Detective Waid's Handwritten Note
Detective Waid’s Handwritten Notes Create More Questions
Today, the Swann Street defense team heads to the Moultrie Courthouse for an in camera review, which in plain English means a review of documents and/or other evidence in the Judge’s chamber. The defense has been requesting this review for several months now, and Judge Weisberg granted it at last Friday’s status hearing.
Monday, we rolled out Diane Durham’s redacted statement about how the events unfolded the evening of August 2, 2006. That is one of the documents to be reviewed in camera. Today, we present another of those documents — Detective Bryan Waid’s handwritten notes. Sadly, we only have the redacted version.
It appears that Detective Waid took several pages of handwritten notes about what cops/paramedics found when they arrived at Swann Street that hot August night. At this point, from what we know, these notes don’t appear to be his a first hand account, but rather interviews he conducted later with the cops and/or paramedics who were on the scene.
The first page of notes has the name “SGT B. Roach” written at the top of the page, then several redacted lines. The government argued at Friday’s status hearing that much of these redactions were addresses as well as government to government communications that had no bearing on the case. It reads:
“SGT. spoke to w/m (white male) at door. Wit(ness) was crying. Told SGT. I think they came through front back door.”
This witness is presumably Victor Zaborsky, who was the first to greet the paramedics, and now the police when they arrived. Victor is already discussing a theory about the intruder’s entry into the house. The rest of the page is redacted.
Next page starts with name “Durham” presumably Diane Durham’s, at the top of the page. Then it reads:
Radio run (Stabbing) Ambulance crew was bringing vic(tim) out, once inside w/m, no shirt, underwear, 2 others standing. W/m in underwear told offc. there was a burglary. This is the way they came in” pointing at the back door.
The rest of the page is redacted. She arrived as the body was being removed from the home, which comports with her sworn statement. But, interestingly, the redaction begins at the chronological point in the story where Durham would have begun to talk about Joe finding Robert on the patio.
The third page of notes starts off with two redacted lines, then this very startling statement:
Upon arrival to the scene Vic Joe was doing all the talking & when he referred to the victim he would look at Victor and say, “Isn’t he our friend?” + Victor would cry.
What does this say about the mindset of Joe Price when the police arrived? What would prompt someone to ask their partner if they even knew the victim? Why would the victim be in their house if he didn’t know the hosts of the home? Was Joe is such a state of shock he couldn’t even remember if Robert was a friend of theirs?
Or was the question designed to lead Victor in a certain direction? Was Victor crying not because their friend had been brutally stabbed in their home, but rather that he was being asked to tell a story that wasn’t true and he couldn’t control his emotions? Who knows? Whatever, Joe’s question is one of the more spine-tingling revelations to be discovered in what is already a very spine-tingling case.
The rest of the paragraph is redacted. Then, the date 8/17/06 appears in the next graph. These notes read:
8/17/06 230 hrs.
Int. Hampton -re 1509 Swann Street NW
1st on scene Durham
Not there yet
heard door chime. It woke us up. When we heard it + [plus sign is struck out and “we” written over it.] we came downstairs. We went into the room, he way lying on the bed. Joe went downstairs and the back door was open.”
The August 17 date seems to suggest a break in time between interviews. But, more importantly, what stands out is that these notes now agree with the story that the defendant’s told officers later that night at Violent Crime Branch in Anacostia.
The next page of notes starts at the top of the page:
Joe told Victor to go call 911. Is Hampton asked where knife was + he said upstairs next to the bed. Durham came in. Durham + Joe + Hampton went to the back door. Hampton in dining area. While there Joe called victim’s wife + said her I hate to be the one to tell you this but Robert has been stabbed.” Told her more but offc. didn’t hear. Joseph brough offc. upstairs and showed the knife. Offc. asked if the victim could have stabbed himself? Joe said NO!”
The rest of the page is redacted. What jumps out here is that in this note Officers Durham and Hampton both accompanied Joe to the back door area. If this is the same time as when Durham’s statement occurred, then Hampton would be a corroborating witness to the story that Joe told Durham. Maybe Hampton didn’t corroborate Durham’s statement, and this is why the police did not use it in the original affidavit. We don’t know.
The final page of notes reads:
Paramedic Jeff Baker[.] Baker said What Happened[?] Joe said I heard a scream.
The rest of the page is redacted.
Later this week, we will run a few more pages of notes including ones that detail Joe Price’s trip to the Violent Crime Branch the night of the murder.
-posted by David
Wow. Great find. I think these notes go pretty far in backing up what durham had in her statement.
we’re getting a clearer idea of what was going on in that house, at least in the moments following the murder. The 3 guys were a mess, not appearing victimized but like they were hiding something.
Burglary? Right, joe.
Hi One More. I read it differently – I think they seem contrary to what Durham said. Specifically that in referencing the back door “they” came in through seems to mean the “intruders”, not that Robert was back there. Could be me. Wish I knew what the redacted part said.
Bea, after comparing Durham’s statement taken at 6 AM the next morning to Waid’s notes taken AT the scene, I don’t see any inconsistency other than one calls it a “back door” the other calls it a “patio door.”
Waids notes from the scene say “they came through the back door.” Durham says the same except calls it a patio door.
