Cleveland Rocks

The Cat is Back

Thanks again to everyone’s favorite Cat (from Cleveland) – a longtime and trusted attorney voice here, she sends us this:

“I have no knowledge of anything having to do with this case that is not in the public domain. I’ve never met any of the people involved. I’ve never been to Swann Street. I haven’t even viewed the Florida residence on Google Maps. After reading everything there is to read for more than a year, I still don’t know who murdered Robert Wone. The following is purely hypothetical:
 
Three guys live together in a love triangle (I’ll call them Tom, Dick and Harry). Tom portrays himself as a strong, confident power broker.  Dick is unable to conceive of his life without Tom. Harry is a functioning sociopath whose behavior cannot be rationally explained.
 
Tom invites an old friend to spend the night. Harry decides to kill him. Why? Because Harry has long resented the friend? Because Harry has come to hate Tom? Because the friend once criticized his cooking?

Because Tom has pushed Harry to become his dominatrix while constantly criticizing him as not violent enough, and he wants to show Tom how violent he can be (perhaps he is still angry that, in an act of incredible condescension, Tom once bought him a book called “S&M for Dummies”)? To see what it feels like? For another reason?  Because Harry is a sociopath whose behavior cannot be rationally explained.

 
“The guest arrives, and Harry gives him a drink containing an uncommon sedative of some type. The guest retires to the guest room. In his drugged state, he takes off his clothes and drops them on the floor in a pile, even though it is his habit to fold them neatly.  He slips his mouthguard in, lays down on top of the covers and begins to type a short email to his wife on his blackberry. He passes out before he can hit “send” and his arm goes limp, causing the blackberry to fall to the floor.
 
Harry then enters the room. Testing the strength of the sedative, perhaps he pokes the guest with a pin in various places to see if he wakes up. Perhaps he injects him with something. Perhaps he sexually assaults him. Perhaps that is his motive. He then takes a knife and stabs the guest in the heart three times. The knife goes in and comes out slowly and the guest bleeds out into the chest cavity. There is no blood splatter, just a small pool of blood on the guest’s chest, overflowing to his back.
 
Tom enters the room and either knows or believes that Harry has just killed his friend. Whatever his faults, Tom is protective of those he loves. He orders Harry to go downstairs to unlock the back door, then go take a shower. Tom grabs a towel and wipes the knife clean, intending to remove Harry’s prints. Realizing that the knife should have some blood on it, he uses the towel to dab some blood on the blade from his friend’s chest.
 
As Tom stands over the body, Dick comes downstairs, maybe because Harry opened the back door and Dick heard the door chime?  Seeing the body, Dick screams. Tom tells Dick that an intruder must have entered the home and stabbed the guest.

He orders Dick to go upstairs to call the police. Not knowing whether the guest was aware of the identity of his attacker, Tom makes no effort to assist his guest. 
 
When the police arrive, Tom does most of the talking. He talks about the spider and the unlocked back door and the made-up intruder, and he says he was upstairs with Dick when they heard noise and came down together.

Dick, secretly fearful that Tom is the killer, tries to convince himself that Tom is telling the truth. He tells himself that he is doing a heroic act that will bind Tom to him forever, and agrees that they came down the stairs together. Later, under questioning, he repeats exactly what Tom told the police at the house.
 
The local keystone cops then botch the investigation badly.  They use the wrong chemical on the surfaces in the home, resulting in false positives for blood splatter all over the house and leading them to initially believe the body was moved and a lengthy clean-up was involved. ”
 

164 comments for “Cleveland Rocks

  1. Clio
    07/22/2011 at 2:43 PM

    The fourth paragraph contains the best description of what happened with the Blackberry: bravo, Cat! You’ve redeemed yourself from the world of the “paid hit” — come to Jesus!

    In your scenario above, Tom’s “loyalty” may stem from a stolen or sterile childhood that featured few friends, or from pre-Dick experiences in which he was the cuckhold, not Dick.

    An aside: For the trials, one must start banging one’s pots and pans or wearing antler horns (a pre-modern show of disapproval for the cuckhold) at Dick’s entrance on stage.

    How good a cook is Harry if Dick was left to burn those steaks? At any rate, why would Harry attack the guest when he could have also chosen the neighbor or the neighbor’s trick?

  2. Linda S.
    07/22/2011 at 3:27 PM

    Two thirds of his body’s blood was missing. Where did it go? It was not on his clothes, the bed, the floor or the towel. I think it was washed down the drain on the patio with a garden hose, the body redressed and placed on the bed with his arms in the folded position.

    • Cat from Cleveland
      07/22/2011 at 10:00 PM

      Ah – the many unknowns. We don’t know how much blood drained from the chest tube at the hospital. Why wasn’t blood found in the drain?

      • susan
        07/22/2011 at 10:14 PM

        Cat, I believe reports indicated traces of blood around the lip of the patio drain and traces in the dryer’s lint trap. But I don’t believe it was tied to anyone by DNA testing.

        • Alternateguy
          07/23/2011 at 8:36 AM

          Susan,

          As I recall, a trained dog had alerted to both of those areas but no actual traces of blood were found. I would imagine that careful follow-up inspections of both the entire drain and dryer vent duct were subsequently made. If so, apparently it was to no avail.

          I tell you this without doing the necessary homework, so I hope that I’m right. Either way, I risk getting cursed at.

          Maybe some of us should do our homework and find out just how much credence one should put on such a dog’s alert. How common are false alerts? Was the chance of actual recent blood in the drain 10%. 40%, or 75%? I have no idea.

          • susan
            07/23/2011 at 1:18 PM

            Craig, you were right that Alt should do his damn homework. Alt’s alleged offense at that message and threat to leave this site lasted all of one min…a few seconds, it seems.

            Readers, the reported facts are these: Cadaver Dogs FOUND TRACES OF BLOOD on a dryer lint trap and around the lip of a drai in the 1509 Swann residence on the night of Robert Wone’s murder.

            • susan
              07/23/2011 at 1:23 PM

              My original post above:

              Cat, I believe reports indicated traces of blood around the lip of the patio drain and traces in the dryer’s lint trap. But I don’t believe it was tied to anyone by DNA testing.

              This was posted in response to Cat’s question about where Robert Wone’s blood might have gone and “Why wasn’t blood found in the drain.”

              • susan
                07/23/2011 at 8:07 PM

                As I noted, again and again, it was reported as I stated. See above.

      • Alternateguy
        07/23/2011 at 11:01 PM

        Cat,

        Busy, trying to do my homework. What is your information source?

        In your story you say, “The guest arrives, and Harry gives him a drink containing an uncommon sedative of some type. The guest retires to the guest room. In his drugged state, he takes off his clothes and drops them on the floor in a pile, even though it is his habit to fold them neatly.”

        In the
        Affidavit in Support of an Arrest warrant for Dylan Ward, Under OTHER EVIDENCE FROM THE SCENE on page 11,

        it says, “Mr. Wone was clad in a gray “William and Mary” t-shirt, gym shorts and underwear, with his other clothing folded neatly and placed on a table located at the foot of the bed.”

        Just trying to understand what’s going on here.

        • Cat from Cleveland
          07/24/2011 at 11:35 AM

          Alt,

          Thank you for the information. There was some testimony at the trial about something being left in a manner uncharacteristic of Robert – a towel that was not folded?

          As explained, my story about Tom, Dick and Harry is just a hypothetical series of events about a hypothetical murder. I did not “research” any facts before writing it – it is purely fiction and I make no representation to the contrary.

          With regard to the very real murder of Robert Wone, some have suggested that there is no way Victor would lie to protect Dylan, and that none of the occupants of the home on Swann street would have called the police if any of them were involved. I can envision a scenario where Victor would lie to protect Joe, Joe would protect Dylan, and Victor would not know whether Joe, Dylan, or someone else was the murderer. In that scenario, the police would certainly be called, if only to keep Victor in the dark and because he would not intentionally cover up a murder when he knew with certainty who committed it.

          There have been questions about the lack of defensive wounds, the needle marks, the unsent emails, how a clean up could have occurred in such a short span of time, and whether there was enough time to fabricate a story. Personally, I have not seen evidence proving a clean up occurred. I see evidence that is inconclusive. That said, we know the Robert was murdered by being stabbed three times in the heart at the home on Swann Street.

          I think the whole issue about the clean up is a red herring. If we knew there was in fact an elaborabe clean up, we would know that one of the trouple was involved. If we knew there was not a clean up, we would not know whether one of the trouple was involved, or if an “unknown intruder” committed the crime.

          It is my personal opinion that the puzzle pieces (the facts we know) can be put together in a way to answer these questions, while admittedly leaving holes in the final picture. As I’ve said, I see two ways the pieces fit together. An unknown person entered the home, went to Robert’s room, killed him, and then left, without stealing anything or otherwise leaving a trace of his indentity. I find that option unbelievable. Or, one or more of the trouple committed the murder, and all three were involved, in varying degrees, in the cover up. I find this option slightly less unbelievable, bearing in mind that the facts we know to be true are, themselves, entirely unbelievable.

          • susan
            07/24/2011 at 3:39 PM

            Cat,

            I agree with your impression of VZ. From his cards to Joe P. and allowing and accepting his partner’s lover to LIVE with them, hte seems like someone who will do almost anything to keep Joe Price, esp. since the two share kids–who are brothers–with each other. As Victor wrote about JP “You mean the world to me. I can’t imagine my life without you.” He’d even “keep him in a shoebox with grass clippings.”

            • Clio
              07/24/2011 at 4:16 PM

              But, Susan, when will this toad ever turn into a prince, and not into Machiavelli’s The Prince? Victor hasn’t changed his husband’s notorious appetites, although an unkind person could say that the modest Miami Shores residence is “a shoebox with grass clippings.”

  3. Hoya Loya
    07/22/2011 at 7:35 PM

    Nice hypothetical Cat.

    I would note that the guest composed, but did not send, a second email, regarding lunch plans with a friend. Why did he not send either one?

    On the other hand we could add that “Harry” may have placed a pillow over the guest’s face before to keep him quiet while stabbing him, necessitating that he go around to the head of the bed, the pillow in his left hand and the knife in his right, resulting in curious “upside down” stab wounds.

    We might also add that Tom and Harry’s judgment may have been impaired by illegal substances. And that “Harry” was originally put in touch with “Tom” and “Dick” by a mutual friend, now out of the country, who may or may not share certain interests with “Harry” and that “Harry” and his background may not have been fully vetted by “Tom” and “Dick” due to the trusted referral source and possibly “Tom’s” immediate interest in “Harry.”

    • Cat from Cleveland
      07/22/2011 at 10:05 PM

      I’ve never used a blackberry, so thes questions are for those who do: are there issues with coverage and/or wifi? After sending an email, are you able to immediately read or draft emails, or is there a momentary delay (such that you might want to complete what you are doing before hitting send)? Is there any other reason a user may type several emails, then send all of them at once?

      • Bea
        07/25/2011 at 5:52 PM

        Hey Cat, for some reason my posts keep self-deleting. Maybe it’s a sign I should get a life. . .

        But to answer your question, I don’t know of any reason why one would wait to “send” emails via Blackberry. I’m forced to “save as draft” an existing message to start a new one, so that is awfully time consuming compared to hitting “send.” I thought perhaps he didn’t want to wake anyone, but that’s usually not the case with emails, only texts. And why would one save for the next morning an email which says “good night”? Other than it being done for time-stamp reasons by the bad actor, I can only think that coverage was an issue, but then he’d have “sent” them only to get the message that it/they didn’t go through.

        I think the emails show something shady going on but we’ll never know (unless someone explains what happened).

