This Space For Rent
Longtime reader and always smart contributor Hoya Loya weighs in again.
In a guest commentary he tackles the perennially thorny subject of whether there was anything consensual going on at Swann Street on August 2, 2006.
We love taking the occasional day off and welcome insightful and thorough reader contributions like this (already grammar and spell-checked).
Getting to the bottom of this mess takes a village, and a lot of loyas too.
“The idea that Robert consented to anything other than a sleepover is always a touchy subject on the site, which has brought criticism from the trouple’s supporter(s).
Like most others here, I’m not convinced that it is a serious possibility, but have arrived at that conclusion through reasoning, not merely a gut feeling. Let’s try to be objective and play out the possibilities, based on the facts as we know them:
a) Robert had consensual relations with one or more of the trouple and the stabbing occurred later (done by an intruder or one of the trouple, perhaps out of jealousy). This fails on two counts: there is no evidence that Robert would have been interested and it has been demonstrated over and over that the intruder theory doesn’t fly.
Since the relations and murder would be separate events, would the trouple really cover up a pure act of murder, even if done by a roommate? Also doesn’t do much to explain needle marks or the DNA evidence.”
b) Robert went to Swann St. to participate in consensual acts with one or more of the trouple, but more vanilla in nature than what the trouple may have had in mind. He is then murdered to cover up the rape or is stabbed when they mistakenly think he is already dead to fit the intruder scenario. Again, there is no evidence that Robert would have been interested, but we do have evidence of the activities that interested Joe and Dylan. What followed would be assault and murder.
c) Robert went to Swann St. to participate in the same sorts of alt activities we know Joe and Dylan enjoyed and dies by “accident.” Again, no evidence that even a) or b) above would have been the case, never mind this, though stabbing as cover-up on the mistaken assumption he was dead would follow here.
d) Robert went to Swann St. to meet a “fifth person,” possibly in arrangement with the trouple, who then covered things up to protect his reputation. (This theory pops up on Above the Law and Gawker every time they post on the case, in almost identical wording).
If we discount a later intruder did the “fifth person” do the stabbing? With Dylan’s knife? Or was the stabbing part of the trouple’s cover up, on the assumption that Robert was already dead? Why would “friends” cover up the circumstances rather than try to find their “dear friend’s” killer, never mind stab him? Wouldn’t justice trump outing at that point? If they were in on it, wouldn’t they have known who it was, or had some idea? This just doesn’t hold water.
But as I’ve said before, I suspect some version of a) or d) is the story pedaled to some supporters and possibly even the LGBT task force (remember they didn’t want to “out someone”). Theories a), c) and d) all serve to diminish the trouple’s culpability, which is why I find them suspect when offered up by possible supporters without evidence beyond a conviction that “they just couldn’t have done such a thing.”
e) What if there had been a prior encounter or relationship between Joe and Robert and Joe expected to pick up where they left off, or, even more likely, if Joe perceived or imagined that there was interest on Robert’s part and that the sleepover was a sign that Robert finally intended to follow through. A failure by Robert to reciprocate because he was now married or because Joe’s perception was wrong could bring about an assault, particularly if drugs were involved. And the stabbing would then be to cover up rape. Again, there is no evidence to back up any prior history of mutual or one-way interest.
That is why it would be enlightening to hear from friends and other observers to shed light on the dynamics of the friendship going into August 2, 2006. Did Robert ever discuss possible interest by or advances from Joe with anyone? Did Joe ever express an interest in Robert to friends? Were Robert and Joe ever particularly close at any point during their overlap at W&M, or later on before Robert met Kathy?
Did Robert ever joke with Joe about an attraction (as straight men often do with gay friends – “Hey Joe, you look good today, even I’d be interested” or “Thanks for offering to let me crash but don’t get any ideas!”)? Any interesting observations from Robert’s birthday party? Did Joe comment to anyone about plans for the anticipated sleepover (“My cute friend from college is coming over, wink wink”)?
Anyone who might have information like this and is holding it back should consider coming forward as it could help provide a motive and help solve Robert’s murder. But is that likely?
Everyone who has come forward has been unanimous that Robert was straight and faithful and nobody seems to have noticed anything untoward in Joe’s friendship prior to August 2006. So unless something new is revealed, it is likely that the view that Robert was not a willing participant will still hold sway with most of the posters on this site.”
-Thanks Hoya
Does (d) even make sense since it would mean that Joe, of all people, is putting his neck on the line to simultaneously (1) save Robert’s reputation; and (2) protect Robert’s killer.
Exactly FoR.
Yet this theory continues to surface elsewhere on the web and was floated here by Ben in one of his early posts. Why? I don’t think it’s being too cynical to see this as a sop to the trouple’s supporters, the ones who insist “They just couldn’t have done this.” It seeks to 1) exonerate the trouple from the most serious charges; 2) cast the trouple’s inexplicable actions on and after August 2, 2006 as somehow noble, part of a sacrifice to protect a friend’s family and reputation; and yes 3) blame the victim.
But it falls apart under even minimal application of logic and facts.
Agree. Any apologist is likely to view this through an apologist’s viewpoint and try to wrestle some honor and/or exculpatory facts from what happened. “They just couldn’t have done this” must color every thought.
I think that the trouple’s gayness feeds into this idea, for some apologists, that they could not have done it. Being openly gay, they were too smart to do these crimes. Being college graduates and gay and white and public figures (on a minor scale), they would never do rape and murder. Stop!
This cynical use of stereotypes to excuse the trouple could have only been bought and paid for by Needham. Thanks, Daddy dearest!
My gut instinct is that the events of August 2006 were the culmination of escalating bad behavior.
Someone commented on a recent post that they felt there must/might be other victims out there but for whatever reason, I just don’t think so. I believe, instead, that Joe’s drug use and S&M activities were increasing in frequency and intensity and perhaps real life and games were beginning to blur.
