12:00 Noon Update
Word just came in from DC Superior Court Public Information Officer, Leah Gurowitz, that today’s 1:45pm afternoon session has been spiked. The trial resumes Monday morning, June 14.
Until then, we’ll catch our breaths and do our best to analyze the mountain of information that has come in over the past three weeks. We expect to post daily until court reconvenes. We may call for papers from those who’ve been at Moultrie, to augment our dark week coverage.
9:00am Update: The West Lafayette, Indiana Edition
Zaborsky counsel Tom "Outward Bound" Connolly and defendant Joe Price depart the Moultrie courthouse
After today’s session wraps, the trial reconvenes on Monday, June 14.
Weeks ago, during pretrial activity, Judge Lynn Leibovitz announced that a previous obligation on her calendar meant that June 8-10 were going to be dark days in the trial.
Maybe she decided to give it a rest for the entire week rather than sit just Monday and Friday.
Today’s session begins at 1:45pm, and we’re uncertain who the government witness is that will be called today.
There are a handful of civilian witnesses left in AUSA Glenn Kirschner’s quiver: Jason Torchinsky and Scott Hixson (W-5?) to name just two. Retired FBI blood pattern analysts Robert Spaulding too, is standing in the wings. We’re also wondering if any MPD witnesses remain.
Comic Relief: There was some comment yesterday about one of the few genuine moments of levity we’ve seen in the trial, outside of Bernie Grimm’s frequent one-liners of course. Yesterday morning, we were already giddy in anticipation of seeing the video of Tom Connolly bounding over the back fence at 1509, when Judge Leibovitz quipped, “Did you try the climb with a pork loin?”
Room 310 erupted in some much needed laughter. As Woody Allen once wrote, “If it bends, it’s funny, if it breaks, it isn’t.” We’ll leave it to others to judge on the appropriateness of courtroom comedy, but that one hysterical line, delivered dry and perfectly, brought both warring sides together in a rare moment of singularity. To paraphrase Homer Simpson, “Pork, is there anything it can’t do?”
Meet the New Boss: Yesterday, the wmrw Shakey-Cam captured the defendants and their legal team returning to the courthouse after the lunch break. A little earlier we think saw Judge Leibovitz depart Moultrie in the company of an old familiar face; she and the case’s former presiding judge, Frederick Weisberg looked to be ducking out together for a bite.
Meet the Old Boss: After three weeks of trial coverage, your intrepid courthouse reporter is rotating out, to be replaced by colleagues when the trial resumes on June 14. While not covering the trial, he’ll either be studying for his LSATs or taking a couple weeks at Betty Ford.
Last Friday, we had a surprise visitor sit with us for the trial’s morning session, the boss for two of us for a combined twenty years. The man who opened up the arcane and complex world of Washington policy to America, C-SPAN founder Brian Lamb came by Moultrie to take in the arguments and see what two of his graduates were up to.
While we sometimes fall short of the ideal, C-SPAN has always been a model for our coverage of the Wone case. We sincerely appreciate Brian’s interest in the project and we hope we have in a small way extended his legacy of openness, sunshine and transparency. Go ahead caller, you’re next.
Tom “Outward Bound” Connolly.
Editors/Gentlemen, that is truly funny. I was going to say “Priceless” but he’s not in this photo.
Many thanks for the smile,
Kate
i’m alittle confuse about the pic above. is it normal/legal for a defendant to be speaking w another’s counsel?
Joe’s a lawyer. I don’t find it unusual.
Craig, your wit is something extraordinary, absolutely brut dry the way I like it.
Give my love, Editors, to Mr. Lamb. I always loved his book chats!
Both Jason T. and Scott H. should provide further proof of Culuket’s machinations, but Dyl is looking pretty good at this point. Has he resumed advertising for sensual massages, this time in the metro Washington area?
Lynn should have followed up with: “And, that pork loin in question, Tom, was it from Safeway, by any chance?!”
I wonder if the burned steaks came from Safeway, too!
I think all three defendants are looking pretty good at this point. The prosection has done its best with the available evidence, but the case is largely circumstantial, and the defense team seems to be doing an effective job of raising doubts and offering alternative (innocent) interpretations of various facts. As things stand right now, it wouldn’t surpise me if the judge were to find all three defendants not guilty in light of the high standard of proof required for criminal conviction. Of course, this is NOT the same thing as “innocent, innocent, innocent.” But “not guilty” is just as good.
I think the prosecution has a decent case against Price. The other two defendants are another story.