        • Cat from Cleveland
          07/26/2011 at 1:21 PM

          Thanks, Bea. One unsent email makes sense. Two is more confusing. If an elaborate clean up was in the works, its hard to imagine anyone devoting that much time to the blackberry. Of course, its hard to imagine so much that is established as fact in this case. Perhaps, during our lifetime, this case will show up in one of the Discovery series, complete with a prison interview (or two?) of the killer(s).

          • alternateguy
            07/26/2011 at 2:19 PM

            Cat,

            Regarding the unsent emails;

            It’s always seems to me that the police investigators had to know that the unsent emails, the time stamp thereon and the forensics analysis of the messages as well as of the device involved were essential to the case!

            And so what happened? Not even an actual copy saved of the messages, much less an analysis of the Blackberry.

            As, Bea says, something shady going on. I’d say, yes, any way you look at it.

          • Bea
            07/26/2011 at 2:28 PM

            Cat and Alt, I do wish that the Blackberry had been saved – or at least dusted for prints – because it’s quite strange that it had (assuming the detective got it correct) two unsent emails with a time stamp of 11:03 and 11:05 (if memory serves). Again, if they had been texts, perhaps Robert did re-think and not “send” for fear of waking the recipients but not so much with email. If I do a “too late” text/email I’ll send it to myself as a reminder to send in the morning.

            And I do hope Cat is right that one day all this gets explained. My guess would have to be that the killer (be it defendant or otherwise) was setting up a bit of “story” but was waiting to send then later nixed the idea or forgot. This is something Joe and Victor would likely know about in 2006 – any professional, really – but I’m not sure about the rank and file since 2006 was early-ish in the smartphone era.

            • Cat from Cleveland
              07/26/2011 at 3:21 PM

              Bea,

              Interesting idea that the killer drafted the emails and was waiting to hit send. He (she? they?) may have been interrupted or may have forgotten.

              To the extent that I believe anything to be true, I tend to believe that there was no big bloody mess cleaned up. The timeline is just too tight. But I accept that the killer may have believed he (she? they?) would have had many more hours alone with the body.

              • Bea
                07/27/2011 at 5:09 PM

                I agree that the killer(s) may have had a change in plans – my personal theory (opinion, not facts) is that the plan WAS that the body would be moved and the story would be that Robert left early in the morning or sometime during the night but that Victor’s scream changed that – Joe noted that the walls were thin enough to hear a baby crying. One couldn’t have the neighbors testifying about a scream that was by most accounts blood-curdling.

                I think 10 minutes gave the killer(s) enough time to set the stage for the murder (and that most blood went down the drain and the “lip” was cleaned).

                I think Robert was stabbed in the shower and then “placed” on the bed. I suspect that the Blackberry was originally part of the scheme to time-stamp the evening but the killer(s) paused to consider whether it made sense to send them later.

                • alternateguy
                  07/27/2011 at 5:31 PM

                  Bea,

                  If they had sent them, wouldn’t they have been received with the actual time on them?

                  So then what happened to the laundry? Washing and drying would take, what? 20-30 minutes? And, I know the keystone cops weren’t too swift, but wouldn’t they have noticed a load of warm clothes or a still warm dryer? And if they had done the laundry way ahead, poor Robert must have been attacked from the moment he walked in the door. And what? They didn’t think that Victor would notice/care/ react? Every speculation here seems to lead to a problem. Or two. Or –? Oh, heck.

                  • Bea
                    07/27/2011 at 7:06 PM

                    The emails were not sent. That’s why it’s very strange.

                    I don’t think they did laundry after the murder. I think they sent off the worst of it with the cameras and drugs. There may have been a load of laundry done earlier which had an assortment of “stuff” including blood on it, which triggered the dog to sniff it, and maybe something was hosed off in the patio area to trigger the dog’s nose, but my guess is that Robert was killed around 11 and there was some clean up and some red herrings planted BEFORE Victor got the nerve up to go downstairs and scream. The 10 minutes begins at that point, not the point of murder. Too, this is in keeping with the EMT thinking that Robert had been dead for some time. **ONLY MY OPINION**

    • 07/23/2011 at 5:16 PM

      Hi Hoya Loya:

      Lot of “may haves” (4) in your post. It was my understanding that the trouple had known each other for at least a couple years before the murder, or at least they knew “Harry” quite well.

      Seems like your “may have” about the vetting would be more relevant if “Harry” was just a new roommate, not having been in the family for a much longer period.

      Just my opinion.

  4. Bill Orange
    07/23/2011 at 4:12 AM

    “Tom invites an old friend to spend the night. Harry decides to kill him. Why? Because Harry has long resented the friend? Because Harry has come to hate Tom? Because the friend once criticized his cooking?”

    One possible reason Harry could’ve resented the friend is that the friend, unlike Dick or Harry, was also a lawyer and was probably treated, at least to his face, with a good deal of respect. Harry, on the other hand, was basically a live-in sex slave and appears to have treated as such. Tom’s principal concern about their relationship was that Harry would stop being his live-in sex slave. I can see how that would cause some resentment.

    Hoya, could you please remind me about how Tom and Harry met? I remember the “mutual friend”, but I don’t remember more than that. I think it’s entirely possible that, as you suggest, someone got in over their head with Harry, realized that he’d gotten more than he’d bargained for (either figuratively or literally), and fobbed him off on someone else.

    • 07/23/2011 at 5:27 PM

      Hi Bill O:

      I see nothing indicating that “Harry” was treated as “a live-in sex slave” as you say. Upon what do you make that assumption? I see nothing to indicate that. Am I blind?

      It seems like your whole post is based upon this “live-in sex slave” premise. Please expand on this so that we can understand it better….I would assume that if it was that bad for “Harry” that he would simply move out, before killing someone. Is my assumption strange?

      If “Harry” killed someone because they criticized his cooking (no evidence of any criticism of food in this case, by the way), I would suspect that there would be a trail of dead bodies behind “Harry” and that neither of the remaining trouple could have lived to their ripe old ages with “Harry” if his killing was sparked by something so trivial.

      If the murder by “Harry” was caused by such trivial inconveniences or slights as you post, I DO think that we would expect quite a criminal record on “Harry.”

      Just sayiing…..

      • Bill Orange
        07/23/2011 at 11:06 PM

        He’s the odd man out in a three-way relationship, he’s got a trunk full of S&M gear and how-to manuals in his room, he clearly had a sexual relationship with Joe, and Joe was advertising for additional partners on the Internet. That sounds like a live-in sex slave to me. How would you describe it?

        The comment about the cooking was a direct quote from Cat, not me, so I’ll leave it to her to respond to it.

        Your point about Harry moving out is entirely valid. Harry did appear to be losing interest in Tom, and Tom appeared to be going to great lengths to keep Harry’s interest. Perhaps Harry WAS planning on moving out. Perhaps the unexpected arrival of Dick that evening, coupled with the stayover by Robert Wone, led Harry to realize that he was the least respected person in the house that night, and he just snapped.

        • Clio
          07/24/2011 at 10:16 AM

          Harry was ill-suited tempermentally, perhaps, for his assigned role as service top, and he may realized that he was just a servant, if not a slave, of the boys upstairs. Who had to play butler (to open the door for Robert) while Joe mended fences with his wife?

          Yet, when most confirmed bachelors snap, they do so with a sharp tongue rather than with a sharp knife. Did Harry’s saturnine nature preclude him venting his frustrations before he exploded?

        • 07/25/2011 at 1:42 PM

          Hi Bill O:

          “Live-in sex slave” is one of those phrases used by people who want to dehumanize a person, diminish them rather than dealing with them as a human being. It makes it easier to treat them badly if they are not treated or named as humans. Watch people and the media use this trick again and again.

          “Live-in sex slave” brings to my mind someone kept in chains and only let out to have sex. I certainly don’t think that Harry considered himself as such. There is nothing that really indicates that, in my opinion.

          Does not look like his life was just black and white, the world your post suggests to me (my opinon, only), but may have had some color to it.

          I find that generally people can by multi-dimensional. Trying to diminish them or make them less than human by giving them an undeserved name, won’t help us, in my opinion, find out WMRW.

          • Bill Orange
            07/25/2011 at 4:05 PM

            Perhaps Clio can weigh in on the history of slavery, but I’d guess that slaves were not kept in chains most of the time. Nevertheless, I suppose “live-in whore” is probably a more accurate description, but that seemed a bit too dehumanizing for my taste, as you note above.

            I fully acknowledge that live-in whores can be multidimensional human beings with other interests, such as restraints and the usage of fine cutlery, but they’re STILL live-in whores.

            • 07/25/2011 at 4:37 PM

              Well, Bill O, I think you may have come up with it. “Live-in whore” does has a certain charm to it.

              Certainly no bias, prejudice or Victorian disapproval shown by using that folksy phrase.

              Good show, sir. I said “Good Show!, Sir.” Good day.

            • susan
              07/26/2011 at 9:25 AM

              I don’t think it’s accurate or fair to call anyone a “live-in whore” or “whore” in reference to any character inmCat’s hypothetical or in reference to any of the trouple. If that was meant to refer to DW, he did have a paying job, even if his bf secured it and it doesn’t seem accurate. It’s just an ugly phrase in any case.

              • Bill Orange
                07/26/2011 at 11:32 AM

                “Trophy wife”? “Trophy mistress”? “Boy toy”? He was clearly in a sexual relationship with Joe, and I sincerely doubt that he was paying fair-market rent for his room, nor do I think he was paying for all the glitzy vacations.

                • susan
                  07/26/2011 at 8:33 PM

                  Bill O. Any of those descriptions might fit. I’d change “mistress” to “mister-ess,” but as for paying fully for rent and the rest that could describe any relationship. As to the “savormassage” thing and the alluded to extra bennies, maybe “sex worker” would be the term.

                  • Clio
                    07/27/2011 at 5:48 AM

                    Courtesan? Concubine? Friend with benefits? Saucy sidekick? Sex worker?
                    Call girl? Dyl eludes a simple definition.

                    • Bill Orange
                      07/27/2011 at 3:29 PM

                      As the muse of history, you have the final say on this, but on further reflection, I think the best description would be “Queen’s consort”.

                    • Clio
                      07/27/2011 at 11:34 PM

                      Well, Bill O.,Dyl is no Prince Albert (Queen Vicki’s consort), and he probably does not even
                      have a Prince Albert.

                • 07/27/2011 at 10:29 AM

                  Please, feel free to enjoy your sexual fantasies.

                  • AnnaZed
                    07/27/2011 at 12:18 PM

                    Those are not fantasies, Dylan Ward is a prostitute and it is a matter of public record that he has professionally or socially been each of these things at one time or another.

                    Clio just seems to be speculating about which role he is playing right now in the lives of the trouple. It’s actually a legitimate question, one that I sometimes think that if Victor had really asked of himself and really acted upon his conclusions in (say) June of 2006 none of this would have happened.

                  • 07/27/2011 at 2:15 PM

                    The long list of “names” and “descriptions” as to Lil Dyl, above, in several posts just above, seems like people are “getting off” on the sexual lives of the defendants.

                    Just makes me wonder a bit about the posters.

                    Just me, and just my opinion, but it seems to me that some people are enjoying the descriptions a little too much.

                    My point, and I do have one, is that these labels get us no where close to determining WMRW. They are a distraction only.

                    They may serve to somehow help you resolve some of your own issues to protest too much, but they don’t really help anyone get any where.

                    But, by all means, please continue.

                    From a psychological standpoint, I find it fascinating.