It looks like different note pads to me (examine the spiral binding). It appears Waid made notes later on in a second pad and then again on 8/17 (another interrogation?)
The story inconsistency comes into play in Waid’s notes from 8/17. In his notes from 8/17 he says that Robert was laying on the bed.
So, my point being, Durham’s statement from that night isn’t different from Waid’s notes from that night.
Except the officer’s putting weight on “they” came through the door, not that Robert came through the door. Don’t get me wrong – I WANT Durham’s account to be correct, but the notes we have (perhaps the redacted ones mention Durham’s theory) don’t suggest that Robert came through the door. I’m hoping Hampton (who was near Durham) corroborates Durham’s account of Joe’s first story.
I’m just not feeling any flagrant inconsistencies.
Durham statement says “the person came through the [patio] door..”
Waid’s notes say “they came through the [back] door..”
Durham’s statement says “the victim came through the patio doors” (maybe a mistake and meant the intruder?) and then “the victim was at the patio door….they opened the door, took him upstairs….”
I’m just not seeing any major inconsistencies.
The inconsistencies being with Waid’s 8/17 notes. Major story change.
I guess what all this means to me is that Durham’s statement would be more reliable and important than Waid’s being that Waid’s note were way after the fact and after Price’s interrogation, and Durham’s statement was made hours after and still VERY fresh in her mind.
I’m not disagreeing – just had hoped that SOMEONE else would have heard Joe’s “first” story.
Bea,
We don’t know that Offc. Hampton DIDN’T hear Joe’s first story, but from these notes it sure looks like he would be in a position to be able corroborate Durham’s statement.
David, co-ed
Oh, I understand, Bea. My posts are just bursts of ideas generated by reading a post.
I agree. Where are the notes, statements, etc from Hampton and Roach?
Eds are these forthcoming? If so, I wonder if they will reveal anything additional.
There hasn’t been any mention (that I recall) in the court docs that Hampton had “notes”. Just makes me wonder why no one interrogated Joe about what he told Durham. It’d be a red herring if she said “oh, I meant that underwear guy said the intruders cam through the back door” – but that’s certainly NOT what she said when she was interviewed about what Joe told her. My mouth still salivates over the possibility. . .
You and me both, Bea.
And her statement is the most detailed of any of the documents so far. VERY detailed. 1/4″ details.
I take that comment Joe supposedly made – “Isn’t he our friend?” to mean that he was already jumping into defense mode. See, our friend got murdered in our house, he was our friend, we had nothing to do with it, he was our friend, right Victor? etc etc. Still, very bizarre.
“Isn’t he our friend?” Lingering drug affects maybe? Not clear headed enough to think or speak 100% clearly.
CD- I’m sure that someone has already pointed this out within the multitude of comments over the past few days, but to add to your “lingering drug effects” theory: I think certain drugs elicit in the user a tendency to strip off clothing. I don’t know if ketamine has that effect, or if even JP and crew were definitively under the influence of anything, but it’s telling that JP was walking around with hardly any regard to how little he was wearing.
His inhibitions were definitely gone. Definitely a drug reaction.
But then again, it’s Joe. I’m sure Joe doesn’t care about anyone else’s sensitivities.
Oh my! These documents imply that Joe may have been wrestling with himself — that question may have just popped out. “Isn’t he our friend?”
“No, not after what just went down, sweetie,” thought Victor, through his own sobs.
“Isn’t he our friend?” to Victor could have been as a result of any of the things in the above (excellent) posts. I suspect a combo – getting validation for the officer’s benefit that Robert is a friend, not someone they’d want to stab (duh), but too, to keep Victor “in line”. In secures complicity to have Victor NOT contradict Joe in front of the officer, thus handcuffing Victor to the actions of the night. Victor, being a genuine human being (compared to Joe, anyway), is overcome with emotions over their dead friend and guilt that “they” are not doing the right thing, even if he’s joining as accessory after the fact. Joe is one cold bastard.
A couple of things. It appears to be two different spiral pads used. The spiral biding at the top of page 1 and 2 is different than 3-5. Perhaps these notes were written days apart on separate pads.
Note the “8/17/06 230 hours” date which means some of these notes were not taken at the scene. Were pages 1 and 2 at the scene and pages 3-5 from memory after the fact?
CD,
Not sure any of these notes were taken at the scene that night. They all look to be Bryan Waid’s notes of interviews that he conducted of officers and paramedics who were on the scene. The first half of the notes look they were shortly after the scene, and then time lapsed, and more interviews were conducted as noted by the 8/17/06 date.
David, co-ed
Also, Dylan is not mentioned in the notes. Where was he? He is mentioned only briefly in Durham’s notes as one of the men in a white robe.
Correction. He is also mentioned as “2 others standing.”
What was he doing? Anything at all?
Trying to crawl out of his drug hole.
it would appear that poor dyl is so unimpressive in life that he cannot even make an impression on investigating police officers. i wonder if this makes him feel blue, sad, or anxious?
still not buying the “we were all asleep” at 10 pm BS. and if i hear one more comment about the alarm “chime” or the door “chime”, i will lose it.
You and Dylan must have had a really bad break-up.
yawn. fart.
The use of pronouns is revealing here. “They” is used by Victor to refer to perhaps more than one imaginary burglar. So it was, at first, the intruders (plural) theory?
