advice is that it’s rarely a good idea to be an out-and-out asshole to another person.

          • Bruce
            07/08/2011 at 5:40 PM

            Guess you weren’t and out and out asshole when you said in a post above about Alt:

            “Alt. “doesn’t want to know the facts, nor does he want to put forth considered theories or offer insight. He just wants these guys to be deemed innocent as the driven snow, facts be damned.”

            Sounds pretty assholy of you to me, Aunt Bea! You can give it but you can’t take it. Maybe you should apply your standards to yourself.

            • Bill 2
              07/08/2011 at 8:34 PM

              What Bea said about Alt certainly goes along with everything he posts here. It’s not “assholy,” further, it’s a viewpoint of someone who has assisted Alt over and over and over and over and over and over and over…

              If you want “assholy” Bruce, check your mirror before you head out to your next tea-bagger meeting.

              • Jeana
                07/08/2011 at 8:51 PM

                Both sides need to stop this name-calling, insulting and ridiculous behavior right now.

                As I’ve said before I was very impressed with this website when I first became aware of it midway thru the criminal trial. I have referred a number of profesionals to the site and then been embarassed when the discussions became silly and spiteful.

                This is the worst I have ever seen it.

                I suggest that everyone take the weekend off and engage in a bit of reflection.

                • Alternateguy
                  07/08/2011 at 9:07 PM


                  Yes, the weekend is here, and I’ve got to go out and get a life!

              • Alternateguy
                07/08/2011 at 9:00 PM

                Bill 2,

                I thought you didn’t bother to read my posts. I guess that you don’t, since apparently you just picked up that over and over and over again thing from what she said, rather than from reading my posts.

          • susan
            07/08/2011 at 6:59 PM


            Pearls before swine.

            There is a saying and I’ll paraphrase it:

            “Ad hominem attacks are the last refuge of the incompetent.”

            • Alternateguy
              07/08/2011 at 7:09 PM

              Susan, (Whose the swine?)

              The ad hominem is normally described as a logical fallacy, but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.

            • Bea
              07/08/2011 at 7:16 PM

              Thanks, Susan. I’m surprised that Bruce is now using silly nicknames (“Aunt Bea”?) to refer to me and that he’s attempting to use me as his lightning rod (for what I don’t know). Maybe finding a villain is in the Tea Party Handbook? I will take your advice and step away from the fray in the name of peace.

            • Clio
              07/08/2011 at 7:20 PM

              Right on, Maude: this “summer offensive” is right out of the Eighties cult classic film — The Heathers.

              Victor probably suggested this vigorous blog blitz to complement his Oreo cookies and milk shilling. He may not be such a patsy after all.

              Or, one might fathom that Spag is trying to soften up the public resistance to an el cheapo settlement via anonymous surrogates. At any rate, I’m sure that PapaRazi is not impressed!

              • Bea
                07/08/2011 at 7:36 PM

                I do greatly prefer the “and then there’s Maude” approach to my screen name. Both are stout women, but the latter has more panache. Maybe what troubles me most today is being called out by someone who (1) watches “Nancy Grace” and (2) is surprised that she would say something “outrageous.”

              • Bruce
                07/08/2011 at 7:46 PM

                Conspiracy theories. I love it. Keep it up, Clio. Makes it all the more interesting when you voluntarily give others a valed choice to put your credibility in issue.

                • Clio
                  07/08/2011 at 8:24 PM

                  No problem, Bruce; like your inspiration — Culuket, one cannot please you enough.

                  But, is it “valed” or “valued” above?

                  Remember to proof all posts before hitting submit: one would not want to give one’s opponent a valued opening.

              • Bea
                07/08/2011 at 8:19 PM

                Clio, your coining of “The Summer Offensive” was brilliant – and the double entendre showed itself today! Offensive indeed!

                • Clio
                  07/08/2011 at 8:36 PM

                  Thanks, Bea: the other meaning did not come to me when I first typed it. But that meaning does come loud and clear now. What a day!

                  I first thought of the Tet offensive of January 1968 in Vietnam, which actually happened in January, not in summer. Tet was factually a defeat for the Vietcong on the offensive, but it was spun in such a way to make it look like a triumph for them.

                  Much more significantly, something on the other side of this case is definitely up, if their surrogates are spending this much time on the blog!

                  • AnnaZed
                    07/08/2011 at 8:47 PM

                    I am still reminded of the Usenet Eternal September of 1993 with all of the suspension of reasonable discourse that that implies.

                  • susan
                    07/09/2011 at 12:04 AM


                    I think “R3”–remember them? Understandable if you don’t–seems all four of them have disbanded or imploded and hence, having no where else to go (or nothing more to say to each other) have returned to WMRW.

  37. Alternateguy
    07/08/2011 at 11:34 AM


    Thank you sincerely for taking the time to explain your interpretation in detail.

    You site the verbatim transcription of the conversation, but a verbatim transcript can be, and often is, misleading. A meaning for meaning transcription would be more usable here, but such is not available.

    We do have, fortunately, the video recording. From seeing and hearing that, my strong impression is that much of the interrogation is a sort of stream of consciousness thing, as is true in most conversation. There are pauses between. As well as looks, glances, body language, etc. One thought leads to another.

    For instance; Joe says at one point that he asked a question of someone, while sitting in the living room. Then a few sentences later, he recalls seeing something while sitting someplace. But by that time, there has been much thought progression. He is not finishing some paragraph. By that point, it seems to me, that his thought has clearly moved to the kitchen and concentrated on the back gate, since that is where he was, most likely, while showing the cops around, and where he would have been sitting, (On a stool?) after he was told he couldn’t go out there. He was simply explaining what he knew and how he knew it. The subject was no longer his conversation with someone in the living room, but what he actually saw, when he looked out to see, as best as he could, if the gate was open.