                    • AnnaZed
                      07/27/2011 at 2:34 PM

                      I don’t get this comment. Are you suggesting that posters her are somehow sexually gratifying themselves by bringing the facts of Dylan Ward’s unconventional life as a sex worker into the conversation, a conversation about a murder that has a sexual component? Leaving aside that as a stated opinion that assertion is in and of itself offensive, as a debating maneuver it would fall under two major heading of classic intellectually-dishonest debate tactics (1.) changing the subject and (2.) questioning the motives of the opponent.

                    • Bill 2
                      07/27/2011 at 3:02 PM

                      Your “psychological standpoint” Bruce, seems to be that of a total crackpot.

                      In describing the work of one of the trio, if it quacks like a duck…

                      If we describe you as a lawyer, attorney, student of law, I guess you think we’re getting off on it?

                  • alternateguy
                    07/27/2011 at 3:03 PM

                    AnnaZed,

                    I sure don’t know the actual statistics involved, but, all of my life I seem to remember hearing about violent crimes being done TO prostitutes, not about violent crimes done BY them.

                    To me, calling someone a whore or prostitute may be an attempt to dehumanize them, but it sort of declassifies them of being in a category of those likely to commit violence in my opinion.

                    Just sayin’.

                    • Bill 2
                      07/27/2011 at 3:30 PM

                      That’s really brilliant. Whores don’t kill people so Harry must be innocent! You must have aced that psychology class, fer sure!

        • 07/25/2011 at 1:45 PM

          Bill O:

          Your theory in your last paragraph, about Harry snapping, makes as much sense to me as any theory, including the intruder theory.

          • Bill Orange
            07/25/2011 at 4:06 PM

            As I’ve said before, there are simply NO plausible theories for what happened that night. At best, we’re going to be able to come of with the least implausible ones. Are we’re probably still going to be wrong.

      • Clio
        07/24/2011 at 4:31 PM

        Do we know of any ties between Harry and violent crimes in the many places in which he’s left his hat since leaving Tacoma for Georgetown so many years ago? Has the MPD even checked? I’m not holding my breath anymore!

        • 07/27/2011 at 2:42 PM

          There is not one bit of evidence of violence in Harry’s past that I have heard. I know of no evidence of violence in Tom’s life, except as a victim in regards to his brother’s beatings (and who even knows if that is true!), and as for Dick, I believe the same is true: not a whiff of evidence of violence in his past. These are not young kids. If they were violent in any way, there would be a record. You can bet that the bumbling DC police, the prosecutors for the criminal case and the civil attorneys for Mrs. Wone have done thorough researches to try to find such a history on any of them.

          Not even a fistfight, loud argument or drunken episode, as far as we know as to violence on the part of the Swann 3, and I think we would by now through the criminal court records and testimony.

          Of course, as I and others have pointed out on this blog, you do not need a history of violence to do a crime or be found liable for one.

          But if the jurors include any thinkers, they might be bothered by this: I hope I am a thinker, and it bothers me. If there is compelling evidence otherwise, it would not keep me from determining their responsibility, but if the other evidence is circumstancial and conflicting, it might cause me to consider it more. All you need is one juror who is troubled by it.

          If I am wrong about any issues of previous violence by any of the defendants, please someone point it out to me.

          Clio, Dear, I cannot imagine that between the MPD, the prosecutors and the big shot lawyers for Mrs. Wone, that someone hasn’t checked very carefully for any history of violence, both by examining all records and talking to a lot of acquantances. Of course, in this crazy case, anything is possible I guess.

          • 07/27/2011 at 3:18 PM

            To those responding to my post above re violence and sex labels:

            Please respond to my question:

            “If I am wrong about any issues of previous violence by any of the defendants, please someone point it out to me.”

            This is a relevant inquiry, and something that the jurors will be interested in, no matter what the response.

            To act as if it is insignificant or useless or “crackpot,” to me at least, is foolish.

            And yes, I’m sorry. It is just my opinion, and probably worthless, but the seeming excitement by those posters who have so jumped on the “let’s have fun with sex labels for Harry” bandwagon? Yes, as offensive as it may be, it feels to me that something is going on more than what the posts themselves may say. A certain propulsion to denigrate others for their sexual habits, maybe? I way of looking down on others and dehumanizing them. Just makes me wonder who may be living in glass houses.

            As I have pointed out on here before, I believe in fairness to all involved in this case. You can have whatever opinion you have, and whatever biases or prejudices you have can be displayed. But don’t be surprised if someone takes exception to it.

            Any psychologists on here that might be able to explain why some seem so excitedly desperate to apply these sexual labels in this fashion?

            • Bill Orange
              07/27/2011 at 3:40 PM

              “If I am wrong about any issues of previous violence by any of the defendants, please someone point it out to me.”

              You are absolutely, 100%, completely, and totally WRONG about issues of previous violence by any of the defendants.

              Happy now?

              There is overwhelming evidence that both Joe and Dylan were involved in a BDSM relationship. There was a porta-dungeon in Dylan’s room. There were BDSM photographs of Joe on his office computer. Joe was looking for additional partners online. This has been characterized by the plaintiff–correctly–as “violent sexual behavior”. You are free to argue that all of this behavior was consensual, and there is no evidence to suggest a proclivity toward NONconsensual violent behavior, but to argue that there’s no evidence of violence is just absurd, given what we already know.

              • 07/27/2011 at 4:15 PM

                Bill O:

                You answered my question and you raise some legitimate items. Thank you.

                I should have said nonconsensual violent behavior.

                I do remain a bit uncomfortable referring to bdsm between consenting adults as being truly “violence,” but you make a good point.

                We certainly do not know of anyone suffering injuries due to bdsm in Tom and Harry’s history, or any hospital visits in that regard.

                And, while I am no expert in bdsm, it is my understanding that it usually involves “safe words” and play acting, rather than harmful violence meant to truly injure someone.

                But I freely admit my ignorance in this regard.

              • susan
                07/27/2011 at 11:28 PM

                Hey Bill O. In J. Price’s Alt.com page he lists as one of his personal activities “CBT.” I had to look it up but the “T” stands for “Torture.”

                • Craig
                  07/28/2011 at 4:42 PM

                  And the C&B don’t stand for my initials. Or Covington & Burling.

            • Bill 2
              07/27/2011 at 3:46 PM

              Any psychologists on here to explain why someone views labels placed on Harry as “excitedly” and “desperate”? Would a psychologist think that those accusations of excitement and “getting off” seem to be the product of someone with some serious sexual problems or hang-ups? Could a psychologist tell us why all those sexual accusations toward others in this blog are showing up? Is it stimulating to the accuser?

              • 07/27/2011 at 4:01 PM

                Indeed, indeed.

                Interesting, we just learned today that:

                “two major heading of classic intellectually-dishonest debate tactics (1.) changing the subject and (2.) questioning the motives of the opponent”

                Certainly applies to what is going on in Washington,

                Please continue with the bashing and the sexual labels.

                I am no psychologist and don’t know exactly what it means. But it means something I’m sure.

                It continues to be fascinating.

            • alternateguy
              07/27/2011 at 5:04 PM

              Bruce,

              I suspect that what you were saying is true. The three are not known as violent people, in sense of bringing harm to anyone. There is no record of any of the three doing violent harm to anyone as far as I know.

              The sex play spoken of here, is not intended to harm anyone. Murder and rape bring harm. Consensual sex is generally thought not to, – is even thought of as loving. Or so I understand it. But then, I don’t really know much about these things, nor do I really want to, I suppose. Humans are complicated.

              • 07/27/2011 at 5:57 PM

                Indeed, Alt.

                I did a non-exhaustive 15 minute search on the internet, trying to find a correlation or distinction between the terms “violence” and “BDSM.”

                It appears to me that most definitions, and usually the first definition given, if there are multiple definitions, for “violence” requires non-consent, and actually an intent or great possibility of injury or death.

                For instance, the first definition for “violence” on Merriam-webster.com is:

                “exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse (as in warfare effecting illegal entry into a house).”

                Wikipedia (I know, I know) defines “violence” as:

                “Violence is the use of physical force to cause injury, damage or death.”

                The CDC defines “violence” as “injury inflicted by deliberate means.”

                The first definition on Oxford Dictionaries for violence is “behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage or kill someone or something…”

                A paper from the American Psychiatric Association” states:

                “Consent is the prime ingredient of SM. One difference between rape and heterosexual intercourse is
                consent. One difference between violence and SM is consent.” [www/nla-okc.com/Files/BDSM.pdf]

                Again, not exhaustive research by any means here, but there does seem to be a pattern of the research that “violence” requires intended harm or injury, and the acts being non-consensual.

                That does not really apply to BDSM.

                I realize that JP may have described, or by someone else, his activities on a website as “violent sexual behavior,” but again, what did JP or that person mean? If it was in the context of bdsm, it would appear that it would not involve actual physical harm or injury, and would involve consent by all parties, so would not be technically “violence.”

                Again, some speculation here with non-exhaustive research on the internet tubes, but it would appear that a good solid argument could be made that the bdsm engaged in by Tom, Harry and others is really not “violence,” because it is consentual, and there is no intention of inflicting real injury or real harm.

                • alternateguy
                  07/27/2011 at 6:13 PM

                  Bruce,

                  Now that’s doing your homework for real! Thanks!

                • Bill Orange
                  07/28/2011 at 1:27 AM

                  Again, I will concede that there is no evidence of NONCONSENSUAL violent behavior prior to the night in question, but the BDSM is pretty clear violence to me. Boxing is a violent sport. So is football. Fight clubs are violent. (That’s sort of the point.) All involve the intentional infliction of harm on other people. The fact that the violence is consensual usually means it’s also (but not always) legal, which is why football players don’t get arrested for assault after a tackle. But it’s still clearly violence.

                  If the defendants were all professional boxers, and you tried to tell me they had no history of violence, I would be making the exact same argument. The statement is simply absurd.

            • Clio
              08/01/2011 at 10:23 PM

              One saving grace: the trouple probably never had (and will probably never have) the natural grace and beauty of Auguste Rodin’s The Three Shades, a magnificent bronze sculpture modeled about the time of the building of 1509 Swann.

              One awful parody: A future Rembrandt may paint an updated The Return of the Prodigal Son with Dyl as subject; can anyone fathom the possibly ambivalent expressions on the elder Wards’ faces behind the scenes? Come to Jesus, indeed!

          • Clio
            07/27/2011 at 11:23 PM

            That’s comforting to know, Bruce, and it is puzzling, beyond Dyl’s reported petulance toward a WaPo reporter and his alleged disrespect shown toward the blog’s intern, that there are no other (imagined or documented) instances of bitchiness, let alone physical violence, in Mr. Ward’s life story.

            • 07/29/2011 at 10:56 AM

              Indeed, Dear Clio.

              Just saying that if Dyl suddenly erupted in a murderous rampage, one might expect some previous signs of compulsive, out of control physical behavior.

              Not necessary to have that history, but in a case where much does not make sense, it would be a very good thing to have in the plaintiff’s attorneys’ pocket, and it is at least minimally valuable to the defense, in poking holes in the plaintiff’s case and theories.

              If “petulance”, “disrespect” and “bitchiness” were signs of a murderer, I’m afraid that many of us on here might be sitting in a jail cell right now awaiting sentence.

              Just saying.

              • Craig
                07/29/2011 at 11:59 AM

                Judging by the autopsy results and the nature of Robert’s wounds, he wasn’t the victim of a ‘murderous rampage,’ but something more deliberate and methodical.

                • 07/29/2011 at 2:20 PM

                  True, Craig.

                  But a “deliberate and methodical” murder does not seem to fit these defendants and their histories, and sensical analysis, at least in my opinion.

                  Most people would not kill a person in their own house if their plan was “deliberate and methodical.”

                  There are all kinds of logistics and details one must take care of if you kill someone in your own home, especially with modern forensic evidence testing.