Isn’t “he” our friend? The officers may have interpreted that as obviously referring to Robert, who as victim was of most concern to the authorities, but there is an off-chance that “he” could have been a passing reference to Dylan, whose legal status may have been upmost in Joe’s mind at that time for some reason. At any rate, the use of the pronoun also eerily confirms the studied distance of the 911 call in which Victor does not seem to remember Robert’s name. The person/the victim/he: Ugh!
That’s a really interesting thought, Clio.
A subtle message to Victor to keep the lid on their trouple status. VERY interesting thought.
Re Victor’s forgetfulness, maybe Vic dabbled in some mood enhancements along with his husbands.
Thanks, CD. There is that other pronoun “our” to ponder as well. “Our” could have signaled (or could have been a conscious signal) to the officers that there was an inner core to Swann and that the third man in the robe (Dylan) was truly a third wheel. In other words, Joe could have (intentionally or unintentionally) indicated that Robert is our (Victor and Joe’s friend) friend, exclusive of our tenant/room mate Mr. Ward, the potentially sinister cypher in the background.
again, very interesting. There well could have been some kind of signaling going. The proverbial “kick under the table.”
Makes me think Victor is more involved than originally thought.
Agree with you both. I’ve always thought Victor was more involved in this conspiracy that his lawyer would like a jury to believe.
Clio, I too had an immediate reaction to “Isn’t he our friend” and immediately thought that Joe was talking to Victor about Dylan, not Robert. I think that Joe had a very short time to secure Victor’s complicity in the cover-up. I am pretty sure that Joe knew that he could count on Victor’s unswerving loyalty up to a point and that Victor had demonstrated that so far in their lives not least by putting up with having Dylan in his home at all or tolerating Joe’s unfaithfulness at all. So, up to a point, but what point? This would certainly be a test.
One of the reasons that I was drawn to this site and to deconstruction of this crime is because I have
a long time interest in sexual politics and queer sexual politics specifically for reasons that I won’t bore the assembled here with. Speaking in very broad terms I will say that it is thought by many people and most particularly by people who are critical of homosexual people that homosexual men are somehow naturally promiscuous, that in fact to identify as being a gay man is to simultaneously identify as being a promiscuous person. In fact, both anecdotally and statistically that is not the case at all. Victor had at one time every reason to hope that his partner would be faithful to him and their status as a couple and to their family. Joe had breached that trust in profoundly hurtful and even humiliating ways for Victor long before he asked him to participate in the cover-up of this crime. I think that Joe’s manipulation of Victor has been incremental and has persisted over a long period of time. “Isn’t he our friend?” sounds like a reminder to Victor that Dylan needed to be protected from the police at that point. I think Joe has convinced Victor that Dylan, and Dylan alone somehow “accidentally” murdered Robert. It may even be true.
Interesting, AnnaZed.
I’ve long referred to Victor as a “battered housewife.”
Of the three, Victor, is the only one of the group that appears to be “normal.” So taking that and imagining what a normal person in a committed relationship of many years (not to mention the enormous amount of financial entanglements they have) would feel when their partner decides he wants a polyamorous. I can’t imagine that he didn’t feel crushed. (and who knows whether that polyamory started as an affair or not). Victor submits to the idea and then suffers years of emotional heartache as a result. I would imagine it’s enough to drive some people over the edge.
Maybe battered housewife defense is victor’s ticket. He can flip on joe and dyl then claim that years of ‘abuse’ led him to take part in and further the conspiracy. Just a thought.
I think you may have more than an idea there. I think that could be the key that unlocks the truth of what happened that night.
Abhorrent as it may seem to logical and civic minded people the government should offer Victor a deal to just come clean. His participation in what I believe to be a criminal conspiracy to obstruct justice is a very serious matter and I don’t take it lightly (please don’t think that I do) and Victor can hardly cast himself as being wholely unknowing that crime had been committed in his home by one or both of his house-mates; still I think that the prosecution could end this whole farce today if they placed their cards on the table and offered Victor incentive to tell the truth.
Anna,
Don’t you think that card has already been placed on the table? Folks who turn state’s evidence are most often guarenteed that the prosecution will argue for reduced sentencing. Maybe what the prosecution needs to do is up the ante, and offer whoever will turn state’s evidence immunity from prosecution. I bet that would do the trick.
David, co-ed
Complete immunity from prosecution? I think that would be wrong, particularly if the prosecution would eventually goes forward with murder charges. And I think that’s what’s happening here- Kirchner is looking for the smoking gun that will enable his office to charge them with murder.
NYer,
First, I agree with you. Kirschner is still looking for a way to a murder charge.
But it has been three years, and no murder charge. They put the squeeze on Dylan with the first obstruction charge, and he didn’t sing.
My thought is really put a wrench between the housemates and offer complete immunity to the one who will confess, and bringing murder charges on the other one(s).
A reduced sentence might not be doing the job in seperating the trio because they think they can win. And after three years, I am doubtful that a smoking gun is going to turn up.
This is outside the box, and the one who at the least was privy to an ongoing conspiracy would go free, but justice would also be done.
The question is a could a battered housewife cooperate?
David, co-ed.
As long as that battered housewife is still sleeping with the husband it won’t.
Who you calling Victor? Where are you going Victor?
That is the big question. Is the “wife” still sleeping with or being intimate with the “husband?” Aunt Marcia, can you tell?
Given Joe’s changed economic and physical circumstances, Victor may be less inclined to obey the fallen lawyer’s dictates. In the context of Robert’s murder and its investigation, the dropped shoes of alt.com and Eyecandy DVDs may be the last straws for a relationship that was already trying to digest Joe’s annexation of Dylan.
Victor, you could do so much better than the public disgrace and financial ruin of the last three years! Dump Joe now before it is too late!
Clio,
I am going to take a guess here based on my own experience in long term same sex relationships and that is the sex dropped completely between Joe and Victor as the relationship moved towards companionship and mutual support in running a home. Furthermore, I don’t get the sense that Joe and Victor’s primary relationship was truly a fiery, sexually-based relationship to begin with. Hence the reason for Dylan. I would even venture to say that the day to day of defending themselves has taken the wind out of Dylan and Joe’s sails.
David, co-ed
Interesting, David. So, not only may we have one “Boston marriage” at 7900 Ariel Way, but now we may have two. I guess that “lesbian bed-death” is not just for lesbians after all. A widow and three now Platonic friends make for a secular, suburban convent in McLean Hamlet. How Grimm!
But how successful can companionship and maintaining a residence be in the long term when your primary home is not your own? To me, moving in with an elderly relative is a mark of dependence, which unfortunately resurrects long-dead, Progressive era stereotypes about gay men as parasites, floaters, and shirkers. And, dependence on the kindness of friends and family will not engender “a band of brothers” feeling amongst the trouple for much longer. The “togetherness” without a real job or social calendar is already getting old, I am sure. The continuing scandal has also meant far fewer social and cultural engagements for Victor than if he got a new man, told the truth, and “divorced” Joe plus Dylan. So, Victor, get your groove and your reputation back for good!
So maybe we have a fourple in the future. Joe, the nympho he seems to be, can’t hold out for long.
Ha ha! No sex for Joe!
Food, though, appears to be Joe’s latest addiction. Gobble, gobble, gobble, goes the (former) bottom today.
::snicker:: Pardon the pun.
This I agree with 100%. I know many, many gay couples who are deeply in love with each other and have been together for years, even still sleeping in the same bed, who don’t have sex with each other. Hell, I think many straight couples reach the same point in their relationships. I do think gay men tend to be more willing to take a try at an “open” relationship, and it works for some.
I’m of the mindset that Victor also cares quite a bit about Dylan, and didn’t seem him as any type of threat at all.. For one thing, Dylan probably served as a good distraction for Joe, giving Victor some much appreciated down time from dealing with Joe’s obnoxious personality. And I will go as far as saying Victor and Dylan probably have strong emotional bond, probably as strong as if not stronger than the bond between Joe and Dylan. From the first hand accounts I’ve heard (from friend who went to massage school with Dylan), he is an extremely nice guy who everyone likes. Joe, on the other hand….
for clarity…meant that I agree with Dave’s belief that Joe and Victor’s sexual relationship fizzled out years ago.
I wouldn’t be surprised. And you’re likely right that Victor “cares” for Dylan, though I’m sure it was rockier in the beginning – and made clear that Victor and Joe had the “master” bedroom and Joe is in that bed in the default setting (though not all the time). Since it’s been years since Dylan joined them, my guess it that too has waned, thus the desire for alt.com “supplemental” participants. Just can’t imagine Aunt Marcia allowing tricks to come into her McLean home.
I pray that Aunt Marcia is running a tight ship, but she probably cannot control her middle-aged boys’ visitors and/or activities around the clock. Let us hope, for her sake, that Dylan is doing outcalls only.
Besides the daily stress of being defendants, other factors in the probable cooling of any Joe-Dylan sexuality would also include the massage therapist’s post-murder sojourns in Thailand and Florida: absence probably did not make the heart grow fonder, at least not for Mr. Ward. There is an outside chance, however, that Vic and Dyl probably have become closer over time — the first and second wives sharing acerbic inside jokes about their loser husband with his ever-expanding waist line!
This, I like. Thoughts of Victor and Dylan busting on Joe behind his back. I harbor no hope of Joe having a soul or a conscience, but I wonder if one lurks in Dylan – could he, perhaps, tell Victor that he would “understand” if he needed to tell the truth? If Joe is truly the most culpable (as in “the murderer”), perhaps Dylan is willing to contemplate telling the truth, or at least tell Victor that he should do what he needs to do.
Okay, that little fantasy is over. If Victor grows a spine, it will be of his own accord, and he needs to call his lawyer when the other two are “busy” (with each other or with yet another). I hopes he knows better than to discuss this with Joe. While I’m hoping, I’ll throw it out there that he’s been cooperating on the sly for a while now. At least enough to get that wire tap warrant signed. After all, Aunt Marcia’s HIS aunt.
I think that to understand these men we might consider not playing into one of the social notions that is a stereotype common to perception of both heterosexual and homosexual couples: the idea that if they remain sexually intimate their bond can not be broken. It has been proved time and time again that sexual connection is not the ultimate adhesive for a cohesive bond against adversity (far from it), parenting is. Being parents is what Joe and Victor have in common. I have said before that as long as Victor believes that his son’s best interests are served by protecting Joe then he will hold the line. Someone, somewhere ~ maybe us, more likely Connolly ~ must demonstrate to Victor in no uncertain terms that continuing to shield Joe and Dylan from the negative effects of their actions is both wrong for himself and wrong for his child.
That said; let me toss out another “what if” scenario:
What if a really large part of what the men have said is true?
What if Joe and Victor really were in bed when they heard the various things that they said that they heard?
What if what they heard was Dylan struggling with Robert’s body, having assaulted and killed Robert himself?
What if Dylan had already done all of that aggressive tidying himself?
What if Dylan hoped to stage a scene (like the picture in the magazine) for the others to stumble upon in the morning and declare the dastardly work of elves only to be caught in the act by Joe and Victor?
What if Victor screamed and Joe went into action?
I don’t know why Victor would protect Dylan under these circumstances, but what if somehow Joe convinced him that he must?
What if under that version of events Victor believed and still believes that homophobia (they did encounter some it seems from the police) would cause the police to charge all of them with murdering Robert making him feel embattled and causing him to think that he had no choice but to prevaricate?
What if Dylan convinced them that Robert consented to everything that happened, including knife play?
I have known heterosexuals who were erotically excited by being cut, both men and women. I know that there is a subset of homosexual men who pursue that sexual taste as well. I will here declare that I do not believe that Robert Wone had an interest in this type of very extreme sexual expression, but maybe Dylan convinced Joe and Victor that he did. Maybe Dylan told them that Robert’s death was an accident during an overzealous sexual encounter. I wouldn’t believe that for half a second, but maybe Victor (wanting to believe for some reason) did and does believe that. Somehow, I doubt that Joe would believe it, but I think Joe would have his own reasons for wanting to protect Dylan from incarceration and would simply not prize Robert above that. Joe may even be using that old standby of criminal reasoning: Robert now being dead can no longer be helped but Dylan can.
How does Kirshner crack the egg if that is what happened?
I suspect that Victor’s attorney has at the very least been “hinted to” that Victor could be given an immunity from prosecution deal if (1) Victor did not stab or participate in the stabbing of Robert, and (2) Victor tells the complete truth about the activities of that night AND SINCE. Personally, I don’t think #1 is an issue but #2 puts Victor in the position of being the reason for the obstruction/conspiracy charges turning into murder charges against Joe and/or Dylan (probably the duo). Victor just can’t face putting Joe behind bars for life – notwithstanding the fact that JOE is who put Joe there.
I wouldn’t offer it to “anybody who turns” I would offer it to Victor only. I think that they want to build a case for murder and that Victor is the key to that case.
Things are looking bad for Joe, worse and worse. Why would he need Victor to validate, in front of the officers, that Robert was their friend? Hmph. And we shouldn’t get hyped up that Durham’s version of events didn’t get included in the arrest warrants. They don’t have to include every single bit of evidence in the warrants. Maybe some details were deliberately not included as strategy.
While the defense has lots of leeway on what to disclose/not disclose, in a criminal case the prosecution has to ‘show its cards’ with few exceptions – gone are the Perry Mason days of smoking guns. It’s entirely possible as you pointed out that there was some ‘strategy’ in the drafting of the Affidavit, but it sure seems that if they wanted to lead with really good stuff they would have (how do you NOT when what’s there is the guy told two vastly different stories in the first half hour?).
considering this isn’t a [the] murder trial, perhaps the prosecution is parsing out some of it’s evidence? Seems like you can’t present EVERY shred of evidence because then you wouldn’t have anything new for any murder trial that may be down the pike? That old double jeopardy problem.
I’d LOVE to think so but this case is the tampering with evidency/obstruction of justice trial, and it would seem critical if one defendant gave two different accounts of “how they found” Robert (whether or not they killed him). Believe me, I want to think the best of things, and I’d love it if the prosecution was fully disclosing facts in accordance with the law but still not giving away the farm strategy-wise, but too I know that the defendants have likely found some “expert” willing to say that there would be no blood to speak of, since most of it “traveled inward” in Robert’s body or some such nonsense. Let’s hope that the Ashley’s Reagent debacle doesn’t prove fertile ground to suppress the evidence of what was found on walls, floors, dryers and patios. . . I say this with a grain of salt in that all high profile trials are filled with conflicting expert witness testimony, and LOGIC plays a big part in jury verdicts. Elves who bypass valuable electronics and the rooms of sleeping massage therapists/chefs just don’t ring true.
And remember, this is the first inconsistency with Joe’s statements. The first inconsistency was where he said he found the knife.
He told someone (can’t remember who) that he pulled the knife out of Robert and placed it on the bedside table. He also said he found it laying on Robert’s stomach and then placed it on the table.
That inconsistency hasn’t made it’s way out either.
Eds, do you remember where the first inconsistency was? (Pulled the knife out.)
My recollection is that both comments are contained in the Affidavit as an inconsistency.
Off the top of your head, do you recall to whom he told what?
CD,
That inconsistency was noted in the orginal affidavit for Dylan Ward’s arrest. He said he pulled the knife out of Robert’s chest while he was at Cosi the morning after the murder.
David, co-ed
After reading Durham’s statement I was bothered by the possibility, however small, that the patio story was just a misunderstanding or miscommunication. Officer Durham had Robert firstmost in her mind, as he was the bleeding victim. But Joe for whatever reason (hmmmm) was much more interested in pushing his intruder story and making it stick. He could give a crap about Robert’s status. Maybe in his drug-addled, nervous state he was unclear about who exactly came through that patio door. Durham may have come away with the impression that it had been Robert. But if Hampton understood Joe more clearly, his report would have contradicted Durham’s. Hence Durham’s being set aside.
Her language seems clear and precise, but we usually rephrase things to ourselves when reconstructing an event from hours earlier – sharpen up the fuzzy bits. I HATE this theory, I desperately want Joe to have made a slip-up, but it’s starting to feel like a real possibility. I hope someone can knock it off the table.
“Isn’t he our friend?” That sounds like a panicky attempt to distance himself from the “intimacy” he and others (?) were enjoying with Robert. Pretending he can barely recognize Robert in that state…total overcompensation. “See, I wasn’t just doing god knows what to him for almost an hour.”
Sorry for that visual….
I was also thinking that maybe Durham misunderstood Joe and assumed it was Robert outside instead of the intruder coming through the back. However, remember in Durham’s report there is also the part about taking him upstairs and putting him on the bed. That would make no sense if he was talking about the intruder(s)!
Do these men have mothers? If so, why haven’t they shamed the truth out of these men??
They do have Aunt Marcia and Kim, who, we all hope, are using their maternal powers of persuasion for the common good. Di, Joe’s mom(s), and Victor’s mom may be too geographically removed to exert any real influence (other than economic support in conjunction with their husbands.)
Perhaps they just plain evil. Evil can’t be shamed.
there are biological mothers, and then there are those mothers that take time to teach their sons: right from wrong, the importance of responsibility and accountibilty, the dangers of drug use, the importance of chosing healthy relationships, ambition, discipline, how to be happy, stability, the importance of being physically and emotionally healthy, how to be self-sufficient, how to be a leader, how to pay the bills and raise a family.
is this a good yardstick for di et al? what are the results?
Wow!! It feels like these excellent posts have just put forth so many more connections that seemed nonexistent before….JP’s statement is telling on so many levels. It was a statement clearly only for the benefit of VZ. VZ is crying uncontrollably b/c he is in deep deep conflict. And, my gut tells me VZ interpreted it to mean RW as opposed to DW – but that’s an interesting take Clio that can’t be discounted. Does anyone notice there’s no other mention of the 2 others crying that I can see right off the bat?
Yes, he is in a little over his head. I also agree with Bea on this on her 1:00 PM post. And, it just makes it more likely that VZ was not involved in the actual killing (I know most of us think he wasn’t) but this just sort of ties that up in case there were any doubters.
I see it this way too – Victor is being asked in front of the officers “are you with us or not?”. Sobs or not, he didn’t have a spine that night, and it doesn’t appear he’s going to grow one any time soon.
Another interesting exchange: Officer Hampton asked Joe if Robert had stabbed himself. Joe responds with a vehement NO!, which is also apparently underlined for additional emphasis in the notes. Could that vehemence have been support for the developing official story, or faux concern over the victim’s reputation, or the real firsthand knowledge that someone else had done it? This NO! seems to be the only time that Joe expressed any type of observed emotion when he was doing all this talking.
Clio,
What I also see is that the police are quickly noticing things are matching the story is, i.e. no blood, lack of defensive wounds, and wondering if it could have been a suicide. But even a suicide would have created more blood.
David, co-ed.
True, David. Other familiar details are absent, too, from the above documents. The breathy grunts as well as the spider on the light apparently did not make it into the first edition of Joe’s narrative, but the door chime, as SDI has noted, did. Maybe, those “missing” rococo embellishments are in the redacted portion of the notes.
are=aren’t
It is hard for me to believe that Durham could have misremembered something as explicit as “We took him upstairs and laid him on the bed.” The officer has no reason to lie, especially since Hampton was there also & could easily contradict her account if questioned.
The portion of Hampton’s account which could corroborate Durham’s seems to have been redacted. Why? If it does back up Durham, it is a devastating blow to the defense and should have been shared with them, am I correct?
Also if Hampton’s observations were the same as Durham’s, why does he give a totally conflicting account on August 17? Bad memory again?
Somebody (CDinDC?) suggested that maybe Price cut some kind of deal w/ the cops. What kind of deal could that possibly be?
Wasn’t me, Nora. I sure hope not though. I hope he gets everything he deserves.
Mainstream media has picked up the “changing stories” revelation.
I tried posting a link to a story, but it didn’t go through.
It’s a beautiful thing.
where is the story?
I found it on fox news.
If you google “robert wone changed stories” it should pop up as the first listing.
Here is the link: We posted it to Twitter last night as well:
http://bit.ly/tphjy
Michael, co-editor
Fabulous! Thanks, CD and Michael. Although I usually shudder at what Fox affiliates cover, here is a bravo to the local station in DC. Now, why isn’t the CBS affiliate doing the same kind of story? Has “the Tiffany Network” of Murrow, Cronkite, and Paley been eclipsed once again by its most conservative competitor? Yes.
Clio,
And Fox and CBS have both been eclipsed by WhoMurderRobertWone.com!
