Motiveless

I guess I’m the last hold out who thinks they didn’t set out to kill Robert, but stabbed him after they thought he died from drugs. I don’t think they were thinking clearly and panicked. I understand the other arguments, and maybe I’m not thinking like an attorney would, but it is the only think that makes any sense to me. I guess it makes me feel a little better about mankind if I didn’t think they intentionall killed him.

Agree 100%.

If it was a horrible “accident,” why are they spending all of this money to lie about it still?

Self-satisfied and smug people rape other people every day: it shows the irrationality of human nature.

Nothing in Robert’s past suggests that he would participate in extreme BDSM activity, let alone bisexual indiscretions with a long-time college friend who knew his wife. So, the “accidental” spin remains merely a figment of Bernie’s imagination.

Occam, I thought that you had a better razor than this one. Next time, try Tranchier.

Occam says: “As I have explained before”

Hi Occam,

Can you direct me to your previous post? I can’t seem to find it.

Thanks.

Occam, even if your theory is correct, Joe et al are still responsible for Robert’s death. And a fatal injection of drugs given by another person is murder. So, any way you look at it, Joe et al murdered Robert.

You can take John Belushi’s death as an example. Even though JB was a willing participant in the drug taking that night, Cathy Smith was extradited from Canada, arrested and charged with first-degree murder. A plea bargain arrangement reduced the charges to involuntary manslaughter, and she served 15 months in prison.

so don’t try to lessen Joe et al’s responsibility in Robert’s death by creating the drug experience gone bad.

With reference to Occam’s Theory’s post:
Reposted segments of his post look like this when re-posted:
>>>”…blah, blah, blah”
because I don’t quite know how to quote other posts on wordpress blogs.

Offered with some responses:

Please note:
No real Occam’s Theory utilizations were harmed in the formulation of these posts.

>>>”If one assumes what is most logical – that (1) the roommates would not deliberately risk their comfortable lives and freedom to rape their friend and try to get away with it; and (2) the roommates would not risk their comfortable lives and freedom by intentionally killing their friend – the pieces fit together fairly easily.”

Why is that the most logical?

Dylan didn’t have a comfortable life, he was a live in prostitute clothed, fed and housed at the whim of a man in a committed relationship with another man who was also a drunk and a drug abuser. Dylan was living the unhappy and tenuous life of a parasite. He didn’t have a lease, didn’t have a job unless Joe got him one (trained “masseuse” just goes to my previous characterization), didn’t have a car and still doesn’t have a life that Joe doesn’t control. In fact he seems never to have held a real job for long and his youth and promise were circling the drain as his boyish looks morphed into those of a slight, balding, ineffectual, inconsequential man.

Victor didn’t have a comfortable life. He made a lot of money, but the man he loved had brought a third person not only into his relationship but into his home. Regardless of what he may have said to investigators; no lady likes to share her man with another person, even if that person is socially and economically inferior and depends on the kindness of others.

Joe’s life doesn’t seem comfortable at all. He seems to suffer from an extreme version of the classic American male overarching need to “have it all”; a wife, a second wife, a child, money, position, the adulation of others, endless ideas of entitlement to sexual satisfaction at the expense of others (by that I mean Victor) and the heavy alcohol abuse and illegal drug use that is the hallmark of such men and hardly a sign of a person living a comfortable life.

Significantly, Joe and Dylan were already endangering this so-called comfortable life by bringing strangers and tricks into their home. In fact, incorporating Dylan into their home, regardless of how they attempted to frame it, engendered risk. Illegal drug use threatens the very foundations of any home or career, everyone knows this. Giving the keys to your home to your brother who is a something of a small time career criminal is a risk too.

As far as risk taking goes; they were already there.

>>>”Wone was neither murdered nor raped.”

Leaving aside for the moment the supposition that whatever took place in that house sexually was not rape (which I will address later, but will here state is absurd) I must profess absolute amazement at the notion that Robert was not murdered. He absolutely, categorically was murdered in cold blood. There is no waffle room on that fact. I opined earlier that a new-comer to this site might conclude from the bizarre convoluted theories of some posters that Robert was not even murdered. Yet, I did not think I would see the day that I would read those exact words as an actual submission. I am astounded.