I doubt it. Did the defendants offer any alternative explanations regarding the loss of blood and the delay for reporting?
Simple question: Do you yourself doubt that the defendants obstructed and tampered?
I don’t doubt it, but I don’t think it’s been proven, and certainly not beyond a reasonable doubt (and most definitely not against all 3 defendants).
CC,
Yes, there is reasonable doubt on each issue as if they occured in a seperate vacuum from each other, but when you look at the totality of all the issues combined and in context to each other, it does seem they are certainly approaching a certain legal threshold.
David
If we were looking at a jury, I might say you had 95% chance of them agreeing. For some people, ANY other possibility is grounds for reasonable doubt, and nothing short of a videotape of the defendants perpetrating the crimes would suffice.
But reasonable doubt isn’t about there being any other outlandish possibility. I think when you look at the possibilities and their likelihood, things may narrow somewhat.
CC, since you don’t doubt it, I have one more simple question.
Are you a reasonable person?
If the answer is yes, then they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (at least to you). They are to me as well (so far).
I really don’t think it’s looking very good for them. If I were a juror, and the ONLY evidence I had to work with were the defendants’ statements and the time lag between the scream and the 911 call, I would probably say that there’s reasonable doubt here. But there’s a time lag AND multiple, independent witnesses to say that the crime scene was tampered with: An EMT says that the body looked like it had been wiped down. An FBI expert says that the knife looks like it’s been wiped down. The ME says that there were puncture marks on the body that couldn’t be accounted for. That’s pretty solid evidence for obstruction, in my opinion. And there was NO evidence of an intruder. Then there’s that stuff at the crime scene that just looks weird: No cast-off blood from the knife. Very little blood on the bed. No evidence of movement during the attack. No defensive wounds.
I would be able to find reasonable doubt if we were only dealing with one piece of credible evidence and maybe with two, if the defense could present a plausible alternative theory of the crime. But there’s no way I can do it with all of the evidence above.
I think it is CLEAR that the crime scene was tampered with. However, the problem the prosecution has here (which is the same problem in a murder case, if it ever goes to trial) is that it is difficult to establish who exactly was responsible. To get around that, the prosecution can prove conspiracy, but for a conspiracy, there has to be evidence of an agreement between all three defendants…other than the fact that their stories match, a delayed phone call (which does nothing for or against Dylan), and Joe was observed shooting dirty looks at Dylan, there hasn’t been much proof. That’s where I have a problem getting beyond a reasonable doubt.
I think the new witnesses will establish a stronger case against Price – in that he told some people he removed the knife and has told the police another story. Also his comment implying that he wiped blood away is in the prosecution’s favor. I think the case against Price is good. I think the other defendants are going to be tough, and a conspiracy (in my legal mind) has not yet been established beyond a reasonable doubt.
Of course, the defense has yet to put on their case. Which means, as the case goes on, the prosecution’s case gets weaker as more doubt is thrown in the mix.
I agree with you, but I think Victor played his cards when he delayed making the 911 call. One can also assume Dylan was capable of lifting a single finger to punch in three digits.
Forgive me, my DataLounge roots are forcing me to imagine Victor dialing with a pencil.
AND nothing stolen by an intruder who had not motive whatsoever for murder.
And the video they showed yesterday was such a desperate move. Who gives a damn if they could scale the fence or not? The point is if they could do it without disturbing any dust and leave no sign. Did they also demonstrate that?
Same with the defense’s evidence that a bicycle was stolen from the property two years later. What does that show? Now if a bicycle was stolen and an occupant of the property was stabbed three times, then they may have something.
Wasn’t it mentioned several times that everyone scaling the fence needed a hand, literally? So now two ninja intruders?
I think it could go either way at this point. I agree that the undisturbed dust on the top of the fence is a problem in their story, but does their “theory” is found to be false I am not sure that implies their guilt in a legal sense for conspiracy and obstruction charges. If any of what legalmed was posting the other night from a medical standpoint is true and the defense introduces something along those lines, it might be enough to create “reasonable doubt”. In a civil case I think its a slam dunk they are found guilty but with a criminal case its a much higher threshold.
My theory on possible motive for the killing if it was committed by D…maybe he was worried about being left by J…covering up a murder together would seem to bind the three together.
Joe admitted he “wiped a little blood.” I think if he’d own to that, he did much more. There are also a lot more details to put into the tamponade scenario that lawmed described.