Ultimately, when Robert contacted him about staying over either Joe’s warped perception that Robert might be into him or some fantasy of seducing/having sex with a very straight guy who “wouldn’t remember a thing” spurred him to action. The murder was the tragic cover-up when they thought they’d accidentally killed him with date rape drugs.
Agree 99.9%, Curious.
I am a firm believer that ketamine was the drug used to incapacitate Robert. Ketamine can cause a variety of states of mind. Hallucinations are a common state (like LSD). However, if the drug begins to wear off, a level of coherent consciousness is regained. The multiple injections shows (to me) that Robert probably went in and out of various levels of consciousness. I just don’t believe they were able to keep Robert in the state they wanted him to be in.
so, yes….a drug/sex fantasy experiment that didn’t pan out they they wanted it to. My only difference is that I believe they killed Robert because they realized Robert became aware of what was happening. They killed him to protect themselves from rape charges. Only a slight difference in theory, but a huge difference in the eyes of the court.
Murder someone to prevent them from squealing or kill someone because they thought he had od’d. The first screams of premeditation, second not so much.
The distinction between stabbing to cover-up rape and stabbing because they thought Robert had OD’d is an interesting one. I’ve gotten muddled in it before. While I do think from the very exacting nature of the three stab wounds that it was, indeed a cover up of the rape, even if they wrongly thought him dead would require an amount of reasonableness – check for pulse and check for breathing? And then what – most would seek medical attention. And then what – perhaps a weak-willed person with intense fear/self-preservation would do nothing if they didn’t know whether they wished for him to awaken. But who would stab that man three times to ensure death? And wait a considerable time to call 911?
I’ve tried to force myself to reconsider that the ‘games’ got out of hand and Robert appeared to be dead. But that next step is a real and profound LEAP – let’s stab him three times? Many of us have been in situations we wish we hadn’t gotten into and had to make some choices. But even if they thought Robert MIGHT die, the stabbing was an intentional act. Nothing suggests that he WAS indeed dead at that time, and an addled mind who wrongly thought he might be dead doesn’t get a free pass with “I thought he was” if ordinary measures weren’t taken. The “you can’t murder a dead body” isn’t applicable here since it’s never going to be proven that he was, indeed, dead at the point of stabbing. And any gray area would not go to the defendants since they alone had the opportunity to get him help and did not, choosing to stab him instead.
Additional issues: who would take the stand to say “we thought he was dead”? The defense may find an expert to say he likely died from something prior to the stab wounds, but when coupled with the delayed 911 call and the prosecution’s own experts to the contrary, there is a hole in the defense. Frankly, not even Joe would testify ‘we thought he was dead’ because the cross would be too easy – “so you STABBED him to erase any hope of survival?”.
And, sadly, we are still at the conspiracy/tampering/obstruction stage.
Bea,
The defense can’t say he died of anything but the stab wounds because that wouldn’t be consistent with their story/statements. An intruder stabbed Robert is their story, anything that deviates from that, immediately contradicts everything they are saying. Doesn’t it?
David
David, agree that the apparent defense theory at this time would not allow for anyone to say Robert did NOT die of stab wounds. I’m just wondering if the story will change when this trial is complete and we’re on to the murder trial.
All good points. Let’s look at it this way: if Curious is correct, Joe (and presumably Dylan as well) had gone to a very dark place, where Robert was no longer their “friend” but an object. Having gone there, what follows more logically — that they stabbed him out of fear that he was dead or that they stabbed him out of fear that he would squeal?
If he had od’d (which the evidence doesn’t necessarily support), they could have said Robert od’d on his own.
That’s one of the reasons I think they stabbed him while fully alive.
They probably would have worked the OD into the scenario, if so. Seems they tried to work everything else in (including leaving the door open…yikes bugs.)
The intruder defense is fanciful enough. If Robert had actually OD’d or nearly OD’d, why not say Robert must have injected himself too many times.
I agree that a rational mind would think as you do. I don’t think they were thinking rationally, however.
Ever seen 16 Candles, when the girl gets her hair caught in a closed door? Instead of releasing her hair by simple opening the door, her friends grab scissors and cut off the hank of hair that’s trapping her.
I would guess there wasn’t much time for careful planning when things went south, unless of course everything went exactly as planned.
I agree with CD that if the defendants thought Robert was dead from overdose, they’d have realized their best bet was to claim he’d accidentally OD’d – he wouldn’t have been able to contradict them. I also agree that there was a lot of freaking out, that this was not planned (in the sense of murder) and in the end, the murderer(s) were able to keep his/their cool in stabbing his/their friend because he/they had disassociated – and, yes, Robert became an object. Chilling.
Interesting, Bea. Disassociation, of course, usually does not start in middle age, but it rather becomes a self-defensive, lifetime habit after some type of sustained trauma, either in childhood or adolescence. Or, is disassociation an inherent component of the anti-social personality, the sociopath who sees everyone as object and himself as both subject and ruler? That causal premise for disassociation could go either way with Joe, Michael, and Dylan, the bad boys that Victor/Vicki had to babysit.
Great job, Hoya, and Curious, we are definitely on the same page.
But even if there was something consensual going on (though I see no evidence in support of this theory), a man was still murdered and the crime scene was extensivelyy altered before help was called, so to me, it doesn’t matter. So what if Robert did have consensual sex with the boys (I do not for one moment believe that he did, however)? What would this really change? They were more concerned with staging the scene rather than immediately summoning help for Robert for whatever reason, and that, to me, is just as bad as premeditated murder.
That’s right, FCH. Robert is still dead. And the defendants are responsible for his death.
Agree 100% FCH. Unfortunately, not everyone is so open minded and I bet the defense is banking on that. And despite the lack of evidence, the theories keep surfacing, so I felt a need to raise the issue for analysis and discussion in light of the known evidence. But it’s still murder, no matter what.