                  Of course, the Metro police pretty much botched that up, but I am hard pressed to truly believe that the Swann 3 could reasonably rely upon that happening [Oh, we don’t have to worry about any blood evidence or DNA, that kind of stuff, because we know that the metro police will botch all of that up in their investigation.]
                  Don’t think so.

                  I think most people on here believe that the murder and cover-up were all done in the moment like a crime of passion (during a sex or drugged out frenzy or state, making up stories on the spot to throw off the police, etc.) rather than something preplaned, deliberate and methodical.

                  It all adds to the mysteries of the case.

                  Actually, “deliberate and methodical” would seem to point to someone else as the killer, but of course we have no evidence of that…just some “wacky” Goddamn fucking theories, right?

                  Craig, what happened between the time Robert Wone entered the Swann St. house and the police arrived? Please tell us your plausible theory of the case.

                  This discrepancy between theories of a “deliberate and methodical” murder, as opposed to a crime of passion or a drug fueled murder….

                  …makes me more suspicious of those who refuse to consider all theories, particularly when no one seems to have a definitive or understandable theory of exactly what happened between the time Robert Wone entered the Swann house and the moment the police arrived.

                  Seems like after all this time, at least one plausible theory should have been made by the bloggers that are certain of the Swann 3’s guilt.

                  Let’s here it, please. Don’t be shy.

                  I would be a lot more willing to discard any other theory, other than that the defendants “did it,” if there was a plausible “story” for the events that occured during that time period.

                  But no one has suggested one that makes any sense to me.

                  Until that happens, I will try to keep an open mind, and it astounds me that so many people have closed their minds on this blog under these circumstances.

                  I will still consider that the Swann 3 are the most likely suspects, but I will keep my mind open to all theories, and will not blind myself to other possibilities. As I have said before, Monsieur Poirot, Mrs. Marple would not close their mind to any possible theory. Neither would any professional investigator who is objectively trying to find out how this happened and WMRW.

                  Sorry I don’t think like you or that I don’t think like the majority of vocal bloggers on here. Must be really frustrating to have to deal with that.

                  In this particular case, considering all its mysteries, I have no confidence that any majority held opinion is going to be the right one, just like I don’t think that the truth is going to be easy to find.

                  • Bea
                    07/29/2011 at 3:48 PM

                    Bruce, one can have a drug-fueled frenzy initial event which resulted in Robert being sexually assaulted and even possibly “believed to be” dead followed by a very deliberate act with the purpose of silencing that very damning witness evidence against him/them. What part of that is hard to understand?

                    • 07/29/2011 at 8:48 PM

                      Bea:

                      It’s not hard to understand. It may be what happened. But I certainly would not restrict my critical thinking to that theory only.

                  • Bill 2
                    07/29/2011 at 8:45 PM

                    Bruce, you seem to be aiming for a Doctorate in Red Herrings and Obfuscation. The way that you and Alt drop little things in the middle of a discussion in order to derail a thread is getting tiresome. Your claim about what “most people on here believe” is typical of your baloney and has no basis in fact. Then there’s your silly plea, asking someone to provide you with an exact timeline that you f*ckin know does not exist. Cut the bullcrap, Brucie.

                    • Bill 2
                      07/29/2011 at 8:52 PM

                      Oops! I just read down the page and discovered Craig also used “obfuscation” in describing Bruce’s typical posts here. Craig, I wasn’t trying to steal from you. It’s just nice to know we share an opinion on this guy.

              • mw
                07/29/2011 at 12:15 PM

                “If “petulance”, “disrespect”and “bitchiness” were signs of a murderer, I’m afraid that many of us on here might be sitting in a jail cell right now awaiting sentence.”

                Those of us who suspect them of murder don’t do so because of their personalities. Its more the dead body in the guest room and the lack of any other plausible explanation about how it got there.

                I know that wasn’t your initial point, but your last post sounds like we’re unfairly suspecting them because of their personalities, and that many of us would be in jail if that was enough to suspect.

                • 07/29/2011 at 2:33 PM

                  Hi mw:

                  In your post above, you say that “those of us” who suspect [the Swann 3] of murder don’t do so because of their personalities…its more the dead body in the guest room and the lack of any other plausible explanation about how it got there.”

                  By the way, I also suspect the Swann 3 of murder, as I have explained time and time again on this blog, but to which no one seems to read.

                  You refer to a lack of a plausible explanation of how the body got in the guest room other than the Swann 3 caused it.

                  If you feel that way, please give us a plausible explanation of how the Swann 3, or any of them, pulled off the murder and cover up.

                  Please tell us what happened from the time Robert Wone entered the house until the police arrived at the house.

                  What is your plausible explanation of what happened?

                  • Bill Orange
                    07/29/2011 at 6:35 PM

                    Again, there is NO plausible explanation for how someone in a high-end neighborhood ends up stabbed to death under the circumstances we’ve seen here, either by the defendants or by anyone else. We are, at this point, dealing with varying degrees of IMplausibility here. If and when the truth comes out, I’m not expecting anyone to react by saying, “Oh, that makes perfect sense to me!”

  5. Clio
    07/23/2011 at 8:24 AM

    Thanks, Editors, for the historical movie posters: can anyone imagine a young Burgess Meredith as part of a trio of suitors? The beard here, though, was no Ginger Rogers, though: would Cathy Bates or Divine (in her heyday) play Sarah? Indeed, the eventual novel coming from this case would probably come from the tenant’s point of view, given her role as the confidante to so many of “the band of Thebes” in the federal capital. One can only hope that she will give a foretaste of those reflections for the October surprise for which we all have been waiting.

    • Clio
      07/23/2011 at 9:47 AM

      And, of course, there is the poster’s provocative question: which one would you marry? The asshole, the doormat, or the maverick? Given those choices, same-sex unions may not save our Union after all, ladies!

      • 07/23/2011 at 5:31 PM

        Well, Dear Clio, someone has to “save our Union.” Looks like those in Washington feel that it is ok to gamble with my (and all of our) 401(k)(s). If it is not same-sex unions that will save us, could it be, in 60 days, a gay, lesbian or transgendered soldier?

        • Clio
          07/23/2011 at 8:42 PM

          One thing we can agree on, Mr. Cavalier by way of Illinois: if LGBT people, who are true to the “Stonewall” ideals of transparency and authenticity, were in charge in Washington, we would not be in this “decadent” mess as a country!

          In my humble opinion and probably in Spag’s private musings, the problem for the defendants in this case may be that they are not being true to those ideals of gay liberation by not being transparent or truthful and by hiding behind the Fifth, as per Jimmy Hoffa or a Mafia don. But that’s just me!

      • Bill Orange
        07/24/2011 at 10:34 AM

        I’m assuming Dick is the doormat, but which one’s the asshole, and which one’s the maverick?

        • Clio
          07/24/2011 at 11:28 AM

          Good question, Bill O. The conventional wisdom would have cast Tom as asshole and Harry as maverick. But, one could make a case for vice versa in reference to their private lives.

          • Bill Orange
            07/25/2011 at 9:09 AM

            Ah. Well, again, the body in the guest bedroom is a big turnoff for me, so I’d probably just head off to the nunnery. But Tom is way too aggressive for my tastes. Dick is way too passive-aggressive. Harry strikes me as mellow, attractive, and interesting. Unfortunately, he also strikes me as a pure sociopath, so I don’t think our marriage would last.

    • 07/23/2011 at 5:06 PM

      Hi Dear Clio:

      Considering your wild imagination on all things trouple, including the “unspeakables” you previously referred to, I think you ought to do a novel based on this murder.

      I’m afraid whatever you write would have to go under “fiction.”

      Maybe you can devote a chapter to how no one, unless they are guilty, should fear at all a bumbling police department, zealous prosecutors or “law and order” hang-them jurors. That I will read with great interest.

      • Clio
        07/23/2011 at 7:54 PM

        Bruce, dearest, Culuket barely concealed his contempt for at least a bumbling MPD in the Anacostia Dialogues, and I would guess that he talked about Glenn being not the brightest bulb in the pack behind his back (who didn’t, BTW!) And, does the District have law and order jurors in the manner of Virginia? My guess is no! So, however innocent or guilty that they may be, Mr. Price and his comrades could do us all a favor by not hiding behind the fifth.

        Truth is stranger than fiction, Bruce, and there is nothing stranger than the coincidences and contexts of this case.

        • 07/23/2011 at 8:12 PM

          Dearest Clio:

          It is Illinois not Virginia. I realize that Mr. Price et al “hiding behind the Fifth” does you no favors or anyone on this blog.

          Funny thing about the Fifth. It is personal to the defendant. Doesn’t involve you or me.

          My point is if you or a family member or loved one is ever charged or investigated for a serious crime, such as murder, I would strongly suggest you follow your attorney’s advise. Silly as that may seem.

          I realize you would not, and demand your own torture to prove you were telling the truth.

          But please, by all means, apply that to yourself only, and not your family or loved ones.

          Please look out for your family and loved ones, and don’t give them bad advise. You could easily regret it.

        • susan
          07/23/2011 at 8:32 PM

          You make some good points, Clio. And I think re defense attorneys, they are people too, and some give terrible advice–advice that should not be followed. Just Google “bad defense attorney” and related phrases and you will see (which I didn’t have to tell you since it is common sense) that no one should blindly follow anyone’s advice, especially if it looks like it will hurt them in the long run. Check out “The high cost of a bad defense” from the Mercury News about a study of many cases which were marred by bad defense, etc. The point is there is good defense advice and bad defense advice. And defense attys can be sued like anyone else. Again, that’s common sense, of course.

        • Bill Orange
          07/24/2011 at 10:40 AM

          At this point, I’m willing to forgive any contempt for the MPD, which really blew this case. There are really only two possibilities here: The defendants were involved in the death of Robert Wone, or they weren’t. If it’s the former, then I think that lousy police work is a big part of the reason that the government has been unable to “break” one of the defendants. If it’s the latter, then three innocent men have been hounded by the government for almost five years, all because the police either missed or destroyed the evidence that would’ve exonerated them.

          • Clio
            07/24/2011 at 1:51 PM

            Well, let’s assume, for argument’s sake, that it is the latter: what possible pieces of evidence — outside of the Ashley’s Reagant flub — that would have exonerated the Triple Entente, could the police have either missed or destroyed?

            In reference to your former, Bill O, lousy police work may have been Culuket’s assumption in either covering up or carrying out the crime: the MPD has never failed to disappoint!

            • Bill Orange
              07/25/2011 at 9:15 AM

              If they’re guilty, then the Ashley’s reagent flub destroyed most of the blood evidence and any evidence that a clean-up occurred.

              If they’re innocent, then there really WAS an intruder (or intruders), and they failed to find any evidence of him/her/it/them. My personal opinion is that there was no intruder that night, but I’ve said before that I don’t think the police would have found one, even if he he had been standing on the coffee table in the living room when they got there.

            • 07/25/2011 at 1:54 PM

              Interesting, Clio. You are suggesting that bumbling police investigation was an “assumption” on Culuket’s part in carrying out or covering up the crime.

              Wow, very interesting, and if so, Caluket and all 3 are very smart, maybe some of the smartest people in the world. Maybe the smartest in the world.

              I think, in this instance only, you are giving them too much credit. Just my opinion, dear.

              • Bill Orange
                07/25/2011 at 4:09 PM

                I’m actually with Bruce on this one. I think I remember from somewhere that Joe was fairly upset about how poorly the police were tromping through the crime scene before he left for Anacostia. I don’t think he had any idea just how bad the police investigation was going to be.