    In his original answer to Wagner’s “…jump the fence?” question, My interpretation is that Joe is repeating his previous conversation and his rhetorical question, from earlier in the evening, to Wagner for a purpose. The simple purpose of answering Wagner’s question; By asking,“…like why in the hell would you jump the fence? Why wouldn’t the person going out the back door go through the gate?”

    Otherwise, why would he repeat that question if it wasn’t an answer to Sgt. Wagner’s question? What other possible purpose could it have served? (In your interpretation of the conversation the comment serves no function.) Joe was a resident of the house. He knew how the gate worked. His answering question was a good one. Any intruder could have gone out through the gate. He had no reason to think otherwise.

    Following Joe’s answer to Wagner, Detective Norris started by saying, “Well, how do you know –” But, I suspect that he cut himself short when he realized that he wasn’t up to speed on the conversation. Joe simply hadn’t said that he knew anything about the gate that wasn’t and wouldn’t have been apparent to him as an innocent homeowner.

    Now, you suggest that he somehow knew that the gate had not been opened and exited from, perhaps because he knew that there hadn’t been an intruder. But, I’m saying that because he asked that rhetorical question, it shows that he did not know that. Quite the opposite! He is asking the police why they would even think otherwise.

    His saying that the gate door was not ajar was obviously, in my humble opinion, his saying what he saw after looking out at the gate. Apparently he looked out expecting to see it open or at least ajar and saw that it was not. If the gate were self-locking, (As opposed to being self closing,) then after looking, he would know that it was locked. If the gate were not self locking upon closing, as you say it wasn’t, then he could assume either way, but not know. (He didn’t have to have knowledge to the fact that there was no intruder.) But he, as an innocent person, would still have expected that the intruder could have simply gone out the gate, either way. (Just as he had answered in his rhetorical question.)

    I don’t think that either you nor I know for sure if the gate self locks from the outside when closed, or has to be relocked with a key, but this doesn’t make any difference. Joe’s rhetorical question” “…like why in the hell would you jump the fence? Why wouldn’t the person going out the back door go through the gate?” was said to Wagner for a purpose. The simple purpose of answering Wagner’s question with a rhetorical question.

    Otherwise, why would he repeat that, if it weren’t an answer to Sgt. Wagner’s question? Joe was a resident of the house. He knew how the gate worked. His question was a good one. Any intruder could have gone out through the gate. He had no reason to think otherwise.

    The gate has been described as heavy in order to explain that it doesn’t self-close. But nowhere has anyone said that it was particularly difficult to close. If one were escaping a house and yard, after committing a murder, and were in fear of possible pursuers, then taking one second to pull the door, and then the gate, shut behind you, is a most logical thing to do. Slows down pursuers and leaves less indication as to which way you went.

    Seem too methodical to you? But we have heard that that was the nature of the stabbing. Methodical.

    You say that Joe’s saying “Because I didn’t get to go out there…” is a direct answer to Norris’ question. But it also may, very easily, simply be his explanation as to why he didn’t know the full details of the condition of the gate. He simply said that as far as he could see, it wasn’t ajar. Sergeant Wagner was having a meaning for meaning conversation with Joe, and Joe with him. It is more likely, in my view, that Wagner’s reply of “Amen, good thinking!” was an answer to Joe’s explanation of how the intruder might have exited the yard, rather to Norris’. Joe hadn’t said anything that he wouldn’t have thought being an innocent resident of the house.

    • Hoya Loya
      07/08/2011 at 12:09 PM


      This is really tiresome. You and Bea disagree. I think she clearly has the better argument. Joe said what he said — it’s there in the transcript and on video and the more reasonable interpretation is “Yeah — it looked to me like the gate was closed and why would the intruder jumped over and not just go through” or rather “Yeah – what was up with that crazy intruder anyway?”

      You are entitled to your opinion but I don’t think you are going to change anyone’s mind at this point anymore than you are going to convince anyone that “Yeah” means “No.”

      • Alternateguy
        07/08/2011 at 1:32 PM


        Oh, you long-time posters do have your minds made up. That, I see.

        But people do say “Yeah,” sometimes in acknowledgment of a question, without meaning “Yes,” and follow up in the sentence with their answer, which can be to the contrary.

        Joe does that, for instance, on Page 67, line 18, where in answer to the question as to if he liked Joe, (In a sexual way.) with, A. “Yeah. No. No, I — no.”

        Unless one is going to make the case that his “Yeah” is some sort of Freudian slip, it would seem clear to me that he said “Yeah” as an acknowledgment that he understood the question, and that his answer was emphatically, “No.”

        • AnnaZed
          07/08/2011 at 1:36 PM

          Unless of course Joe’s answer was a Freudian slip; as maybe your substituting Joe for Robert in your post is a Freudian slip.

          “Yeah … er … No, No, I – no! …”

          It’s a virtual hall of mirrors of Freudian slips.

          • Alternateguy
            07/08/2011 at 2:01 PM


            I, err, err, was in a hurry.

            You’re so right!

            The sexual cloud, hanging over this case, makes it hard to see anything at all through the smoke and mirrors.

            Whatever the outcome, books will be written about this. Someone is likely to make a fortune. I only hope it’s someone disserving.

            Hey, maybe that was the motive. Material for a book. (Well, let’s not look too hard at Dylan, it sure wont be a children’s book, that much I do know.)

      • Bea
        07/08/2011 at 2:12 PM

        What Hoya said. I think my post last night says exactly what I believe on the subject. I am fine with the thought that Alt and others disagree. No worries.

  38. Alternateguy
    07/08/2011 at 11:41 AM

    Sorry, Paragraphs 3 and from 7 on shouldn’t be italicized. The HTML thing doesn’t always work right, please pay attention to the quotation marks. If you wish, I can correct.

    • AnnaZed
      07/08/2011 at 12:36 PM

      Alt, as I mentioned before, in WordPress use the “em” for emphasis tags rather than the “i” for italics tags.

      I have no idea why this is; though the writer on the link above says that it has something to do with aural ScreenReaders In any case, for some reason WordPress hiccups on the “i” tags and does what you see here to your posts. In the RSS feed of posts that I subscribe to your tags worked fine but on the page there is the appearance that your HTML was left open, which it can’t have been for it to appear correctly on the feed. I have seen this before on WordPress. Again I have no idea why this is but I do know that it is so.

      So, use the “em” tag and please don’t revert to all caps!

      • Alternateguy
        07/08/2011 at 1:45 PM


        Should have paid more attention to you. Learned the hard way. Thanks.

  39. susan
    07/09/2011 at 12:36 AM

    In Victor Zaborsky’s testimony to police the night Robert Wone was murdered he shares that the dinner conversation included discussion of watching Project Runway later that night. But what stands out is that there’s no mention of Robert Wone staying over that night. Its odd how that escapes mention. He has to come upon Dylan Ward making the bed in the guest room, and ASK about what he was doing to find out that RW was staying the night. Then apparently he felt the need to Confirm it with J. Price. Has to confirm it.

    Earlier, when he stopped unpacking, left it unfinished, in his own words, to go to the gym (Results, The Gym, wasn’t it?) to look for J. Price, was that to confirm it as well? In his own words, he’s gone about 1/2 hour–did he say about 37 minutes at one point? It seems to me that getting there would prob. take him about five minutes or so each way but the time spent away from 1509, in his own words, wouldn’t amt. to that much of a workout. Maybe as someone earlier posted, he was looking for J. Price.

    It wouldn’t be surprising. We know from JP’s correspondence with DW that he planned home events with other men during VZ’s absences. Which leads me to speculate again, I wonder if investigators checked with the prospect who responded to JP’s ad and who JP mentions in correspondence to DW. I wonder if he came over, if he was expected to and if so, what night.

    BTW, looks like the gym has closed but you can see the map of its location here to get a picture of the distance:

    By the time VZ got home both JP and DW had already showered.

    • Clio
      07/09/2011 at 9:15 AM

      Did Results have a pool or a jacuzzi or a sauna/steam room that may have attracted a few tomcats? Perhaps, Victor had a hunch, based upon previous experiences, that Joe was trying to meet more “thirds” there.

      Did it have shower stalls in its men’s locker room? If so, why wouldn’t one shower there?

      Was Dyl a member? If so, why did he exercise alone in his room? One could barely do a proper lunge anywhere in the “sardine can” of 1509 Swann. Did he like to exercise alone out of a peculiar sense of modesty?

      • susan
        07/09/2011 at 10:33 AM

        Don’t know about a pool or sauna, Clio. I know it had a strong gay male clientele so it’s possible anyone could meet anyone there. If I recall correctly, you could go through the entry way and go to a hair salon to the left or get something to eat at a food place to the right or take an elevator up to the gym. I think some people would visit all three in one trip. It was kind of casual. Never been to the gym though.

        • Clio
          07/09/2011 at 7:46 PM

          Well, it sounds kinda small and cramped, sans the “Eveless Eden” pleasures of the wet areas of any men’s locker room. And, if the clientele was largely openly gay men, the place must have been far less cruisy and much more sisterly than larger gyms with men of more diverse and desperate sexualities.

          So, if Victor wasn’t trying to confront a flirtatious Joe in a sauna, why would he make a beeline to the gym if he hadn’t been told that Joe was there? Was Sarah feeding Victor raw intelligence on her boys?

          • Bill 2
            07/09/2011 at 10:22 PM

            It was recently suggested (I think it was AZ) that “going to the gym” could be a euphemism for going to meet someone who would sell him (Price) some drugs. OTOH, perhaps the gym was the place where he had an appointment to meet the person who would be supplying party favors for that night – ketamine along with something that could be added to some water to start someone on the road to drowsiness.

            Since Zaborsky was supposed to be away, it doesn’t make sense that he would have an appointment to go there for an afternoon delight when he could easily host someone at home with Ward. Also, if his plans for that evening included a threesome with Ward and another, it doesn’t seem he would want to have a strenuous workout in the late afternoon.

            Every time I see Sarah Morgan’s name, I wonder if the unsolved death of Robert Wone hangs heavy on her conscience. Would she finally open up to police detectives now that so much time has passed?

            • Bea
              07/10/2011 at 3:17 AM

              Showing my ignorance here, but is there ever a protocol where one pre-screens someone from Alt-dot-com? I know it’s not ChristianMingle-dot-com and they’re not splitting a vanilla shake as they exchange family anecdotes, but is it ever done? Joe has been called a control freak so maybe he wanted to see the guy or needed to let the dude know what could and could not happen with Sparkly Cat?

              I agree a drug run is very possible. As is a ordinary work-out. But the time sequence sure has Victor moving quickly in a way suggesting he’s bent on seeing Joe face-to-face (since they’d already spoken by phone).

              Perhaps he just needed a welcome home kiss, but Victor’s transcript has him arriving at Dulles at 5:30/5:45, talking to Joe on ride home, arriving at Swann at 6:30, going to gym and returning to Swann at 7:15ish. Victor says “I got home probably only about 35 minutes later” which sounds like that includes the walk to and fro, so I wonder if there was any actual work-out.

              V says Dylan was IN the shower when he got home and that Joe “had already showered” by the time he got home which suggests to me that Joe showered AT home.

              I shower at the gym but I’m sure some don’t. Still, with the advent of cell phones and a third person passing along info, it crosses my mind that Joe might have been avoiding Victor.

              DC folks, how long does it take to get from K Street to Swann at 5:30/5:45 on a weekday? Joe seems to be moving briskly too. By 7:15, according to Victor, Joe was already working on the plumbing.

              My GUESS would be Victor learned something on the phone that prompted the desire for the face to face with Joe. They would have had private time to talk since Dylan was in the shower, but Victor just says that when he got home he went upstairs to change and shower then went down to help with dinner (that Dylan had already begun).