I completely understand Hoya, and I think it is great to discuss these issues and dissect new information. I guess I personally do get a little touchy (and please don’t get me wrong -nothing to do with your post) when I get the sense that some folks – not anyone here necessarily – are quick to jump to the conculsion that Robert was messing around with one or more of the trouple, and this wouldn’t have happened if he were at home with his wife (where he belonged, of course) instead of spending the night at his gay friends.
You wouldn’t believe some of the comments I’ve heard from coworkers.
Agree, F-C-Ho, but think Hoya is doing the right thing. Much as John Grisham was stirring the pot yesterday, I took to heart his and Lurker’s comment that those of us who post a lot need not jump on those who disagree with one element (or more) against the grain of beliefs here. It IS a good thing to ponder that even if Robert had consented to something that night that THAT does not equal consent to be murdered (to use extreme folding down of logic) – despite thinking he didn’t. As a community we do need to allow for things to be less black and white in order to glean possible new insights.
Bea, I’m all for new theories. Pleeeease. Something new to discuss. But I must say that any new theory should be weighed with the existing evidence, forensic science and logic. We must not forget these things. If we don’t measure new ideas with fact, we may as well be writing a novel.
Agree that new theories must hold water AND that posters must stick around and provide meaningful feedback (reference Ben F). Just want the message to the lurkers that we would like to hear from all, that despite what has been written, we are a fairly welcoming bunch.
Good to know.
Thanks Bea for acknowledging that it can sometimes be a good thing to stir the pot at times. Especially when the pot has been bubbling at the same temperature with the same cooks in the kitchen for so long (including myself early on) and yet after all of these months we all still seem to only be smelling the same old smoke. My issue here, as I think you know, is that seemingly mild, inoffensive, pure-as-milk types who are frequently dismissed from any culpability of driving the execution and cover-up of a murder, can sometimes later defy conventional assessments and ultimately prove to be violent and out-of-control during unanticipated moments of crisis; suddenly becoming immensely vengeful, wrongheaded, violent, controlling and manipulative . . . even more so than their apparently porn-abusing, dildo-wielding egotistical (or conversely, lackadaisical) openly-drug-abusing sexually-compulsive counterparts. Who, paradoxically – possibly — might not contain a violent impulse within them. Given the incredible conspiracy of silence that has continued to surround the Two Little and One Big Pig, I think that this kettle of lentils and fish continues to be worthy of stirring around..
I imagine the police would have done a forensic analysis of Wone’s computers that would show if he had any activities or interests along the lines of being a participant. Since the police have said there is no such evidence, I take their word for it. I am, however, not clear about the theory of drugs being given to R W. Certainly a lab post mortum must have been done and if drugs were in his sytem they would have shown up?
Bill,
We have discussed this theory of why drugs did not show up in Robert’s system on the site before. Here is one post where we ponder if it was Ketamine: https://whomurderedrobertwone.com/2009/03/17/k-street/
David
And another Capt. Kirk: The toxicolgy report from Robert’s autopsy.
Don’t forget those tell-tale needle marks…..it has not been ruled out that those are indeed injection marks. And there is absolutely no other reason Robert would have needle marks on his body. No doctor’s appointments, no accupunture appointments, etc. If there was any legitimate reason those marks were on his body, surely the person that made the marks or the reason those marks were there would have surfaced by now.
What’s up with your time clock, eds?
CDinDC
February 26, 2010 at 6:08 PM
I’m looking at my clock right now….it’s 5:30PM. Am I in the the future? A parallel universe?
It’s later than you think CD. It’s time for breakfast. Hurry up or you’ll be late for school. Class starts yesterday.
Ripping holes in the time-space continuum… Is there anything four enterprising blog boys can’t do?
That confused me tomorrow.
Gratefully, I understood it yesterday but won’t know so until next week.
Beam me up, Scotty: the “trouble with trouples” episode is just about over!
As the prosecution continues to press the case, my guess is that we might very well see a consent-accident defense at some point, in which one or more of the defendants claim that (1) Wone was a willing participant, (2) he died accidentially, and (3) the housemates then invented the intruder theory to avoid embarrassment to themselves (and to Wone). I am aware that the current trial is not a murder trial, but this may be the best defense ultimately. The defendants may be able to craft a plausible bargain under this theory in which they accept guilt as to manslaughter/accidental killing, rather than face murder convictions and life imprisonment. Their lawyers would be crazy not to be thinking about this.
That claim would be the ultimate unforgivable
insult to Robert. Those of us who knew Robert know that he had much better things to do than
involve himself in such self-gratifying activities
as occurred at Swann Street.
I guess self-indulgent is a better word than self-gratifying.
Agree that it’s certainly being bandied about by the defense team, CC. Whether it’s been offered formally to the prosecution at this stage is unlikely – but once the judge rules against the defense’s motions in limine and allows the alt dot com and BDSM equipment, they may change their tune and try to make THIS trial and the MURDER trial go away by spinning some involuntary manslaughter story. I doubt that the prosecution would accept as to all three – SOMEONE had to actually stab Robert to death – but I would bet large sums that the prosecution would offer a total deal in exchange for testimony to any of the defendants who neither raped nor murdered Robert.
Consenting implies mutual agreement, a degree of transparency among the parties, and having the independence to choose one’s own options. Hence, consenting does not apply to Mr. Wone in this case. Robert did not agree to be raped and killed; he certainly did not know his fate when his wife packed his bag for the Swann; and, once there at Swann, Robert did not have a chance to get away because his “friend” Joe made sure that he would never talk again. Case closed, Bernie. Time to settle this one, Spag?
Editors, is the next status hearing still
scheduled for Friday, March 12 at Moultrie at 2pm? Do you have team coverage planned? Will any case watchers be there to provide additional perspectives?
Those questions raise others: Will Aunt Marcia finally give the blog a paid, tell-all interview about living with her nephew’s family? Will Victor turn sides this time, and not just in bed? One can always hope!!