                • susan
                  07/27/2011 at 10:27 PM

                  Bill O, how is it known that he was upset about that before arriving at Anacostia? By whose account? I read that he was upset that they didn’t check the water glasses on the counter. I think that was his account. I don’t think much weight can be given to this, unless possibly the MPD have some statement in their report about that. Even then it would be suspect.

                  • susan
                    07/27/2011 at 10:33 PM

                    Speaking of the MPD, I do believe the WMRW website influenced the MPD in this news reported yesterday:

                    http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/in-search-for-christine-mirzayans-killer-police-seek-online-help/2011/07/05/gHQAdlPezH_story.html

                    It’s a good sign and a good trend to set up websites dedicated to resolving criminal cases.

                  • Bill Orange
                    07/28/2011 at 1:30 AM

                    I think there was some other reference that Joe was unhappy that people were touching doorknobs in the house without gloves on. My impression was that he was visibly annoyed, because he perceived (correctly) the that the crime scene was not being properly handled.

                    • susan
                      07/28/2011 at 11:47 AM

                      But by whose account? His? The MPDs?

              • Bea
                07/27/2011 at 8:26 PM

                Wonder if the MPD is responsible for having disposed of all the cameras. Or in wiping off the knife such that it had NO fingerprints. That crazy Ninja must send the MPD flowers every Valentine’s Day!

    • She did it
      07/23/2011 at 7:48 PM

      Clio ponders: would Cathy Bates or Divine (in her heyday) play Sarah?

      Though also “unavailable”, Edith Massey would be a much better choice for the role than Divine; though Francine Fishpaw did change my outlook on life and love.

      Is Ruby from the Style network not available?

      Love to all out there; yes, love to all; even to those republican women who, in my heart, prance around their children’s criminal trials as if their shit don’t stink — love those christian louboutins, by the way.

      be well, clio and craig; and company.

      • 07/23/2011 at 8:15 PM

        The “Egg Lady” Edith Massey would be perfect. How can the Academy even live knowing that she passed away with no awards, not mentioning no nominations! Talk about a crime!

      • Clio
        07/23/2011 at 8:29 PM

        Welcome back, SDI! Ruby would be perfect!

        John Travolta, as per his pioneering role in the most recent film version of Hairspray, may also be considered for the role of the basement tenant who apparently loved to watch TV.

        • susan
          07/23/2011 at 9:00 PM

          Let’s hope someone younger and more feminine would play Ms. Morgan in a made for TV movie. Love Divine, not so much Travolta, but lets hope if Ms. M knows anything about cameras, seedy guests or anything else that could be of use to solving this case that she is cooperating with the law.

          • Clio
            07/24/2011 at 1:34 PM

            Younger and (even) more feminine would be fabulous, Susan, but I am afraid that Perez Hilton may be already booked for something else!

            I hope that the MPD will “lean” on Ms. Morgan to jumpstart her memory: offering her a milk and Oreo cookies date for the viewing of the premiere episode of this season’s Project Runway may do the proverbial trick.

  6. susan
    07/23/2011 at 2:08 PM

    I’ve been reading those “Hallmark Moment” cards btw the trouple or rather between J and D and V and J. And despite S. Hixson calling their relationship “progressive” and Sarah M. mentioning their relationships as working well, there is clearly tension there. It must’ve been hard for Dyl W. to be relegated to the bedroom one floor down for so long when he thought he’d be the #1 for JP in the house. And hard for V want so much this family bond as mentioned in his card to J which includes everyone and his sister in the family EXCEPT Dylan Ward. And how different the two guys seemed–VZ with his G-rated frog card and Elizabeth Barrett Browning quote and DW with his X-rated card and JP sending Oscar Wilde back.

    Despite their calling themselves “a family” to police or at least “working” on that notion according to VZ, it must’ve been awkward for V to hear JP and DW when they were together. And then, in essence, the later two were having an affair with SH across the street and planning more with Alt members. If VZ were so cool with everything or they were “so progressive” then they wouldn’t have had to plan for VZ to be out of town to have one of their wild nights.

    Then there’s JP in his letter responding to not making enough time for DW and later his resentment that DW doesn’t make enough time for him. And J mentions his interest in “new” people.

    Earlier I think Bill O mentioned JP’s stellar class of friends. But his circle of friends was more varied. It also included his brother, his brother’s partners and presumably his At contacts and others.

    • Clio
      07/23/2011 at 4:32 PM

      Well, perhaps, if there is a settlement, then, perhaps, Scott or Tara or some of these “stellar” friends could feel free to give the Editors a series of exclusive interviews — “Tongues Untied: Joe Price and His Circle, Five Years After?” And, if one did spend the Fourth with the reunited trouple, what would one say about the many elephants in the room: “Stop, Joe, you’re killing me with that fresh talk about Lisa!” Ugh!

  7. Jeana
    07/24/2011 at 1:14 PM

    A bit off topic, but Salon.com has an interesting article today, entitled, “The quest to built the perfect lie detector.” Eerily, the pop-up ad I encountered when opening the article was a successor to the “got milk” campaign.

  8. Bea
    07/27/2011 at 5:20 PM

    Question generally, but in particular to CDinDC: I remember much discussion about the knife being blade up (10 o’clock, hilt at 4:00) and that one would suspect that meant that the killer stabbed Robert from behind the bed or the window-side of the guest room (if he was stabbed there). The sentiment is that in stabbing someone, you don’t stab blade-up.

    But is that true if both the victim and the killer are standing and the killer is considerably taller than the victim? In that instance, blade up makes more sense to me than blade down.

    In doing a re-read of the documents I note that the EMT first noted that the was no pulse at any of the three sites for checking and no respiration. But if Joe was sitting there stanching blood and checking for pulse/breathing, and Robert moaned at one point while sitting there, would he not have screamed “the pulse is gone!” or “he’s stopped breathing!” to Victor (still “on” with the dispatcher? It’s always seemed strange that there was ambiguous responses or a change in subject to these questions posed by the dispatcher but Joe is heard to tell Victor that Robert has signs of life (can’t recall if it’s breathing or pulse). Of course the EMT also says Robert was clammy and the temperature was such that he assumed he’d been dead for some time.

    I know others disagree, and I don’t want this to be a side issue which makes the knife up-knife down issue get overlooked, but if Eagle Scout Joe noticed that Robert stopped breathing (since that was his only “job” one would think he’d be paying attention) why no mouth-to-mouth? Both sides’ experts say that the stab wounds would have been treatable if he’d gotten medical attention right away, and one way to make that happen would be to breathe FOR him.

    But the knife-up/knife-down issue – if we’ve kicked around the taller person issue, my apologies. To me, a shorter killer would have the knife in a tennis-racked swing (very loosely, but to describe generally) (same with stabbing someone lying down if killer is standing) BUT that if I’m stabbing someone a lot shorter than I am, it’s more of an “underhand pitching” motion and the blade would be “up.”

    • AnnaZed
      07/27/2011 at 5:26 PM

      The knife entering Robert’s chest in a blade up position has only made sense to me if the killer was attacking him from behind and above his head as he lay prone in the bathtub. In the room with Robert positioned as he was on the bed there really isn’t anyplace to be behind and above him like that that I can think of.

    • alternateguy
      07/27/2011 at 5:48 PM

      I think that the knife blade (cutting edge) up or down is not much of an issue. It can be either way.

      You can’t take a knife and hold it in the bread slicing position, lift it and then stab someone in an overhand chopping motion without shifting the knife in your hand. If you pick a knife up to stab a sleeping person, then you could pick it up either way. But if you want to make sure you don’t cut your fingers, you might think to pick it up with the finger guard, which is on the cutting edge, on the side which your fingers are on, which would be with the blade up. I suggest we all pick up our kitchen knives and practice, say, stabbing a cardboard box on a chair or a tea-party neighbor or whatever.

  9. Bill 2
    07/27/2011 at 7:29 PM

    No record of violence – no known history of violence. That doesn’t mean that Tom, Dick nor Harry have never exhibited any violent tendencies. Perhaps one, two, or three have been involved in acts of violence but just haven’t been caught.

    Tom, beaten up by his brother, may have snapped at one point when something done or said brought back that memory.

    Harry, lived outside the United States for awhile. Do you know what he was doing 24/7? How do you know he didn’t commit an act of violence in a foreign land where they may not keep very good records?

    While I’m not saying any of them was ever involved in an act of violence, I am saying, we can’t presume total innocence simply because there are not any known records of violence at this time.

    I could do a Google image search for photos of Denton and, after looking them over, state that Denton never had blue hair. Little did we know that Denton dressed at Marge Simpson last Halloween. Just because there are no pictures of it, doesn’t mean he never had blue hair.

  10. Craig
    07/29/2011 at 5:21 PM

    Bruce – I’m not going to take your bait. Your suspicion about “those who refuse to consider all theories,” is unwarranted. You can stress test all the crackpot notions like paid assassin and suicide to your heart’s content, but many, who are more firmly tethered to the reality-based world have moved on.

    You do defense work for a living, and have certainly proven here that you’re a master of misdirection, obfuscation and sewing seeds of doubt. But the earth is not flat, and the moon isn’t made of cheese, despite your keen abilities to work a juror who might be inclined to believe such fantasies. In all liklihood there are a very few and limited number of realistic scenarios for what happened that night and you know it.

    • Bea
      07/29/2011 at 6:36 PM

      ::sound of applause::

      These three men may not have killed Robert Wone (individually or collectively) but they are hiding something very important to the murder investigation, in my opinion. Personally, I think one if not two of them were more than indirectly involved in the murder or its immediate cover-up, and if they weren’t involved in the killing, they know who was. I think defense lawyers, especially criminal defense lawyers, see this in terms of how the three should be represented, and that includes kicking up dust to make the case murky. That’s fine, it’s what has to happen in our justice system, but this blog isn’t a court of law. It’s the place to discuss opinions, facts, theories.

      What is a “plausible theory” that would meet Bruce’s definition? And does that definition change or morph when met with one? I don’t know. Bruce, you’ve repeatedly said that you think one or more of these defendants likely killed Robert or are covering up for the person who did, but you can’t come up with a plausible theory as to how or why?

      Love, jealousy, and drug-fueled sexcapades are a good place to start. We don’t even know how far Dylan got in “S&M For Dummies” or if a “third” had been scheduled for that evening. We do know a lot of other stuff that the defendants said which makes little sense AND we have a “theory” from them that makes even less sense. It’s just like if a hippo or a rocket landed in their home, as Joe said – preposterous is preposterous. I don’t know if Robert was dead (or nearly so) before 11, but I think he was. I think there was a plan to move him until Victor got the nerve to go downstairs around 11:30 when most of the mess had been cleaned.

      I think that (the scream) required a change in plans. Lawyers are trained that criminal defendants should avoid solid statements which may bite them later, but so too Joe knew that clamming up immediately (“our overnight guest is dead on the second floor but that’s all we’re going to say”) was not an option. The silver-tongued egotist (maybe narcissist, maybe worse) thought he could convince the cops that the theory was SO outlandish that it HAD to be true. It didn’t work. And his combative nature took him down avenues he knew better than to tread – my guess is that he was pissed they didn’t buy it.

      He knew it was bad news that Dylan took a polygraph (maybe he didn’t make it clear that they should AGREE to take one but then NOT take one?). The flubs about the locked back gate were likely driving him crazy, and in the days that followed I believe he thought that they would be arrested – not knowing about the Ashley’s Reagent Debacle – and that’s why he behaved the way he did. He wanted Kathy to waive her attorney client privilege so he could compare notes with Jason Torchinsky – asking this of a grieving widow before her husband was buried shows him to be off his game. And, in my opinion, freaked out.

      And so he talked of “maybe” having pulled the knife from Robert’s chest, that cleaning up wasn’t the same as tampering, etc.