              Sorry for the rambling post. Of course Victor could’ve just changed his mind about working out and cut it short but the transcript even reads like finding Joe was the real reason he went to the gym:

              “When I got home, Dylan was home. He was exercising in his room and he had told me that Joe was at the gym. So I changed clothes, unpacked a bit and then went to the gym. I got home probably only 35 minutes later. It wasn’t long.”

              Again, maybe he just wanted a hug and kiss from his man, but it seems like an unfinished thought that he may have gone to find Joe but didn’t. The kind of thing a detective might ask about in the days that followed but (my recollection) is that the defendants gave no more interviews to the police, although they did give DNA samples.

              • Clio
                07/10/2011 at 10:26 AM

                And, add to that tortured tale — Uncle Michael’s allegedly empty evening itinerary leaving from Silver Spring.

                If Joe did meet a potential beau or dealer at the gym, wouldn’t the person also be a member of said gym? And, of course, if Joe had lied to Victor about being at the gym on the phone, and he was somewhere else, then a prescreening or a business transaction may have been easier to conduct there than among the ellipticals and Bosu balls, so familiar to the younger generations of urban gay men. In short, given anywhere else but a boutique gym, there would be no sister-witness to tell Victor what really went down.

              • Bill 2
                07/10/2011 at 3:43 PM

                Bea, After reading your query about Alt-dot-com, I realized I have a lot of vanilla friends. I don’t know of anyone who would know the first thing about Alt-dot-com. As Martha S. would say, “It’s a good thing.”

                • AnnaZed
                  07/10/2011 at 4:23 PM

                  I won’t say a lot, but I have friends and acquaintances who partake of the buffet and more recently the offerings, also I have also met people myself based on only internet exchanges that, looking back on the encounters now, I certainly think posed some risk to my person. Though I always opted for public places like coffee shops or bars; I know of others who have met in cars or hotels and in their homes. Of these others, to a man (or woman) the encounters described have seemed highly risky to me in terms of personal safety but are apparently a feature of trysts.

                  Each person has described a willingness to meet strangers based on internet exchanges of photographs and descriptions of sexual tastes (most being on the outlier spectrum of sexual interests ~ BDSM, fetishes and suchlike). They have also described both what was for them exciting encounters and also a high percentage of disappointments (mostly involving people misrepresenting their age, relative attractiveness or weight). I know of many sex seeking missions just aborted upon meeting the person in question in a bar or even at home. Still, it would seem that the thrill of this type of encounter for some most definitely includes the wildcard of meeting a stranger.

                  There are certainly a number of murder cases that involve strangers meeting for sex. I am in no way suggesting the Robert Wone was victimized in this way and no evidence has ever come to light of his seeking sexual encounters over the internet or seeking sexual encounters outside of his marriage in any venue.

                  Dylan of course (to the degree that he could be said to be employed at all) is in fact an internet based sex worker himself based on his masseur ads that include the recognizable code words about happy endings. Strangers hire him based on his statements, his photographs and yelp-style testimonials posted by previous johns clients.

                  For the trawling, Joe and Dylan being a pair might well have felt safer than most encountering a third person and having one another to rely on while the third person would certainly be vulnerable. I had thought at one time that the public interest in the murder of Robert Wone might flush out a man or men who had had strange encounters with these two, but that (to my knowledge) has not occurred. In any case, if one expresses a willingness and interest in being a participant in a BDSM encounter with strangers then boundaries might certainly be blurred and what one person might think of as crossing the line (introducing a drug not pre-agreed upon for example) another person might find thrilling.

                  • susan
                    07/10/2011 at 7:20 PM


                    Thanks for that background.

                    The “third” angle is something to consider since we know:

                    1. JP wasn’t and prob. still hasn’t been forthright about who had keys to the home.

                    2. JP indicates in a letter to DW an interest in having an encounter with a “third” during VZ’s absence.

                    3. VZ was scheduled to be absent that night.

                    4. JP advertized for a “third” on

                    5. At least one person, whose name has been obscured in court filings, expressed interest in a tryst with JP and DW.

                    5. For whatever reason, updates on the kids were given, dinner was jointly made, Project Runway was a topic of conversation, yet no mention was made of RW staying that night. Sure he was coming later, but a bit odd that VZ finds out only incidentally.

                    6. It’s been said countless times on this site before but who knows what keeps him with JP after all these private trysts and declarations of love behind his back. I think it’s the kids. Can’t think what else it would be.

                    • susan
                      07/10/2011 at 7:21 PM

                      Make that second “5”

                  • Bea
                    07/10/2011 at 8:21 PM

                    Going to post below for better margins.

              • susan
                07/10/2011 at 7:07 PM


                Arent Fox is on Conn. Avenue. If JP was at Arent Fox and walking (would he walk in that heat? Was he a walker?) I estimate it would take about 1/2 an hour maybe a little less maybe more. Depends how fast he walks, etc. and which route he took. He had pretty good hours for a partner if he left at 5:30.

                Re the gym, I actually found myself walking by the place yesterday and so backtracked to the beginning of Swann and 16th (so not 1509 but nearby) and I made the walk in about 5 or 6 six minutes. Again, depends which way he walked. My backtrack took me down 16th to Swann, but then I walked from Swann to New Hampshire and it was much shorter. So it’s pretty nearby. That said, I don’t know anyone who goes to the gym for a half hour workout. I’m sure people do it. But it seems like maybe VZ went and was looking/hanging around looking for JP.

                BTW, Yelp gives the (former) gym great reviews, but given it’s popularity and the elevator ride up, it could be possible to miss someone so VZ likely hung around looking for JP.

              • Craig
                07/12/2011 at 3:45 PM

                Both of the domestic partners did visit Results (no pool) that evening and we’ve got the stips. I guess we should publish those soon. They indicate check in times but not check out. Ward, however, if he is to be believed, worked out in his cubby hole bedroom. One look at that the dimensions of that bedroom during the open house makes his statement especially hard to believe. Just sayin’.