David
I wonder is this info has trickled “up” to Greta VanS.
Looks like the City Paper has picked it up, as well.
2 down.
I’m not finding anything on City Paper’s site, do you mean their print edition? That would be something.
I tried to post the fox link last night, but it wouldn’t post so I went to bed thinking that I was being moderated on the blog for bad behavior or something (har!).
These phenomenon of conventional media sources picking up on this story (obviously from this blog) are a great thing for the prosecution I think, rattles the cage. Maybe this sort of thing can help with what is the obvious weak link in the chain, (no points for guessing this) Victor.
While on the one hand I think that these MPD observations make Victor’s immediate and 100% complicity in the attempted cover-up of this crime and almost certain guilty knowledge that someone he is very close to has done something very wrong just that little bit more obvious (sinking him even deeper in the quicksand of sticking to the elves story) on the other hand can’t help but hope that read so called “legitimate” outlets dogging thetrouple and questioning their implausible elf stories might cause Connolly to counsel Victor to save himself and begin to seek some sort of deal with the authorities and tell them what he knows. I thinkthat the key to the entire debacle is that Victor must be made to recognize that he is not doing anything brave an noble by falling on his sword for Joe and Dylan, entirely au contraire. Someone somewhere in his universe must sit him down and explain to him that his actions are despicable , that he is not behaving (as a previous poster suggested) in a way that his mother would be proud of. You would think it would be the mother of his child, but apparently not.
I would really be interested to know what the members of Team House-mates are telling themselves to maintain the delusion that their friends did not commit a truly terrible crime. I wish that one of them would have the stones to come on this site and explain their position instead of posting a few “outraged” posts and then running for cover. Frankly, I can not even form the frame for belief in the elves theory, it’s so colossally dumb and practically speaking impossible. How do these people handle the cognitive dissonance necessary to cleave to this position without sustaining near constant migraine?
AnnaZed,
Sorry. It was the online Loose Lips section.
Even though it’s the online edition, I’m thrilled that this information is slipping into the mainstream. One by one. It’s been held under wraps for too long. Maybe its unwrapping will “force some hands.”
AnnaZed says: “I wish that one of them would have the stones to come on this site and explain their position instead of posting a few “outraged” posts and then running for cover.”
Agree. Unfortunately, for them, there just doesn’t seem to be a plausible story for what happened that night. Hence, the lack of Team Housemates presence on this website. I would have been loved a fresh idea to spring up on during the weeks when nothing meaty had come down the pike!
Here is the City Paper link:
http://bit.ly/r6NqU
The mention appears about half-way down the page.
You should be able to enter up to 4 links into a comment. WordPress may have a bug.
– Michael, co-editor
Thanks, Michael. At this late point in the investigation, only three media outlets (including this blog) are carrying this pivotal (re)discovery of the Durham statement. Amazing. Has the Blade contacted you guys yet?
The Washington Blade online still has no mention of the Durham statement; I guess that coverage of an Atlanta bar raid was considered more newsworthy.
While the Blade still has not announced the potential game changer(s) in the Wone investigation, the injustice in the Hunter assault/manslaughter/murder has been prominently addressed by the gay weekly: I trust that the official fumbling and bumbling there is not a foreshadowing for the Wone case.
I feel like I’m straying into Michael Savage territory, but I am wondering if there is any possibility that they are reluctant to give extensive coverage to a trail involving men who are accused of sexually attacking another man?
AnnaZed,
I don’t think this is Michael Savage territory at all. Because the victim was not a white girl, and the alleged sexual assault was man-on-man has caused this case to be less than prime time coverage for the main stream media. Also one of the defendants before the night of the murder was a well regarded gay activist with a string of legal successes on behalf of gays and lesbians and that has put the gay media in a difficult position of having to report on one of the “good” guys. Those two elements have caused this case to not recieve the attention it deserves.
David, co-ed
AnnaZed, I share your unease about seeming to agree with right-wing commentators on this one point about media coverage or the lack thereof, but it continues to be revealing that this blog and Paul Duggan’s June series in the Post are among the handful of places to get real analysis and information on this case. Even when you have breaking news in a three-year-old investigation, the news is reported only on the local Fox station, stigmatized somewhat by the unfortunate slant of its national network, City Papers, and WMRW.com. Sad!
Because of the great work done by this blog, the Blade could be deferring to it by not covering the Durham statement. That would be the optimistic reading of this silence. But, yes, that conflicted sense about Joe (in particular) in some gay “leadership” circles –“he’s an SOB, but he’s our SOB” — may be still lingering at the Blade, and, as many have pointed out, no one is comfortable reading about gay men raping and killing a straight man and then covering it up. It is too upsetting of entrenched gender/sexual hierarchies and expectations, even though, as you have noted, the rape and murder of women by straight men happens all the time with only episodic and selective coverage, also.
Please. All of you. Stop reading so much into the hurried notes from those who first arrived on the site of Robert’s murder.
There are bigger clues to be found than from the hasty recollections scribbled by civil servants of accounts provided by doped up perps.
This thread is interesting, but don’t get lost in the weeds. And be unable to see the trees. Much less the forest.
Hi, John. Just for discussion: what are those “bigger clues to be found?” Do you discern that “the trees” are still with Sarah, or Michael, or a random alt.com trick? Or, are “the trees” the results from the battery of drug tests still to be done?