      This is all speculation on my part and only my opinion. But I can’t for the life of me figure out how an unknown intruder could be so lucky (unlocked door, 11 pm, 4 grown men barely asleep, wiping off knife prints even if he used a glove which would account for no prints on door handles, having a victim remain motionless, be both nimble as to make no sounds and climb over a gate – twice – without disturbing debris). And that’s just his luck DURING the crime (from which he got nothing – no money or jewelry). The best I can come up with among the ninja, suicide, assassin theories is that Joe or Victor or Dylan was FRAMED, but then there wouldn’t be any wiping of the knife blade, and someone THAT good and THAT determined would likely have at least attempted to suggest which of the three he wanted framed.

      Preposterous is preposterous. We’ve rehashed all the details so many times. I keep thinking about P. 30 and 36 of Joe’s transcript at Anacostia:

      Q: But no one else is in your house at that point?
      A: We don’t know. You don’t know. You’ll see on the 911 tape –

      How would he know what is on the tape? Earlier and later he claims not to know what was said on the 911 tape.

      P. 36: “I know you guys have to come at me like 10 times and see if the story sticks but I’m not making this up, they’re not making this up.”

      On it’s face, it seems ordinary, but the men (to Joe’s consternation) have been kept apart all night. Assuming he knows NOTHING, then he’s only guessing that Dylan and Victor didn’t kill Robert, and this statement becomes strange. It clearly implies a knowledge about what the other two are saying. It goes with the cop saying that for certain Joe could not SAY what was happening between Dylan and Robert on the second floor if Joe was on the third floor with Victor.

      My guess is that Victor was sent upstairs to call 911 because Joe was on the extension and he had clearly told Victor that Robert had been stabbed. Dylan during interviews states calmly that the cops are right that he doesn’t know what the other two were doing – why does Joe, the lawyer, refuse to even acknowledge that he doesn’t know what happened on the 911 call or on the second floor? It’s my reasoned opinion that Joe was on the second floor during the critical times and he was listening on the 911 call.

      Suspect behavior, at the very least, especially since he seems to be caught in lies about these things.

      (When Victor comes downstairs, my guess is that Joe puts down the extension, which is why one can hear Joe on the enhanced tape in the background.)

      Only opinions.

      • susan
        07/29/2011 at 9:56 PM

        Thanks, Bea, for your post and for pointing to the text on those pages.

        And I agree with you that Bruce has not provided any theory that he seems to “order” others to provide. Talk about silly. He also mentions name calling but he is a prime offender (Aunt Bea, etc.). He also seems to fit the defnition AnnaZed gave earlier re playing the victim, the abuser, etc. (will have to look for that). I welcome his legal commentary and theories. I don’t welcome the insults to the editors of this page, his creating this us against them myth when he doesn’t like someone’s response, and more.

        I don’t agree with many aspects of many posts. So what. The focus isn’t personal. It is about WMRW.

        • Bruce
          08/01/2011 at 4:00 PM

          Susan:

          I have not “ordered” anyone to do anything. Before making such accusations do a little homework. Show us where I have done that please. I have repeatedly ASKED people to provide a plausible theory as to what happened between the time Robert Wone entered the house and the police arrived? No one has done so, and despite your claims to the opposite, Bea has not done so.

          Bea put out some possible things that may have happened, but not any chronology naming names and what happened. I did not abuse her at all for doing so. Why are you saying things that are untrue, Susan? Please cut and paste any quote from my posts where I have done so.

          As I recall, did not respond directly to Bea’s post because she did not do what I requested, but simply listed a few things that may have happened, without providing who did what to whom.

          Please point out any post where Bea has stated who murdered Robert Wone and how, and how the other occupants were involved. Doesn’t happen.

          Why do you falsely claim that this was done? Where does that get us.

          I have asked people to give a plausible chronology or the who, what, why and how of the murder, so that I can consider it. In my opinion, engaging in this kind of discussion can help us find out WMRW, and is something that should not be criticized, but encouraged.

          I am being criticized by you and others for asking this when I have no plausible theory.

          I am asking this because I have no plausible theory, and want to hear from others that may have such a theory, so that I can learn and consider those theories.

          Why do I have to have a plausible theory to ask others for their plausible theories, when they say an intruder theory is not plausible and a “Truther” theory, and get all “Goddamn” on people? Again, it makes no sense.

          I and others on here have been so criticized for even bringing up the intruder theory, and usually people say it is ridiculous and not plausible, or, according to an editor, a Goddamn “Truther” theory.

          Why is it unfair, then, to ask for someone to provide a plausible theory that does not involve an intruder?

          How is that unfair?

          Why has it become such a source of ridicule. Why not just provide one?

          Why can’t people be fair with each other on this blog?

          • Bea
            08/01/2011 at 5:10 PM

            Bruce, I have drafted a most plausible theory as to what I suspected happened that night. It’s a cobbling together of many, many other posts of mine over the years – and that theory has evolved over the years with new evidence and further consideration. If I genuinely believed you really wanted to read it, I’d let you, but seeing as how everytime I post anything, you do nothing but insult and aggravate. If you gave it any thought, you’d likely know what my theory of the case is – so I suppose I do wonder what the point of your exercise is except to take aggravation to a new level.

            I’m sure you could come up with at least ten plausible explanations as to what happened that night as most of us can – which we personally think happened is another thing entirely. None of my ten includes an unknown intruder, although I can think of a couple in which the murderer was not one of the defendants (and if you simply change identities of the third parties that increases the number of plausible theories).

            Perhaps if you explain the purpose, people might want to play. As Craig pointed out, the timeline is what it is, and only the people involved know for certain what happened. It doesn’t take much imagination to come up with theories which make sense in relation the timeframe and evidence made of record at trial – or the timeframe, the evidence made of record at trial AND the evidence excluded based due to prejudicial nature.

          • susan
            08/01/2011 at 7:43 PM

            Bruce,

            Once again this site isn’t about you. You have ordered people-Tell, Give, etc. and you have bullied and you have jeered and you have cursed yourself so to say others have and assume a proper demeanor and take umbridge at the “unfairness” of it all really rings hollow and false.

            Espouse your theories, engage in discouse, leave it at that. When you disagree with someone you belittle them by calling their theories “silly, ridiculous” tell some posters to “get a life” call them “delusional” etc. You do more name calling to others on this site than anyone has ever done to you. It is ridiculous. Please stop playing the victim and martyr. It is just not believable and you are distracting from the purpose of this site. I personally don’t give a damn what you or anyone else theorizes on this site. But don’t expect respect of any kind or engagement of any kind (at least from me after this post) if your efforts are geared towards distraction, self-martyrdom, throwing out red herrings, belittling others, etc. It’s really not nice. Let’s focus on WMRW. No one has to agree with your posts. No one has to agree with mine. It is not a contest!

            • susan
              08/01/2011 at 7:43 PM

              discourse (above)

              • susan
                08/01/2011 at 7:45 PM

                Oh, wait, see below, “So Craig, provide us with…”

                Reads like an order to me.

            • susan
              08/01/2011 at 9:44 PM

              umbrage-(above)

    • 07/29/2011 at 8:38 PM

      So, Craig, provide us with a plausible theory of what happened from the moment Robert Wone came to the house and the police arrived. But make sure it isn’t “crackpot,” and that it is “reality-based,” as you say. Let’s hear it. It should just take a few paragraphs.

      If you can’t, and no one has to my knowledge, why should you try to put down anyone who keeps an open mind to all “ridiculous” theories?

      I only want to find out WMRW. You seem to have an agenda, and it is that only one or more of the Swann 3 murdered Robert Wone. I don’t have an agenda. I’m keeping an open mind.

      I don’t feel threatened by any theory in this case, and I am just stunned that you are, considering the mysteries of this case.

      To whom am I misdirecting, obfuscating and sewing seeds of doubt? Aren’t we all adults here. I expect anyone can have their own opinions without such name calling. Why, as editor, do you have to go to cussing and name calling? Seems silly, and not truly attempting to find out WMRW. Why don’t you get a title to the blog more in tune with your agenda: Who Of The Swann Three Murdered Robert Wone [WOTSTMRW]. Wouldn’t that be more honest? Truth in advertising?

      And you are trying to divide posters into “us” and “them.” Good guys vs. bad guys. Those who are trying to corrupt and those who are on God’s side. Doesn’t seem like editors of a blog that want open and interesting discussions would do that. Unless they have an agenda they are trying to push. My opinions only.

      • Emily
        07/30/2011 at 8:04 AM

        Bruce, please answer me this question directly, do you believe that there is any credibility to the notion that an unknown intruder killed Robert as asserted by the trouple?

        I think the problem that most people have is that the unknown intruder theory has been well and truly discredited, especially by people who have more access to the evidence than we do, like, duh, a judge.

        If the unknown intruder theory can be ruled out then ipso facto the trouple are lying. This leaves only 2 other possibilities – Robert was murdered by a known intruder or by someone within the household.

        As to motive – who the hell knows? We don’t need to supply a speculative motive when the one thing we know for sure is that Robert was murdered in that house while 3 people were physically present.

        • Alternateguy
          07/30/2011 at 11:55 AM

          Emily,

          You said to Bruce,“I think the problem that most people have is that the unknown intruder theory has been well and truly discredited, especially by people who have more access to the evidence than we do, like, duh, a judge.”

          I think that that is a point that drives a lot of the triple’s critics here. The assumption that the Judge must have had a lot of information that we do not. An inside track, so to speak.

          I wish to ask some of the lawyers here. Is that true? Does a judge know and have a lot of information that is not in public record? Also, is it possable that she could have been fed unproven information from someone, such as the prosecutor, that might have influenced her dicta?

          Also, I personally believe that even though the judge might have had more information than has been made public, we have had far more time to concider facts, including facts from after the trial, to weigh in our thinking. Just my opinion.

          • Bea
            07/30/2011 at 6:36 PM

            Alt, the Judge had all evidence presented and made of record at trial. She relied solely on that evidence in her opinion – if for example, there was evidence that she considered in a pretrial motion as to whether it met necessary standards for a JURY (it was deemed a bench trial nearing jury selection) and she ruled it inadmissible, she would NOT consider it at trial.

            We do NOT have the trial transcripts here or anywhere on the web. We have some elements, like the Anacostia interviews, but most we don’t. Trial transcripts cost an incredible amount of money. Undoubtedly both sides of the case had complete trial transcripts to review (as did the Judge) for purpose of appeal. The attorneys order copies from the court reporter. We discussed here taking up a fund to buy a set but then the Eds would be burdened (as would the site) with this incredibly voluminous set of documents and exhibits. The Eds have provided a good bit of what they were given or got their hands on, but word-for-word transcripts, no.

            If you didn’t read here during the trial, or read news accounts, I would strongly recommend that you read them now (here and news sites) – while not a complete record, the reports provide a fairly comprehensive review of the evidence on which the Judge ruled.

            • steve
              07/30/2011 at 7:04 PM

              bea and alt,

              i think doug posted transcripts on this web (not so sure but i think)

              http://www.scribd.com/DcSleuth

              • AnnaZed
                07/31/2011 at 11:45 AM

                Denton, are you being willfully obtuse or do you think that merely commenting that the transcripts were posted will make the infinitesimal number of readers who read your mangled posts will somehow take away the idea that the transcripts are available but that posters here are such an implacable cabal that they refuse to consider their contents … or something?

                If you actually followed your own link you would see that the transcripts are not there. There are not that many items in the folders, it’s not complicated.

                • alternateguy
                  07/31/2011 at 12:16 PM

                  How about it Steve? Were you referring to the trial transcripts? If so AnnaZed is right, insofar in that I, for one, couldn’t find anything there.