Clio: We are still a GO on team coverage of the March 12 status hearing.
If both sides adhere to Judge Leibovitz’ scheduling order and no delays crop up (or a deal struck), there could be only one or two more chances after the 12th to see the defendants before the trial gets underway.
I think the January 15 transcript goes into what other pre-trial hearings may occur: a Frye hearing maybe and perhaps another on motions or evidentiary issues.
As far as Aunt Marcia goes, the four of us wish her only the very best. Regretably, we have zero budget for any pay-to-play interviews of case insiders.
Examining these conjectures line item by line item for me only presents a host of more unanswered questions.
a) Robert had consensual relations with one or more of the trouple and the stabbing occurred later (done by an intruder or one of the trouple, perhaps out of jealousy).
Leaving aside my own conviction that Robert would not have had consensual sex with any of these men, I can’t imagine a scenario where the second half of this conjecture could fit the facts. The elves (or even one mystery elf) I discard out of hand as being ridiculous and not plausible. the second conjecture, that one of the three men killed Robert in some fit of pique, begs the question of why the other two would go to such bizarre lengths to cover for him. If Dylan sneaked back into Robert’s room (or was there and never left) and meticulously stabbed Robert then why would the other two react by defending him? If Joe did this wicked thing after making love to Robert, again why would Dylan and Victor cover for him? If Victor, jealous and hurt (suddenly after Joe’s long history of infidelity), killed Robert why would the other two got to such lengths to conceal that fact? It just doesn’t seem plausible.
Also, as Hoya Loya points out, this version does not cover the many hypodermic needle marks on Robert or the attempted smothering.
b) Robert went to Swann St. to participate in consensual acts with one or more of the trouple, but more vanilla in nature than what the trouple may have had in mind. He is then murdered to cover up the rape or is stabbed when they mistakenly think he is already dead to fit the intruder scenario.
To again put aside my opinions about Robert’s known proclivities, if I conjecture that Robert was initially willing then things developed in ways that were alarming, uncomfortable or legally actionable so one or more of the trouple decided that a line of such monumental significance had been crossed that they (or he) was compelled to escalate the action to include murder, then on the face of it nothing is really significantly different from what has been advanced previously; that one or more of these men murdered Robert Wone in cold blood.
c) Robert went to Swann St. to participate in the same sorts of alt activities we know Joe and Dylan enjoyed and dies by “accident.”
To again put aside … blah, blah, blah, I can not conceive of a construct in which the means of Robert’s death could be termed “accidental.” I am continually struck by the odd locations of many of Robert’s hypodermic injections (his foot? his neck?). I think that the Medical Examiner will be able to state that many of not most of these points are places that he would not have been able to even reach himself. Those needle injections were not “accidents.” Even if one makes the fantastic leap to believe that Robert would submit to being injected and would have been a consenting participant in an extreme sex game; no way, no how, could the fatal knife wounds have been accidental. It just isn’t possible. If it is put fourth that Robert was stabbed in an attempt to cover-up an accidental drug overdosing I would need more facts to take such a story at face value; though from a legal standpoint wouldn’t injecting another person (even a willing person) with illegal drugs constitute a very serious crime and the subsequent stabbing (regardless of what the perpetrator may have “thought” at the time) still be felony murder?
d) Robert went to Swann St. to meet a “fifth person,” possibly in arrangement with the trouple, who then covered things up to protect his reputation.
Leaving aside etc…., this is the most absurd of the many trouple apologist theories and to my mind the most offensive as well. This is not Victorian England and the house-mates are supposedly proud out gay men. I rather doubt that Mrs. Wone is some sort of delicate fainting flower either. It might have been hard or sad to face Mrs. Wone and tell her that not only was Robert dead but that he died pursuing a homosexual liaison that you yourself has helped facilitate by providing a venue, but certainly not so hard that you would throw your entire life away instead of facing it. That’s ridiculous. Such people don’t go to their graves maintaining a gentlemanly silence about another man’s private affairs like that any more, certainly not these people. Besides, a craigslist trick would leave an electronic paper trail. A mutual friend or acquaintance would have been promptly sacrificed. If it was Michael that Robert yearned for and risked so much to make love to (though I’ve seen a video of him and I find that unlikely in the extreme, for reasons that should be patently obvious) then truly the mind reels, and I can’t conceive of Victor and Dylan covering for Michael if he acted alone.
This theory also (as stated by Hoya Loya) doesn’t explain how this unknown party (this sexually entitled elf) was able to locate Dylan’s knife in his room. Nor does it adequately cover a scenario under which one of the trouple did the stabbing having found Robert to all appearances dead from drugs after a sexual escapade. That would obviously still be murder, not to mention conspiracy, tampering and obstruction.
In any case the “point” of all of this continued agitation and seeming need to paint Robert as a willing participant in his own death is to shift the emotional heart of this crime further and further away from the defendants.
I think that soon (very soon) there will be pleadings in this case. The stone inevitability of the conspiracy, obstruction and tampering charges sticking and sticking hard can not be lost on these multitude of experienced lawyers tasked with defending these men. Soon, we will move from the first set of lies (the elf story) to a second set of lies, and then a third and possibly on ad infinitum as all three men rattle and pace their cages (Ben will finally get his pacing drama, of that I am sure) for they can not under the current set of circumstances evade incarceration much longer.
Will the truth of what happened to Robert ever emerge? Sometimes I can’t see how that can be possible.
AnnaZ says: “that one of the three men killed Robert in some fit of pique, begs the question of why the other two would go to such bizarre lengths to cover for him.”
For me, the only thing that fits is that Joe did the horrible deed and the other two are covering for him because they have a vested interest in his freedom. It’s financial….Victor would lose the house if Joe went down and Dylan would be on the street. They both have a vital reason for protecting him.