            • Hoya Loya
              07/10/2011 at 5:13 PM

              I believe the gym visits of both Joe and Victor were confirmed by Results check-in logs and may have been included in the stips in the cirminal trial.

              Maybe our eds can confirm if my recollection is correct.

              • Bea
                07/10/2011 at 5:35 PM

                Hoya, I remember this too, that they “checked in” but don’t recall a check-out. I just don’t know if either of them exercised. Victor didn’t stay that long by his own admission. Any idea how long it would take to get from Arent on K Street to Swann at 5:45 on a workday? And to/from Results? Your guess as to Metro or car and the affect on that?

              • Clio
                07/10/2011 at 8:42 PM

                Thanks, Hoya: then, if true, that does place both of them at the gym early in the evening — but for what purpose, and why wouldn’t have Victor waited to see his spouse until Joe came home? Who works out after an intercontinental flight? Maybe they both just did “cardio” for 15-20 minutes — otherwise, it just sounds like Victor was overly anxious to see Joe for whatever reason.

                Most gyms have time-stamped, electronic check-ins, but no check-outs. So, we’ll probably never know when Joe or Victor left, but I do hope that the police did talk to the gym’s staff on duty on August 2 — later on in the month of August 2006.

                • AnnaZed
                  07/10/2011 at 9:05 PM

                  One can live and dream, yet a part of me rather suspects that the police were not thorough enough to have pursued this. It’s not an alibi, so … I can see them failing to follow that up.

                • Clio
                  07/10/2011 at 9:29 PM

                  Oops: I meant “transcontinental” above, not “intercontinental” — still, who works out for just 20 minutes max after taking a flight from Denver to DC? Working out would not have been my first priority, and it probably wasn’t Victor’s either.

  40. Emily
    07/09/2011 at 11:05 AM

    Bruce, I’m in Australia.

    I’m posting to this blog not as a lawyer, not as anyone who has any knowledge of the participants in the case, not as anyone who has any personal interest in the case at all. I truly am posting as an international observer of this case.

    I’m posting as someone who has had no contact at all with other posters to this site.

    Basically, I have no dog in this fight.

    And as someone who has nothing to do with anything I can tell you that the story told by trouple of what happened that night stinks really bad.

    • Bill 2
      07/09/2011 at 12:26 PM


      This it totally off topic — If you ever get to Washington, DC, chances are you can see people outside various government buildings with picket signs. None of them can compare to the multitude of pickets I saw in Sydney when Prince Philip was visiting from England. It was like a huge picket party for Aboriginal rights, gay rights, no nukes, and save the whales. As Prince Philip sailed through Sydney Harbor aboard HMAS Cook, a boat appeared with a huge sign that combined everything with: No Nuking Aboriginal Gay Whales!

      I wonder if Chief Lanier would put the Wone murder investigation on the front burner if pickets appeard outside DC police headquarters.

      • Emily
        07/10/2011 at 9:50 AM

        We Australians are known for our irreverence, especially to people who take themselves very seriously.

  41. KiKi
    07/09/2011 at 12:43 PM

    In response to bill o’s hearsay question – hearsay is hearsay no matter who the speaker is. So price’s own statements are still hearsay. However as long as they are offered only against him they will be admissible. Normally joe’s out of court statements would not be admissible against the other two. However email is still a questionable matter.

    • AnnaZed
      07/09/2011 at 12:58 PM

      Kiki, would that be the rule in a civil action?

      • KiKi
        07/09/2011 at 1:07 PM

        The rules of evidence apply to both civil and criminal trials so the hearsay rules would be the same. In a criminal trial you have the added protection of the confrontation clause so the hearsay rules are strengthened in a criminal case. In other words joes out of court statement would still be hearsay but would be admissible against him under the party opponent exception. I am not sure if in a civil trial the party opponent exception would allow the statement to be used against all defendants. Hoya, Bruce or cat could pronably answer that question.

        • AnnaZed
          07/09/2011 at 5:51 PM

          Thanks for this. I’m pretty sure that it has been explained to me before; yet somehow I still find the perimeters slippery.

        • Hoya Loya
          07/10/2011 at 7:56 AM

          It might come in as a statement by a co-conspirator, but then the plaintiff would have the additional burden of proving a conspiracy (and not a conspiracy to tamper with evidence or obstruct justice, of which the defendants have been cleared) in which both Joe and the defendant it is offered against were involved.

          This reminds me of the rats nest the prosecution got into by bringing the criminal case against all three defendants when it had to decide which statement was being offered “for the truth” against whom.

          • Bill Orange
            07/10/2011 at 12:54 PM

            Again, not trying to be a smartass (see below), but the “for the truth” thing never made sense to me, particularly after the defendants asked for a judge’s verdict (as opposed to a jury verdict). I could see how a jury would have trouble with this, but not a competent judge. For the life of me, I can’t understand why the prosecution didn’t just admit each defendant’s statements “for the truth” against that particular defendant, and “not for truth” against the other two. There were no serious disagreements between their three statements. If there had been big disparities, I can see how it would’ve been an issue, but I think the prosecution let themselves be pulled into a huge time-sink on this, and I’ve never seen any of the lawyers provide me with an explanation of why my solution wouldn’t have worked.

            • AnnaZed
              07/10/2011 at 1:17 PM

              Hi Bill, I am as confused to this day about that whole for truth thing as you are.

              Still, to say “… There were no serious disagreements between their three statements.” isn’t (I don’t think) quite right. Susan, for example, has pointed out how the three accounts place the three men at different locations and emerging from their rooms in different sequence in their statements.

              Frankly, I don’t believe any of these statements. I think that Victor’s elaborate description of a man cowering behind his door (which he attributed to Dylan’s possible experience) was in fact a description of his own actions and that Joe’s description of Dylan commandoing out of his room in his robe is just a wholesale fabrication.