                  Looking to find something concerning some of the “tells” that are discussed on this WMRW blog, I do find some information, in the newspapers, if not a lot beyond the obvious spins.

                  Arguments that refer to information brought out at trial, should include some idea as to where that information can be verified IMHO.

                  Otherwise how can we that didn’t attend the trial hope to counter, in any way, arguments of those who say that they did indeed attended the trial?

                  • Bea
                    07/31/2011 at 12:25 PM

                    Alt, I meant reading the daily posts here during the trial. They are sequential from opening statement through the end. As for news stories, I suspect you can look on Washington Post day to day but that’s just a guess. I’d start here.

            • Clio
              07/31/2011 at 1:58 PM

              Perhaps, Bea — Needham and Di may be persuaded to buy a set of transcripts and court documents to donate to the National Archives: remember that the good Doctor at least had declared his own love of history at his own site.

              Then again, what could possibly be on the agenda for next week’s motions hearing, if the settlement was global and/or finished?

        • susan
          07/30/2011 at 2:15 PM

          Hi Emily,

          Thanks for your post. I disagree with you and what Bruce wrote about “most people” on this site. There are many people who visit this page who haven’t espoused any theories, who post irregularly or not at all. I myself will think time to time about an unknown intruder and allow it as highly unlikely but I will still entertain that and other thoughts and ideas. The problem, from what I see, isn’t anyone disagreeing with Bruce or Alt. The problem with the latter is he seems to have no interest in any fact or theory that finds J. Price culpable of RW’s murder or any knowledge of who did it or even lying, though we have it on record, in his own words even, that he is loose with the truth. And he will do what Craig and Bea described Craig as doing–kick up dust, throw in red herrings, steer the course of the discussion, etc., which leads me to Bruce. Sometimes he has insight and his legal contributions are helpful, to me anyway, but I think to others as well. But then he insults, and creates a fictional us against them and elevates himself to an exalted–albeit fictional state–of the prime aribiter of justice and it gets old, annoying, and distracting. Mostly distracting. He likes to bait and that is not really useful. I suppose if I were him, rather than bait, if I disagreed with someone’s theory and wanted to post about it, I’d say I disagree and explain why. Otherwise, I’d just keep espousing my thoughts and theories and leave it at that.

          That said, everyone’s different. But this page isn’t about Bruce or Alt or defending someone because a good friend is friend’s with someone.

          And no one is obliged to feel coerced to reply or engage in a conversation they find is going nowhere. At that point, no need to take up the bait.

          • susan
            07/30/2011 at 2:19 PM

            Sorry, hasty posting. Above when referring to “loose with the truth” meant J. Price.

            Also, where it reads “And he will do what Craig and Bea described Craig as doing”
            should read “described Bruce as doing”

            • susan
              07/30/2011 at 2:23 PM

              And while I’m posting, it was wrong of me some weeks ago to use the word “idiot” in connection with Alt. Okay to think it but I shouldn’t have written it. I felt very frustrated at the time, due to the fact that I was posting the defendants’ OWN WORDS and exposing contradictions in their testimony and the aforementioned poster was attempting to distract, throw out red herrings, etc.

          • Clio
            07/31/2011 at 2:14 PM

            Huh? Craig and Doug are not Hedda (Hopper) and Luella (Parsons) — unfortunately, but, instead, they and their two co-Editors have been rather (too) tolerant of all kinds of opinions, spellings, and phrasings.

            And, the silent majority on the defendants’ guilt has been given voice by this weblog, which has still allowed sharp feedback from absolutist defense attorneys who would defend, say, Pol Pot for any blame for his “Killing Fields” if it got them on the news and/or paid well. Even so, the court of public opinion is far less powerful than the court of law, however, and that’s how it should be. Accordingly, Lynn gave us all “cold comfort”, and Chief Lanier and Judge Rankin may give less than that!

            • susan
              07/31/2011 at 5:16 PM

              Hi Clio,

              Not sure what you are disagreeing with re what I wrote. I agree re the editors’ tolerance completely.
              What is your “huh?” in reference to?

            • Bruce
              08/01/2011 at 12:37 PM

              Dear Clio:

              Who is the absolutist If you are referring to me, please give me one example of being “absolutist.” Please provide a quote. If you are fligging out names, please don’t generalize. Have the courtesty and honesty to give an example of how I am an “absolutist.”

              • Bruce
                08/01/2011 at 1:10 PM

                Clio:

                On second thought, forget it. Expecting any fairness on this blog is like expecting the republicans to embrace a small tax increase on the rich, rather than placing the entire burden financially on seniors and the poor and disadvantaged.

                • Clio
                  08/01/2011 at 9:57 PM

                  This blog is remarkably “fair and balanced,” but the circumstantial case remains hard to dispel, Bruce. With the defendants not talking, speculation naturally fills the void. If Culuket could grant one interview with Greta or Geraldo, however, then the case and blog may cease to be.

              • Clio
                08/01/2011 at 9:46 PM

                Bruce, cupcake, who ever would associate “absolutist” with your measured, if a bit mannered, retorts? I was thinking of the sharper-edged Kiki here; remember that it’s not all about you. It’s all about Joe/Eve.

                • susan
                  08/01/2011 at 10:12 PM

                  Clio,

                  Just saw All About Eve for the first time a few weeks ago. It was great! Bette Davis–wonderful. Wonder if DW took on an Eve role when he entered the V-J relationship sphere. V of course would be in the Bette Davis role.

        • Bruce
          08/01/2011 at 1:32 PM

          Emily:

          Answering your question: do you believe that there is any credibility to the notion that an unknown intruder killed Robert as asserted by the trouple?

          Answer: No. Nor do I find any credibility at this point with the notion that one or more of the Swann 3 killed Robert. No one has suggested a credible plausible theory as to that in my opinion. So, I will continue looking at all theories, despite the cuss words, etc.

          I think it most likiely that one or more of the Swann 3 killed Robert, I mean they were in the house, but no one to my knowledge has come up with a reasonable plausible theory in that regard.

          • Craig
            08/01/2011 at 2:33 PM

            Bruce – So the means, motive and opportunity, which all three defendants more of less had in varying degrees, doesn’t help you cobble together a plausible theory? Granted, motive remains the most illusive, but I really don’t think you’re trying hard enough.

            You insist on making every single piece fit, but that only proves to be frustrating. Not all the pieces will fit and they probably never will because we’ll never know the truth.

            • Bruce
              08/01/2011 at 3:27 PM

              Exactly, Craig:

              I don’t know of a reasonable plausible theory of what happened between the time Robert Wone entered the house and when the police entered the house.

              Again, for the umpteenth time, if you have a plausible theory for this, please share it. Explain who was involved, what they did and how the murder and the cover-up went down. You can probably do it in a few paragraphs.

              As I said before, someone just provide a plausible chronological list of what happened by whom during that time period. No one has done so. Neither Bea or anyone. I don’t think it is an unfair request

              I’m not saying that every piece has to fit and, as I have said before, I will not abuse anyone, and I don’t think anyone on here should, for attempting to do so. I may point out some things I don’t agree with, but I will do so without slamming anyone, or abusing them with lowly “Goddamns” or “fucks.”

              No one deserves that.

              • Bea
                08/02/2011 at 1:08 PM

                Every single one of us has at least ten plausible theories as to what may have happened, Bruce, and each of us may have narrowed it down to one or two that each thinks is most likely. What’s the point of rehashing this? If you don’t know my personal theory, then you don’t pay attention. Again, I’d spell it out for you but I’m guessing that you’re not really that interested in what we think. I’m sensing you’re trying to gain control, or some strange “upper hand” on this board, but to what end, I don’t know. A word of advice, though, since this whole post began with Cat’s own “plausible theory” then your claim reads a bit hollow and gives one pause that there is likely a different motive behind it than gathering “plausible theories.”

                • AnnaZed
                  08/02/2011 at 1:23 PM

                  Current **Karpman Drama position: Bruce = persecutor having moved from victim.

                  **It is important to remember that in the triangle all positions are false.

  11. AnnaZed
    07/29/2011 at 11:08 PM

    So Bruce, in the narrowing thread above roughly dedicated to the idea of plausibility you have asked for a post of a possible timeline of events the night of Robert’s murder with a plausible theory of what happened from the moment Robert Wone came to the house and the police arrived. But make sure it isn’t “crackpot,” and that it is “reality-based.” Bea does just that and your response is to mock her critical thinking skills.

    [charming]

  12. Alternateguy
    07/30/2011 at 11:33 AM

    AnnaZed,

    You tell Bruce that Bea has given a plausible theory of what could have happened in the Swann Street house on the night of the murder. However I must share with Bruce, some criticism of Bea’s assumptions, though I do admire her continuing efforts to understand this thoroughly frustrating case .

    It has long seemed to me that one of Bea’s most reoccurring and important “tells” concerns the backyard gate door. In spite of my questioning it numerous times, she still uses it. At one point, Bea did suggest that someone should simply go by Swann Street and check out the damn gate to see exactly what sort of lock was on it. I thought that that was a very good suggestion.

    But, apparently, no one locally bothered to do this bit of obvious homework the last time there was an open house. Since I currently live far from D.C. and can’t afford to make the trip, it’s not something that I feel that I can do. Besides, I’m far too lazy. However, I have Googled and Googled for locks, which I consider just, might be of the type used on the gate. There are, by the way, thousands of different brands and configurations available. One possibility is:

    Kwikset 598 Single Cylinder Gatelatch Deadbolt These Gate Locks are Single Cylinder Deadlatch (keyed lock on the outside and a thumb turn on the inside). Use on gate doors such as swimming pool gates, house entry gates, where self-latching is required. Always locked – Requires key to unlock from outside.

    You can look this one up and find a picture for it. Clearly the finish is different than the Swann Street lock and I suspect that, since Kwikset if one of the most common and cheap brands, Swann Street probably had a classier brand, but to my way of thinking, the function might likely have been the same. Other brands of single cylinder exterior locks are less clear in their descriptions of their functions than this one. Different terms like “Dead bolt” and Night Latch” are used differently from manufacturer to manufacturer. Many locks are self locking “Spring locking” every time the door is closed and many of these have a “Hold Back” setting, either a button on the side of the door or an extra position where the thumb latch can be turned to, so that the door or gate isn’t self locking upon closing.

    Many gate locks, such as the Kwikset 598 that I have sighted are always self-locking each time the gate is closed. That would offer the maximum security, and is the type that I would expect to be used on a Swann Street alley gate.

    In order to try to figure out what happened on Swann Street, we need to look at every detail closely and not simply expound on our opinions. If the gate latch was one of the type that I think it may have been, then regardless of the interpretation of Joe’s meaning of the word “Yeah,” there is no tell involved since he would know that the gate’s outer cylinder is always locked.

    This is only one of the opinions of Bea’s that I question.

    • Alternateguy
      07/30/2011 at 11:36 AM

      Damn, last three paragraphs didn’t de emphasize. Oh, well.

    • Bill 2
      07/30/2011 at 12:08 PM

      I e-mailed the Ninja and he went over to look at the lock on the gate. The Ninja said the lock was changed four years ago. It used to be a Lockenschnoor Kvickenlocken made in St. Olaf by Rose Nylund’s cousin.

    • Bea
      07/30/2011 at 6:29 PM

      Alt, this was established at trial. Just as Joe explained in the interview, the lock had a latch from the inside so one could go out freely but once one made it to the alley, a key was necessary. There was testimony on this that was not contraverted – or so I remember it. I was not present at trial but read here and all other news accounts/watched the TV reports that were available online.