If Dylan did it, Joe nor Victor they have anything to lose by throwing him under the bus because he doesn’t contribute significantly to the pot. He’s very expendible. Life would go on as usual if Dylan wasn’t in the picture. Joe would get another “dom.”
And if Victor did it (which I don’t think he did), there could be the ripple effect for Joe, but I think Dylan would thrill at having Joe all to himself.
So, of those scenarios, Joe as the lead is the only one that makes complete sense to me.
CDinDC says:
“For me, the only thing that fits is that Joe did the horrible deed and the other two are covering for him because they have a vested interest in his freedom. It’s financial….Victor would lose the house if Joe went down and Dylan would be on the street. They both have a vital reason for protecting him.”
I’m not sure how “vital” this interest is: Dylan’s legal fees are presumbly being bankrolled by his family and we know the trouple are residing with Victor’s aunt, thus neither is likely to be “out on the street” as such. Thus the reason for their continued coordnation (assuming one or more was not directly involved in Robert’s death) remains puzzling….
Hi Swann, much as I often agree with CD, I do think it’s more than financial as well. Joe is the one without family money. My guess is that Dylan was involved to a degree that he CAN’T throw Joe under the bus without implicating himself (prosecutors are loathe to offer deals to active parties in the crime – knife wielders, needle wielders). Victor, however, creates more of a head scratcher, and my instinct is that he plain old loves Joe and can’t turn his back on him. The fool – like Joe wouldn’t have been long gone by now had the tables been turned.
I’m speaking of Joe and Victor’s salaries and their contribution to the “family structure.” I’m not referring to any family contributions to their legal defense.
When someone is in a partnership (romantic), and especially if you live with your partner, their livelihoods and contributions to the joint debts is important. And if that joint debt is too much for one half of the partnership to handle, well sh*t creek is just down the road.
The defendants’ attempt at a cover-up was to avoid prosecution. They were thinking in the present. Legal fees probably didn’t immediately enter their minds. “Joe if you get arrested and put in jail, what am I going to do?” was probably more of an immediate response.
I am in complete agreement with the theory that Robert was raped, then murdered to cover up the rape, and that the crime scene was cleaned with the participation of all three defendants.
However, there is one fact that has always confounded me, and I would appreciate any thoughts on the subject. If the defendants are guilty of murder, as we believe, why didn’t they lawyer up immediately instead of submitting to hours of questioning without attorneys present?
Perhaps Joe is so confident of his ability to control every situation that he saw no need for representation, even with the stakes so high, but how could he have that degree of confidence in Dylan? Wouldn’t he at least have made sure Dylan called a lawyer immediately? And how could Dylan survive so many hours of intense questioning without incriminating himself or the others, particularly if he was under the influence of drugs?
I would imagine that Aunt Marcia and other trouple supporters take great comfort in this particular fact.
But I do believe it has been said that he called an attorney (Bernie?) in the wee hours of that night.
But maybe AFTER the interview.
In any event, maybe Joe thought calling in counsel so early in the game might have raised suspicions.
Williamsburg – Thanks for chiming in. Some good questions.
A marathon interrogation (times three) sans counsel has always been perplexing. That may have been the first of the many anomalies we’d come to see. We’ve tried to tackle the lawyering up process over the last few months. This post, appropriately titled ‘Lawyering Up,” looked at that very preculiar element.
Ward retained David Schertler almost immediately afterwards, Price and Zaborsky went with a friend, Kathleen Voelker to represent them. She didn’t stay on the case long.
Something we’re never been able to figure out is from a line from the original affidavit that had Price quizzing the detecive on Ward’s well-being. “I would like to see Dylan…. His (Ward’s) attorney is trying to reach him…. What’s the story with Dylan? …I mean – – I’m going to get his attorney to come down here.”
How did Price know that Ward’s attorney (was it even Schertler at that point?) was trying to reach him? And then a sentence later saying he was going to get Ward’s attorney to “come down here.” Another rip in the time-space continuum?
Price was seen and heard by detectives on the phone while he was at the MPD’s Violent Crime Branch. When did he have time to start phone banking and speed dialing?
Ironically, the first mention of Price’s eventual defene counsel was made before Price even got to Anacostia’s VCB. While in the back of the MPD Crown Vic, DC Detective Jeffrey Folts asked Price if by chance he knew Bernie Grimm. In DC, name-dropping is considered a contact sport.
Of course Price did; of course Folts did. Is there a detective in town that hasn’t come across Bernie? Where else would Bernie have gotten that cool piece of MPD gear seen here ?
Good question, Williamsburg. My take on WHY they didn’t ask for lawyers right away before the questioning is that in order for them NOT to be the immediate suspects (backfired anyway) they had to be willing to tell what they knew in the middle of the night. If it had been an intruder, OF COURSE the housemates would be as helpful as possible to find the killers of their friend.
Every lawyer will tell you DON’T do this, but that’s really about being guilty. Many innocent people ‘lawyer up’ as well, so that’s not an indication of guilt, but back to the lawyer’s advice and why Joe, a lawyer, didn’t heed this. It was the middle of the night and the story looked cockeyed enough without them being willing to help; he thought he could talk his way out of it; he’d coached the boys to stick to basic facts, namely that each was asleep and had no idea what happened. He may well have sobered up and realized that it was a mistake, thus trying to get a lawyer to Dylan – he didn’t worry about his own abilities (he was his own lawyer), and he knew Victor didn’t really know what happened until he woke up, so Dylan was the weak link. He may have hired/roused from bed, but unless Dylan said (not Joe) that Dylan wanted a lawyer, the questions would keep coming and they’d be sure to keep him isolated.
Cops don’t like it when “perps” ask for lawyers, for obvious reasons, and try to get as much ground covered as possible before that happens. It’s the little things that ultimately matter – like Joe having told inconsistent stories about where he found the knife, and all of them using 11:54 as a key time (and wrongly so). Sure looks like a cover story when you’re all wrong – just like kids who cheat on a test and each miss #32 by answering B.