(What’s Lawmed mean, he has two prof degrees? It’s fabulous he found us just yesterday with all that working knowledge that applies specifically to this case. We should get a lot of insight, I’d think, once he takes into account more than what he has apparently read.)
Carolina you first mistook me for a cardiac surgeon who was a defense witness in the case, now I don’t understand what your two prof degrees reference comes from??!!
Again, I am ONLY speaking to the information contained in the autopsy describing all of his wounds and organs/vessels injured, the facct that two chest tubes were placed and he was aggressively resuscitated by GWH, that the ER placed both the subclavian and femoral lines since paramedics cannot do those procedures..so they did aggressively pursue IV access in the ER. The RN that testified could have absolutely NO BASIS for saying whether or not the additional needle marks (which are all consistent with IV start attempts) were caused during the resuscitation. I can’t tell you where IV attempts were made on a patient from this morning much less years ago…and NO CHARTING of missed IV’s is required or done during a trauma team.
I think she is referring to your name as lawmed = lawyer + doctor = two professional degrees.
AH SO!
She has an eye for detail!! Re-reading her statement it is obvious what she was saying…i must have drifted off.
Indeed my views have been limited to those opinions I can form from the limited medical documents and testimony in the case, most of which i think I have read now.
Lawmed,
Thanks for sharing your knowledge. A question for you — you say that cardiac tamponade created by a knife wound would not create much external bleeding. If that is the case, then how does the back of Robert’s shirt become totally soaked in blood, yet there are only two small spots of blood on the bed underneath where his body was found?
Can you help us out with this inconsistency?
David, co-editor.
So, Can I take that to mean that you do not posses two professional degrees and that the name “lawmed” is just a name?
What was legalmed saying?
What did legalmed say? I missed that.
He/She said that alot of times the blood pools in the person’s chest and cavity so there might not be that much at the crime scene. (I would think while the heart is still beating blood would be going everywhere)
They also mentioned procedures done while trying to resuscitate a person with those kinds of injuries, significant amounts of blood are sucked out of the wound areas. I don’t think any evidence was presented that these things were done in this case though, but if it is standard procedure it could create reasonable doubt at least for V and D. V has some comments to the 911 operator as well which I think could also create problems for him. It ironic that while D (at least to me) seems like the most likely perpetrator, he might be the one to get off
Thanks for the info.
I disagree about Dylan being the most likely perp. I think it’s likely he was involved, but I don’t think he committed the murder alone. I don’t believe Joe (not to say Victor) would take the fall for him if he had.
I do think Lawmed is uninformed about the particulars, however. The blood that was found has been weighed and measured and still comes up lacking but about 2-4 liters. S/he also offered no insight into how a shirt could be soaked, but no stains on the mattress. It’s those little details that trip up the theory.
Good point.
I am only offering non-forensic, medically based explanations for the ‘missing’ blood, needle marks, etc. My point is they all have perfectly normal and sound explanations. The entire rest of the case is the most absurd collection of facts, claims, and events which are so bizarre regardless of how you view them, they give me a headache.
I have seen/heard no evidence that any accurate and relatively precise measurement of fluids from the chest tubes and in through the IVs (in and out it is called when evaluating fluid status) exists. since the body of a 160# human contains 4.7 litres of blood, lacking about 2000-4000 is lacking 50% to nearly 100%, is nearly impossible to calculate since you cannot drain every vessel and organ of the dead to measure it.
I would object to any testimony that 2000-4000 missing since it is it’s own evidence that the testimony is very imprecise and unreliable. Remember, each chest tube would have, as routine, been drained of a minimum of 1000 cc of blood before being clamped off for a while then more released after some blood was replaced. We are talking a guy that bled out his whole blood volume EASILY and had it replaced and did it again. God bless the scientist that can say how much is missing without being full of crap.
OMG.. I am so going to regret posting this. Im going to start out by saying… I THINK ALL THESE GUYS ARE GUILTY AND PLAYED AN INTERGAL PART IN R’S DEATH AND SHOULD GO TO JAIL ASAP ! Please be gentle in your comments and read the whole post before judging me. LOL I am going to be 100 percent serious for one paragraph. 🙂
Lawmed is correct. Stab wounds to the chest do yield less than expected external blood loss. (Its not like in the horror movies that we all love). Note: This is generalized statement. Catastrophic injuries involving the heart itself or a major vessel CAN result in extensive external bleeding DEPENDING on the position of the person and where stabbed) AND, the fact that he was laying on his back when stabbed So, its a logical assumption about the amount of external blood. (Paragraph is over!)
