Victor Zaborsky

Victor Zaborsky

In August 2006, Victor Zaborsky was the Senior Marketing Manager for the Milk Processors Education Program (Milk PEP).  It is the promotional arm of the International Dairy Foods Association and is based in Washington, DC.  MilkPEP is funded by the nation’s milk processors, who are committed to increasing fluid milk consumption. MilkPEP activities are led by a 15-member board, which is monitored by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service. Milk PEP created an enormously successful public awareness campaign, “Got Milk” which promoted the benefits of milk through the innovative use of celebrities wearing milk mustaches. It won a Silver Effie award in 2007.

Personally, Mr. Zaborsky has resided in the District for over a decade; most of that time in a committed partnership with Joseph Price.  Zaborsky and Price have shared houses on Capitol Hill, on Swann Street, and currently live together on 16th Street in the District.  Zaborsky described his relationship with Joe Price and roommate Dylan Ward as comprising “…a family,” adding that Ward does “not really…share an equal part in the relationship, but we’re trying to develop it that way.”  Price and Zaborsky have also expanded their familial relations as detailed here in this USA Today story from 2004.

348 comments for “Victor Zaborsky

  1. KM
    03/23/2009 at 9:06 PM

    Victor,

    Because you love your son, please tell what you know.

    Your son will see his father modeling his best, most courageous side, rather than having only what may be his worst side with which to grapple. By coming forward first, you might also end up being able to spend more time raising your child.

  2. Barbra
    03/02/2010 at 12:55 PM

    Anyone who sells their soul to the lobbyist devil lacks morals!!! This guy and his family are creeps – they deserve to spend the rest of their lives being raped and abused in prison – as for their test tube son…he just wanted to add to his list of accomplishments….”father” yeah right, I hope his mothers never mention the freak…and I hope the Wone widow takes whatever assests and trust were set up for the sons…this should be a lesson for those mommies who want to make test tube babies…you never know what you’re going to not get (financially) when your babie’s daddy is a sexual pervert and murderer…fry the bastard!!!! Can’t wait to see which one of the three-some spills the beans on their committed lover and 3rd-some (and Ward really looks like a murderer freak)!! Egomanicial, sexual deviant freaks who give the rest of the gay community a bad name…I don’t defend, admire them…I loath them!!!

    • MarkD
      05/17/2010 at 3:03 PM

      In America we’re innocent until proven guilty. Lets keep it that way Barbra.

    • Nikki Sixx
      05/19/2010 at 11:44 AM

      Barbra,

      You know your name has the word “bra” in it? Hahah! Yeah I know, that comment is about as useful as an a-hole in your elbow. Kind of like your comment. These guys may be creeps. So are you.

      Toodles,
      Nikki Sixx

    • Daphne
      05/20/2010 at 5:17 PM

      I find it disturbing that some people are absolutely salivating at the thought of these defendants being raped in prison.

      • AnnaZed
        05/20/2010 at 5:50 PM

        I know, and that’s a phenomenon that one sees all over the net. For some reason in our culture and even in law enforcement the idea that prisoners will be sexually assaulted is not only tolerated but somehow celebrated. I don’t understand it and it fills me with disgust. I think Robert would be horrified that anyone claiming to care about justice for him and what befell him would frame it in that way.

      • Kim
        06/17/2010 at 6:30 PM

        You wouldn’t think so if you knew these thugs…..at least Victor and Joe. THEY DESERVE EVERYTHING THEY HAVE COMING AND WHATEVER ELSE HAPPENS AFTER THAT.

    • Devin
      06/17/2010 at 11:44 AM

      This is what is wrong with America. What’s with all the hate? From the sounds of it you seem christian. Just think WWJD? Sure as hell not what you did.

      There is a reason people are considered innocent until proven guilty.

  3. Chris
    05/14/2010 at 12:13 PM

    Wow, your mature. There are plenty of responsible sexual “perverts” out there who whould never do this. I happen to be one of them. I do agree that these guys are not good role models. Not at all. But, what happens between two consenting adults is really no one else’s business.

  4. Lisa
    05/15/2010 at 1:35 PM

    i, like Mr. Wone, am a licensed heterosexual attorney who supports the rights of all gays&lesbians as well as those who choose to pursue alternative lifestyles.
    I HAVE REPLAYED THE TIMELINE OVER AND OVER IN MY HEAD AND IT ALL LEADS TO PREMEDITATION. Mr. Wone arrived at 10:30 pm, greeted his friends, showered and prepared for bed (25 minutes?) and was killed within minutes of that time as evidenced by the digestion of his own blood. you cannot convince me that this was not PLANNED before his arrival in order for this to have been perpetrated and cleaned up by 11:50. Bear in mind, he was injected with drugs, sexually molested, the crime scene was staged within an hour? who took the dirty sheets, the real murder weapon and the drugs that were in the house? Price’s brother, while the other 3 scrubbed. why? because Ward and Price wanted to play a sex game with an unconscious HUMAN mannequin created by paralytic drugs.

    • Eagle
      05/15/2010 at 5:27 PM

      Yep.
      Having Robert who was so respected and constructive gave Joe a good image. You might say Robert deflected from Joe’s personality. So Robert was going his own way-Joe no longer controlled him- and Robert had lost his usefulness and when the sex game was proposed, Price went along.
      As I have previously proposed, this was not the first time they did whatever they did. Perhaps in this location, perhaps not to a human. For some reason, they thought it would work this time.
      It was just too smooth for them to be on significant amounts of drugs.

      • Anonymous in DC
        05/15/2010 at 6:14 PM

        I’m not so sure the proposal wasn’t made by Joe. I think he was extemely jealous of Robert. I’ve seen it in real life, where the really good often attract some very dark people into their orbit.

        Agree that it all went too well for them to be out of their minds high. Also agree that this might not have been the first time. I think it all ties in with the NE address which was where they planned to dump the body.

        I have a feeling of dread that they are going to walk, hope I am wrong.

        • Eagle
          05/15/2010 at 8:03 PM

          I agree – the jealousy was likely on the part of Joe Price.
          If what we suspect is true, this is big time pathology.
          I keep thinking of Robert and hope that out there somewhere is
          a power which will move all the players in the route toward justice
          and safety for the people who remain in Joe’s orbit.

          • Kim
            06/17/2010 at 6:32 PM

            RIGHT ON AND AMEN! I PRAY FOR RICHARD WONE AND CAN ONLY IMAGINE THE HORROR HE WENT THROUGH WITH THESE THUGS. THEY CRUCIFIED ME.

            • weaver
              06/17/2010 at 6:52 PM

              Kim what happened? What did they do to you?

            • AnnaZed
              06/17/2010 at 6:54 PM

              More to the point, what are you on?

              We don’t post insane accusatory posts in all caps on this site.

              If you have something concrete and relevant, like legal mistreatment if true, contact the mods, but this shit needs to stop.

              • Carolina
                06/17/2010 at 7:07 PM

                A lot of people showing up today making dire statements about the trouple. Almost feels like someone is trying to set up the site for some libel action

        • Lisa
          05/16/2010 at 10:57 AM

          anonymous, i understand what you are saying, but i feel that joe and dylan didn’t care who Mr. Wone was. he could have been a dog, a mannequin. a narcissist wouldn’t have been jealous. joe probably still feels some sort of ego manciacal pleasure from controlling this legal proceeding.

          • Anonymous in DC
            05/16/2010 at 11:10 AM

            I hadn’t thought of it that way Lisa. That is even more chilling. I so hope that Robert and Kathy Wone get some justice.

            • Kim
              06/17/2010 at 6:41 PM

              HEAR HEAR I KNOW JOE AND I KNOW FIRST HAND WHAT A LIAR AND REAL CREEP HE IS>

              • Elizabeth
                06/17/2010 at 7:13 PM

                Seriously, sistah, use the caps key for caps and the lower case for all the rest. This site is not about your problems with your landlord. Other people who know one of the defendants have brought up insights the rest of us could not possibly know, and it is valuable. If you want to share something do it, but your credibility is shot now, so you better pick a new name and take the caps lock off.

          • Eagle
            05/16/2010 at 11:51 AM

            I think we have agreed that Joseph Price is unusually controlling.
            it was noted in the Washingtonian article that Price had many others convinced that he was the victim of the events in his house. And victim of the police,of course. (the e-mail to a friend is an example of this)
            He evokes loyalty. (Note the loyalty of the trouple)
            Who knows, maybe a person like Price does not even see himself as dangerous. Its easier to point the finger or belittle others than to look at oneself.
            I do think it is quite possible he was either jealous of Robert or contemptuous of Robert or both. (As evidenced by the “teasing” he did about Robert taking the time to visit “peons” at work and belittling Robert’s work at the law firm.)
            He disguises his hostility in a socially acceptable way (jokes, teasing).
            These skills are what makes him so dangerous.

            • Kim
              06/17/2010 at 6:35 PM

              Joe is a true f’in asshole and I know him. Hey, Joe, now can I have my thousand dollar stainless steel table I bought at Pottery Barn in NYC back….looks like you won’t be needing it.

        • Nora
          05/18/2010 at 7:52 AM

          Anonymous: “I’ve seen it in real life, where the really good often attract some very dark people into their orbit.”

          Just brilliant. That’s how I’ve always seen this case. So much art and literature is rooted in this simple fact.

          And it’s a terrifying fact.

          • Kim
            06/17/2010 at 6:37 PM

            I agree with you and have personally experienced this with several characters in DC, including Joe Price. I pray for the protection of God and white lights around me just living here. The evil do seem attracted to the good….like a vampire looking for blood, who recognized his spiritual and energetic lack, they take it from those who exude light and love. There HAS GOT TO BE AN ETERNAL PUNISHMENT FOR THIS and I know Joe Price will find out.

            • Carolina
              06/17/2010 at 7:09 PM

              And this is over a table, you say? Honestly, you’re compromising the site’s intent and possibly more. Give it a rest.

  5. Steve
    05/17/2010 at 7:16 PM

    It is all so very sad, in a thousand ways. But now that it is in our consciousness again with the trial having begun, I wonder if anyone has thought of “Rope,” the Hitchcock film? From when I first heard of Wone’s murder, and the DuPont Circle circumstances, it seemed an eerie, tragic echo. Art, imitation, life… they work upon each other in strange ways, sometimes very horrible ways.

    • MotherOfInvention
      05/18/2010 at 2:41 AM

      “Rope” and “Swoon”. Definitely “Swoon”.

    • Mark M
      06/11/2010 at 12:33 AM

      You are quite right to call “Rope” to mind, that story was based on the murders committed by Leopold and Loeb in the 1920s. The famous pair had decided to kill a young relative to prove that they could get away with it. Some people say that there was no motive for this murder but if you are a sociopath you don’t have different motivations then a normal person.

  6. Andrew
    05/18/2010 at 12:41 AM

    I knew Victor back in the mid-90s when he was working on the “Got Milk” promotional campaign, we both worked out at Washington Sports. This is before he fathered any children. He was always so nice and a bit nerdy. I can easily see him falling under the influence and spell of a charismatic sociopath. In my opinion, he was most likely not involved in the grisly sex-game murder but would maintain all loyalities and keep the secret. If anyone would crack under police intergation at the time, it would have been him, on my reflection of the meek young man I remember. So maybe he didn’t know what was going on that night in the house. So sad that now if he does know the truth, he will never tell because it would guarantee his own life prison sentence and the dissolution of the “family”.

    • Bea
      05/18/2010 at 2:41 PM

      He could cut a deal for immunity in exchange for testimony – or I think it’s so. But I’m guessing he’d rather do prison time than to have Joe get what he deserves. Too bad his personality will end up doing him in. . .

      • NYer
        05/22/2010 at 2:46 PM

        Someone here might have theorized this -not sure where I got this idea- but I think it was suggested that team Kirchner was unlikely to cut any immunity deals. Not sure what I think for certain, but that theory seems plausible enough.

  7. 05/18/2010 at 1:14 AM

    I AM FRANKLY HORRIFIED BY THE VAST NUMBER OF SPECULATIONS BEING PRINTED REGARDING CHILDREN, DRUGS, DEVIANTE SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, DANGEROUS SEXUAL BEHAVIOR. WHERE ARE THE FACTS, AS WE KNOW THEM, AS TO THE BEHAVIORS OF PRICE, ZABORSKY, WARD AND WONE? WHERE ARE THE FACTS? NOT THE RUMORS, NOT THE GUESSES. THE FACTS.

    • curiousdc
      06/25/2010 at 8:09 AM

      um… regarding sexual behaviors, you might want to look at the ginormous cache of “sexual aids” found at 1509 Swann St. You might want to look under “legal documents”. Those are the “facts” you hysterical freak.

  8. Greg
    05/18/2010 at 2:18 AM

    First of all, MARTONSKY, are you unaware that writing in all CAPS immediately lets others know you are insane? If you took the time to read the many police reports and legal documents on this website (see the “legal documents” tab at the top) you would know that enough sex toys and other raunchy paraphernalia were discovered in Ward’s room to open up the WalMart of sex shops. (In fact, post-murder the boys were actually planning to do just that, open up a sex shop/x-rated video store.)

    The DC cops made a list of what they found in Ward’s room which you can read above. Pornographic pictures of Ward and Price engaging in BDSM were found on Price’s work computer as well. None of these activities bother or upset me in the least. Rape and murder, on the other hand, is a very different issue. There’s no guessing going on here. As for children, what the heck are you talking about?

    Yes, Price and Zaborsky are both fathers of children, but other than that fact, no one is talking about children here. Perhaps you are an elderly, unhinged relative of one of the defendants who’s had his/her head buried in the sand since August 2006 and has just learned that your dear nephew or grandson might be heading off to the pokey. Whatever your bizarre beef is, be aware that no one is making wild speculations on this site. Just read the documents before you jump all over everyone! Or have I been duped and Martonsky is just Ben Franklin in all his idiotic and inane glory?

    • MarkD
      05/18/2010 at 2:25 PM

      Forget Martonsky and his caps lock. You have these people convicted due to their sexuality. It’s a giant leap to say that someones love of pornography makes them a murderer. Need to clear your head of that sexual hate you seem to carry. I know plenty of people who are sex crazed but none who are killers. Clearly the opposite is true in your life Greg.

      • Bea
        05/18/2010 at 2:39 PM

        Due to their sexuality? Many of us bloggers are gay. I wish Victor would cut a deal for immunity and tell the whole truth, but other than that, I suspect that the defendants are about to get what they deserve – for their obstruction and conspiracy. Murder charges may be afterward.

        Nobody on the site is puritanical about sex toys, BDSM, etc., and I agree that most people who partake are not murderers. But it doesn’t mean they aren’t murderers either. It seems to be that they’re playing the sexuality card in ways I find offensive (as a lesbian).

        • Nyer
          05/20/2010 at 5:38 PM

          To add to Bea’s thoughts, with which I agree, sexuality is not the issue here. It’s about the murder of a defenseless person. To prove that I offer this up: My opinion of the guilt in this case would not change if the three were all straight, and their murdered houseguest hadn’t been a man, but a woman.

      • NM
        05/18/2010 at 2:48 PM

        Calm down, MarkD – no one is trying to take your porn away.

        • MarkD
          05/18/2010 at 3:39 PM

          Nobody suggested they were.

      • Tarfunk
        05/22/2010 at 9:37 PM

        Assume the victim here was Roberta Wone instead of Robert. Not a scintilla of fact would change. These three men have concocted an unbelievable story in an attempt to cover absolutely heinous behavior, irrespective of the gender of the victim or the sexual orientation of the perpetrators. No one on this site is intimating that a love of pornography makes someone a murderer. These guys may have been sex crazed, but that doesn’t make them murderers. The fact that they killed a man does.

        • AnnaZed
          05/23/2010 at 12:02 PM

          If the victim were Roberta Wone there wouldn’t even be any speculation as to motive at all. The sexual assault and murder of a woman or a girl is considered motive in and of itself; why not in the case of an attractive man?

          • Tarfunk
            05/23/2010 at 1:26 PM

            Damn good point, and well taken.

          • Greta
            05/24/2010 at 10:43 PM

            It seems from his cross-exam so far that Victor’s lawyer is by far the best of the defense… He now needs to convince Victor to tell the truth and cop a plea. These guys are done. It’s over. It doesn’t seem that Victor had anything to do with the murder itself.

      • Kjkeefe
        05/27/2010 at 3:44 PM

        I’d like to address this “convicted due to sexuality” idea. I’m a lawyer, gay, and have only recently read the legal documents for the facts of the case.
        First off, the charge here is obstruction of justice, not murder. The judge will keep this clear in her head, so if you want to follow how this plays out, you should, too.
        The first and most accepted facts are those presented by the paramedics, forensics team, and the morgue. A body is found, stabbed but not bleeding; lost a lot of blood, but not very much blood at scene (where did that blood go?); stab wounds are methodical, no defensive movement by the victim, no blood splatter; body appears to have been wiped down and posed; knife that does not match the wounds appears to have had blood smeared ONTO it by white towel that left fibers; eyes show signs of asphixiation; scream came by 11:30, no call until 11:49; blood in yard drain and lint trap.
        On those facts alone -if proven in court- did someone clean blood/body, move or plant knife? If yes: tampering with evidence and obstruction.
        If obstruction, who had opportunity to do it? By the defendants own statements, they found body. Did anyone else have opportunity to commit muder then move all that stuff around? If no: the defendats committed the obstruction of justice. Their cohesive statements show conspiracy amoung all three.
        The sex business only provides a motive or occassion for the underlying murder, which is not at issue here. But bondage, anal toys, electric wands or toys all fit with the facts tending to show Wone was sexually abused. He had ejaculated (can be done to a drugged person with electric wand or prostate pressure) and his own sperm was pushed up his anus (by a toy?). Drugged state and imobilization are consistent with his stab wounds (no defensive movement) and his asphixiation. Was he sexually abused? If yes, and given the timelines from defendants own testimony, who had the opportunity? Only the Defendants.
        Was his murder accidental? Was he raped or sexually willing? Was a fourth or fifth person there who did the killing and they are covering for? Space aliens? Not material.
        But: given that he was dead; did the defendants switch knives, wipe blood, wash body, wipe knife, dispose of blood, lie about the knife, wash/dry bloody clothes, etc? If so, then without considering murder, they are guilty of tampering and obstruction of justice. I think the judge will find them guilty of the charges, unless the prosecution (Prosecutors and cops) blow it.

        • TT
          05/27/2010 at 4:07 PM

          Appreciate your post. Hope you hang around.

        • bonsource
          06/25/2010 at 8:32 AM

          Kjkeefe, that has been THE best assessment and explanation I have read on here to-date and more in line with my thinking since it dismisses all of the hypotheses surrounding the how and why of Robert’s death (which has been pure speculation by most) and focuses on the charges actually at hand (conspiracy, obstruction and tampering).

          I’m thinking the judge has already made up her mind but wants to put some pressure on the trio by waiting till Tuesday with the hope that one will turn evidence and force the remaining truth out. Anyone else share a similar line of thought?

  9. Andrew
    05/20/2010 at 1:01 AM

    After reading today’s Washington Post article about the paramedic’s testimony, and his account regarding Ward’s wordless behavior of not answering and then going into his room while Price is sitting next to the dead body is totally bizarre.
    Victor is hysterical outside while the other two are regrouping before the police arrive. If anything, the ordinary reaction would be to go to the living room and await the police not to sequester yourself to your room (Ward) while the other sat so closely to the corpse. The whole description of what the paramedic said is morbid and macabre. Poor Mrs. Wone living such a nightmare.

    These men (Price and Ward)and their actions/reactions are just ghoulish.

    • MarkD
      05/21/2010 at 11:28 AM

      How is someone supposed to act when a houseguest is murdered? If someone was killed in your home and you didn’t know how it happened, how would you behave?

      • Nyer
        05/21/2010 at 11:49 AM

        I think any type of behavior OTHER than Dylan’s behavior would be expected. One would expect him to at least engage Baker- not make eye contact but sit in silence as he did. This was one of the foremost things that chilled me when I first read the affidavit. Even if Dyl had just waited in his room and did not engage Baker- even that might have been more “normal” conduct than how he is reported to have acted.

        • MarkD
          05/21/2010 at 1:11 PM

          You’re just supposing. I assume that I couldn’t determine how I would act if such a thing happened in my home but becoming speechless doesn’t seem too far fetched considering the circumstances. Americans always have a time putting themselves in the shoes of others. If they don’t act like they’d expect then hell.. They must be guilty.

          • CDinDC
            05/21/2010 at 1:23 PM

            MarkD says: “Americans always have a time putting themselves in the shoes of others. If they don’t act like they’d expect then hell.. They must be guilty.”

            Wow. That’s a sweepingly broad generalization.

          • Anonymous in DC
            05/21/2010 at 1:49 PM

            So what is your theory MarkD?

  10. Ann
    05/20/2010 at 6:37 PM

    Does anyone know if Zaborsky has any kind of acting background? Just something I was curious about after hearing the 911 call.

    • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
      06/25/2010 at 9:16 AM

      He did. An old friend (ex GF) from college days posted several times after the 911 call surfaced. She said he did a little acting in his younger days. She said the 911 tape sounded staged.

  11. BadShoes
    05/21/2010 at 12:12 PM

    FWIW, WMRW received a couple of posts months ago by a person who claimed to have known Mr. Zaborsky as a young man. She mentioned that Mr. Zaborsky was a ‘wannabe’ actor in high school. She wrote that his voice on the 911 call was not his natural voice.

    There is no way to be certain that the writer actually knew Mr. Zaborsky, and, AFAIK, no WMRW denizen has ever attempted to check out her statement. The posts themselves sounded entirely credible.

  12. SavvyG
    05/25/2010 at 2:12 PM

    Does anyone know why the interrogation transcript spells Victor’s name, Caborsky when clearly it appears to be Zaborsky? Also in Price’s transcript there are many cell phone numbers clearly listed. Seems a bit sloppy to spell a defendant’s name wrong and to rattle off cell phone numbers of people who undoubtedly have had to get them changed. I have my theory and it does not involve an intruder, however I’d expect the transcripts to be a bit neater.

  13. John Hunter
    05/26/2010 at 5:43 AM

    My heart goes out to the families of these men.

  14. David Hiergesell
    06/24/2010 at 11:19 PM

    I posted something about Victor on the FAQ message board, but will repeat it here for anyone who is interested in someone who actually knew Victor.

    I worked with him at the International Dairy Foods Association for about a year in 1999. I did not work directly with Victor, but saw him several times a day around the office.

    The office was highly professional and purpose driven at all times.

    I can say without hesitation that if a poll were taken amongst every person in the 50+ association as to the nicest person in the office it would be unanimous for Victor.

    He was perenially optimistic in a kind and humble manner. He was a genuinely nice person who never said a bad word about anyone. People obviously cared about Victor and loved him a great deal.

    I’ve never heard a bad word about him. The office was very tolerant toward gay staff members and it was a family type of atmosphere. Being gay was never an issue for anyone I spoke to in over a year. It wasn’t part of Victor’s identity from what I could tell. He dressed well and smiled all the time… not an issue.

    I never knew Victor privately, but almost everyone else did. Never a bad word about him. People LOVED Victor and cared about him.

    I left after a year on to better horizons. I’m very sad to hear about his involvement in this sad matter. I only found out about his involvement about an hour ago while half asleep listening to the late news on Fox.

    I am considering writing a letter to his attorney chiming in with all the people I’m sure are helping him. Not a chance he’s involved in this in my humble opinion. I haven’t read anything about this situation other than the FAQ on this site.

    I hope and pray for all the parties involved with this. Mostly for the family of Robert.

    • Carolina
      06/24/2010 at 11:39 PM

      It is always hard to believe something like this when someone you know and obviously admired is involved. To be honest, I don’t think anyone believes Victor is directly involved, but came to be drawn into the web by those he loved. If he and the other defendants are innocent, no one here hopes they are found guilty just to satisfy their need for closure.

      However, there are indeed many, many discrepancies in what all three of them said and did, and having weighed them over the last four years, many here are inclined to believe there is at least some guilt on all parts.

      • Former Criminal Sex Offense Prosecutor
        06/24/2010 at 11:58 PM

        Carolina-

        You are awesome.

        There are always people who are going to be in denial about what happened to Robert Wone because it is too frightening to admit to yourself that you know people who are capable of doing really scary sick things.

        So, it must not be true because he was really nice at work & everyone liked him.

        • Carolina
          06/25/2010 at 8:45 AM

          Thank you, FCSOP.

          You know, it’s strange. I was talking to someone last night who said most people, if given the general question, “Would you cover for someone you loved more than anyone else,” would say they would, especially if they had to make that decision quickly and without time to think out the evidence and the consequences of the decision.

          He likened it to being offered a hand into a lifeboat and being told the ship is on fire *and* sinking by the person they love more than life. And once they’re in, most people aren’t going to jump back out of the boat, even if the waters are rough and the ship looks pretty damned stable.

          If Victor does in fact know something more, I don’t envy him. I’m not sure how many of us would have the courage to jump out of that boat and try swimming the rough waters back to a ship where he has no one, nothing waiting for him.

          • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
            06/25/2010 at 9:01 AM

            For me….I don’t protect, I defend. If I believe guilt is involved, I won’t protect someone, but if innocence is involved, I will defend them. I don’t lie and I don’t do harm…and I expect the people in my life to fulfill those same moral obligations. If they don’t, they are not welcome in my life.

            Maybe it’s the buddhist in me….defending wrong is just bad karma.

        • David Hiergesell
          06/28/2010 at 2:00 PM

          FCSOP,

          People always say, “I never saw this coming” about people accused of violent crimes. I realize that my defense of Victor could be completely off base, but if you knew him it’s almost unimaginable given his personality.

          Perhaps he hung around the wrong people. He allowed his partner to have another relationship in his own house. That shows us something, but it isn’t tantamount to being guilty of obstruction of justice in a murder investigation.

          I’ve read some things on this website about Victor which I refuse to believe from people smearing him and his friends. He was a consistent person day in day out. I have a degree in psychology and I was trained to pick up on these types of inconsistencies similar to a proscecutor.

          I can’t truly rule out that Victor might be a victim here who is being forced to cover up for some reason. I cannot accept that he is part of a murder or violent sexual encounter. He has too many other people backing him up on a personal level, so I’m not alone in defending him.

          Do you really know what goes on in someone’s mind? No.

          Is it possible from a psychological perspective that many gay people have had tragic childhood abuses higher than the general population which may lead to problems when adults? Perhaps…

          Can you convict people on that basis? No.

          • KiKi
            06/28/2010 at 2:19 PM

            What a great post – thank you so much for responding to FCSOP. Sometimes it is difficult to respond to people who have the attitude that if you disagree with their position you are in denial or otherwise have something wrong with you.

            And I also think that it takes a lot of courage to post a positive analysis of one of the defendants on this site which, while initially an intriguing discussion of facts and law, has of late turned into a lynch mob. And to not hide behind the veil of anonymity is also very admirable.

            I am sure that Victor, Dylan and Joe are going through Hell right now as they await the verdict (whatever their culpability).

            I am glad that he has “many people backing him up on a personal level.” And I hope that is helping him get through this difficult time.

            I am sure it helps to have friends who are willing to stand up to the masses supporting him. Whatever the outcome I hope he and his loved ones are able to cope through this difficult process.

            • David Hiergesell
              06/29/2010 at 1:29 PM

              I think I know you Kiki. It’s been a while. Hope all is well. Give my best to VZ if you see him. Justice prevails !

          • Bea
            06/28/2010 at 2:49 PM

            David, I appreciate your post. We’ve heard here a number of times that Victor is a truly kind person, including people who knew all three defendants who said that Victor was indeed the one who someone would ‘turn to’ in needing a friend.

            It saddens me to think that he may go to prison to “save” someone who is not returning the favor – who is “allowing” a “relatively innocent” man (i.e. not a killer) to spend a considerable time in prison and to give up the life he’d built.

            I continue to wonder, though, about all those who care about Victor and are close enough to talk to him – it would seem that someone would say “do the right thing” and “save yourself”.

            A few weeks (months?) back someone posted something which at least suggested that extended family members were trying to get through to Victor (if I remember correctly). From what’s been reported, though, it seems his parents are in the one-for-all-and-all-for-one camp with the other families. I can only imagine that Victor has assured them that none of them are guilty of these (or any) charges. I don’t know what else to think – it would seem to me that someone close would have read EVERYTHING and have come to the same conclusion as many of us here, that he’s covering up for some very bad actions of others. That he should separate himself from those others, for very good reasons, not the least of which is to save himself from prison.

            I realize there’s a reasonable chance he’ll be acquitted (not that I think he will be) but it shocks the conscience to think he’d risk prison. I suppose that he drank the Kool-Aid that “nothing will bring Robert back – why should we suffer too?” and that whatever precipitated the event was “accidental.” Perhaps he simply put blinders on that night and never looked back, assumed that his one great love never meant harm. . .

            Much as I empathize with Victor’s situation (rather, what I’m guessing it to be), it appears that he’s chosen the path to accept prison rather than to tell what he knows and “be the reason” the murderer goes to prison – hard to take when that person(s) are fully responsible for their actions and have no like desire to save Victor from prison . . .

            • David Hiergesell
              06/28/2010 at 8:54 PM

              I don’t know enough about the case to say whether or not Victor is covering up for actions of others. Perhaps he’s telling the truth… perhaps all of them are.

              I know if he told me something to my face, I’d have a strong tendency to take him at his word.

              People, including myself, are always inclined to be cynical. In this particular case, I have to side with him on this. I haven’t read any evidence on this case yet, so perhaps there are reasons he has given to doubt his veracity.

              Until I hear otherwise, based on his character, I am likely to believe that he is telling the truth.

    • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
      06/25/2010 at 9:13 AM

      So many people on this site, including myself, believe Victor has nothing to do with the murder of Robert Wone.

      Perhaps Victor’s only fault in this tragedy is that he was too nice. His love and caring for an individual extended way beyond normal bounds. Very few people I’ve ever known in my life are willing to share their partner in the way Victor has. Perhaps his kindness was a slippery slope.

      They always say the nice guy finishes last.

      • David Hiergesell
        06/28/2010 at 9:06 PM

        How about the nice guy is telling the truth?

        • David Hiergesell
          06/29/2010 at 1:32 PM

          How about the judge believes the nice guy?

          • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
            06/29/2010 at 1:42 PM

            David, when I said “nice guy finishes last,” that was meant in a sympathetic tone. I’m not sure why you keep posting to my comment.

          • Bill 2
            06/29/2010 at 1:45 PM

            In this case, it’s obvious the judge feels the prosecution did not present enough evidence to convict. She did not say that the trouple is innocent. It’s clear that she indicated the killer was not Michael Price nor an intruder. Who do you think she’s pointing to as the killer and who is covering up for the killer?

    • susan
      07/04/2010 at 9:06 AM

      Also, you knew him in 1999, before J. Price entered his orb.

      Also, he was a senior marketer. Marketers sell, and devise campaigns and language and the whole shebang to pitch, to sell, to sway, to persuade. What he Did as a profession does not match with shy and retiring.

      As well, life is filled with examples that illustrate that most people are still learning about their own selves throughout their lives, and their parents, etc. Who really knows anyone?

      VZ was in that car with JP and S. Hixson when Hixson said JP said he “pulled” the knife out of Robert Wone. Did Victor Zaborsky share this with police? He Did Not. There is one example of a Victor Zaborsky who is complicit in a cover up.

  15. bonsource
    06/25/2010 at 8:50 AM

    I suspect most on here think the judge has already determined the facts and made up her mind. Any hunches she is delaying a decision till Tuesday with the thought that the delay will put some pressure on the trio and the possibility one will crack and turn evidence before then, forcing the truth out? Anyone else share a similar line of thought? We are already saw some separation in the closing arguments . . .

    • Bob
      06/25/2010 at 9:04 AM

      Maybe she is waiting until Tuesday because she and her clerk are writing the decision.

  16. David Hiergesell
    06/28/2010 at 9:02 PM

    It appears that Dr. Lee agrees that the scene was NOT staged. That would tend to support Victor’s version of events.

    “On the witness stand, Dr. Lee told the court the prosecution’s theory of a planted knife is not supported by the evidence. Dr. Lee spent more than an hour on the witness stand answering numerous questions about the knife, towel and other bloody evidence found at the scene.

    Prosecutors believe the knife was planted and the blood, hair and other matter found on the blade was wiped onto it with a towel found at the scene.

    Testifying for the defense, Dr. Lee told the court, “The blood stains on the knife were not applied by a towel. A towel would produce a pattern in one direction. I see multiple directions of blood [on the knife].”

    Prosecutors believe the pattern of blood found on the knife at the scene came from a towel. But Dr. Lee disagreed with that.

    “Fibers from the t-shirt [Wone was wearing the night he was killed] could have produced the dotted pattern of blood found on the knife. The dots could be from cut thread,” said Dr. Lee.

    Dr. Lee also said he was not surprised by the small amount of blood found in the bed where Wone was killed. Nor was he surprised by the small amount of blood on the towel.

    Prosecutors believe the small amount of blood is proof someone cleaned up the crime scene. In effect, staging what happened.

    But Dr. Lee said, “A staged scene is easy to recognize. I see no evidence of staging.”

    • Bill Orange
      06/28/2010 at 9:50 PM

      I’m very sorry that your friend is on trial here, but I think you’re cherry-picking information to support your belief that Victor couldn’t possibly be involved in this. Henry Lee was paid between $10,000 and $20,000 by the defense. The judge was clearly skeptical of his testimony. She all but said to him that it looked to her like the knife had been wiped down, and he did little to convince her otherwise.

      May I ask you this question? If the Victor you knew had found someone stabbed to death in his guest bedroom, is there any chance that he would’ve invoked his right to remain silent rather than telling the police everything he could remember to try to catch the killer?

      • David Hiergesell
        06/28/2010 at 11:41 PM

        Bill,

        I just finished reading the defense motion to aquit and the procecution rebuttal.

        I have limited legal training, but I see a stronger case on the defense side of this. The detectives investigating the case had their minds made up from the beginning. That is clear to me.

        I’m not sure how to answer the question as to how Victor would react to this other than what was reported. Hysterics and screaming definitely. Getting composure and talking to emergency response definitely. Telling the police the truth vehemently, yes. Invoking right to remain silent only if instructed to by a lawyer or knowing that he was a suspect in the case.

        The detectives were badgering them from what I could tell. I’ve been questioned by detectives before who were badgering and it was laughable. Only problem was that they were dead serious and not that bright. Told me I was not being truthful etc.

        Later turned out that the victim admitted making up the story. It wasn’t me being investigated, but I know how Price et al must have felt being questioned by a lead detective who had his mind made up. I also detected some anti gay prejudice there. But, that’s me.

        These guys will be acquitted in my opinion. I pray for all of them and Robert Wone’s widow.

        • David Hiergesell
          06/29/2010 at 1:26 PM

          Acquitted. Shame on the lazy DC homocide detectives who let homophobia taint them. Shame on proscecutors who turned Robert Wone’s widow against his friends. I am always one to say “I told you so.” So…

          I TOLD YOU SO

          • Jo
            06/29/2010 at 1:51 PM

            David,

            Did you read the judge’s order? They were acquitted b/c the government did not meet the burden of proof, not because the accused were innocent of the charges!!

            • David Hiergesell
              06/29/2010 at 5:07 PM

              Jo, why even have courts then? You know all the facts so just convict them based on your opinion. I read the detective interviews and discovered a lazy, inarticulate, homophobe who never considered for a minute there was an intruder. He had his mind made up. It’s all simple to cops, if you think the husband did it, you will eventually find out you were right. It’s all black and white to them. They spent all that time trying to trap Gary Condit while Chandra Levy’s body laid there right off a path in Rock Creek Park for YEARS. Sorry, I think you are bitter because you convicted these guys in your own mind. The police lied and convinced you using BS.

              • Bill Orange
                06/29/2010 at 5:23 PM

                David,

                Gary Condit got himself into trouble because he lied to the police about the fact that he was having sex with Chandra Levy. He didn’t kill her, but lying to the police got him into trouble, nonetheless.

                I know you don’t want to believe that your friend was involved in this, but you really should read the judge’s ruling. She made it very clear that she did not think there was an intruder (beyond a reasonable doubt) and that at least one of the defendants knows who killed Robert Wone. At a minimum, your friend is involved in a VERY unhealthy relationship with someone who is shielding a killer.

          • Eagle
            06/29/2010 at 7:44 PM

            Robert Wone’s widow is an intelligent woman and no one needs to turn her for or against anyone. She is perfectly capable of her own analysis.
            Really!

          • heirgesellmakesmeill
            06/29/2010 at 11:01 PM

            Heirgesell is so transparently disingenous. He claims to be new to the case but now pronounces it all based in homophobia when NOTHING in the judge’s ruling would support that. He is clearly a hack friend of VZ or Price who is here on a mission and attempts to create false credentials of objectivity by acting like he knows a defendant from years ago and that is all. I don’t buy it.

            • Dave Hiergesell
              06/30/2010 at 9:13 AM

              Man, talk about some obsessed people… I don’t care what you buy about me or not. If you read back further, you will discover that I found out abotu VZ’s involvement in the case only days ago. I said to myself “not a chance he is involved in this.” I found this site and offered my opinion based on my experiences. The dripping sarcasm here about “Saint Victor” doesn’t fit with my experiences. Perhaps he’s changed since I knew him. Don’t know.

              I read the evidence and am convinced that the DC police blew the investigation. I am further convinced that the proscecutor was under pressure to bring charges against someone, anyone, for this crime. These men were easy targets who have a non-mainstream lifestyle. I have no further agenda here other than defending someone I am positive is completely innocent. I predicted they would be exonerated here. The judge still has questions but she didn’t convict them. I’m not sure it matters to most of the cynics on this website, but has anyone considered the possibility that they are telling the truth? It looks to me like anyone who defends the defendents in this case gets cyberbullied into leaving the board. I’ve done my fair share of cyberbullying and can go toe to toe with anyone. I don’t really care that much to waste the time to do so for this crowd (as I’m learning.)

              I believe these guys are innocent. Period. Maybe they’re guilty as sin. Maybe I’m completely wrong. I wasn’t there that night and neither were any of you. I have only spent about three total hours researching this. You can save your insults and innuendo for someone else. I will get bored soon enough and forget about it. What I wished for happened so those of you who want to keep retrying this have fun. I especially love the comments in the Washington Post blogs where people want to know if the proscecution can appeal the decision of the judge. I wouldn’t be surprised if these are the same people who post garbage on this site. I use my real name here and I notice that none of you brave people attacking me or VZ on my posts do that. So until you do too, go pound sand.

              • chilaw79
                06/30/2010 at 9:23 AM

                David,

                Cyberbullying (like real bullying) is not appropriate. I found your defense of Victor Zaborsky to be heart felt based on your own experiences in working with him. You also acknowledged that there might be aspects of his personality you did not know. Your comments are honest.

                Emotions are running a bit raw and passion rules the day (or, at least, yesterday).

                Stick around and I think you will see a more rational discourse emerge. I have learned a lot in the time I have been posting here and I think you will, too. I also think you have a perspective that is important.

              • Bill 2
                06/30/2010 at 10:12 AM

                Victor Zaborsky said there was an intruder, David. The judge says there was no intruder. Are you claiming that the judge is a liar?

                Why do you refuse to answer questions? Your friend has a dark cloud over his head as a result of the judge’s decision. She says there was no intruder. We know that there were three men in the house with Robert Wone that night, thus, according to the judge, one of them must be a killer. Do you still think your friend is innocent of all involvement in the murder, David?

              • mw
                06/30/2010 at 10:24 AM

                I think most people here think Victor is at least the “most innocent” of three. But here clearly got caught up in something bad here.

                The verdict was fair. But there is no question whatsoever that it’s at LEAST more than 50% likely that Victor knows a lot more than he’s saying. That’s not enough to throw him in jail. But it’s enough for people to be fairly upset.

                When people come on here and declare the innocence of people who are, at the very least, “probably” responsible to his death – I think it is insulting to the Wone family.

                It’s fair to remind us there’s reasonable doubt here, to lay out the case for that doubt, remind us that we don’t know the full story (I think plenty of posters have done that without being attacked).

                What fires people up is the paranoia, the arrogant assertions of innocence, the insistence that any suspicion on these people is homophobia. In light of the strong evidence, it’s not fair to group people like that.

                • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
                  06/30/2010 at 10:30 AM

                  mw says: “The verdict was fair.”

                  I don’t fair would apply. Legally sound, perhaps, but certainly not fair.

                  Legality and morality can be on opposite sides of the scales of justice.

                  • mw
                    06/30/2010 at 10:33 AM

                    You’re right, I should have said, “fair in a legal sense”.

                • Devin
                  06/30/2010 at 10:54 AM

                  I for one am glad of the outcome and I would not say that this is the arrogant assertions of innocence but rather the believe that far to often people are found guilty of crimes when there is still reasonable doubt.

                  I also believe that the Wone family is in an unfortunate place and sympathize with their suffering.

                  • DavidM
                    06/30/2010 at 11:03 AM

                    Devin, there is still the matter of justice for Robert and his family and the protection for the rest of us. This decision has left Robert’s death as a crime without resolution and left at least one if not more murderers free to do it again.

                    • Devin
                      06/30/2010 at 11:17 AM

                      I understand where you are coming from but one has to look at the United States judicial system as a whole.

                      And putting people behind bars should not be any sort of “relief” for the Wone family.

                      It saddens me to think that we as Americans are so quick to hurt another when we are hurt.
                      Locking up someone will not bring back there loved one. The best they can do is to celebrate Roberts life and his memory so that he is not forgotten. And in a bizzare sort of way the defendants in some sense have help cement Robert Wone’s place in history.

  17. David Hiergesell
    06/29/2010 at 1:03 PM

    Thank you merciful God.

    Please help the healing to begin for the Wone family and for the three other victims of this horrible crime.

    Please change the heart of a killer and bring him into your light. Bring closure to the Wone family and reconcile this.

    In your son’s name I pray.

    • David M
      06/29/2010 at 1:49 PM

      This is crap. There was only one victim. Three criminals. They might think they have gotten away with it today, but blood will out one day and everything done in secret will be shone in the light. That day cannot come soon enough for me in this case!

    • heirgesellmakesmeill
      06/29/2010 at 10:58 PM

      Hiergesell claims to have recently heard about this case, and talks about what a great person VZ is. READ THE JUDGE”S OPINION. READ THE 911 call and interviews.

      You’re a disingenuous joke.

  18. Steve
    06/29/2010 at 5:32 PM

    What a day, and a strange, sad day it is for the common good. I read the carefully-parsed ruling of the judge, and while I honor her desire to protect the law, and the law-breakers (remembering Blackstone’s warning), it seems clear to her and to me that the three defendants are morally miserable men. For those who care about public justice, even public mercy, there should be no celebration in this news. The three of them know what happened– even perhaps were the perpetrators of what happened –but refuse to be responsible for what happened. And we all suffer, as both justice and mercy languish in the streets of the city with the ruling.

  19. David Hiergesell
    06/29/2010 at 7:17 PM

    Steve, you have your opinion about others being “morally miserable” but clearly a judge didn’t let that affect her judgement. Thank God it was her not you on the bench. The disgusting DC police tainted this whole sad story and appealed to the worst homophobic instincts in us all. You are dead wrong about Victor Zaborsky from my personal experience. He is one of the most beloved fellow workers I’ve encountered. Your comments are offensive.

    • DavidM
      06/29/2010 at 7:58 PM

      I don’t give a flying F*** that you or Victor might be offended. A man loved by his family and friends is dead and your buddy Victor (read the decision!) was one of only three people in the house where he was murdered. Either Victor is innocent of actually killing him and is merely covering up the crime or was actually one of the ones who killed him. In either case, if “offended” is all Victor is, he should count himself tremendously fortunate. After all, Robert Wone is dead!

    • Steve
      06/30/2010 at 7:21 AM

      Since it is personal now… David, I said nothing about the sexual practices of the three. That is your own paranoia at play here. Read the decision. Step back and ponder what happened that night. There is still way too much of Hitchcock’s “Rope” in all this for anyone to imagine anything other than three socially sophisticated men wondering, “Could we get away with it?”– and now, apparently, they have. Morally miserable men? Yes, and yes, and yes. You seem horribly indifferent to the bloody fact that a man was killed that night, and that– as the judge carefully noted –the three were weirdly indifferent to the murder. Is there something about indifference to the meaning of the moral universe that you share with your friends?

      • curiousdc
        06/30/2010 at 7:51 AM

        David, you’re in denial. Your “beloved” Victor appears to be
        nothing more than a dishonest and delusional creep.

        I anxiously await the civil trial. Regardless of the outcome, I, am happy knowing that he will forever be defined by
        this heinous murder.

  20. David Hiergesell
    06/29/2010 at 7:33 PM

    Bill, you say Victor is involved in an unhealthy relationship. I could just as easily say the same to you and it would be as offensive. It’s none of our business. Let’s get on and find a killer.

    • Bill 2
      06/29/2010 at 7:45 PM

      “Let’s get on and find a killer.”

      If you read the judge’s decision, you’ll realize she narrowed the field to three people, one of them being your bosom buddy. Are you going to ask him about it?

    • DavidM
      06/29/2010 at 8:00 PM

      Read the decision! We found the killer(s), or maybe you expect us to join the mythic hunt for Nicole Simpson’s murderer too? How pathetic and nauseating.

  21. AnotherMichael
    06/29/2010 at 11:34 PM

    I have known two parties in this case from years ago (1997-2004) and I lived four blocks away from 1509 Swann Street when this happened. But I never watched local news nor was living under a rock I suppose, but I have just heard about this trial and this site in the last two weeks. I can only say I’m beyond shocked with the entire matter.

  22. Bill 2
    06/30/2010 at 8:10 AM

    Please come back David Hiergesell and tell us more about your Saint Victor of Swann Street. The judge says there was no intruder in the house. That leaves four people in the house that night. Do you think Robert Wone stabbed himself to death, David? If not, could Victor be the killer or do you think he is merely providing a cover for the killer?

    Tell us, David Hiergesell, in view of what the judge said about no intruder, what is your explanation for the involvement of your sainted friend in the death of Robert Wone? On June 24, you wrote, “Not a chance he’s involved in this in my humble opinion.”

    Do you still hold to that opinion?

  23. mw
    06/30/2010 at 10:27 AM

    Victor can do the right thing if he wants, and tell the truth at the civil trial.

    Maybe he really doesn’t know what happened. Then he can at least clear up the inconsistencies in his 911 call. Did Joe tell him to say that stuff? Why did Victor think Robert was breathing – did Joe tell him that? Why did Victor think Joe was applying pressure to the wound – did Joe tell him that, or did he see it?

  24. Alternateguy
    07/10/2010 at 5:06 PM

    As with many citizens, most of the bloggers here seem to overlook, what I know from personal experience and from the experiences of others, to be a fact. Police and associated personnel tend to stick together. Particularly, when there is a question involving their competence. Opinions and recollections of emergency personnel and law officers can be clouded by prejudice and the inclination to back up their friends. Testimony of law enforcement can be less than accurate, to put it kindly. Especially when they are covering for one another. Their memories of details can become conveniently altered. While many or even most law enforcement personnel may be beyond reproach, such isn’t always the case.

    It has been stated repeatedly on this site, as if it were a fact, that no outside intruder was present in the Swann Street house. The judge in the trial has been quoted as saying that there was no intruder. However what she actually said was that although she had a personal opinion that that was likely the case, she as a Judge had to rule otherwise. In other words the defendants were found innocent according to the law. Meaning, according to logic, that there may have well been an actual intruder.

    Bloggers on this site have repeated discounted the possibility of a “Ninja” as they put it.

    However who is to say, particularly after reading the postings on this site, that the Swann Street family had no enemies? How can nearly everyone so easily dismiss the possibility that some person quickly intruded with the intent striking at the household family that he or she considered a threat? Whether to Godliness or some other cause? An intruder may well have considered Robert Wone to simply one of the group a participant in imagined sinful activity. Indeed visitors to this site have suggested that, in spite of much evidence to the contrary.

    Many persons who have known them, consider the defendants to be really good guys. Including, from what we know, their good friend Robert Wone. He knew them as well as anyone after all. Doesn’t his opinion account for anything?

    Sure it’s frustrating not to be able to identify his killer at this point. But why do so many people insist on the guilt of his friends? There is really scant evidence of such, and it’s circumstantial at best.

    • Carolina
      07/10/2010 at 7:21 PM

      Find a shred of evidence that anyone was in that house and we’ll talk.

      • Susan
        07/10/2010 at 8:04 PM

        Dear Alternateguy,

        I myself entertain the idea that there might have been a fourth involved, but not an “unknown intruder.”

        You wrote that Robert Wone “knew them as well as anyone.” That might be so; and the point of that seems to be that not a lot of their friends, colleagues, etc., seemed to have known them that well. Many seem to have been surprised that theirs was a three-way relationship, that they comprised a “trouple,” that they were involved with recreational drugs, that they kept a type of dungeon, electrostim device and other “torture” “toys” in their home. Many seem to be surprised about M. Price and his record, etc. Even their own housemate, Sarah Morgan, seemed to be surprised to learn that J. Price’s brother, Michael Price, had a key to the house. And on, and on and on.

        As far as the Judge, she came to her official ruling. Any other judge might have come to a different ruling. That’s the nature of judges, that’s the nature of people, that’s the nature of the interpretation of evidence, deciding what’s evidence and human nature.

        If you haven’t taken the time already, read through this website/blog. I am still reading through it. There is a ton of information here–records, personal accounts, etc., etc.

        You write that the Swann St. gang might have had enemies. Quite possibly, esp. since some of them seemed to engage in relations wit anon. sex partners, possibly at that very residence.

        But then, if there was a known enemy, would they not be packing when they came to the house if there was a premeditated plan to kill someone? And then why skip over a bedroom to where RW was sleeping. And on and on. It’s all here on the WMRW site.

    • Clio
      07/10/2010 at 9:18 PM

      Wolves often wear sheep’s clothing, alternate. And, thus, even good friends may be deceived. The probable betrayal of Robert in this case is its most “vicious” aspect, and the evidence of that betrayal, however circumstantial, is much more than “really scant”.

      Why would an anti-gay group target that house on that night in the name of “godliness”? Even the Christian Right strongly prefers legal and electoral victories over paid assassins, especially in this country. Would a drug dealer try to rough up one of the residents over an unpaid debt? Maybe, but such a criminal would have focused on the debtor and probably not at home.

      Equally impossible is an official cover-up of lies, a rush to judgment to cover the back sides of MPD officers and others. The “rush” to judgment took over two years to get indictments for conspiracy and tampering; the murder charges still have not been handed down. Collusion between police and EMTs and Dr. G. and etc. is preposterous as well: these hard-working civil servants do not have the time or the energy needed for all of that Machiavellian posturing.

    • Bill 2
      07/10/2010 at 11:06 PM

      “In other words the defendants were found innocent according to the law. Meaning, according to logic, that there may have well been an actual intruder.”

      You sound like those who claim the trouple is “innocent” because they were found “not guilty.”

    • galoon
      07/10/2010 at 11:34 PM

      As with many citizens, most of the bloggers here don’t overlook what I know from personal experience and from the experiences of others, to be a fact. Joe and Vic and Dyl tend to stick together. Particularly, when there is a question involving their honesty. Opinions and recollections of Joe and Vic and Dyl can be clouded by prejudice and the inclination to back up their friends. Testimony of the three can be less than accurate, to put it kindly. Especially when they are covering for one another. Their memories of details can become conveniently altered. While the trouple and many or even most of their associates may be beyond reproach, such isn’t always the case.

      True alternate guy, there is always the alternate view.

  25. Alternateguy,
    07/11/2010 at 1:32 AM

    “Collusion between police and EMTs and Dr. G. and etc. is preposterous as well: these hard-working civil servants do not have the time or the energy needed for all of that Machiavellian posturing.”

    Happens every day.

    Not out and out “Collusion,” as you call it, but just as doctors and other professionals tend to cover for and support the views of their colleagues, law authorities quite often do this as well. It’s difficult in any profession to openly contradict the views of your fellow professionals. Have you ever tried it?

    No, these hard working and busy folks don’t like to take the time to stick their necks out. They go along to get along. Take the easiest route. Close the case!

    The “rush to judgment” took place in the first hours of the so-called investigation. That’s the way it so often happens. From then on, law enforcement works very hard to back up the premise and prove guilt, and much less hard to prove innocence. The system has official Prosecutors, but no official innocent finders.

    In thousands of cases, throughout the land, those without good legal representation find themselves railroaded and convicted by our system. That’s probably why we have more folks in prison, per capita, in this country than any other country in the world.

    In this situation the suspects weren’t proven guilty. Even though Washington, D.C. has access to the most sophisticated and advanced crime solving technology there is.

    “Why would an anti-gay group target that house on that night in the name of “godliness”? Even the Christian Right strongly prefers legal and electoral victories over paid assassins, especially in this country.”

    Who has suggested that a group targeted the house? No one. The defendants all say that they believe that some unknown individual entered the house. And although the authorities found no proof that such a person did, they’ve also found no proof that such a person didn’t.

    “But then, if there was a known enemy, would they not be packing when they came to the house if there was a premeditated plan to kill someone? And then why skip over a bedroom to where RW was sleeping. And on and on. It’s all here on the WMRW site.”

    Where did you see that someone skipped a bedroom? And unless he had a gun with a good silencer, why not grab and use an available knife? But the others in the house did hear noises anyway. And their activity could easily have chased the intruder away. The damage, to the entire household had been accomplished. There have been a whole lot of questions not covered on this site, though it does go on and on.

    “Joe and Vic and Dyl tend to stick together.”

    Just as a family does.

    “You sound like those who claim the trouple is “innocent” because they were found not guilty.”

    Just listen to your prejudiced self. In this land folks are innocent until and unless proved guilty. It’s time to leave this subject alone, unless someone out there can indeed come up with some new solid evidence against someone.

    • DavidM
      07/11/2010 at 8:39 AM

      These bastards, so far at least, have managed to evade justice for having murdered a good and innocent man who was well loved by his family and community. Not-guilty means just that, not guilty in a legal sense. There was not enough evidence in that court on that day to prove the charges against them. That is NOT the same thing as innocent – as I believe these three are beginning to find out. The conscience provides a far more thorough and grinding punishment than society can.

      Another reason I thank God these charges against them were not murder since those still remain open to lay against them at a future date, when one of them cracks, finally, and tells the truth or when other evidence comes out then.

      Until then I pray every day that day comes quickly and I eagerly await the civil litigation which I believe will bring a far different verdict. I plan to do all I can to make sure as much about this case as possible follows every one of these men for the rest of their lives until justice is finally done. There will not a be a community far enough away or a day far enough in the future that will not know Robert Wone’s fate when he had the misfortune to have accepted the offer of a night’s rest under their roof.

      • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
        07/11/2010 at 10:24 AM

        In my opinion, Joe has probably always thought he’s bullet-proof (especially now). He’ll probably run his mouth one day….to the wrong person. Someone he thinks is his confidant. Someone he thinks he has complete control over.

        • Bea
          07/13/2010 at 5:02 AM

          CD, I think you’re on to something here. Joe may have been from humble beginnings but he liked the high life a bit too much, always wanting to push things further. But now that the A-list party invitations are no longer in the mailbox, what’s a boy to do? He doesn’t have the fancy job or the good salary/draw that goes with it. He’s no longer an ‘it’ boy quoted for gay legal cases. He doesn’t have that million dollar townhome to brag about.

          How DOES he feed his ego? His looks, as they were, were based on a high energy youthful appearance – not a handsome guy (less attractive than Victor or Dylan – mind you, I’m a dyke, so my opinion may not count). The pounds have puffed his neck giving him a bullfrog look which is not good (simply stated, some age better than others – Joe is not one).

          Can he even buy the dancers with drugs anymore? I would think he’d have a big Danger sign around his neck in DC (if not pariah). While Joe and Victor do need to move to Florida to maintain their homestead exemption, that house is now worth a couple hundred thousand LESS than what they paid, so it may well go into foreclosure unless they put a lot down on it and can’t throw away their savings. But Victor was the one most recently employed (possibly through ‘independent consultant’ work through MilkPep) and if he did manage to keep that job, I’m guessing he has to be in DC.

          Long story to say that it would NOT surprise me in the least to have Joe get tripped up with drinking and drugs and ‘spill the beans’. Too, there’s always Michael Price or even Phelps Collins getting arrested and cutting a deal based on what they “know” about this case. I really believe that Judge Leibovitz all but said that this was a murder case in which an additional piece of evidence laying out who did what would have a different judgment. Even if it’s only what Joe told them (if he hasn’t told Michael yet, he will – he may be his only audience for a long while).

      • Eagle
        07/11/2010 at 2:27 PM

        In this regard, I am shocked as I go about my community (in the DC Metro area) and discover that every ordinary citizen that I talk to in my daily ordinary activities have an opinion on this case: hairdressers, merchants in my community, members of groups to which I belong, neighbors.
        And world-wide: the Guardian had an article on it. Lawyers from outside the area. Gays world-wide. People who are concerned about justice and the law.
        Simple people who are shocked at this scene.
        I am astounded.
        These three fellows -remember they are each individuals- will have this connected with their names, even after they have left this world.
        Given their smiles on the day they were freed, I do not believe that they realize this yet.

    • Bea
      07/11/2010 at 9:00 AM

      Alternateguy,
      A bedroom was skipped – unless the murderer came in through Robert’s window, then he had to pass Dylan’s room to get to the guest room. The Judge determined that there was no ‘unknown intruder’ and she made a finding that there was no evidence of anyone coming over the fence/gate (nor does it make sense that the ‘intruder’ would have scaled over to LEAVE except that Joe Price knew the gate was locked and this ‘oops’ of his during interrogations made it crystal clear).

      Maybe there was a 4th person who was the murderer, but if so (I strongly doubt it based on evidence) the defendants covered for him.

      I’m sure it’s difficult to try to rectify knowing and caring about one or more of these three men and believing them guilty of murder (or at least accessory to murder) but to think there was collusion and an unknown intruder means that you’re not really reading all the material. I wish to hell that Victor Zaborsky would realize that covering up for the murderer(s) means that he’ll forever be living under a dark cloud – his own conscience, a public belief of guilt and scrutiny – and that he alone can change this by telling all that he knows. It must hurt to have one’s beloved move in his mistress, to hear in open court that Joe referred to Dylan as ‘the love of his life’ and to know that Joe would rather Victor have to live this way than to be a man and admit his own wrongdoings, whatever they might be.

      And no, prosecutors assess the facts brought by the cops and often tell them it’s not enough (as in not enough to bring murder charges). You make it sound a whole lot more interesting than it is – and these men were not ‘worthy’ of any crazy conspiracy or targeting. Low level drug users/sellers aren’t on the radar of cops or prosecutors. If the cops HAD known of Dylan’s toy box during interrogations, they’d really have had a field day. If the cops hadn’t totally screwed up the blood evidence (Ashley’s Reagent) then murder charges would have been brought long ago. As Joe showed his hand in comments to Tara Ragone, he clearly thought the Luminol tests would reveal that he/they had cleaned the crime scene. He’s lucky that they screwed up.

      Even if the back gate HAD shown some disturbance, the likelihood of an intruder still would make little sense, but the fact that no one came over the fence all but closes that book except to the folks who really can’t look at the truth about these men. I do understand that.

      • Bill 2
        07/11/2010 at 10:10 AM

        “It must hurt to have one’s beloved move in his mistress, to hear in open court that Joe referred to Dylan as ‘the love of his life’ and to know that Joe would rather Victor have to live this way than to be a man and admit his own wrongdoings, whatever they might be.”

        It’s goes beyond that, Bea. He also heard Sarah Morgan say that Dylan wanted to take Victor’s place as Joe’s partner. Further, he saw evidence that Joe and Dylan planned “events” while Victor would be away on business.

        How stupid does a man have to be to not hear Judy Holiday singing “The Party’s Over”? He made it through college, but I don’t think there’s a lot of brain-power working in Victor Zaborsky’s head.

        Their lawyers painted them as a loving family. Their e-mail and 4th roommate tell a very different story.

        Meanwhile, Bea – off topic – you seem to be getting up awfully early while on vacation unless you’re not in the West Coast time zone. Enjoy your time off.

        • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
          07/11/2010 at 10:31 AM

          Dylan could/would never take over as “Joe’s partner.” Not as long as Victor’s name is on the mortgage.

          I’ve said it all along……Victor was probably kept around so Joe and Dylan could live in a nice tony townhouse and not a 2 bedroom condo. If Victor split, so would the property and everything they own. Image is so important sometimes.

        • Bea
          07/11/2010 at 11:30 AM

          Hey Bill 2, I’m in Asia, so the clock is wacky (not to mention my internal clock after a 14 hour plane ride!).

          You’re so right about Victor. He’s an enigma – by all accounts he’s reasonably intelligent and kind-hearted (even the Victor-apologist in me was sick of the ‘gentle soul’ lingo used throughout the trial). And he loves Joe unequivocally or he’s a total emotional masochist (likely both) but when does it end? Wasn’t it enough to have ALL his family and friends finally understand that:

          1. Joe “kept” Dylan as his live-in mistress;
          2. Joe and Dylan were into serious BDSM, complete with photos and a running ad on Alt dot com, to the exclusion of Victor;
          3. Joe proclaimed Dylan “the love of my life” and explicitly stated that he’d round up some fun while Victor was out of town;
          4. Joe put Victor in the position to lie for him to save Joe’s ass without apparent concern that Victor would/did lose his career, his home (as it once was), his social ‘standing’;
          5. Joe let Victor sweat whether or not Victor would spend thirty years in the slammer;
          6. Joe let(s) Victor face a strong possibility of being deemed “civilly liable” for the death of Robert Wone and a multi-million dollar judgment that will prevent Victor from ever again enjoying “the good life”;
          7. Joe let(s) Victor live life wondering if criminal charges will again be brought, this time for murder and accessory to murder, this time to be defended by an overworked public defender or a criminal defense lawyer whose suit costs a tenth of Tom Connolly’s (and a cadre of discount expert witnesses).

          I assume that when Victor walks in a restaurant or a store that he gets stares and whispers. I imagine that he’s lost at least half of the people he thought were his friends (and I’d venture a guess that many turned away from HIM because he wouldn’t turn away from Joe). How many have told him as much?

          Do his parents REALLY believe his story or is there a look of mistrust now? And what of his sons – I know the mothers appeared supportive during the pretrial, but hasn’t ANYONE in his life really read Judge Leibovitz’s opinion about moral versus evidentiary certainty? Will he really be involved in the child-raising as time goes by (and how so if he moves to Florida)?

          I could go on and on, but I really can’t fathom how he’s stuck by Joe through all this. Joe’s antics with Dylan were likely originally considered to be “just sex” – to hear that Joe considered Dylan the ‘love of his life’ had to be devastating to Victor. Who IS Victor to Joe if not the one Joe desired sexually and not the one Joe loved and adored? It can’t feel good to be the long-suffering wife Joe kept around because of all those financial ties and the fatherhood bond. Oh, and that he was more presentable/reliable at alumni cocktail parties and law firm functions – social events they’ll no longer have to (be invited to) attend.

          If indeed Victor was sound asleep when ‘what happened’ HAPPENED, I do not understand how Victor ACCEPTS that his life has been forever changed. I really don’t know how it feels to be a defendant in a felony trial, to face the real possibility of 30 years in prison. I don’t know how it feels to be on the evening news for weeks on end (and does the USA Today glory piece from 2004 make it worse?), how it feels to have friends and loved ones look you in the eye and wonder what happened that night, whether you’re lying. To be called to the boss’s office and be ‘let go’ and relegated to bit jobs.

          And it won’t get better, not really. The public memory will fade a bit, strangers in restaurants won’t immediately recognize you, may instead have a nagging sense of something negative when they spot you. Does he expect that when Dylan splits (if he hasn’t already) that Joe will find a less attractive replacement? Will Victor let Dylan2 or Dylan7 sleep on the couch of their one bedroom rental in five or ten years?

          Maybe Joe was “a catch” when they met ten years ago – engaging, fit, loving, on the fast track – and perhaps Victor did fall head over heels in love with the guy. Began a family, maneuvered through some rough spots in married life. I ‘get’ commitment – but I keep coming back to HOW DID JOE put Victor through this if he loved him at all? Did Victor never ponder this? And if Victor is genuinely that (argh) ‘gentle soul,’ does he NOT see Robert’s body, the image of the gurney carrying him away, Kathy’s face at the funeral?

          My guess is that he’s told himself that nothing will bring Robert back and that no good will come of Joe/Dylan/KnownMurderer spending a very long time in prison. I’ll assume he genuinely believes that Robert’s death was “an accident” and it’s all but a given that Joe kept directing traffic from the outset, told them all how to feel, put everything in ‘context’ in a Joe-positive light.

          On the flip side, he has to know Joe’s faults and ‘tendencies’ better than anyone. He HAD to WONDER about whether this course was the best course, wonder (and pressed Joe) about the ‘facts’ that didn’t make sense.

          Can you love someone so much that you’d accept this fate – being branded, being stripped of what you’d earned, knowing the man you’re devoted to and ‘in love’ with is not in love with you?

          It does not make sense.

          • Bill 2
            07/11/2010 at 12:13 PM

            If there were something like “Stupid Pills” it would be easy to imagine that Victor has been consuming them for the last five years.

            His parents sat there in the courtroom and heard how their son is treated by Price. They know that the loving family of three only existed for the trial. Their cuckolded son is wasting his time, talent, and entire life (maybe his freedom) on J. Price.

            Does J. Price keep Victor on such a tight rein that the Zaborsky’s don’t have an opportunity to talk some sense into their son? Why can’t they shove copies of those e-mails under his nose and shout, “Wake up, Fool!” Print out Sarah’s testimony in huge type and let him read how Dylan wanted him out of the way.

            If anyone really cared about the “gentle soul,” they wouldn’t come here to defend him. Instead (IF the REALLY cared) they would be telling Victor Zaborsky to get his act together and take it on the road that leads away from J. Price.

            • 07/11/2010 at 3:27 PM

              Where are these emails of Joe’s available to read?

              • KKinCA
                07/11/2010 at 9:29 PM

                Ellen – I believe that they were included in the Ed’s post on one of the days shortly before the trial ended. Possibly June 23, 24 or 25th. I haven’t looked back for them but they are in the archives if you search for them.
                If I recall correctly, they became public when stipulations were entered. But the regular readers/posters probably have a better idea.

          • KKinCA
            07/11/2010 at 12:58 PM

            Bea – jetlagged or not, you are an amazing writer! Reading your eloquent description of what may be the condition of Victor’s world right now gave me serious goosebumps! Assuming that your description is accurate, I hope and pray that Victor gets professional/spiritual help to work through this insanity and realize that he has choices, and at some point do the right thing, if not for himself, for the Wone family. He is a young man and has many years ahead to continue living this nightmare.

          • Clio
            07/11/2010 at 2:56 PM

            To me, Victor is much more “tres chic” now(and then) than “Sparkly Cat”, who strangely seems more a cypher than actually being alive. Who wants to go out with an erotic masseur, anyway — only the Lord knows where his hands have been!

            So, while Dyl was the love of Joe’s life on the eve of the murder, he probably is no longer “Sparkly Cat” to Culuket. The sexy secrets are now public knowledge, and so there is the possibility that Joe and Victor may have ironically become closer emotionally because of the scandal and then trial. They probably, though, have not been sexually initimate since or even before August 2, 2006: Culuket, who once had an orbit of male admirers, now seemingly has no one, except the pity of Ma’am. Our lives “will never be the same”, indeed!

            • carolina
              07/11/2010 at 7:06 PM

              Joe wanted what all rap stars sing about: a lady in the streets and a freak in the bed. Unfortunately, they didn’t come in the same package.

              Joe would have to be a fool not to realize his walk on the wild side didn’t exactly pan out and Victor’s the only sure thing he’s got left.

    • Bill 2
      07/11/2010 at 9:52 AM

      “Just listen to your prejudiced self.”

      Sorry, but you’re wrong again. Someone is prejudiced if they form an opinion without knowledge of the facts. In this case, statements from the judge provide those facts.

      There was enough evidence to render a “guilty” judgement. The only reason the guilty person(s) were set free is because of the possibility that one or two of the trouple may not have been guilty of the charges. Thus, we know from the judge’s statement that there was evidence to prove guilt. Had only one of the trouple been in the house that night, he would be facing jail right now based on the evidence in the recent trial. Thus the trouple does not get a blanket “innocent until and unless proved guilty.” We know that the evidence clearly points to the guilt of at least one of them. Since they prefer to be a trouple and cover for the guilty party, the blanket of guilt hangs over all three right now. Hopefully that blanket will be dropped right on them to the tune of $20 million in the upcoming trial.

  26. Alternateguy
    07/11/2010 at 11:30 AM

    “…but the fact that no one came over the fence all but closes that book except to the folks who really can’t look at the truth about these men. I do understand that.”

    What “Fact”? You’ve never heard of anyone vaulting a fence? What truth “about these men?” I understand that you probably made your mind up as to the truth of the situation a long time ago. You don’t sound like much of a truth seeker to me.

    So a room was skipped. Perhaps a light was on and showing under the door. The skipped room indicates little. The closed gate only suggests that a killer could have closed that behind him, obscuring his get-away trail.

    We have a sniffer dog pointing to a lint trap. But no report of anyone checking out the contents of said lint trap. Same with the yard drain. Isn’t it likely that those items were, indeed, checked, and nothing was found?

    A large stash of sex toys found, but no trace of any use of these. But the lack of such findings aren’t mentioned. Only the initial indications by the dog, the existance of the toys. A scenario is being carefully painted, while at the same time, uniformly leaving out anything pointing to innocence of the accused.

    Leave the subject of innocence to the defense. And don’t forget to point out that THEIR experts are PAID for their work. (As if the State’s experts are not.)

    Believe me, it’s an old, old story.

    • DavidM
      07/11/2010 at 11:46 AM

      Hey, maybe they will float that defense during the civil trial and good luck finding jurors dumb enough to fall for it. Meanwhile those of us who have followed this case and await justice will keep waiting and watching and reminding everyone of the events that night and what one judge already thought about them and what happened to Robert Wone.

    • carolina
      07/11/2010 at 1:24 PM

      No one went over that fence, son. Nobody.

    • Clio
      07/11/2010 at 3:08 PM

      And, where did all the really incriminating stuff such as the murder weapon, bloody sheets and towels, cameras, etc. go, alternate guy? Did Michael whisk it all away, going out the front door while Joe’s intruder theory drew police attention to the undisturbed back? The “marital aids” found in Dyl’s toy chest may not have been the ones used that night; their erotica collection may have been missing a few key items that someone took or threw away in haste.

  27. Bill Orange
    07/11/2010 at 12:49 PM

    “So a room was skipped. Perhaps a light was on and showing under the door. The skipped room indicates little.”

    Well, it indicates that a room was skipped. And I’m fairly sure Dylan said he turned his light off, so there wouldn’t have been a light under the door. Dylan’s room was at the top of the stairs, which were the only way out of the house. So if you pass his room on the way in, you have to pass it on the way out, too. Which means if you start making lots of noise, you’re probably going to crash into Dylan on the way out of the house. And you’re now without a weapon, since you left that with the person you just stabbed to death.

    “The closed gate only suggests that a killer could have closed that behind him, obscuring his get-away trail.”

    The gate was closed AND LOCKED, so the only way someone could have left by the gate and locked it behind them is if they had a key.

    • carolina
      07/11/2010 at 1:25 PM

      More to the point, what the hell kind of burglar would go into a home with a light on?

  28. Alternateguy
    07/11/2010 at 5:02 PM

    o “No one went over that fence, son. Nobody.”

    A superior statement, if I ever heard one. That’s speculation on your part, not fact. But since you are so sure in your knowledge, why would you consider opposing views? You wouldn’t.

    o “More to the point, what the hell kind of burglar would go into a home with a light on?”

    OK, I’ll simply leave a light on somewhere in my house and never have to worry about burglars again.

    But even more to the point, it has pretty much been established that the intruder, if there was one, was not likely to have been any kind of burglar. Out and out murderers are not common, but they do exist.

    A clear motive is usually considered an important part of any police investigation. The inhabitants of the house had NO clear moive. Indeed no such motive stands out. Not without a WHOLE LOT of speculation.

    Some suggest that he victim could have been incapacitated before he died, the death a mistake. However no such drug were found in the body nor were marks of restraint left thereon.

    Others speculate that bedclothes could have been changed and the body could have been washed and dressed and then stabbed repeatedly then carefully positioned on the bed.

    Well, not without leaving a WHOLE LOT of evidence.

    Investigators typically judge the time of death by taking the body’s temperature. There is not evidence shown that a really long amount of time after death took place such as would be needed for all of the above activity to have occurred. And in addition there was supposed to have been the washing and/or disposal of knives, additional sex toys, bedding, towels, the comming and going of accomplices and so on.

    It’s rather clear that the D.C. police failed to make a proper, timely and thorough investigation and securing of the crime scene, in spite of the fact that those first on the scene said that that they had strong impressions of possible guilt among the inhabitants of the house. Such a failure can work both ways. Lost, miss-handled or overlooked evidence can work against the finding of innocence just as much as it can work against the finding of guilt.

    The speculations of the judge, which seem to contradict her acquittal findings, are MOST unusual. But these, her suspicions, should not now count as proof of anything. Her expertise is in the field of Law, and in that capacity she spoke clearly. Not guilty. She is not some expert in the fields of Psychology, Crime Investigation, nor as a Detective. Some readers of this site hang on to her unusual comments as if they were final proof of guilt, even though she in fact ruled otherwise.

    • Clio
      07/11/2010 at 5:55 PM

      There was no burglar because nothing was taken from that “sardine can”, save, perhaps, a few bloody sheets, used sex toys, digital cameras, the murder weapon, etc. by a brotherly comrade.

      Lynn listened to expert opinions on both sides, and she came up with her findings of fact. She doesn’t have to be either Karl Jung, Quincy, and/or Columbo.

    • Bill Orange
      07/11/2010 at 6:13 PM

      “The inhabitants of the house had NO clear mo[t]ive.”

      Wasn’t Robert Wone about to tell Joe that RFA wasn’t going to be hiring Joe’s company? Doesn’t that count as a motive? The other big possible motive is a bizarre sex act gone bad, and there was PLENTY of evidence that the defendants were in to bizarre sex.

      As to your last paragraph, the judge made it abundantly clear that she thought that at least one of the defendants knows what happened that night. I agree that her written conclusions (and they WERE conclusions, NOT speculations) were “MOST unusual”, but that’s the risk you take when you waive your right to a jury trial.

    • carolina
      07/11/2010 at 11:32 PM

      Just show a single piece of evidence to support the intruder theory.

      No, go on; we’ll wait.

    • Bea
      07/12/2010 at 8:16 AM

      Alternateguy, if the “burglar” was really a “murderer” then he’d have taken in a weapon and not relied on happening upon one. And if he was really a “burglar” he’d have stolen something (like the wallets next to Robert, the laptop downstairs, etc.)

      Since the gate required a key to lock, we know he’d have to scale over but WHY? Why not go through the gate and leave it unlocked?

      You fault folks for stating things as ‘fact’ yet you’ve posed these two “statements” so please address them if you’re seriously trying to have a dialog here. I don’t know how one could “vault” over a fence without touching the top, but maybe you do – I hope you’re not suggesting we have a pole vaulter at large.

      We agree that the MPD screwed things up, but that served the defendants more than anyone – using Ashley’s Reagent screwed up the blood evidence that Joe had already began to ‘spin’ by telling Tara Ragone that he’d wiped up blood because he was “freaking out.” No one wipes up blood while awaiting an ambulance just like no one forgets whether or not he pulled a knife from a friend’s chest. And that locked gate was a big ‘tell’ for me that Joe was lying – why not assume that the burglar had left through the gate? Because he knew it was locked, that’s why. Do you seriously think a burglar/murderer would scale back over the fence instead of using the gate door, and, if so, do you think others would assume this mode of exit?

  29. DavidM
    07/11/2010 at 5:45 PM

    The judge made it very clear that she found the defense claims of someone else in the house “incredible.” She simply did not have enough evidence to determine which of the three defendants might be the murderers without the cooperation of at least some of them and so could not convict. That is not a statement of belief in their defense nor a belief in their innocence. Rather to the contrary, I read her lengthy statement to indicate that she was rather sure that at least one of them murdered Robert Wone and she simply could not tell which one so had to release them all.

    But they know who it was and they know what happened and one day, more sooner than later, the truth will out. Maybe with a civil trial, much, much sooner.

  30. curiousdc
    07/13/2010 at 10:18 AM

    a bit more info on the elusive Zaborsky family: http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2006/Sep/29/ln/FP609290368.html

    • curiousdc
      07/13/2010 at 10:19 AM

      scroll down to the last obituary

      • curiousdc
        07/13/2010 at 10:42 AM

        and even further research reveals that Victor’s family resides in Harleysville, PA

  31. alternateguy
    07/13/2010 at 2:45 PM

    o You fault folks for stating things as ‘fact’ yet you’ve posed these two “statements” so please address them if you’re seriously trying to have a dialog here. I don’t know how one could “vault” over a fence without touching the top, but maybe you do – I hope you’re not suggesting we have a pole vaulter at large.

    Why don’t you think that no one touched the top of the fence? If there is evidence that a comprehensive investigation of the top of the fence was made? I’ve failed to find it

    o Alternateguy, if the “burglar” was really a “murderer” then he’d have taken in a weapon and not relied on happening upon one. And if he was really a “burglar” he’d have stolen something (like the wallets next to Robert, the laptop downstairs, etc.)

    (I notice that you fail to mention the victims Blackberry. Present, but an INFORGIVABLE loss of evidence.)

    Unless, of course, the possible intruder/murder was cleaver enough to understand that using an existing household knife rather than his own gun/weapon, would better cover up the fact of his having been present. The prosecution and even the judge seems to be hung up on the idea that any possible intruder would have to have been a common burglar of some sort.

    o “Since the gate required a key to lock, we know he’d have to scale over but WHY? Why not go through the gate and leave it unlocked?”

    Because it required a key and he didn’t have one?

    Do you know if said gate was actually locked with a key rather than merely latched? And, from which side? Could it have been locked with a key only from the outside but easily opened from the inside? (This is a common configuration in back alley fence gates in D.C.

    Or was it lockable from both sides, as with a double cylinder lock? If locked only from the outside, then the fence could have been scaled only once and the intruder could have easily made his exit thought the gate. Simply closing such a gate behind him would of course have left it locked from the outside. (Making Joe’s statement accurate, by the way.) And a murder making his escape would most likely do that to discourage pursuit. And, again cover up the fact of his even having been present. No, there is no evidence of a burglar. But we do know that there was a murderer. Where he or her came from and where he went, is the question at hand.

    o We agree that the MPD screwed things up, but that served the defendants more than anyone – using Ashley’s Reagent screwed up the blood evidence that Joe had already began to ’spin’ by telling Tara Ragone that he’d wiped up blood because he was “freaking out.” No one wipes up blood while awaiting an ambulance just like no one forgets whether or not he pulled a knife from a friend’s chest.

    From what I’ve read, the prosecution put less than full faith in Tara Ragone’s testimony for some reason. However, even if what she said is 100% accurate, a very orderly person and clean freak, such as I understand Joe to be, might well have “Freaked out” and started wiping up blood. Was it done while waiting for the ambulance as you say? Or at some other time, perhaps immediately after the body was moved. Do you know? Yet you state as fact that no one does this or that. Merely your speculation, Id say. Not fact.

    o “a big ‘tell’ for me that Joe was lying – why not assume that the burglar had left through the gate? Because he knew it was locked, that’s why. Do you seriously think a burglar/murderer would scale back over the fence instead of using the gate door, and, if so, do you think others would assume this mode of exit?>

    Well, scaling a fence is not at all a difficult thing for some, though it would be for me.

    A big ‘tell’ for you. But do you even know the actual situation of how the gate was operated and locked? Or are you picking up from conclusions of others.

    The big tell for me is the likelihood that if smart guys like Joe and his friends had spent a whole lot of time covering up and cleaning up and setting up the scene the way the Prosecutor and some of you suggest, without proof, then they would have been smart enough to open the back door and/or gate in order to leave some evidence of their having been an outside intruder, would they not? But apparently they did not.

    “…but that served the defendants more than anyone – using Ashley’s Reagent screwed up the blood evidence that Joe had already began to ’spin.”

    You state this as fact. But how do you know that? I’ve read over the posts on this site rather carefully, but find some of your facts to be nothing more than speculation. Why do you assume that lost blood evidence could not have supported the defense arguments just as well? The evidence is lost to both sides, is it not?

    If I’ve stated anything here as being fact more than possibility, I’m sorry. I don’t know many facts involving this case. But it’s obvious to me that many bloggers here are convinced of facts that don’t exist. Not as anything beyond mere speculation. And rather one sided at that.

    • Hoya Loya
      07/13/2010 at 3:45 PM

      alternateguy:

      The judge concluded that the facts she found did not prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, against any of the three individually: obstruction of justice with the intent to undermine an official investigation; an agreement to form a conspiracy in which the defendants intentionally joined by committing overt acts; or tampering of evidence with the intent to alter or reduce its value or use as evidence.

      However, the intruder theory was put to bed by the Judge’s findings of fact (specifically labeled as such, not as speculations or assumptions) as was the idea that three “really good guys” were indicted without cause in a prejudicial rush to judgment. I accept her findings, contrary to the theories of the prosecution and many posters here, that the kitchen knife was the weapon and that Robert lost consciousness from acute cardiac tamponade within 60 seconds of the stabbing, with very limited external bleeding and close enough to 11:49 for PEA to still be identified by the EMTs. I also accept her findings that: the wounds were unusually uniform and inflicted while Robert was apparently immobile; not all needle marks were the result of medical intervention; and that the murder was not committed by an intruder unknown to the defendants (e.g. no sign of forced entry, no items or property were disturbed, no marks or disturbance in the dust on the fence, the car or the plant beds, not a single item of value taken, Dylan’s room passed and not entered).

      If these “really good guys” didn’t do it, they certainly know who did. Just as any intelligent argument against them going forward must now address the judge’s findings regarding the knife and circumstances of death, any argument to the contrary must address her findings regarding the nature of the wounds, Robert’s immobility, the needle marks and most of all her detailed destruction of the intruder theory. We can no longer go back to square one, whether it is to argue that Dylan’s “missing” knife was really used or that a ninja did it.

    • Craig
      07/13/2010 at 4:01 PM

      Alt.guy: The gate fence was keyed on the alley side and had a thumb latch on the patio side. The gate swung open, towards the patio and did not close by itself. Price volunteered to the MPD that the ‘intruder’ rescaled the fence on his way out, in explaing why it had remained closed and locked. Perhaps he confected that element, pretty much knowing that no reasonable fleeing ‘intruder’ would pull a heavy metal gate shut behind him as he ran away.

      And please show us what you’ve read that says the prosecution put less than full faith in Tara Ragone’s testimony.

    • SMDH
      07/13/2010 at 7:19 PM

      (I notice that you fail to mention the victims Blackberry. Present, but an INFORGIVABLE loss of evidence.)

      Unless, of course, the possible intruder/murder was cleaver enough to understand that using an existing household knife rather than his own gun/weapon, would better cover up the fact of his having been present. The prosecution and even the judge seems to be hung up on the idea that any possible intruder would have to have been a common burglar of some sort.

      *I like that you point out very simple & interesting facts.
      “of course, the possible intruder/murder was cleaver enough to understand that using an existing household knife rather than his own gun/weapon, would better cover up the fact of his having been present”.
      ** This is just beautiful, and so telling as to how far you really want everyone to believe YOU! First of all, any F__Kng crazy drug addict, gang member and awesome ninja, would most likely not grab an existing household knife rather than their own gun, because they are by far not as stupid as you want everyone to believe.
      Most gang members within 100 miles of DC have their own freeking gun, or several, quite possibly easier to get one of these than a pack of smokes at their average gang membership age.

      A dumb ass drug addict would not be so stealth, much less coherent to go thru the trouble on a hot ass DC AUG. summer night, to just kill someone, and ever so quietly and smoothly without taking not one item leave after possibly killing someone. Something like Christmas in AUG. for a drug addict who would have most likely been in there looking to score him/her a nice amount of cash or goods that would have been the mother load! (with all that money/valuables so obviously at their disposal)and he/she just walked the F__K right out without even leaving one fingerprint, or blood splatter, or any blood spill of any kind anywhere in that house.
      Why not go out the front door if he/she were in such a hurry to get the hell out of there. WHY go back thru the entire house and patio, and possibly then vault back over the fence. It was way too hot and you will have to go far and wide to find any asshole who is on drugs that would go thru all of that to get NOT one THING!
      Ninja I cannot even address this one, just stupid.

      too much information within this statement below, even for you!

      “would better cover up the fact of his having been present.”

    • Clio
      07/13/2010 at 11:56 PM

      Well, alternate, Joe himself speculated about the evening’s events, and he came up with the intruder theory, a ligature of lies tied up with selective silences and paradoxes. And, even he admitted that his theory was hard to “buy”.

    • Bea
      07/14/2010 at 3:32 AM

      AltGuy, your deflections of arguments are getting old. No one touched the top of the gate or fence. The Judge believed this testimony. Joe Price “had no way of knowing how the intruder departed” but he decided to go with scaling over the fence rather than through the door with a thumb lock on the inside because he knew the gate was locked and could not be locked from the outside by an intruder.

      Easier for Joe to get around a lack of fence top disturbance than a locked gate! How did he know to do this when it’s far more logical to assume the fleeing burglar (likely in a hurry) would go through the door instead of back over the fence/gate. Silly.

      Tara Ragone was Joe’s friend who defended him to others at Robert’s funeral. She contacted him a number of times. She was friends with Robert too, and she asked about the gossip that the scene had been tampered with. She testified to this. The judge believed her statement that Joe claimed to have pulled the knife from Robert’s chest, believed that he told her he’d wiped up blood.

      You fail to address the fact that NO one forgets pulling a knife from a friend’s chest. And no one would wipe up blood at a crime scene when he SHOULD have been doing CPR! Unless, of course, he knew the man was dead and he was wanting to get rid of some kind of evidence. . .

      Sure seems like you need to do a lot of reading. You’re unaware of critical info. Come back after you’ve put in the work. Look forward to your thoughts afterward.

  32. alternateguy
    07/13/2010 at 5:32 PM

    I did read somewhere that the prosecution decided not to use Ragone’s testimoy but I can’t find it now.

    I do see, from the City Paper that Ragone was a long time friend of the victem’s. And there are the following quotes.

    Several times during Ragone’s testimony, Judge Lynn Leibovitz advised the gushing witness to slow down so the court reporter could keep up.

    On cross-examination, defense attorney Bernie Grimm asked whether Ragone had been keeping up with “the blog” and other news articles on the case. Ragone said yes.

    In looking over Judge Leibovitz’s findings, I see that she did mention that the debris at the top of the fence showed no disturbance. So maybe someone scaled the gate, rather than the fence? Judge Leibovitz says that the fence was 8’ high. I’ve read elsewhere that it was 7’.

    • carolina
      07/13/2010 at 7:43 PM

      You won’t find anything about Ragone’s testimony being ignored, because she testified. At least get your facts straight before you try to discredit someone.

    • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
      07/13/2010 at 8:19 PM

      I’m pretty certain that the term “fence” was used to encompass the entire structure. The investigation never referred to separate components such as “gate” or “fence.

    • Clio
      07/13/2010 at 11:47 PM

      Hi Tara!

      Anyhoo, how is Ms. Ragone “a gushing witness”? Is that your not-so-subtle way of discounting her testimony, alternate guy?

    • Kate
      07/14/2010 at 8:56 AM

      Morning alternateguy – just a thought regarding the fence:

      I thought it was quite clear from the Judge’s decision that she found the defendants unknown intruder theory to be quite ridiculous. She even states that there was no evidence of a break in – that includes lack of evidence on the gate, such as scrape marks from feet or hands, etc.

  33. casualobserver
    07/13/2010 at 6:14 PM

    Following up on the recent messages about his family, Victor is the son of Herbert and Agnes Zaborsky of Harleysville, PA. His mother should indeed be relieved that this trainwreck hasn’t reached the press as the town is served by a small paper that most likely would not have picked up on it. Web searches also show that Victor has a sister and one surviving grandmother (can’t imagine what she must think about this situation).

    Aunt Marcia has been a widow since 2006 and has adult children that live out West. I can’t believe she took in all three of these guys–I hope she’s grilled in the upcoming legal proceedings.

    Would be interested to hear about Joe Price’s family.

  34. alternate guy
    07/14/2010 at 1:34 PM

    o *I like that you point out very simple & interesting facts.
    “of course, the possible intruder/murder was cleaver enough to understand that using an existing household knife rather than his own gun/weapon, would better cover up the fact of his having been present”.
    ** This is just beautiful, and so telling as to how far you really want everyone to believe YOU! First of all, any F__Kng crazy drug addict, gang member and awesome ninja, would most likely not grab an existing household knife rather than their own gun, because they are by far not as stupid as you want everyone to believe”

    You miss-quotied me. I said “Unless, of course, the possible…”

    This was not an attempt to get anyone to believe me. I don’t know the truth any more than you do. I’m just trying to encourage some of the many posters here, some who have obviously closed their minds, to THINK. Perhaps the unknown intruder theory is highly unlikely. But that certainly doesn’t mean that it’s impossible, as many here have concluded.

    You have obviously determined that an intruder could have been no other than some gang member or druggie or the like. Have you never heard of Sociopaths or various other such insane people? Serial killers and cunningly insane impulse murderers are usually neither gang members nor drug addicts. And while, of course, any one of the residents of the house could be insane, such people don’t, as a rule, suddenly act out for the first time as grown up mature people. There is generally a history, such as torturing animals or of destructive behavior towards people. I have seen no suggestion of any such a history concerning the defendants.

    “However, the intruder theory was put to bed by the Judge’s findings of fact (specifically labeled as such, not as speculations or assumptions) as was the idea that three “really good guys” were indicted without cause in a prejudicial rush to judgment. I accept her findings, contrary to the theories of the prosecution and many posters here, that the kitchen knife was the weapon and that Robert lost consciousness from acute cardiac tamponade within 60 seconds of the stabbing,…”

    So, are you saying that you accept her findings, but not her ruling? And you don’t accept the cardiologist’s finding that the victim’s heart could have stopped pumping blood so quickly.

    Did the good Judge really say “really good guys? Some of your statment is quoted from other blogs. I suggest that you should read the Judge’s actual findings more carefully. Perhaps I should as well. But I do know what her RULING was and she does go to some length to defend that.

    I myself don’t really know what ideas on this site to accept or not to accept. But I do know opinionated reasoning when I see it. And I should also know enough to not try to open up prejudiced people’s minds. (From the words to pre-judge.)

    I’m outta here!

    • Hoya Loya
      07/14/2010 at 3:37 PM

      You obviously misread my post and have not read my other posts or you would understand that not only I accept the judge’s decision in its entirety but think it was correct. I accept findings that support the defense, such as Robert dying quickly from tamponade with little bleeding and those that were harmful to the defense, such as her dismissal of the intruder theory. I accept that when the law of conspiracy, obstruction and tampering was applied to the facts found, the defendants could not be convicted.

      It was you who used the term “really good guys” in reference to the opinon of others who knew the defendants.

      And I did not quote from other blogs. I quoted directly from the judge’s actual decision.

      We can no longer posit random hypotheticals about what happened as we did before June 29, 2010. There was a trial. Facts were found and can no longer be ignored. We can no longer say “Dylan’s knife was used and hidden and the kitchen knife substituted” absent new evidence. Likewise, we cannot say “A random intruder came in over the fence through the unlocked door killed Robert and escaped back over the fence” absent new evidence of same. The judge found no evidence in either case.

      Sorry you are choosing to cut and run instead of engaging further.

      Goodbye.

    • Bill 2
      07/14/2010 at 4:20 PM

      “I’m just trying to encourage some of the many posters here, some who have obviously closed their minds, to THINK.”

      Some people posting here have been doing the “THINK” for nearly four years. Others have been doing it for two years. ALL of them have had years more time to go over the evidence and possibilities than you have during your recent “hit and run” visits to this forum. Don’t you tell people here to “THINK” until you learn to read and research beforehand.

  35. KiKi
    07/14/2010 at 1:35 PM

    “Never accept the proposition that just because a solution satisfies a problem, that it must be the only solution.” ~Author, Raymond E. Feist

    I have not posted for awhile because 1. I know about as much about civil law as I do molecular biology (not much) and 2. I have found the conversation to be rather boring, and for lack of a better phrase, somewhat of a circle jerk.

    Except for Bruce and AltGuy (and Hoya’s ever impressive neutrality) most posters are continuing to express the same views over and over and over, in the different (or the same) words. Basically the general post reads, “one or more of these 3 guys killed Robert and one or more of these three guys have tampered, obstructed, and conspired and then got away with it. And sex, and gay, and socio path and sex, and toys, and sex.”

    Well, I guess y’all figured it out – so why not change the name of the site to “People for the Prosecution of Joe, Dylan, and Victor”? Because y’all have solved the mystery of “Who Murdered Robert Wone?”

    I wish I could have that conviction of certainty and of truth. But, I guess there is something wrong with me, because I just can’t get to that conviction, to that absolute certainty. I am not going to go through each of the reasonable doubt points again, or list the speculation that is needed to “know” who committed that crime. I, and others, have already done that, and then the majority responds to reasonable doubt with speculation and to speculation with doubt.

    All of those who “know” the “truth” of what happened are quick to use the judge’s opinion to support their point of view that the defendants got away with murder: “not guilty is different than innocent, she said there was no intruder, she knew one of them killed RW but couldn’t meet the threshold, this was basically a ‘not proven’ verdict.”

    But few stop to consider what the judge actually said with her verdict: “There is a doubt, for which she can give a reason, that Joe Price did not tamper, conspire, or obstruct in Robert Wone’s Murder. There is a doubt, for which she can give a reason, that Victor Z. did not conspire or obstruct in Robert Wone’s Murder. There is a doubt, for which she can give a reason, that Dylan Ward did not conspire or obstruct in Robert Wone’s Murder.”

    If the reasoning that some of you impose on the judge is true, than she would have not had any doubt and would instead have the same conviction y’all have.

    I have no idea who killed Robert Wone. But for those of you who do, I suggest you write a letter to MPD and the US attorney’s office explaining your theory. Because with the knowledge and certainty that some of you have, your failure to report may reach the level of obstruction.

    Just for fun, why don’t those of you who are so certain of the guilt of these defendants try to come up with one doubt, for which you can give a reason. Just see if you can do it.

    This site was much more fun when we all had different opinions and approaches to the problems and there was an actual discussion. IMHO, this conformist majority that bullies people out of their opinions, kind of sucks.

    Mark Twain said “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform.” Just some food for thought.

    • David M
      07/14/2010 at 2:00 PM

      Kiki, the Judge’s opinion, boiled down, was that she had no doubt that someone in that house killed Robert Wone, she just had doubts as to which one of the three did the deed. That is not an opinion emphasizing or even suggesting innocence of any of them, merely an expression of the reality of lack enough evidence to convict them.
      This does not appear to be a reality that some of the three’s supporters on here have been willing to accept, preferring to see innocence in the lack of evidence.

      I am with the judge in her conviction that someone(s) in the house killed Robert Wone, but where she could not convict any one of them without more evidence, I hold them all responsible for his death. One or more of the three actually killed him and the other(s) has contributed to their getting away with it.

      • KiKi
        07/14/2010 at 2:51 PM

        I think, David, you are misinterpreting the judge’s opinion. She does not say she “had no doubt” that one of the 3 defendants killed Robert Wone. (I am taking your actual quote “someone in that house killed Robert Wone” to mean one of the 3 defendants.) What she said was “The government has thus presented powerful evidence to support its claim that Robert Wone’s murderer was either one of the defendants, or someone known to them who was able to enter without breaking.”

        She also stated “This is not to say that there is no possibility whatsoever that an intruder entered as defendants say one did.”

        So as you can see by her words, she may have been “satisfied” (her word again) that there was no unknown intruder, but she, unlike you and others on this site, was willing to admit and understand that doubt exists in this case.

        Your post demonstrates exactly what I was explaining above: this strong conviction that allows you to take any evidence, any statement and use it to support your view and then dismiss any concept or evidence that contradicts that view.

        • Hoya Loya
          07/14/2010 at 3:21 PM

          KiKi:

          Nice to hear from you again and thanks for the support — I try my best!

          Re: the intruder, in addition to the passage you quote, the judge said “As an initial matter, I am persuaded by the trial evidence in its totality, and I find, that the murder of Robert Wone was not committed by an intruder unknown to the defendants” and also that “Overall, the defendants’ story that an intruder committed the offense is incredible beyond a reasonable doubt.”

          I am sorry that Alternateguy had not read my post, or my other post-verdict posts, more carefully so that he would have understood that I accept the judge’s ruling in its entirety, her factual findings that favored the defense, those that were damning to the defense and her legal conclusions. Responsible discussion going forward, whatever the position, needs to address, refute or reconcile her findings. All else is indeed rampant, baseless speculation.

    • Craig
      07/14/2010 at 6:11 PM

      Kiki: Quoting a fantasy author here is appropriate in more ways than one. And apologies if you used to have more “fun” here, but that was never the intended purpose of this site. And I expect things will get a lot less fun.

      • KiKi
        07/15/2010 at 9:06 AM

        How about Socrates “I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.”

        And based on your description above:
        “We continue to work together seeking answers to the mystery of Robert Wone’s murder and in finding justice for his memory and legacy.”

        – It seems based on your posts and the posts of many others here that you have met that goal. You all have solved the mystery.

    • Clio
      07/14/2010 at 6:49 PM

      Kiki dearest, why don’t you and Ben Franklin and Bill and alternate set up a blog of your own, called “Defending Team Price at Any Price” or “The Price Is (Always) Right”?

      Although your characterization of our “Island of the Flies” has improved from “lynch mob” to “circle jerk”, we still do not have a “thought police” or a “conformist majority”, Kiki. Those latter two concepts are as preposterous as Culuket’s intruder theory. There is a lot of civil disagreement here on the Island, but it is too bad, for you and other appeasers/enablers, that we cannot all excuse the Swann Street Three from their “very probable” involvement in these crimes. That’s just not going to happen!

      • KiKi
        07/15/2010 at 9:24 AM

        Oh Clio, this is what I mean about the bullying of those who disagree. Telling people to start their own blog, where their opinions are more accepted and they won’t interfere with your opinions and make you question what you KNOW is true. And then the name calling “Appeaser, enabler.” I don’t even know who or what I am enabling and appeasing, but I do know you are unhappy with me, and you would like me to leave and that was the point, right?

        But, I think you are missing (possibly intentionally?) my point – I do not know these three men, I think there is a lot of evidence that points to their involvement, I think that there were a lot of screw-ups in this case that has inhibited the truth to come out. BUT, the certainty that is expressed by some posters and the hatred displayed toward strangers by others, while early on was the minority of posters (or maybe a small majority) has now become the vast majority of posters. And those who have expressed views different than the majority have not just been questioned (which i think is a good thing) – they have been ridiculed, made fun of and told they are not welcome.

        If it is my hyperbole: lynch mob, conformist majority, circle jerk, that bothers you than take out the adjective and the points remain.

        • David M
          07/15/2010 at 9:55 AM

          Kiki, I am confident there are probably a few hundred people out there who believe OJ Simpson did not kill his ex-wife and her friend. They should not be surprised if the vast majority of people disagree with them and perhaps vociferously. I am not inclined to keep arguing points as though we are in the first few weeks after Robert was killed and as though resulting weeks of (admittedly flawed) investigation and trial and soon to launch civil trial have not happened.

          I read Clio’s statement as a reaction to your previous labeling and and as a version of the old admonition that if it one can’t stand heat it might be better not to work in a kitchen.

          • KiKi
            07/15/2010 at 3:29 PM

            You keep pulling out the OJ verdict but I think about the same number of people thought Ray Krone was innocent after he was convicted, twice! And it turns out they were right. http://forejustice.org/wc/ray_krone_JD_vol2_i9.htm

            There are hundreds of similar stories. My point is not that these three are innocent, my point is that group think rarely produces interesting comments or results. And trust me I am not “surprised if the vast majority of people disagree with them and perhaps vociferously.” People disagreeing with me has never caused me angst before, and I certainly do not loose sleep over it now.

            Disageeing with the “vast majority” is exactly why I put up with the heat and stay in the kitchen!

            • David M
              07/15/2010 at 3:48 PM

              Kiki, all you seem to see is “group think” when what I see is a bunch of folks who have followed the details of the murder of a beloved member of their community closely and came to some conclusions, most of which were born out by a trial judge and, I believe, will be further affirmed in a civil trial.