Er … um … gee thanks John.
“… There are bigger clues to be found than from [sic] the hasty recollections scribbled by civil servants of accounts provided by doped up perps.”
Really? such as?
As the members of the trouple wait to learn of their own self-designed fates, there is a 2004 novel by Michael Parker entitled Virginia Lovers that may help at least one of them to accelerate the inevitable. Accordingly, I urge Aunt Marcia or Kim to buy it for Victor! Although set in small-town North Carolina and Virginia during the mid-1970s, this novel does feature a murder mystery and gay males (albeit much younger than the trouple). And, on its back cover, the book poses the apropos question: “What would you do if you knew who killed a friend of yours, but you couldn’t come forward with the truth?” The novel has that knowing character to come forward … eventually, if only after another tragedy. May this fiction have lessons about telling the truth and communicating real feelings for our piteous “battered housewife?” Perhaps.
Clio – As it turns out, the wmrw.com Book Editor starts work in a week or so. He may want to talk with you about commissioning a piece for these pages.
Thanks, Craig, for this gracious opportunity. I would be honored to help your new Book Editor. I hope that other case watchers will be invited to contribute as well — from Needham to SDI.
it sounds like the consensus is that victor is not putting out for ms. price anymore; i agree. any thoughts on the ward – price sexual dynamic? is dyl still using joe for a toilet (though certainly they are not documenting such bathroom activity through photography any longer)? i suspect that ward/price sex has stopped too, and they are all together now because that is the only way at this point they can get out of this mess – together. or at least, they need to stay together until someone makes a break — oh, victor?
i suspect victor tolerated having dylan around — yes, ward gave victor “time off” from ms. piggy. but unlike many here, i do not buy into the notion that victor liked (or likes) dylan – he put up with him for convenience purposes and now their fates appear to be tied together. i get the sense that if victor could go back in time a few years, he would be horrified at what has happened – on many levels. i don’t get that sense of self-awareness or introspection from his co-horts. that is why i hope that he is the one who makes a break in an effort to retrieve that which has been lost.
love all; and i smiled at the snickers pun. delicious.
SDI says: “i do not buy into the notion that victor liked (or likes) dylan – he put up with him for convenience purposes and now their fates appear to be tied together.”
Agree 100% I still think that Victor acquiesced to the situation, but never enjoyed, liked or wanted it. He most likely had two choices….ante up or get out of the game. Victor would have lost Joe AND his financial empire. And I wouldn’t doubt if Joe would have made a “divorce” nasty. Afterall, Victor knew Joe well. He probably knew what Joe was capable of.
“Tied together?” You punsters!
I’d heard from someone who ‘dated’ Joe a number of years ago that early on Joe admitted to him that he had a predilection towards S&M activities. They didn’t last long as a couple I don’t think.
Not long after, Joe met Victor. You can wager a paycheck that Joe shared those interests with Victor very early on in their relationship.
Then at some point Dylan materialized. The rest is history… And it’s still being written of course.
Agree, Craig. Most people will dabble until they breach their comfort level. “Ew. I didn’t enjoy that. I won’t do that again.”
Victor would have been asked to push beyond his ability to be sadist.
Victor is CLEARLY a masochist, and I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at that statement.
Gosh, I’m bummed to read these comments. Is my own relationship destined to become so sexless? My partner/husband and I have been together 8 years, and while our passion has “matured” some we are certainly not sexless. We sleep together every night (when I’m not away for work), and we are intimate at least a few times weekly. Not daily, like in our first few years, but still frequently! I attribute that change to being older, not less passionate. So take heart, gay male readers!
Of course, I agree that it is unlikely that the same holds for Joe and Victor given the circumstances they find themselves in….
Folks, don’t click on the link……..my malware detector shut the site down. It’s a a yahoo IP address for Camgirls.net. (if you hover your cursor over the link you can see the web link name.)
Eds, please delete. Keep your posters safe from malicious websites and malware.
I can’t help but focus on the alarm. I have an alarm in my house and if someone were to break in, the alarm would go off and call the cops immediately.
Unless they didn’t have the alarm on, but why wouldn’t they? It’s a force of habit. Every night you lock the doors and turn on the alarm.
Also, the only way to make the irritating noise of the alarm to go off is to disable the alarm, which means someone would have had to go downstairs and cut it off. Most alarm systems require the door to be shut prior to being turned on or off.
I hadn’t seen this post before. After reading this section (below) and looking at the handwritten notes, it strikes me that it isn’t a plus sign that is stricken, it is an “I” that is stricken, as if Victor slipped and started to say “I came downstairs” but corrected himself and said “we came downstairs” This may point to Victor coming downstairs alone and coming upon the scene and then screaming thereby thwarting a plan to perhaps leave Robert in the bed to be discovered in the morning. But as Joe said, he couldn’t get Victor to stop screaming, so they had to change the plan and call 911.
***********************
“8/17/06 230 hrs.
Int. Hampton -re 1509 Swann Street NW
1st on scene Durham
Not there yet
heard door chime. It woke us up. When we heard it + [plus sign is struck out and “we” written over it.] we came downstairs. We went into the room, he way lying on the bed. Joe went downstairs and the back door was open.”
Well observed!