Craig, thanks for the detailed info re the early attorney rep/contact. I knew there was some foggy info, but I just couldn’t remember.
I remember a lengthy discussion months back about Joe possibily calling Bernie (or another attorney) in the wee hours of the night, as well. Does that ring a bell?
Don’t know if he called Bernie but he sure arranged for he and Victor to be represented by a friend of his – he knew that she would have to protect both their interests (talk about a conflict!). Truly amazing that Victor may not have known he had a way out until it was far too late (of course, I think they’d still give him immunity if he told the whole truth).
“If the defendants are guilty of murder, as we believe, why didn’t they lawyer up immediately instead of submitting to hours of questioning without attorneys present?”
How could they possibly sell their “intruder” theory to the police if they immediately started acting like guilty defendants and clammed up?
I agree CC….the tone of the questioning that night gave them a reasonable excuse in the eyes of others to contact counsel.
perhaps they were hoping that their scheme would be pulled off as planned and they wouldn’t need to take that next step.
Foiled! ha!
Yes, how did Dylan as Debbie Downer skate through the long interrogation in Anacostia? Perhaps, it was because he really did not have anything to do with the actual stabbing. He may have witnessed/facilitated the drugging and/or rape, but he may have not used the knife himself. Rather, like Victor, in this scenario, he covered up the felonious mess for Joe, his first and only love.
I think I recall someone saying Dylan was given a lie detector test. Wonder what the results were.
CD: I think the motion for pre-trial release had something on Ward’s lie detector test. Sounds like he aced it. No mention of the other two submitting IIRC.
Does any jurisdisdiction allow them at trial?
None I know of consider them admissible. But if he passed it, perhaps they took custody of him in Florida to encourage him to turn on Joe (or other killer). Would love to see the questions asked – that’s usually the tough part, and I suppose being drug-addled could have an affect on AFFECT (as in not registering a lie?). Don’t know. Perhaps it was ‘inconclusive’. Would love to know more.
I think Victor’s choice to stand by Joe has more to do with their being parents together of two young sons who are siblings than to do with money. That’s why I don’t think it is possible for Dylan to have acted alone and to be supported by Victor. Sometimes I wonder if Dylan was involved at all in the actual stabbing of Robert (his knife or not).
Very good point AnnaZ. Either way, Victor’s motivation to protect and cover for Joe is to maintain the “family structure.” It is important to Victor to maintain life as he/they (Vic adn Joe) have seen it for so long.
But couldn’t the family structure be maintained with Joe and/or Victor in prison? After all, Kim is raising and has always been raising their little boys with her partner. After Victor and Joe donated the sperm, then they were clearly expendable.
Could Victor be trying to preserve the trouple concept (as his family) even if it underscored his inability as a man to please his man? The trouple concept, never fully consummated and now dead in the intimate sense, would not survive, even as an abstraction, a stint in the pokey.
Why does everyone seem so certain that Wone could not have been an in-the-closet homosexual? I understand that people who knew him did not think he was gay, but then I bet the people who know the defendants would not have suspected that they were S&M maniacs with a house full of bizzare sex toys. The world is sometimes more surprising and complicated than it seems.
Robert in-the-closet? No way.
There is not a smidgeon of evidence that he was in-the-closet and there is world of consistent evidence and the experience of droves of his friends that he was clearly straight.
Robert was both broad minded and broad hearted.
He trusted his friends. We will see if that was a fatal mistake.
Robert does not fit the bill as a closet case. Closeted, married men do not tell their wives that they are going to sleep over at a gay friend’s home. They do not go to that home, knowing that other people (who know his wife) may be there. And, they do not do other men who they have known socially for fifteen years.
Rather, they go on craigslist (or to the nearest gym/sauna or airport men’s room) to pick up a random stranger who knows nothing about them or their wife. They strongly prefer that (if the encounters go on for more than one night) the random stranger to be also closeted and married (to a woman) because both parties to the indiscretion would then realize the value of discretion.
Of course, as a proper lady, I have only read about such common behavior, but I have no reason to doubt its familiar patterns.
Clio (My Lady):
Actually to all, but Clio is my Muse and one of Caesar’s favorites so I first address myself to her, if there were even a hint that Robert was a closeted gay, it would surely have appeared in a form other than innuendo by now. It hasn’t precisely because it wasn’t the case.
More importantly for me, WHO CARES! And it DOESN”T MATTER. Sorry for shouting, I am exhausted and my hearing is impaired from the Olympic Gold Medal Hockey game, but geez folks, when is the “blaming the victim” (because that is what this is when the “Robert consented to rough sex” stuff is aired) going to end?
Hoya’s post is highly relevant and useful precisely because it makes clear that however illogical, the idea that Robert volunteered to be killed and have his murder covered up is absurd.
Respectfully,
Meto
Dearest Meto:
Being also from classical antiquity where humans were far less judgmental about with whom others were making love, I also feel that it is irrelevant whether Robert was closeted or not. Nevertheless, in this present, closeted gays are usually seen as deserving their fate, however catastrophic. Jury members may also share that unfortunate view, a side effect of gay liberation — the ostensible cause of Mr. Price and Mr. Ward. So, whenever the speculation veers in that direction, it must be countered with logic, testimony, and facts.
BTW, I do hope to return to republican Rome soon, before a Republican Congress is seated here —
XO, Clio.
Clio:
I don’t know what part of your posting is more depressing – your accurate portrayal of why a U.S. Jury in 2010 could go around the bend if it is (falsely) led to believe that Robert was a closeted gay man or your reason for returning to republican Rome.
Respectfully,
Meto
That everyone who knew him (at least those who have come forward) denies that Robert had any sexual interest in men, this proves nothing in itself. Closeted gay men often manage to conceal such interests from everyone close to them. But unless and until evidence to the contrary is produced, I think it’s safe to accept the police conclusion that he was not.