  13. steve
    07/30/2011 at 7:01 PM

    How many of bloggers here have ever attended Robert Wone’s hearings or a trial? (With the exeption of the editors.)

    • Gloria
      08/01/2011 at 5:43 AM

      Me. And each time, I reported that the editors did a terrific job. I’m a compulsive note taker (and was in a competitive mode, working hard, so I could have something to contribute), but they picked up much, more more than me. I observed that he doesn’t even take shorthand. These are very smart people, rest assured.

  14. Alternateguy
    07/30/2011 at 7:08 PM

    Bea,

    That which you say was established at the trial, fits entirely with the Kwikset 598 Single Cylinder Gatelatch Deadbolt type of lock I described. Once in the alley, a key is ALWAYS necessary to enter the gate door, since the gate door would be always locked to someone trying to enter from the outside. The fact that the police reported that that gate was locked on the outside is completely immaterial IMHO, since that condition would exist whether or not someone had exited the door, providing that he or she pulled the door closed behind them. In other words, the gate is ALWAYS locked on the outside.

    • AnnaZed
      07/31/2011 at 11:57 AM

      I will have to say that I have thought the same thing. the lock was not a dead bolt. The gate could just slam and close on its own behind a person exiting it unless there was some other testimony that it wouldn’t do that (which there might have been but I don’t recall it). I think that the anxiety Joe exhibited in even bringing this matter up and then proceeding to mangle and over-explain it was (at least in part) to cover the fact that the gate handle was whipped clean and that no fingerprints at all would be found on it, which is curious, and possibly that the gate bangs noisily and that no one reported hearing it.

      • Bill Orange
        07/31/2011 at 12:06 PM

        I’m with Bea on this. We don’t have a trial transcript, but it seemed fairly clear from the posts here–and I’m sure it was clear to the judge–that the gate had to be locked with a key from the outside. The eds may have gotten it wrong (I doubt it.), but I’m sure the judge knew exactly how the gate lock worked.

        • Bea
          07/31/2011 at 12:27 PM

          Exactly. It was necessary to use a key from the alley to lock it. Joe explained this too.

          • AnnaZed
            07/31/2011 at 12:29 PM

            Ok, sorry Bea, this information has somehow just vanished from my brain. So, it is some sort of one sided dead bolt? What do you call that?

            • Bea
              07/31/2011 at 5:05 PM

              Hi AZ, I don’t know what it’s called. I have one. It’s to allow you to get out easily but to be high security. Usually find them when the back opens into an alley. They’re for sale everywhere, pretty common.

              • Bill Orange
                08/01/2011 at 7:50 PM

                I think it’s just called a regular old deadbolt.

          • alternateguy
            07/31/2011 at 12:37 PM

            Bea,

            “It was necessary to use a key from the alley to lock it. Joe explained this too.”

            Help;Please! Exactly where did Joe explain that? Did he really say that the gate-door didn’t automatically lock when closed?

          • Bea
            07/31/2011 at 5:04 PM

            Sorry but I’m on the road and don’t have time to look through the daily accounts from during the trial. Pretty sure the testimony about the gate lock was described during the daily accounts of testimony on here. I think it was during the prosecution case if memory serves. In any event, for Alt it would be very helpful reading since a lot of things we talk about stems from the testimony during trial.

  15. Clio
    07/31/2011 at 6:20 PM

    Hi Susan:

    I have attempted to post this above three times, but those attempts must have gone to junkmail. Anyway, my “huh” was not directed at you, but at an earlier rant of another poster, whose diatribe has magically and gratefully disappeared. Thanks, Editors!

    • susan
      07/31/2011 at 7:23 PM

      Thanks, Clio.

  16. Bill 2
    08/01/2011 at 4:23 PM

    And the Pretentious Twit of the Day award goes to…

    (3 guesses and the first two don’t count)

    • Boggled
      08/01/2011 at 5:12 PM

      Like.

      It seems that each time, Bruce, you add a bit more to the parameters of your request.

      “Explain who was involved, what they did and how the murder and the cover-up went down…just provide a plausible chronological list of what happened by whom during that time period.”

      Countless people have provided their theories on this blog from the beginning. You should probably read them. Other posters continue to do so more recently (note the topic of this post, for example). And Bea and AnnaZed. What you’ve asked for has been provided, more than once.

      And have you provided a similar hypothetical for the intruder theory? Who it was? Exactly how they did it and why, and all with a time stamp? And how they managed to leave not a trace? And does this theory explain what would make all three defendants lie throughout their statements?

  17. Emily
    08/02/2011 at 6:05 AM

    OK, here’s a theory. We know that the trouple were into supplying sperm to women for artificial insemination. Robert’s sperm would be considered high premium – a good looking, smart, Asian guy.

    Joe wants Robert’s sperm so that he can sell it/hand it on to women for artificial insemination purposes. Either alone, or in concert with Dylan who’s along for the ride, Joe decides to render Robert unconscious, to use their electric toys to induce involuntary ejaculation and to harvest Robert’s sperm.

    Robert’s drink is drugged and, after going to bed and falling asleep, Joe (and/or Dylan) sneak in and inject further drugs to ensure that Robert is insensible. The toys are used to induce involuntary ejaculation in Robert thus accounting for the semen found.

    However during this procedure it is thought that they have killed Robert. Panic ensues and efforts are immediately made to clean up the scene. At some stage Victor comes upon the scene and screams. It is decided to stab Robert and tell the story that an unknown intruder snuck in and murdered him in order to cover up the activities.

    Joe and Dylan weren’t playing sex games – they were engaging in a clinical procedure to harvest Robert’s sperm. They anticipated that the best possible outcome would be that Robert would wake up in the morning feeling strangely groggy and with an odd sensation in his anus.

    Why didn’t they simply ask him to voluntarily contribute his sperm? Maybe they did but he didn’t tell anyone about it. All the indicators are that Robert was pretty “straight” in all senses of the word and would be unlikely to go along with anything too unconventional.

    Where did all the equipment needed to harvest Robert’s sperm go? The same place as the playmats and the cameras and all the other suspiciously missing stuff.

    • Bill 2
      08/02/2011 at 1:50 PM

      Thanks for posting your very interesting theory, Emily. I agree that there was probably something in the water that was given to Robert Wone and that additional drugs were administered after the water sent him to sleep. The idea of sperm-selling is unique. Perhaps it was not to obtain it for selling, but for another child to be arranged through the lesbian mothers raising the Price-Zaborsky children. Maybe Price wanted a child to remind him of Robert Wone.

      When it comes to some who want a timeline from the moment Robert Wone arrived at the residence until he was taken to the hospital, I think it would be helpful to know the timeline and events at Swann St. prior to his arrival there.

      When Zaborsky arrived home from his trip, who was in Ward’s bedroom? The door was closed.

      What was the status of neighbor Hixson for the afternoon and evening of August 2nd? Was he at the door or inside 1509 Swann Street at any time during those hours?

      Why was Ward making up the bed for Price’s guest? Was he expected to provide maid service in return for free rent and benefits? Was he overseeing the guest room because he was the one who drafted the plans for the evening’s events while Zaborsky was supposed to still be out of town?

      At what time did Sarah Morgan contact her two friends to let them know she needed a place to stay for the night?

  18. Bea
    08/02/2011 at 2:08 PM

    WANTING TO PUT THE BACK GATE ISSUE TO BED! Sorry for including it here – can’t find a more suitable place.

    I found the reference in the Opening Statement. Granted, the Opening Statement is not evidence but (1) the Defense did not object, and (2) it could have been addressed in the Stipulations as to Fact OR (3) there was testimony on the issue (which is indicated in the narrative, and that’s my recollection).

    Anyway, here is the best explanation as to the nature of the back gate (and which is consistent with Joe’s narrative at Anacostia – though Alt has disagreed in the past, but hopefully this will make him rethink it):

    Page 56 of the Transcript of the Government’s Opening Statement:

    “But if we start with what a burglar would had to have done, this is the securing fence and the security gate that has a key lock from the outside and a turn lock from the inside. And you will hear testimony that if you were inside the backyard and you used the turn lock to open the gate, you could push it open and you could run through it if you were a burglar trying to escape. . . and once you are outside the gate, unless you have a key, you can’t even lock it.”

    • Bill 2
      08/02/2011 at 2:54 PM

      Thank you for showing such patience, Bea, and thank you for looking up and posting this information.

    • AnnaZed
      08/02/2011 at 2:56 PM

      Thanks Bea, I have been looking for days for this (in all of the wrong places). I have no idea how these facts vacated my mind in the first place. ~ thank you ~ thank you

      • Bea
        08/02/2011 at 4:38 PM

        You’re welcome, Bill 2 and AnnaZ. This is one of the huge WHOOPS that Joe made that night. NOBODY will “guess” that the intruder climbed back over the fence to leave instead of going through the door. Trying to get away from a fresh murder – you don’t stop and scale a fence (not to mention no fibers/hairs left or debris disturbed). Joe’s excuse that the gate door had been pulled shut = must’ve climbed over is nonsensical. He couldn’t help himself to try to explain why the gate door was locked even before the detectives even got to that question. I am convinced that he knew it WAS locked – and that’s the biggest TELL for me, personally.

        • Bea
          08/02/2011 at 7:07 PM

          It’s bad form, I know, to “respond” to my own post, but it’s actually interesting to read the daily or twice-daily updates during the criminal trial. When one cross-checks the posts against the news reports, it’s pretty clear our fine Eds. did a very good job.

          In reviewing the issue about the gate lock, I found something I’d forgotten. Detectives Dan Davis, Robert McCollom, and Curtis Lancaster were a few of the officers who testified about the lack of evidence of an intruder (among other things, of course), including that the fence debris was not disturbed and the status of the gate lock.

          What I’d forgotten was this: “McCollum testified that no latent finger prints were found on the patio door or back gate. Oddly enough none of the defendants’ prints showed as well.”

          I rarely go through the back gate at my property but my guess is that there would be prints (including mine) on it. The defendants used it regularly to go to the car. No prints? Particularly strange since there were no prints on the knife either despite Joe claiming to have moved it/pulled it from Robert’s chest. I know some here have said that maybe Joe was just so rattled that he wiped the knife (which I don’t buy, but whatever) – but who would wipe down the gate? We already “know” that the intruder didn’t use the gate door since it was locked from the outside – unless, of course, someone departed with, say, cameras and towels and mats. Wouldn’t that person’s prints be on the door knob and the latch?

          I honestly think the “case” against the defendants was made up so much of minutia that the government lost focus because the Judge was pushing to move quickly (as judges usually do). There was no smoking gun, but damned if there weren’t some really telling pieces of evidence that were, on their face, seemingly insignificant. I am convinced that if there had only been one defendant home that night that THAT defendant would be behind bars right now – that the “can’t say which of the three did it because they clammed up” is all that really saved them. Scott Peterson was convicted of killing his wife on much less circumstantial evidence, to name but one case based almost exclusively on circumstantial evidence.

          • susan
            08/02/2011 at 8:11 PM

            Thanks for that post Bea. That is an interesting point of the one vs three defendants home that night. Also, let’s say the place was a group house and Robert W. was a friend of JP alone whereas the other two were just tenants. Each one of the three had a vested interest in the other, even V in D because it seems Victor was given the task of “working on” making them a family unit. For that reason and more, I can’t see one of them entering into a settlement. I think the living together, etc. is meant to support a united front. Being part of a trouple for that long would prob. drive some crazy. Even sister wives get jealous. But who knows.

            Re the knife, that really is something. There would have to be some fingerprints after pulling out a knife. Also, you’d think if V actually didn’t see the knife that D would pick up the extension or somehow alert the 911 operator to the knife being in Robert Wone. That is such a crucial detail.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *