Billable Hours
We see some great comments and are grateful for the many contributions. There’s a little bit of everything: sound analysis, strong opinions, sharp teeth, sass and the occasional limerick. But every now and again a comment just jumps off the screen and Bea had one earlier this week.
I went back to the affidavit and realized certain language is ambiguous and that I may have read it incorrectly.
In “Victor’s Statement” it says, “[A]ccording to Zaborsky, he had come home early from a business trip and learned that Wone would be spending the night at their home. He indicated that he did not see Mr. Wone when he arrived as he was already in bed.”
I THOUGHT THIS MEANT VICTOR WAS ALREADY IN BED WHEN ROBERT ARRIVED.
Full caps is always allowed when divining a fresh interpretation of a section that we’ve all read dozens of times. Gaming this scenario alters many of the assumptions we have on how the evening progressed.
Ahead: We’re trying to determine what’s to come at this Friday’s status conference, whether it’s an open session or private in the judge’s chambers. We’ll find out. Until then don’t just read the affidavit, be(a) the affidavit.
-Craig
Whoever drafted the Affidavit did a poor job.
Generally I think the affidavit is well written, but maybe it’s not too late from notes or videotape of Victor’s interrogation to nail this down?
While “He indicated that he did not see Mr. Wone when he arrived as he was already in bed” is ambiguous, Zaborsky’s statement cannot have been: he said either I did not see Mr. Wone when I arrived as he was already in bed or I did not see Mr. Wone when he arrived as I was already in bed.
Which is to say (a) don’t take this to be any sort of deliberate trickery on Victor’s part (not that I think anyone has been), and (b) KM is right to suggest that, if the interview was taped, this should be simple to clear up. Perhaps the prosecution’s Bill of Particulars will include a clearer statement–did we ever find out if they presented one as promised?
doesn’t the government need to turn over the notes of the interviews from that first night? that shouldc lear it all up. also, i would not be surprised to see a few significant inconsistencies in the stories from the notes of that 1st night interviews, before they had the chance to regroup at cosi with a few friends (who are not covered by any privilege) and “review” [fabricate?] what had actaully happened.
I still can’t believe that they were free to go to breakfast and solidify their story – as if Robert Wone were a dead cat or dog.
And that – if i remember correctly – the investigators didn’t question Sarah for days.
I hope we get the actual interview transcripts soon. If I recall correctly, the defense attorneys have been requesting them, and are entitled to them. I want to know one way or the other about Victor’s whereabouts and surely the cops were direct enough to pin him down. If he really did arrive after Robert, then the timeline is even more ridiculous.
And I’d like to see how big a deal the comment about “The Hot Room” – the AC being out in just one room, the room Robert would be staying in. Its such a strange detail; but maybe its just awkward wording.
By the way, apropos nothing in particular, what is happening with the Central Union Mission, which was being represented pro bono by one Joseph Price?
Well, they do sleep better at night …
Legal Beagle, check out this link from DCist (April 09). It’s moving to a location near Union Station.
http://dcist.com/2008/04/02/dont_call_it_ni.php
Nevermind….that was 2008.
If Victor did, indeed, arrive AFTER Robert was stabbed, you can tack on “Accessory After the Fact” to his list of charges.