              That’s not people thinking as a group, it’s people coming to similar conclusions on their own. The chief evidence of “group think” you seem to have is that not enough people are agreeing with you. It is quite possible to disagree with you and not be part of some conspiracy. If you think these men are innocent, fine. If you want to convince me that they are, I suggest you start hunting for genuine evidence. Meanwhile, I am getting ready to follow them tried in civil court.

              • KiKi
                07/15/2010 at 4:06 PM

                Honestly, David, do you even read my posts?

                KiKi on 07/14/2010 at 1:35 PM – “I have no idea who killed Robert Wone. ”

                KiKi on 07/15/2010 at 9:24 AM
                – “I do not know these three men, I think there is a lot of evidence that points to their involvement, I think that there were a lot of screw-ups in this case that has inhibited the truth to come out.”

                KiKi on 07/15/2010 at 3:29 PM
                “My point is not that these three are innocent, my point is that group think rarely produces interesting comments or results.”

                – So how after all that can you come back with the retort that I am just unhappy people do not agree that they are innocent. It is just plain wacky.

                Second, I have put forth evidence that I think must be explained before I can develop the certainty of guilt that you seem to have. This is best captured in my post on the last day of trial where I outlined a possible closing argument. Now Bruce is explaining the factors he thinks need to be addressed on other threads.

                Several others have done the same. Many have left, or in all likelihood continue to read but just don’t post.

                It is not my goal, David, to convince you of anything, it is only my goal to encourage you to question your beliefs, question your convictions and be willing to admit that you don’t always know what you don’t know.

                • Clio
                  07/15/2010 at 9:20 PM

                  Thanks, Kiki, as always for your provocative posts. I am heartened to see that, even a contrarian such as yourself, perceives evidence that the trouple were indeed involved. That is progress!

                  One of my most favorite silent films was/is Kiki, a comedy from 1926, and I guess that you would prefer, since you see the case’s evidence as perpetually circumstantial due to official incompetence, that we all exercise our right to remain silent on the trouple’s guilt or innocence.

                  Well, girl, the talkie is here to stay, and I’m sure that more talk and depositions will make the case a bit more convincing, even for you. Stay tuned!

                  • KiKi
                    07/16/2010 at 9:33 AM

                    So now we can add contrarian to enabler and Appeaser, : it seems, Clio, we both like hyperbole and labeling.
                    And I continue to look forward to the “talkie,” hopefully with as much civility as possible in an anonymous forum. Especially from those who have differing views and have remained silent due to the bullying from some of the posters. I hope that my posts can encourage those with differing points of view to engage in the ‘talkie.” And I hope, Clio you also continue to state your opinions, if for nothing else to continue to help prove my points.

                    • Clio
                      07/16/2010 at 10:06 AM

                      Touche,Kiki.

                      I adore civility, too, and I will continue to post until (a modicum of)justice in this case has been secured.

                    • carolina
                      07/16/2010 at 6:30 PM

                      Let me see if I have this straight. On an anonymous blog, you are aware of many posters who were “bullied” into leaving? And they’re adults, right?

                      Just to keep the playing field even, please rest assured that there are valued former posters who ceased to post due to your “bullying” and the cliquishness of a few who seemed to think no one else here was capable, much less entitled to an opinion.

                      And obviously, I am not one of them.

                  • Craig
                    07/16/2010 at 11:42 AM

                    Wow. See you at the Bijou Clio. This just in: STICKS NIX HICK PIX

  36. David M
    07/14/2010 at 3:19 PM

    Kiki, so far on here no one has presented any new “evidence” that contradicts the view that either the defendants or someone known to them killed Robert Wone. I will give you that I dismiss the notion of a fourth party known to the defendants doing it as essentially immaterial to their responsibility. If all three of them did not commit the crime and merely know who did, they are also responsible.

    There has been speculation and chiding of those of us who listened to the evidence and concluded that one of the three did it, but no evidence that they did not. Sure, other things could have happened. There could have been a ninja. And maybe OJ Simpson didn’t really murder his ex-wife and her friend…but the most likely scenario, based on the evidence presented at trial, is that one or more of these three men killed Robert Wone and any that did not do so covered up for their murder.

    I am looking forward to the civil trial where I believe an additional measure of truth will be revealed.

  37. alternate guy
    07/14/2010 at 3:27 PM

    Bea, You say,

    “AltGuy, your deflections of arguments are getting old. No one touched the top of the gate or fence. The Judge believed this testimony. Joe Price “had no way of knowing how the intruder departed” but he decided to go with scaling over the fence rather than through the door with a thumb lock on the inside because he knew the gate was locked and could not be locked from the outside by an intruder.”

    Is that true that the gate, if opened from the inside using the thumb latch, wouldn’t remain locked on the outside after simply closing it again? A very unusual alley gate if you ask me. In my experiance alley gates, like home doors, if locked by a key can be opened from the inside and easily re-shut while exiting to remain locked from the outside. That’s how so many folks accidentally lock themselves out of the house. And that goes for back yards as well.

    Other bloggers have not suggested as you do, that the gate would not remain locked after it was opened then closed, but have gone so far as to suggest that Joe mentioned an intruder exiting by scaling the fence rather than going out through the gate, because he knew very well that an intruder would find it too difficult to close the heavy gage behind him. Almost as illogical an argument as the one you have made. Where is evidence that the gate was so difficult to close? I’ve seen none.

    Sorry that you folks don’t like your arguments to be defflected. Even when it’s so easy to do. You guys quote the Judge every time she speaks in support of your chosen one side of the argument, but not when she explains why she finds insufficient evidence for a conviction.

    There is such a pattern here.

    • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
      07/14/2010 at 4:42 PM

      Where is evidence that someone scaled the fence/gate?

      I thought you were “outta here”?

      • alternate guy
        07/14/2010 at 5:28 PM

        I was going to leave but KiKi’s intelligent post, along with the M.T quote, encouraged me to wait a bit.

        There was a murder, was there not? And no proof that someone in the house did it, was there? And the fence/gate was scalable was it not? What solid evidence is there that the fence scaling didn’t happen?

        Whether the fence was eight or nine feet high, (Both have been reported.) Did the inspections, whenever they occurred, include really careful observations of the top, perehaps using a ladder and a magnifying glass? Or were these investigations rather slipshod like much of the other evidence gathering? (Rember these folks lost the evidence posted on the victem’s own Blackberry for God’s sake.)(And the very importaint blood spatters on the wall above the dead body.)

        I’m just not as ready to accept any Prosecutor’s evidence without a grain of salt. Especially when I know for a fact how biased some of them can be while trying to build their case.

        • Hoya Loya
          07/14/2010 at 6:10 PM

          Alternateguy:

          In the words of Judge Liebowitz, not the prosecution:

          “As an initial matter, I am persuaded by the trial evidence in its totality, and I find, that the murder of Robert Wone was not committed by an intruder unknown to the defendants. My reasons for this conclusion are the evidence that: there was no sign of forced entry; no items or property were disturbed within the home; no mark or disturbance was made in the dust or debris on the fence railing, defendants’ car or the plant beds inside the fence; not a single item of value of the type commonly taken by burglars was taken, including a flat screen television and a laptop computer in view of the kitchen and two wallets in plain view on the desk in the guest room; and the intruder had to have passed by Mr. Ward’s room to get to the guest room, yet nobody entered Mr. Ward’s room.

          Other reasons for my finding include the fact that Mr. Wone was entirely immobile at the time of the stabbing, and the deliberate and methodical way in which the wounds were inflicted. Mr. Wone, who certainly could have been asleep, with his night guard in his mouth and lying on his covers on a very warm evening, nevertheless physiologically could have moved during the infliction of the three terrible wounds and just did not do so. The circumstances of the commission of the murder itself are inconsistent with the defense position that an intruder killed Mr. Wone.

          This is not to say that there is no possibility whatsoever that an intruder entered as defendants say one did. The defendants presented evidence that a sandbox cover next door in a yard enclosed by a fence as high as defendants’ fence was crushed inward, suggesting this was done by the intruder who could have stepped on the sandbox as he climbed the fence. Had anyone done so, however, he would have fallen into the steep brick stairwell that led from defendants’ patio down to their basement directly on the other side of the fence from the sandbox. Although defendants also demonstrated that a person could have – and that people actually have — vaulted the fence from the alleyway, there is simply no evidence in this record that this happened on August 2, 2006.”

    • Bea
      07/14/2010 at 10:56 PM

      The gate had a thumb lock on inside to open/close but required a key to lock it from the outside. The Eds. have confirmed this and I believe it was in Joe’s interrogations as well. So do you agree that this is odd at best? Why would anyone assume the burglar scaled the fence instead of using the door UNLESS they knew the gate was locked??

  38. alternate guy
    07/14/2010 at 4:48 PM

    “Some people posting here have been doing the “THINK” for nearly four years. Others have been doing it for two years. ALL of them have had years more time to go over the evidence and possibilities than you have during your recent “hit and run” visits to this forum. Don’t you tell people here to “THINK” until you learn to read and research beforehand.”

    Just because I havn’t posted here previously doesn’t mean that I havn’t been closely following the case from the get go. I have been. Perhaps longer than you have, for all I know. Yours is Just another example of folks jumpping to conclusions without knowing the facts.

    • Bill 2
      07/15/2010 at 1:37 PM

      Sorry for jumping to a conclusion. I saw little evidence of your carefully following this case for any length of time. Though you said you were “outta here” I still replied. I guess you could say that your behavior indicated that you would be back and would read my reply. Your actions don’t match your words.

  39. alternateguy
    07/14/2010 at 8:37 PM

    Hoya Loya.

    You begin by quoting the Judge as saying, “As an initial matter, I am persuaded by the trial evidence in its totality, and I find, that the murder of Robert Wone was not committed by an intruder unknown to the defendants.”

    Read her words closely, please. She did not say that she believes that the defendants know who the murderer is. But rather, she carefully says that that they know the person who committed the murder.

    In other words, they do know Joe’s brother, as well at least one other with a key.

    However, unless they either saw the actual killing or the killer has since confessed to them, (and why would he or she?) they may well know little more about who the killer is, than is in the discovery evidence that everyone else knows.

    Perhaps they have since come to suspect someone that they do know. Unless they have actual knowledge, they are not required to present their suspicions to the court.

    And what is more human upon the discovery of such a horrible crime, then to refuse to believe, at first, that your Brother could possably have done it? “Sounds crazy I know, but it must have been some intruder come over the fence.”

    If the brother did do the killing, what could his motive been? Perhaps he’s nuts or on drugs. Sometimes family members are the last to pick up on such things.

    Just speculation in line with the Judges words rather than misreading what she actually did say.

    • Tarfunk
      07/14/2010 at 9:02 PM

      Good Lord, I’ve been really good at staying out of these back-and-forths, but PLEASE! You’re trying to say that her intention is to say that they know the murderer without knowing who the murderer is? What semantic universe do you live in?

      • DavidM
        07/14/2010 at 9:05 PM

        I suspect the same semantic universe as O.J. Simpson’s legal time.

        • KKinCA
          07/15/2010 at 1:17 PM

          DavidM and Tarfunk – This reminds me of the famous Clinton statement “It depends on what the definition of “is” is” (to paraphrase), made during the Lewinsky/Paula Jones scandal.

    • DavidM
      07/14/2010 at 9:04 PM

      No, a simple disregard for the possibility that one of these three actually killed Robert Wone.

      “And what is more human upon the discovery of such a horrible crime, then to refuse to believe, at first, that your Brother could possably have done it? “Sounds crazy I know, but it must have been some intruder come over the fence.”

      Maybe in the first few hours or heck days after the murder. Maybe. But weeks and months later? Nonsense. Even if these men did not kill Robert, their complicity and silence to name who they believe did the killing and why makes them responsible. It seems to me that you are every bit as unwilling to believe that one of these three men did it as you accuse everyone else of being willing to believe they did not.

      • Susan
        07/14/2010 at 9:15 PM

        Just to share, sometimes I consider, what if none of the three murdered Robert Wone? Then I’m left with the damning testimony of two of JP’s friends-_Tara Ragon and Scott Hixson, from two different social circles, both intimate (in one way or another) friends of JP, who BOTH, Separately, stated that Joseph Price told them he Pulled or Removed the Knife from Robert Wone’s body. In one case, Victor Zaborsky was in the car when this information from JP was relayed. Well, then, I am left with their complicity, tampering and obstruction.

        And then, J. Price Admits to Tara Ragone that he cleaned up blood!!!! In his story/theory/version to police, That little piece of info. is a’missing! And really, who does that when their friend is purportedly still alive and dying? What did he clean up with? Where was it?

        Why, to this day, didn’t he or Victor Zaborsky come clean (really) with police about this? I am led to believe they are covering up more and then I am led to believe that they, in fact, were involved in the murder.

    • Hoya Loya
      07/15/2010 at 9:34 AM

      alternateguy:

      I have read the entire opinion closely, multiple times. Perhaps you would benefit from doing the same. It is very clearly written and not a Rorschach test — very little is left open to interpretation.

      Again, Judge Liebowitz:

      “The government has introduced evidence concerning Michael Price, Joseph Price’s brother. I am unconvinced that he committed the murder, essentially because none of the defendants acted like they thought he had. Mr. Price engaged in phone calls with him while on videotape at the VCB, and never acted like he was talking to a sibling who had been the cause of the “worst night of his life,” or even like he was pretending to act “normally.” None of the defendants went out of their way to suggest to police that Michael Price should be a suspect on August 2-3, 2006, or any time thereafter. None seemed at all concerned about continuing to allow him to have the key to their home. They changed the locks after he took their property in October 2006, but continued to keep him intimately in their lives after the murder. Although they maintained the murder had been done by an intruder with no signs of forced entry, they never considered Michael Price a possible suspect, although he had their key, had a substance abuse problem, had stolen from them in the past and been violent in the past.

      Because the defendants seemed so certain he was not the murderer, I conclude that Michael Price probably was not the murderer, although his failure to attend class that evening and his phlebotomy studies are certainly worth pausing over in the circumstances of this case. But that the defendants did not suspect Michael Price when it would have been so logical to do so, is additional evidence that the defendants, or at least some of them, knew who had murdered Mr. Wone.”

      • Bill Orange
        07/15/2010 at 10:23 AM

        “But that the defendants did not suspect Michael Price when it would have been so logical to do so, is additional evidence that the defendants, or at least some of them, knew who had murdered Mr. Wone.”

        From a logical standpoint, I don’t know why she bothered with the “or at least some of them” part of that statement. They were all interviewed individually, and none of them suggested that Michael Price could’ve been the murderer.

  40. Susan
    07/14/2010 at 9:20 PM

    Why did JP Lie to both Sarah Morgan and the police about his brother having a key to the house? And then as if to prove the lie, and how important that missing info. was, MP breaks in.

    I also wonder about Schertler’s letter to the prosecutors where he mentions crime around Swann Street. If that was the case, why were the trio allegly so lax about locking up? J. Price is so compulsive as to notice a spider on an outside lamp but forget to lock the back door? Doesn’t ring very likely, but I’m just throwing that out there.

  41. Susan
    07/14/2010 at 9:24 PM

    To add to the above, Dylan Ward was apparently afraid to enter his own home with M. Price there. But this info. wasn’t important to police? And all those calls made, getting S. Hixson, etc., just to enter. Imagine if it were your home. Could you imagine going through all of that to get into your own home?

  42. curiousdc
    07/14/2010 at 10:28 PM

    Sarah Morgan’s testimony and demeanor were interpreted as suspect by a number of people on this site. Any thoughts as to why she has not been more forthcoming given that she’s lost touch with these guys? Why on earth would she cover for them? If I’ve missed a previous msg. that have addressed this point, apologies in advance.

    • Bill 2
      07/15/2010 at 1:19 PM

      There are Sarah Morgans on the peripheral of gay groups and communities all over the U.S. The Sarah Morgans are often obese and lacking in social skills. Sarah Morgans come to the gay community in order to interact with males since it’s not an option for them with most hetero males. Often, Sarah Morgans will latch on to a gay male or gay couple and never ever let go, no matter how little those gay men want Sarah in their lives. Though we see this Sarah Morgan as having lost touch, you can bet that a Sarah Morgan isn’t going to give up on that relationship and will look for an opportunity to get her foot in the door once again.

      • Craig
        07/15/2010 at 1:31 PM

        B2: More than any other transcript, we want a look at Sarah’s. If any trial observers were in 310 during her testimony (and took good notes) drop us a line.

        • La
          07/15/2010 at 10:39 PM

          I was in the courtroom the day Sarah Morgan testified and didn’t find any of her testimony suspect. I’m not sure why everyone think she’s hiding something. She was soft spoken and she didn’t provide more information than what she was asked, this is true, but I found her testimony to be honest and that she wasn’t attempting to make excuses for the trouple. To me, she seemed like someone who missed her friends and missed having contact with them, but that’s it.

      • curiousdc
        07/15/2010 at 2:02 PM

        Thanks for those insights, pathetic to think she’s still holding on after all these years. I hope that Covington will have a chance to grill her thoroughly.

      • carolina
        07/15/2010 at 5:58 PM

        And all this time I thought my girls loved me for my fashion sense and creme puffs.