>>>”So here’s what happened: Price tells Wone that he absolutely has to try the latest and greatest in this sub-world – a paralyzing drug that prevents one from moving but not from feeling…”

Illegal drug use, though as mundane a choice for Joe and Dylan as coffee vs tea would for Robert have been unthinkable. Participating in anything sexual or otherwise that included extremely risky illegal drug-taking is so inconsistent with Robert Wone’s character and life-style that attempting to rhetorically gloss over this glaring anomaly constitutes the real far-fetched theorizing percolating here.

>>>”Either one of the guys sat somewhere he shouldn’t, or the restraining went to far,…”

Robert’s body does not show signs of having been restrained in so far as I am aware.

>>>”– the coroner does find that he was suffocated, though does not die from suffocation.”

This is what? Some sort of S&M blunder? I call the suffocation further proof of the intent to do harm to Robert, attempted murder first before the actual murder.

>>>”The guys believe no one will buy their accident story, particularly since the “accident” involved illegal drugs and “forced” restraint.”

They would be right about that. I for one am not buying it.

>>>”They concoct the intruder story, shower Wone to get rid of their own DNA, prints, etc. They put him in bed and stab him…”

Robert was not stabbed on that bed, this much is clear from the evidence. The amount of blood that the fatal wound to his aorta would have instantly produced would have soaked the bed.

>>>”They all shower….”

Yes, this is known from the statements of the EMTs and police when they arrived.

>>>”One of the three takes the murder weapon, the needles, the drugs, their clothes, and whatever else and throws them into a dumpster three blocks away.”

I think this is the case as well. I am not much of a believer in the presence of Michael or Sarah or anyone else at this scene. I also think that this activity explains the presence of blood in the outside drain. Someone rinsed off before venturing out.

>>>”One of the other two writes generic emails from Wone’s blackberry but does not send then (hard to understand why not).”

These fabricated Blackberry messages were created long after Robert was dead, washed and repositioned by these men. The risk in sending them is that the false times placed on them in edit mode (any time can be attached to a message in edit on a Blackberry) would become real send times with time stamps as they do with that technology. Also, what if Mrs. Wone had answered? They wouldn’t have known what to say, what endearments Robert used, what tone, what syntax, besides Robert was already dead and the police would be able to prove that much. there was no way that they could risk actually sending those mails.

>>>”If Wone were bi, where are the other partners?” — Of course I do not know for sure, but it may be that (a) others are not coming forward out of respect for Wone;…”

Why? If there are such partners how does it show respect for Robert to fail to come forward?

>>>”(b) some have come forward, but that information has been withheld (possibly to protect the tipper);…”

Protect the “tipper” if such a person exists from what, from whom?

>>>”(c) Price was the only one Wone trusted with his secret;…”

To first clarify, I am not speaking from a position of one who finds any person’s bi-sexuality, taste for S&M or any other sexual taste offensive in any way. Consenting adults, do your worst, have fun!

I do however find the notion of sexual dalliances pursued outside of a marriage under cloak of secrecy offensive and entirely inconsistent with every know representation of Robert’s character. That he would deceive his wife and place her at substantial health risk, not only from the big ticket killers like the HIV virus or hepatitis, but also from common and practically unavoidable pestilences like the human pamplona virus know to cause cervical cancer and not effectively guarded against by the use of prophylactics, would have been profoundly out of character for Robert. Additionally, (as Hoya Loya succinctly puts it ~ so I’ll just quote him): “To further assume that Robert was a willing participant in a gay, BDSM, extramarital encounter involving drug use and voluntary paralysis involves multiple quantum leaps of illogic.” I suggest that you actually apply Occam’s theory to these conjectures and start again.

>>>”(d) there were no other partners….”

This would be the most obvious answer, per Occam.

>>>”Why assume an accident over a more violent end?”

There is no scenario known to man in which the stabbing of a defenseless man is an accident ~ none. What exactly could be more characteristically violent than stabbing someone?

Robert Wone was the victim of criminal homicidal violence.

These are the facts.

>>>”— My scenario does indeed openly assume that these three guys – never before violent as far as I know, never in trouble, leading what appears to be satisfying lives – would simply not risk everything on a vicious rape….”