Agree. Nothing but innuendo has remotely suggested it, and as been pointed out numerous times, even if it were true, it wouldn’t matter. No one consents to be killed.
But how many people who knew Joe/Victor/Dylan believed they would be capable of a gruesome rape and murder? This is the problem with trying to find support for your position based on what friends/acquaintances believe. It often results in an inability to see reality.
CCB — maybe you didn’t read my post. “Everyone” is sure he “could not have been” not only because there is testimony he wasn”t but also because nobody has come forward to the contrary. And yes, even if he was, he was still stabbed three times and bled to death. But more to the point of my post, if you are sure that “reality” was that Robert was closeted, which scenario above or variation thereof do you think makes logical sense?
HL – I have no idea whether or not Robert was closeted. My point from the start was to ask why everyone was so sure that he was not. (I still don’t have an answer to that.) If this case has proved anything, it’s that you can’t always trust what appears to be true. As to the relevance of this line of inquiry, it is highly relevant. If Robert were closeted, it would give the defendants a much stronger basis to argue that his death was the result of consensual S&M sex gone wrong, rather than an intentional killing. Involuntary manslaughter rather than murder. Huge difference.
Understand your point, CC. But the defendants (now, anyway) are not claiming accidental death. When NO one is saying he was participating consensually, it’s hard to assume he was.
So clarify for me: are you going with c) or d)?
And absent evidence that anything but three knife wounds killed Robert, how exactly would his death be truly accidental as opposed to simply being characterized as such to benefit the trouple?And if it is c) or d), why have the trouple stonewalled for so long as a unit?
Based on what we know, Robert being closeted is a stretch. Robert being closeted and into S&M, including possibly e-stim is a huge leap. In addition to testimony of friends, there was nothing found on his computer or in his email accounts (or as far as we know in his sock drawer), no prior lovers coming forward, not even anyone who observed anything at W&M or later. Plus plenty of character testimony that he would never cheat on his wife. He was a hard worker and August 2, 2006 was the first night he spent apart from Kathy — he probably didn’t have the time or opportunity even if he was so inclined. Even if August 2 was a much belated first time, is it likely that he’d go BDSM first time out?
On the other hand, we do know for a fact that Price and Ward were into S&M, and while that may not have been known to friends like Robert, it was certainly known to users of alt dot com, the proposed proprietor of Eye Candy Video and members of the Crew Club. And backed up by the toy collection found at the house. In addition, there is evidence of drug use and that Michael Price was dealing.
As for strengthening the defense, on the contrary, if he was closeted, isn’t it that much more likely that he did go to Swann St. for sex with: the trouple (as in c) above), which would put them on the scene for the death and cover-up as opposed to in bed where they claim they were; or with someone else (as in d) above) in which case they were in on it and guilty of at very least obstruction (and nonsensical behavior against self-interest and their friend’s interest)?
You don’t seem to claim that Robert being closeted would make sense of things, only that it might provide an out for the trouple.
Great post, Hoya. I’ve thought about the same questions, and reframed them in my head.
Two questions here:
1 – Was Robert’s death accidental, by legal definition (as opposed to crackhead definition) ?
2 – If so, were any of the events leading to Robert’s death consensual acts?
Let’s suppose that they were. My premise:
1 – Robert would not want to see his longtime friend Joe (and maybe Victor?) punished unduly for the aftermath of an accident. I’ve inferred from many accounts of his character that he had a strong sense of honor, fairness, and loyalty, and would likely choose mercy over justice, perhaps even at the expense of personal embarrassment.
2 – Robert’s family generally shared Robert’s values, and would have considered his wishes foremost. There are counterarguments to this – grief changes people, Asian cultures have a strong sense of family honor, and any aspects or actions of Robert that would bring the family dishonor would be swept under the rug, etc.
3 – By many accounts, Joe is charismatic and persuasive. If there were a way he could “spin” Robert’s death as some flavor of manslaughter, he would have done so, and he would have made a valiant attempt to gain the sympathy and support of Robert’s family.
4 – Robert’s family didn’t want to believe that his longtime friend was involved in his assault and murder. If there were some reasonable explanation for Robert’s death that didn’t involve assault and murder, they would want to accept that explanation.
5 – Robert was well-connected, and his family could probably have leveraged those connections to reduce charges against the trouple. This is, again, assuming that Robert’s family would choose mercy over justice for a longtime friend. Robert’s connections may have been able to keep many prurient details away the media.
Bottom line for me: At least one of the defendants perpetrated some non-consensual act(s), likely sexual assault, against Robert before the stabbing. Joe participated in some way; if he hadn’t, he would have sold someone down the river and/or appealed to Robert’s family for mercy.
The Wone family is behaving with prudence and wisdom .
Respectfully, we have no idea what they are thinking. Only guesses.
Looks like they are letting the law take its course.
Not easy given the length of time since they lost Robert.
“By many accounts, Joe is charismatic and persuasive. If there were a way he could “spin” Robert’s death as some flavor of manslaughter, he would have done so . . . .”
Penelope, the night is young! There’s still plenty of time for a plea bargain along these lines. Indeed, it is the most likely outcome in my view.
CURIOUSINVIRGINIA
Your idea comports closely with my theories that either: 1) Robert was alive when his murderers thought he was dead or 2) Robert was dead when his murderers thought he was alive.
Scenario 1
Robert is first dosed with a date rape drug to make him pliable but not unconscious which is the way most date rapists seem to like their victims.
However, heavy BDSM might require more than a date rape dose. So, Robert is injected with enough
paralytic to make him extended BDSM pliable.
At some point, Robert awakens to a point of being uncooperative. Panicked, Dylan smothers Wone with a pillow while Joe figures out what to do.
What do Joseph and Dylan do or have done for them? Inject him with some more paralytic so they can continue with their fun and games.