      • Susan
        07/15/2010 at 8:02 PM

        Dear Bill2,
        I think your comment is a bit unkind. I don’t take personal umbrage, because I seem to be different physically and socially than Sarah Morgan. But I don’t think it’s fair to tie her attachments to gay males to a lack of social skills, lack of a hetero male (maybe she’s not interested), or her weight.

        She does seem to have a predilection for gay male society, to a fairly strong extent, but the whys and wherefores of that I don’t think we know, and I don’t think demeaning speculation about it serves any purpose.

        I’m sure her testimony is very relevant, as Craig suggests. That’s all.

        • Bill 2
          07/15/2010 at 9:12 PM

          Whoa! Take away the speculation about three members of that household and 50% of the messages in this forum would be gone. This is the fourth member of that same household. She certainly shouldn’t be immune from speculation and I seriously doubt that her attachment to gay men, especially a trio and a couple, hasn’t been analyzed and discussed by the Wone attornies. You can be certain that she has been the topic of plenty of speculation and attention. They wouldn’t be doing their job if they didn’t focus on her, her relationship to the men, and if that would cause her to provide cover for them.

          Let’s not forget that, in addition to speculation about the trio, there has been speculation about their blood relatives – parents and siblings. You didn’t seem to object to that.

          • Susan
            07/15/2010 at 9:33 PM

            I object to a lot but I don’t comment about all. I thought that reduction of this woman was unnecessarily sexist, “weightist”, etc.

            I’m sure her background is being looked into and has been looked into. Her “options” re dating “hetero men” is likely not being looked into and not relevant. Her “weight” history is also likely not relevant.

            • Bill 2
              07/15/2010 at 9:56 PM

              I had no doubt you’d pull out that “sexist” card. Funny how that gets thrown in when it’s okay to talk about the appearance of the men in the household. As to her weight, Joe commented on it to police and it was discussed as a possible reason for taking a bus since it was too much of an effort for her to walk. It’s a shame that she has a weight problem, but it’s certainly no secret.

              For what reason should we hold back from discussing her weight when we openly discuss Joe’s double chins and expanding waistline. Did you think that was chinist? Someone described Dylan as a gnome. Did you think that was gnomist?

              These overweight Sarah Morgans are not something unusual when it comes to latching on to gay men. I’ve seen it in DC, LA, Miami, London, and Sydney. They are part of gay life all around the globe. Dozens of gay men on this forum have seen Sarah Morgans. Many of them enjoy the attention of Sarah Morgans, even those Sarahs who are obese and socially inept.

              • Susan
                07/15/2010 at 10:12 PM

                In fact I think all of those comments are gratuitous insults. “We” don’t openly discuss “double chins” and I’ve never called anyone a “gnome” in my life. What’s the point? SMorg’s weight might have been a point re the bus but her dating preferences or history have no relevance here.

                S. Morgan is one woman here, not a group–from my perspective.

                I don’t wish to argue with you. We clearly have different views of this.

      • Clio
        07/15/2010 at 9:00 PM

        I love my own Sarah Morgan, and I guess that Vicki is mourning the “loss” of Sarah much more than the real loss of Robert.

        Sarah “had his back” in the treacherous currents that were 1509 Swann: who does now?

        • Susan
          07/15/2010 at 9:16 PM

          Good point. Possibly Aunt Marcia is filling that role for now.

  43. altenateguy
    07/15/2010 at 11:08 AM

    Tarfunk,

    You say “Good Lord, I’ve been really good at staying out of these back-and-forths, but PLEASE! You’re trying to say that her intention is to say that they know the murderer without knowing who the murderer is? What semantic universe do you live in?”

    She did not say in her finding that the defendents know who the murderer is. Or that the defendents knew who had murdered Mr. Wone. But rather, she carefully says that, the INTRUDER was not unknown to the defendents. A bit of carlessness on her part? I don’t think so. Her statements are VERY carefully worded.

    And, you will notice, that her finding does acknowledge the possability of an intruder.

    Later on, as has been posted, she said,

    “…that the defendants did not suspect Michael Price when it would have been so logical to do so, is additional evidence that the defendants, or at least some of them, knew who had murdered Mr. Wone.”

    She sights this as “additional evidence.” However her FINDING does not include any statement to the fact that the defendents knew who murdered Mr. Wone. Carelessness on her part? I think not. A judge’s FINDING is what counts. And is is that part of her statement that which is the MOST carefully written.

    • Hoya Loya
      07/15/2010 at 11:56 AM

      She concludes as follows: “It is very probable that the government’s theory is correct, that even if the defendants did not participate in the murder some or all of them knew enough about the circumstances of it to provide helpful information to law enforcement and have chosen to withhold that information for
      reasons of their own.”

      She does not make a factual finding that they know who the murderer is because of the “math problem” — she could not determine beyond a reasonable doubt what each individual knew, hence the “some or all” language.

      She says that, beyond a reasonable doubt it was not an intruder (with no “unknown” qualifier in that particular statement). She says it was not Michael Price. She says some or all of the three probably know who it was. Read the decision in its entirety and do the math.

  44. altenateguy
    07/15/2010 at 3:32 PM

    Hoya Loya,

    “…very probable…that even if the defendants did not participate in the murder, some or all of them knew enough…to provide helpful information…” is not saying that any of them are actually guilty of anything. Something like obstruction of justice or murder.

    After all, defendants do have a right to silence, as irritating as this always is for law enforcement. If they had guilty knowledge concerning the murder, being rather familiar with law, wouldn’t they have clammed up from the beginning? “Lawyered up” right away? Should they have had guilty knowledge, they would clearly have understood the danger of making a slip or misstatement?

    Yet none of them did refuse to talk. Once that they had lawyers involved, they talked only to their lawyers of course. That’s the way it’s done. The fact that the lawyers didn’t then pass any useful information on to law informant may mean simply that no such information was there, though the judge said believed it PROBABLY was.

    Only by playing “The math game,” can someone read the judges entire ruling and conclude that she is really saying that the defendants, in whole or part, are guilty.

    OK, so I’m not a lawyer. But it’s clear to me that neither are you.

    • carolina
      07/15/2010 at 6:01 PM

      I have to hand it to you. When you’re wrong, you’re very good at it.

      • Bill Orange
        07/16/2010 at 12:38 AM

        Agree. It’s quite impressive.

    • Bill Orange
      07/16/2010 at 12:35 AM

      “After all, defendants do have a right to silence, as irritating as this always is for law enforcement. If they had guilty knowledge concerning the murder, being rather familiar with law, wouldn’t they have clammed up from the beginning?”

      No, they would not have. Had they clammed up right away, their friends would have abandoned them, their insurance company would’ve dropped them, and they would have landed on the front page of the WaPo in 2006 rather than 2010. Search warrants would have led to the discovery of the BDSM gear and Joe’s office porn, which would’ve led to Joe’s dismissal from Arent Fox. While they likely would’ve avoided criminal charges, the civil suit would have proceeded much faster and would likely have been over already. In other words, their situation would’ve have been AT LEAST as bad as it is right now.

      “The fact that the lawyers didn’t then pass any useful information on to law informant may mean simply that no such information was there…”

      Or it may mean that they were simply all guilty of at least some of the charges.

  45. Rich
    07/16/2010 at 11:00 AM

    Folks:

    I’ve asked before and didn’t get an answer:

    Did Joe have a falling out with his family since the murder? Before the murder?

    I do not seem to think anyone in his family were present during the first trial?

    Are all of them out of the picture?

    • 310 Observer
      07/16/2010 at 11:26 AM

      I believe his sister was there for verdict? I heard Bernie go up to some lady sitting with the Zaborskys and address her as “Miss Price”

      • Clio
        07/16/2010 at 2:56 PM

        Perhaps, one of his half-sisters was there. According to a little bird, Joe was the oldest of three boys; his biological parents then divorced in 1974 in Texas, I was told.

  46. alternateguy
    07/16/2010 at 1:14 PM

    “No, they would not have. Had they clammed up right away, their friends would have abandoned them, their insurance company would’ve dropped them,…”

    To most people, your choosing to have a lawyer present during questioning is not an indication of guilt, but of good judgment. Newspapers usually don’t report on the fact that you’ve elected to have legal advice during questioning. Insurance companies don’t like you to make ANY statments without legal advice.

    Many, many folks who have been questioned by police, sadly come to understand how, as is stated in Miranda, your words can be, and will be, used against you. Every word, inflection and even your body language can be interpreted in a manner detrimental to you depending on the bias of the questioners.

    Thats why, whenever you are hauled in for questioning, it’s always smart to have an Attourney if you can afford one. Joe’s employer, a law firm, would surely agree with that. And you don’t get a search warrent just because you choose to have a lawyer present. More likely to happen when you don’t. But in this case, it would have indoubtedly happened either way.

  47. Bill Orange
    07/16/2010 at 2:32 PM

    “To most people, your choosing to have a lawyer present during questioning is not an indication of guilt, but of good judgment.”

    I don’t disagree. But in a case like this, I think that your lawyer is going to tell you that if you’re guilty, you should invoke your right to remain silent and not say a word to the police. On the other hand, if you’re innocent, your lawyer would probably agree to questioning and would likely help arrange a lie-detector test if they thought it could convince the police of your innocence.

  48. alternateguy
    07/16/2010 at 3:07 PM

    Any criminal lawyer knows that Polygraphs are junk science, with a VERY high unreliability rate. (10% or even 30% failure rate.) That’s why they are NOT permitted for court use in any state in the union. A criminal lawyer would have to be pretty desperate to suggest that his client take a lie detector exam.

    • AnnaZed
      07/16/2010 at 3:31 PM

      On this I most emphatically agree with you alternateguy. I can think of no circumstance under which I would submit to a lie-detector test, even an inquiry into the circumstances of a missing child as a much pilloried suspect in a recent disappearance case in the North-West has done, much to her detriment when law-enforcement leaked that she had failed to be cleared by these bogus pseudo-science sessions. In that case it seems for other reasons like she probably did murder that child, but none of that should ever have happened. For my own part I would categorically refuse regardless of the circumstances for the reasons that you have cited. I also don’t think that Dylan should have been manipulated into taking one regardless of what suspicions law enforcement may have had.

      • Bill Orange
        07/16/2010 at 4:38 PM

        I don’t really understand what you’re saying here. Your example is someone who wasn’t cleared by a lie-detector test, but you think they’re guilty of the crime. So wouldn’t you EXPECT them to fail?

        Concern about law enforcement leaking the results seems to be unfounded in this case–we know Dylan was given a lie-detector test, and the results have never been leaked.

        • AnnaZed
          07/16/2010 at 4:55 PM

          I fully concede that Terri Horman is a bad example. She will forever be known as “the-woman-who-killed-her-step-son-and-failed-the-FBI-lie-detector-tests-in-the-inquiry-into-his-disappearance.” If the child is never found (or his body) she will still be that person and that I object in spite of my own conviction that she probably did kill the child (based on other factors). If she did not kill the child; it is a monumental miscarriage of justice in the court of public opinion.

          • AnnaZed
            07/16/2010 at 4:58 PM

            object “to” that is, sigh (I can’t type a sentence in plain English, it’s 98 degrees in the shade here folks)

            • AnnaZed
              07/16/2010 at 5:12 PM

              Oh and as to Dylan; it has been repeated many times on this site by many different posters (some of them quite “senior” and respected) that given that we know that he took a lie-detector test and given that no one from team-trouple is shouting from the roof-tops about his having passed it we can assume that he did not, and that from that we can infer a measure of guilt as to Dylan’s involvement. That inference has been used time and time again to make assumptions about him that are not in his interest as a defendant.

              Actually, I think that it does have much in common with what is known and what is said about Terri Horman. I for one do pretty much think that Dylan is a psychopathic killer, but not based on any assumptions that I might make based of my knowledge that he took an FBI lie detector test and that Law Enforcement did not then subsequently announce that he had been cleared of all suspicion in the inquiry into the death of Robert Wone. I am holding these opinions based on other facts that I have considered over a very long period of time. At least I hope that I am. Even i can not say the degree to which what I know about Dylan having taken that test influences my thinking on some unconscious level. It’s outrageous and has no business in the public discourse at all.

              What concerns me in both of these cases is that the irresponsible application, the inevitable leaking and the consequent mass drawing of conclusions based on a suspect’s being hooked up to one of those absurd machines could taint a jury, could be said to influence the course of an investigation or could even cause a DA to refuse to go forward with a murder charge. It’s junk science plain and simple and it has no place in the process at all.

              • Bill Orange
                07/16/2010 at 6:19 PM

                I think that we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this. It’s an imperfect test, but I wouldn’t call it “junk science”.

                And there was no “inevitable leaking” in this case. We tend to assume that Dylan failed the test, but we really don’t know for sure, and the results have never been made public.

    • Bill Orange
      07/16/2010 at 4:34 PM

      “Any criminal lawyer knows that Polygraphs are junk science, with a VERY high unreliability rate. (10% or even 30% failure rate.) That’s why they are NOT permitted for court use in any state in the union. A criminal lawyer would have to be pretty desperate to suggest that his client take a lie detector exam.”

      Looking at it another way, you’re saying that there’s (at least) a 70% chance that, if one of them was truly innocent, they could’ve avoided a trial that cost them several million dollars in legal fees and branded them with a legal ruling that’s going to following them for the rest of their lives. If it were you, what would you have done? Keep in mind that, as you yourself have pointed out, if you’re innocent and you fall into the 30% of people who bomb the test, the results can’t be used against you, so it’s essentially a risk-free gamble.

      • NYer
        07/16/2010 at 5:37 PM

        A side note- while it’s been logically calculated out that the trial has cost the troupe millions, that calculation is based on the “going rate” of high-profile lawyers like Grimm, et al. However, being that the troupe almost certainly doesn’t have those kinds of funds, and the possibility of their lawyers offering them a reduced rate, how much $$ did they probably pay for their defense?

        • Bill Orange
          07/16/2010 at 6:15 PM

          I suspect that they’re paying pretty close to retail. Joe might have been able to call in a few favors, but I doubt he got too far. This isn’t the kind of case you’d want to take pro bono.

  49. alternateguy
    07/16/2010 at 9:05 PM

    “Keep in mind that, as you yourself have pointed out, if you’re innocent and you fall into the 30% of people who bomb the test, the results can’t be used against you, so it’s essentially a risk-free gamble.”

    “Keep in mind that, as you yourself have pointed out, if you’re innocent and you fall into the 30% of people who bomb the test, the results can’t be used against you, so it’s essentially a risk-free gamble.”

    Though I am not real familiar with FBI practices, I do know for a fact that if the state gives you a polygraph test and the results are not in your favor, the results can be shared throughout law enforcement so that everyone in the picture begins to assume your guilt.

    Investigators love polygraph tests and being only human, this can affect memories, recollections and the general course of the investigation. It may not be legal to do so, but investigators have even been known to leak the results of a negative finding to lay witness and thereby influence their testimony. You can bet, on the other hand, that these guys never approach a witness saying, “By the way, so and so passed his lie detector test, and we’d like to ask you a few questions about him.”

    • CDinDC (Boycott BP)
      07/16/2010 at 10:17 PM

      A coin has two sides…

      from a defense attorney law firm website…….

      The Use of a Polygraph in Criminal Defense

      Polygraphs tests can be very beneficial in a criminal defense case. They can be used to:

      •Diminish the credibility of the prosecutors witnesses
      •Bolster the credibility of witnesses testifying in your favor
      •Help prove the authenticity of your claims
      •Raise doubts about the alleged victims truthfulness
      The results of polygraph tests may also be used in pre-trial plea-bargaining, sentencing negotiations, sex offender rehabilitation programs, and probation arrangements.

      If the results are beneficial to the defense, I’m sure they use them just as aggressively.

  50. Bill Orange
    07/16/2010 at 10:17 PM

    “Though I am not real familiar with FBI practices, I do know for a fact that if the state gives you a polygraph test and the results are not in your favor, the results can be shared throughout law enforcement so that everyone in the picture begins to assume your guilt.”

    I would imagine that they could also share the fact that someone was stabbed to death in your guest bedroom, and you’re not co-operating with the police. That also would lead everyone in the picture to assume your guilt.

    “It may not be legal to do so, but investigators have even been known to leak the results of a negative finding to lay witness and thereby influence their testimony.”

    Perhaps, but that does not appear to have happened in this case, since no one has said that they were told the results of Dylan Ward’s test.

    “You can bet, on the other hand, that these guys never approach a witness saying, ‘By the way, so and so passed his lie detector test, and we’d like to ask you a few questions about him.'”

    Maybe, maybe not. But the police can–and did, in this case–lie to you about what other witnesses have said in order to get you to say things you would not otherwise have said. As other posters have noted, this sometimes leads to false confessions. But that’s not really relevant to this current discussion.

    My original point remains: If any of these three men had been truly innocent, and had arranged for a lie-detector test, and had passed the test with flying colors, then I do not believe they would ever have been indicted. This does not appear to have happened, which leads me to believe that neither the defendants nor any of their lawyers believed that they could pass a lie-detector test.

Leave a Reply

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