See above. It happens to women and girls every day, why not to a man? Men risk their livelihoods and freedom to sexually attack women all of the time. It’s not a rare crime at any level of society, not at all. Why not a an attack on another man, why not? In statistical terms the odds the victim of a solved murder was not a stranger to the murderer are 1 in 1.28 or 78% (I got those numbers from http://www.bookofodds.com/).

>>>”That assumption is there because it makes far more sense than the alternative…”

Murders don’t “make sense,” a murder is chaos incarnate.

Watchers of TV and readers of Agatha Christie yearn for logic in violence that in the real world scarcely ever exists. It is a burden for prosecutors I am sure, this cultural yearning for the orderly solution as typified by the formulaic detective story, but the truth is more mundane (or as Hannah Arendt would have it, more banal) than that.

I am not a person who is prudish about drug taking, I worked for 20 years in the music business in New York and am no stranger to drug use. I don’t disapprove or approve of drug taking per se. I am however keenly aware of the fact that most recreational drugs are either illegal to begin with or consumed in a way that constitutes illegal use and am not one of those who consider this activity to be normal. Neither, I am sure, was Robert.

I know from first hand experience that for some people the deleterious effects of prolonged alcohol and drug abuse can be so frightening as to be otherworldly. There are amongst us some that harbor hidden and astonishing ill-will towards others. Prolonged drug and alcohol abuse for these souls can liberate these ugly impulses in very real, illogical and criminal ways. It’s quite common actually. I think that habitual inebriation over a long period of time is the driver in this crime.

>>>”What about the blood in the intestines?” The blood in the intestines presents a difficulty for my theory.

Well, yes. Yes it does. In fact, it conclusively demonstrates that Robert was not dead when he was stabbed. Ergo, Robert was murdered in cold blood.

>>>”Nonetheless, homicide detectives will tell you that in many, if not most, cases, facts inconsistent with the case theory – or with reality – will present…”

Those types of inconsistencies are usually along the order of a maroon car turning out to have been black, not linchpin, game changing forensic evidence. I believe that you know that. Don’t play fast and loose with the facts, it’s tedious.

>>>”Moreover, people sometimes have blood in their intestines, due to a health problem.

I would call that extremely unlikely in a young fit man like Robert. I would also think that such a condition, if it existed, would have been evident to the medical examiner.

>>>”The bottom line is that one of three things happened that night…”

>>>”– an intruder killed Robert,…”

Ah, the elves, Joe’s poor sad long abandoned friends; the only friends who could save him he thought, but alas that is not to be.

>>>”the roommates purposely killed Robert…”

This is what obviously happened, whether or not they set out to do so at some earlier hour by 11pm they (or one of them, or two of them) had formed the intent and had done so.

>>>”, or the roommates accidentally killed Robert.

Again, there are no circumstances in which the stabbing of an incapacitated, unarmed man can be characterized as an accidental act, none, that is not possible.

>>>”Virtually all known facts support the third possibility, except the blood in the intestines. Virtually no facts support the first two possibilities, except the blood in the intestines. The best analysis should therefore accept the third possibility and explain away the anomolous [sic] evidence as resulting perhaps from a last gulp by the victim after his heart appeared to have stopped, or a coroner’s mistake, or something else.

I think you are wrong and that the evidence simply doesn’t support your argument. With support from Sir Arthur (Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth. …) I say that your option two is what remains.

One, two or all three of these men murdered Robert Wone, of that I have no doubt.

>>>”What about the mouthpiece?” — What about it? Wone was dressed in his pajamas by the 3 as part of the cover-up, inserting the mouthpiece just continues that effort.

I too have come to this conclusion. It is one of those anomalies familiar to forensics of which you previously spoke. I don’t think Robert had a chance to go to bed. Quick and foxy thinking on someones part though I will say.

By the way, they dressed him in a William and Mary t-shirt and took the time to make misleading slits in the shirt in an unsuccessful attempt to make it appear that Robert had been wearing the shirt when he was stabbed, not pajamas.

>>>”This post is offensive because it assumes the victim was a willing participant in his own death.” — it does assume he participated to a point, but not intentionally in his own death. More importantly, I am sorry to offend. I just want this thing solved.

You seem to be the only person who is saying this, sort of arguing both sides of this argument. I don’t think that your theory assumes that Robert participated in his own death. I don’t see that anywhere in what you posted.

I am curious as to why you feel the need to preemptively defend yourself against that charge though.