              Still, I think that you might be right from a legal standpoint. In just stipulating that everything that each man claims can be logically viewed as being an assertion of truth as to his own account of the events only and that the other two men can not be bound by what any other man has asserted wouldn’t things have become less complicated?

              I don’t know.

              Then one ventures into the fascinating and obfuscating world of truthiness and whole worlds collide. I definitely apply a liberal portion of the stuff to this blog myself occasionally [see above].

    • Bill Orange
      07/10/2011 at 12:47 PM

      I’m not sure I understand the definition, then. I just assumed that “hearsay” was testimony from an individual that went along the lines of, “I heard him say…”

      Do the videotaped interviews with the defendants constitute hearsay? I would assume that if the detectives said that they heard Joe say something, that would be hearsay testimony. But a videotape of what Joe said is, well, a videotape of what he said. Ditto for written statements. Is that all still hearsay? From a logical standpoint, that’s not really hearsay; is it hearsay from a legal standpoint? (I’m assuming the defense is still free to say that the videotape might have been altered, the e-mail hacked, etc.–in other words, I can see how they’d challenge the validity of a physical piece of evidence–but I don’t understand how it could be considered hearsay.)

      P.S. I’m not trying to be a smartass here. I really just don’t understand the legal definition of “hearsay”.

      • KiKi
        07/11/2011 at 9:39 AM

        Yes it is still hearsay. Any out of court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted is hearsay. It does not matter who speaks it. Reliability of the statement is only one aspect of the hearsay doctrine. The other issue is that the statement is not made under oath and was not subjected to cross examination. Again, I only can speak to the criminal matters but under the confrontation clause, you have the right to confront the evidence against you. Meaning you have a right to cross examine anyone who made statements against you. If that person is not testifying, because they are your co-defendant you therefore cannot cross examine them.

      • AnnaZed
        07/11/2011 at 12:33 PM

        Denton (steve), astounding as it may seem to you virtually every poster on this site seems to be able to operate their machines and locate Wikipedia. I think that I can speak for all when I say that posters have been seeking a higher level of definition from Kiki than one provided by Wikipedia (though thanks for the Googling, well done!)

        I am struggling to comprehend your excitement though, and this declaration:

        “…Looks like some of us here has [sic] to be careful for what we’s [sic] posting here. Many can exercise “hearsay” that can keep others blind.”

        in addition to being grammatically incomprehensible, marked by your now classic superfluous quotation marks and being an example of cognitive dissonance really makes me wonder if you are an adult.

        • AnnaZed
          07/11/2011 at 12:35 PM

          If you’re bored you could just take up posting over here on this blog:

        • AnnaZed
          07/11/2011 at 1:31 PM

          You know, it’s Bruce I feel sorry for here, really.

      • KiKi
        07/11/2011 at 1:10 PM

        Let me try to explain this better. It really is a difficult concept.

        Let’s say I am the defendant in a murder case. Two weeks before the murder I make the statement “I hate John.” The prosecution wants to introduce this statement for its truth, i.e. to say I really did hate John.
        This statement is hearsay. Even though I made it, it is still hearsay. But there is an exception to the hearsay rule because I am a party opponent. Therefore the statement can be used against me for its truth. The idea is I would not make statements against my own interest.

        Ok now let’s say I am still the defendant but Bill O makes the statement “I hate KiKi” I want to introduce Bill O’s statement for the truth, to show that Bill O hates me. When Bill O is on the stand I cannot ask him – did you say you hate KiKi. (even if I have a videotape of this statement). Even though it is his statement, it is still an out of court statement made for the truth of the matter asserted. I can ask him – Do you hate KiKi? and if he says no, I may be able to use the statement to impeach him, but that is a whole other can of worms.

        But the bottom line is hearsay is ANY out of court statement admitted for the truth of the matter asserted. It does not matter who is actually making the statement. There are numerous exceptions, one being the party opponent. But that only works for the actual party who made the statement.

        • Bill Orange
          07/12/2011 at 12:10 AM

          That actually makes perfect sense to me. Thank you!

  42. susan
    07/09/2011 at 3:27 PM


    Re hearsay, you probably recall some discussion of it on this site and rules re admissibility. Here’s one page where it is discussed in relation to this case. I know it comes up more as well. Thanks to dear Chilaw79 (rest in peace) and Themis:

    • AnnaZed
      07/09/2011 at 5:54 PM

      Thank you susan, I knew that we had run this up the flag-pole at least once, and to be reminded of dear Chilaw79 (so wonderful to think of her and so sad to intuit how much the poorer we are without her), and Themis (to whom I still own many and many an apology, if I only knew what we were in for would have knelt at her feet)!

  43. Clio
    07/10/2011 at 3:10 PM

    Editors, have your sources continued to indicate that a settlement may be near? What does Aunt Marcia really think?

    And, per Kiki’s suggestion the other day and assuming that a settlement is imminent, is it possible that our boys are thinking of buying property further south than Miami — say, in Buenos Aires or Montevideo or Rio — to never to be bothered with this pesky little case ever again? A rising middle-class in Brazil, in particular, may need a milk marketer; then again, the ailing Hugo Chavez of Venezuela may need a trusty Spanish-speaking masseur who can keep secrets. And, in the process, Joe can serve as Victor’s chauffeur (Mercedes, Mercedes, Mercedes, after all!) or gameskeeper or even valet: how the world of Swann may have turned upside down!

    • Bill 2
      07/10/2011 at 4:01 PM

      There have been prior references to them moving to a spot closer to South America. If I had to choose from your selection it would be Montevideo where you can go out at night without a bodyguard, the opposite of Rio.

      Miami Shores is just two degrees from a Levittown with palm trees. The amenities of the location seem to be very far removed from what they were used to in Washington, DC. If they were looking for a nice place to get away from DC, it seems they would have bought in the neighborhood where they stayed in a nice condo (Wilton Manors) while house hunting. The only thing going for Miami Shores for their ilk is that it’s closer to a quick getaway hop to South America.