When Joe and Dylan expect Robert to come out of his semicomatose state and Robert does not do so, Joe and Dyl “erroneously” believe Robert is dead.
If the authorities discover a man dead from a drug overdose in the home of admitted or apparent drug users, those drug users have a problem.
What they do? They stab him with the intent of making it look like somebody else killed him.
Then we get into all the cover up stuff.
Before dying from the stabbing, Robert will be able to swallow his own blood and the amount of the blood loss will be minimal on account of the relatively heavy dose of paralytic administered.
Under this scenario, the individual or individuals who stabbed Robert are the primary killers.
Major suspects: Dylan of culinary arts and Joseph the Eagle Scout. In either case, Joseph decides who the stabber will be.
Scenario 2
Robert is first dosed with a date rape drug to make him pliable buy not unconscious which is the way most date rapists seem to like their victims.
However, heavy BDSM might require more than a date rape dose. So, Robert is injected with enough
paralytic to make him extended BDSM pliable.
At some point, Robert awakens to a point of being uncooperative. Panicked, Dylan smothers Wone with a pillow while Joe figures out what to do.
What do Joseph and Dylan do or have done for them? Inject him with some more paralytic so they can continue with their fun and games.
When Joe and Dylan expect Robert to come out of his semicomatose state and Robert does not do so, Joe and Dyl “correctly” believe Robert is dead.
If the authorities discover a man dead from a drug overdose in the home of admitted or apparent drug users, those drug users have a problem.
What they do? They stab him with the intent of making it look like somebody else killed him.
Then we get into all the cover up stuff.
Before dying from the stabbing, if Robert was on his way to but not quite at death’s door from the paralytic, Robert will be able to swallow his own blood and the amount of the blood loss will be moderate on account of the stabbing.
Under this scenario, the individual or individuals who injected Robert with the paralytic are the primary killers.
Major suspects: Michael the addict phlebotomist and Dylan the recreational drug user. In either case, Joseph decides who the injector will be.
Scenario 3
Robert is first dosed with a date rape drug to make him pliable buy not unconscious which is the way most date rapists seem to like their victims.
However, heavy BDSM might require more than a date rape dose. So, Robert is injected with enough
paralytic to make him extended BDSM pliable.
When Joseph and Dylan don’t expect Robert to come out of his semicomatose state and he does, they smother Robert to death with a pillow.
If the authorities discover a man dead from a smothering in the home of admitted or apparent BDSMers, those BDSMers have a problem.
What they do? They stab him with the intent of making it look like somebody else killed him.
Then we get into all the cover up stuff.
Before dying from the smothering, if Robert is on his way to but not quite at death’s door from the asphyxiation, Robert will still be able to swallow his own blood and the amount of the blood loss will be moderate on account of the smothering.
In this scenario, the person who smothers Robert to death with a pillow is the primary killer.
Major suspects: Dylan the dominant BDSMer and Joseph the submissive BDMSer. Whether or not Joseph decides who will be the asphyxiator depends on the degree of premeditation.
Scenario 4
Robert is first dosed with a date rape drug to make him pliable buy not unconscious which is the way most date rapists seem to like their victims.
However, heavy BDSM might require more than a date rape dose. So, Robert is injected with enough
paralytic to make him extended BDSM pliable.
When Joe and Dyl don’t expect Robert to come out of his semicomatose state and Robert does, Dylan smothers Robert but not to death with a pillow.
If Robert were to ultimately awaken only to realize that he has been sexually assaulted by his friends and is willing to so testify as Joe knows he will, friends Joseph and Dylan have a problem.
What they do? They stab him with the intent of making it look like somebody else killed him.
Then we get into all the cover up stuff.
Before dying from the stabbing, Robert will be able to swallow his own blood and the amount of the blood loss will be great on account of the stabbing bringing Robert to death’s door with no stops along the way.
In this scenario, the person or persons who stab Robert to death are the primary killers.
Major suspects: Dylan of culinary arts and Joseph the Eagle Scout. In either case, Joseph decides who the stabber will be.
Robert, under your second scenario it makes no sense to conjecture that the men “correctly” assumed that Robert was dead and then say a few sentences later that “no really he wasn’t dead but almost dead.” Your scenarios one and two are identical. What is the point that you are trying to make?
In all of this I would hardily dispute the notion that a stab wound to the heart would not bleed significantly if the victim were under the influence of drugs or incapacitated. I have never seen or heard anything like that and my own experience (sorry to offend the squeamish here) with butchering is that that is categorically not the case, and this experience is with poultry.
Hold up a minute. Lots of discussion about whether he was a closeted gay or not, and angry replies that there’s no evidence he was and the very inquiry into this question suggests a desire to shift blame to the victim. As a former federal investigator, I can share a couple of my “starting points.”
First, EVERY single person I ever investigated and charged as a principal in a crime had a secret, stunning, and unbelievable side to his/her life that left little trail and was unknown to even their family members. This is part of what makes you jaded as a law enforcement officer–you realize everyone is lying to someone in their life, and some are lying to everyone. Second, it does not mean that Robert “asked for” his fate if we entertain and eventually accept the idea that he was a closeted homosexual.
It does mean, however, that the consideration of the circumstances surrounding his planned visit to Swann St,, what the roommates knew, anticipated, or planned for, and what level of coercion or lack thereof had to be employed with Robert once he arrived….changes dramatically. I have not come to any conclusion about his sexual orientation. I concede that between my law degree and my real world experience as an agent and in trials in federal court, I know that there’s a lot about this case I don’t know and there’s a lot about this case the police and prosecutors know that we don’t.
I would also caution that the cries from the mob that these creeps (yes, I’ve concluded that not due to their sexual orientation of course but because of their obvious role in this crime) be tried for murder be quieted. No justice would be done by bringing charges until the prosecutors have a slam-dunk case against the guilty party(ies), whomever they are. Someone will break.