  44. AnnaZed
    07/10/2011 at 8:07 PM

    Susan, [referencing your narrowing post above] I have never believed 5.0 of your list. I think that Sarah called Victor and told him that shenanigans were afoot and that he rushed home hoping to stop them. I think that Victor knew that Robert was expected and that he suspected that Dylan or possibly Dylan and Joe had some sort of designs on him. There is no reason to take the statements that these men made at face value, in my view anyway.

    • susan
      07/10/2011 at 9:14 PM

      Hi AnnaZed,

      You might be right. To me it rings true because it’s consistent with how much in the dark he seems to be–as documented in writing re JP, DW and their trysts and tryst aspirations–about everything else. He always seems one step behind.

      • AnnaZed
        07/10/2011 at 9:27 PM

        The plant watering part (for some reason) I do believe, but my opinion is that by the time Victor was talking to the police he was partially in the loop, on message, and trying to keep track of plot points ~ the waterworks being one.

    • Bill 2
      07/10/2011 at 9:50 PM

      I think you’re right, AnnaZed, about Sarah Morgan phoning her friend in Denver. I wonder if she stayed in DC or eventually fled the city in an attempt to forget her involvement in this murder.

  45. Bea
    07/10/2011 at 8:27 PM

    Re: Alt-dot-com prescreening; info provided by AnnaZed

    Thanks, AZ. If adding a third was to be a “big event” for Joe to prevent Dylan from continuing to distance himself from Joe, I think it’s possible he did “check out” the third in advance for the reasons you state, i.e. he needed to pass muster.

    Joe wanted badly to keep Dylan – it would simply not do to have an unattractive man show up for the “big event.”

    One possibility is that Joe was honest with Victor on the phone about the “big event” and Victor blew a gasket and Joe said ‘next time don’t come home early.’

    Was it possible the third was there before Robert arrived? During and after his arrival? Or did Joe cancel (and possibly did he proceed anyway with the dinner mints he may have procured)?

    I’ve long assumed (as have many) that Victor was pissed that night – maybe Joe was pissed too. Was Dylan pissed? For all the talk of exercise, it doesn’t seem like anyone had that much time to do so (or in Dylan’s case, room to do so). In rereading Victor’s transcript I felt like I had water in my ears as there was SO much talk about everyone showering, throwing water on the steaks, Joe forgetting his plumbing experiment, Victor watering plants on three floors. Long ago CD suggested that the talk of showering was simply TOO MUCH WATER talk to have no meaning (and we learned at trial that Robert’s night shower would have been out of the ordinary – I know the prosecution tried to establish that he’d actually NOT showered but I just don’t recall how far they’d taken that evidence-wise).

    I’ll hazard a guess that if the trick was there it’s very likely he showered – practically a requirement!

    Sorry if anyone finds the levity distasteful – the transcripts are so over the top with H2O.

    • AnnaZed
      07/10/2011 at 9:02 PM

      I have thought since first reading of the transcripts that the many, many (too many references) to water were attempts to explain away the presence of water, particularly in the bathroom and on the deck. Someone observed, and I agree that no one uses a hose to put out a grill fire and if they had done the deck would have been awash with ash and grit, which it wasn’t. Pity that the cops didn’t question this.

    • Clio
      07/11/2011 at 9:28 PM

      Was Dylan “pissed” that evening? Well, if he was trying to leave Joe and if Joe was trying too hard to get a third, then maybe yes. Maybe, he wanted to be with Scott alone, and perhaps he was tired of the bickering between Joe and Victor. Maybe, he resented having to answer the door for Robert, who had ruined any playtime with anyone with his visit — long-planned yet not revealed to Victor. And then, Mr. Ward may have dreaded what Culuket had in store for the unsuspecting Robert, but he possibly could not stop Joe because of his financial and emotional dependence upon the lavender Mr. Hyde. Hmmm.

  46. susan
    07/10/2011 at 11:34 PM

    Here’s a really interesting WMRW page I’d not seen before. It will prob. be new for some and bring back memories for other. It’s about the long (was it really that long? Or a writing error?) ride to the VCB with JP in the back. Interesting topics discussed, in an interesting order:

    • susan
      07/10/2011 at 11:50 PM

      In Folts notes he writes that JP said he was a “defense attorney.” Odd of him to say that. Was that to earn points or to forewarn them that they were not dealing with just anyone? He repped his brother’s abuser in that one case (L. Hinton must’ve had a house key as well) and did pro bono defense work it seems, but his f/t profession was as an intel. prop. attorney.

      Re the mention of B. Grimm, wonder what that was about. Maybe he was feeling him out. Or was that an indirect recommendation as well know BG was his atty in the crim. case.

      • Bea
        07/11/2011 at 1:18 AM

        My guess it was a combination of wanting to sound like a player. But if the cop got it right, that Joe claimed to be a white collar criminal defense attorney, that’s more than “a stretch.” Odd that he’d lie in such a stupid way.

  47. susan
    07/12/2011 at 8:58 PM

    Off this topic but on a related one, JP said in his testimony that S. Morgan never came upstairs because of her weight, etc., but that is not true. Another false statement. She indeed did go upstairs. She stayed in D. Ward’s backroom while the basement was under some construction. She said so in her own words at the criminal trial against the three in June 2010.

    Tara Ragone also testified at that trial about her email correspondence with Joe Price, their conversations, etc. It’s funny that he used the phrase “crime scene.” It strikes me as a distancing phrase to refer to allegedly coming across his dying friend.

    Re S. Morgan and S. Hixson being possible guests of the troup’ in Florida, during the trial both said that they were incommunicado with the self-described “family.” Of course, now that that trial is over maybe not so. But it seems they had more connections here. Jefferson Wilson, M. Bright, C.McGee, Lisa Desjardin, colleagues, former clients, former college mates, Quality VA people and just other local people. Who knows who continues to stay in touch with them. Overnight guests is a really good question. We know Aunt M and S. Morgan had no “trouple” with them.

    • Clio
      07/12/2011 at 10:21 PM

      Well, Tara did say one could not be “a Switzerland” in this saga, and it’s unfortunate that some have no doubt reconstructed their ties with the case’s equivalent of the Axis powers.

      One can only hope that the trouple have learned to be better hosts; burnt steaks and tap water have never been fashionable.

      No further scandals have shaken the Triple Entente since the “burglary”, although Joe and Dyl’s reported “mean-girl” antics toward Sean the intern may have come close: have they finally stopped pressing the “self-destruct” button?

      • susan
        07/12/2011 at 10:39 PM

        Wonder if any pics were taken at their 4th celebration and if so, who took the pics with what. Somehow I think they prob. have a no-photo policy for gatherings now seeing as how this site and others have debuted them to the public at large. Then again, “Michael” Ward didn’t mind his pic. on the masseur website or JP with an Alt. profile so who knows.

      • susan
        07/16/2011 at 1:32 PM

        Re JP and Tara R, the Day 11 post on this site it reads:

        “From the second phone chat she said to him directly, perhaps prompted by the initial media stories, “If the scene was tampered with, I’d have real problems with that!”

        According to Ragone, Price’s response was, “There’s a big difference between tampering and wiping away some blood, freaking out about a crime scene.”

        Two things stand out here:

        1. JP makes a big deal during his VCB interviews with police that they have nothing to hide thus they are cooperating. But, he withholds information about “wiping away some blood” at the time. The only thing he acknowledges to police is the bit of blood on his pinky. What’s he still withholding? Why didn’t he share with police? No one can answer, No One Can Answer but Joseph Price, or a first-line contact who he has shared more information with.

        2. His language stands out–“Freaking out about a crime scene.” You come across someone with a knife sticking out of him in your house after you allegedly hear high-pitched screams/low-pitched grunts (choose one) and you are freaking out about your friend lying there with a knife or a “crime scene”? The latter seems like a distancing phrase. Even if others see it differently the conclusion is the same. He didn’t disclose his actions to police.

        • Bea
          07/16/2011 at 1:43 PM

          Agree, Susan. Joe parceled out information as needed (i.e. to “counter” against Tara’s declaration re being upset if tampered with) without any real sense of right and wrong. He’s in pure defensive mode like a philanderer caught in a tryst (which he has lots of experience with) – just tosses out comments to see what works. He’s smart, his friends WANT to believe him, so it likely was his go-to default mode when caught in whatever lie.

          • 07/16/2011 at 4:18 PM

            We must stamp out philanderers!

            It’s 2011 folks. While Queen Victoria might not approve, more and more people now have developed a bit more “live and let live” approach toward philandering between consenting adults. Maybe because more people live in glass houses now then during Queen Vicky’s period. Less people are so eager to throw stones.

            If philandering was evidence of crime, we would probably have at least 33% of our population in jail.

            What Victorian statements or ideas we sometimes get on here!

            • Clio
              07/16/2011 at 7:09 PM

              Bruce, no one would ever known or cared about Mr. Price’s possible sexual addiction, except for the events of 08/02 of which Mr. Price has probably still not given everyone a full accounting. Accordingly, the media microscope — especially here — will continue to analyze his life and works in their full historical context. It has nothing to do with Victorian values, although I’m sure that the original Victorian owners of 1509 Swann would have disagreed with Lynn’s “cold comfort.”

              • Bea
                07/16/2011 at 8:22 PM

                For the record, I could care less about philanderers, save some empathy for those they deceive (if they deceive). And it was hardly the point I raised – another deflection, I’m afraid.

                • 07/18/2011 at 10:51 AM

                  Speaking of a lack of humor…..

                  • Bill 2
                    07/18/2011 at 11:44 AM

                    Not many people find humor in the fact that three people may be getting away with murder, Ms. Bitch.

              • 07/18/2011 at 11:05 AM

                Well, I guess, Clio, that all is fair in war and also doing history, right?

                As I said before, bad historians make bad history, as you know. I want to know if someone has a Victorian point of view, especially if they are discussing sex.

                My comment was directed to the apparently Victorian point of view of the poster, and the lesson of the horrors of philandering as reflected in her post.

                If I am to evaluate what someone says about “history,” is it not fair for me to parce out the general point of view of the poster?

                Has everyone lost their sense of humor on here?

                Wine coolers for all, several please for Bea and Dear Clio!

                • Bill 2
                  07/18/2011 at 11:51 AM

                  Not many of us are prepeared to celebrate the death of Robert Wone, Ms. Bitch.

                  Perhaps you’ll do better to take your wine coolers to Miami Shores where you can all drink a toast to the way the two flunkies have followed the Price script from the 911 phone call through the move to South Florida.

                  • 07/18/2011 at 12:54 PM

                    Your “moral certainty” is both illuminating and quite sad.

                    I don’t think that anyone in the world wants to “celebrate the death of Robert Wone.” That you do is very telling and, again, very sad.

                    Please go to church and whisper your silliness of moral certitude, and please leave posting to the grown ups, who can control their anger issues.

                    -Ms. Bitch

    • Craig
      07/13/2011 at 12:04 PM

      Sarah Morgan was definitely not part of the DC delegation that traveled to Miami Shores for the holiday.

      • steve
        07/13/2011 at 12:49 PM

        Craig, Can you confirm the source(s)?

        • AnnaZed
          07/13/2011 at 1:08 PM

          Sure Denton aka steve, I’m sure that Craig will share all of his information sources with you right away. Yes, I’m sure that he will get right on that.

        • Doug
          07/13/2011 at 5:48 PM

          Honestly, we’ve revealed sources when we can and have protected them when we can’t. This isn’t a game; when we can report something we will. Get it? Done.

  48. Doug
    07/13/2011 at 5:57 PM

    Last comment left as Craig but was mine. Short answer: stop asking for sources. We’ll tell as soon as we can. OK?

Comments are closed.