FYI – Im glad that I don’t have to deal with that side of the medical profession anymore. LOL
Now… I’ve NEVER thought they were guilty JUST because of the physcal evidence relating to the body or autopsy results. Though, the number of unexplained needle marks do stand out. And, Im not going to restate what I’ve already posted on why I think they’re guilty.
Here is my question for lawmed… and its not technical in nature… 🙂 What is your OVERALL opinion? Do you think they were involved?
I think that lawmed made a lot of the same assumptions that I did when he/she looked at the evidence, but I don’t think he/she has paid very close attention to the nuts and bolts of the daily testimony. The devil is in the details. I was initially VERY skeptical of some of the assertions the prosecution was making about the needle-marks and the blood evidence. I’m now less skeptical about the needle-marks. I’m still skeptical about the blood evidence, but I didn’t hear the nurse’s testimony, and while our editors are phenomenal, they don’t claim to provide an exact transcript of the testimony. The key question that lawmed was asking was, essentially, “How much fluid was removed from Wone’s body during the resuscitation effort at the hospital?” There were two clamped chest tubes in place at the autopsy, and they were presumably connected to drainage canisters during the resuscitation. If there’s blood in the chest or around the heart, you want to drain it out, because it can prevent the lungs from inflating and/or the heart from pumping. We don’t know how much blood, if any, was removed via those chest tubes, and that’s a key piece of information.
Thanks Bill O – as always, very astute. I look forward to you and LawMed discussing the medical particulars and further educated us.
Many thanks for your insights … and groovy sense of humor, too,
Kate
By the way all I am a ‘he’. I can tell you that the amount of fluid drained from the chest corresponded to the amount of time the resuscitation proceeded. Contrary to an earlier reference to the nurse that testified (and the quoted testimony may be the actual content of her testimony), far from making a mere token effort at resuscitation since the allegedly believed he appeared dead, the resuscitation was aggressive, but did stop short of cracking his chest which is done for penetrating chest trauma if you think that repairing what might be a relatively simple laceration to the heart or a large vessel, stopping the bleeding entirely, would make nay difference. By aggressive I mean that they did place bilateral chest tubes a large femoral central venous IV called a ‘cordis’ and another of these in the subclavian vein under the collar bone. another popular site for placing these is in the neck where the ‘mystery’ needle puncture One of them0 was.
The large diameter IV’s, almost as big as your pinky, would have been hooked to pressurized fluid warming and delivery devices capable of administering about 1000cc per minute each into the patient. the catastrophic wounds to the heart and the vena cava and the aorta would have bleed out the IV fluid and any blood replacement as fast as it went in. So in order to determine whether a blood deficit mysteriously is unaccounted for, you would need to add up the thousands of cc’s replaced (depending on the length of resuscitation easily 10,000cc or more in), and then (very accurately for all this by the way, which is not a guarantee since in large volume resuscitation each 1000cc iv nag may not get charted or blood loss properly estimated) determine the amount accurately collected from the chest tubes. The total amount involved will be GREATER than the normal blood volume in a human since it was being replaced as fast as it came out once the large IV’s were in.
The chest tubes would not stop draining large amounts of blood/fluid until the resuscitation effort was discontinued and IV fluid replacement terminated.
I’m sorry if this seems blunt, but how do you know what they did at GW?
Not blunt at all. It is obvious from the autopsy records that chest tubes were placed as well as the IV’s I described. No one else could have inserted these other than the emergency room. Then I assumed, based on the knowledge they are an experienced trauma center that they engages in competent standard care for their trauma patient…which is their habit. This is not a strange medical case in trauma by any means (meaning the injuries) and the treatment is the same just about everywhere at level 1 trauma centers.
By the way, the other comment paged closed before I could respond to: the tx screen half life for drugs stops running when you die since you stop metabolizing drugs. So days later the time of death remains the current time for evaluating a drug in the system.
I did not see a xylene report but can’t imagine why they tested for it, it is not a drug of abuse or a substance you would try to incapacitate someone with, unless you had a few hours. Why any would be present is a mystery…usually exposure to fumes.
And NO…HOW DARE YOU….i am NOT at hopkins. My facility is downtown a couple miles west of the hop., big helipad, lotsa helicopters coming and going. hopkins indeed…..huurrummpphhhfff
AHHHH, UMD
I agree with you on the whole “missing blood” issue. I think that’s been wildly overstated, and I’ve never seen any of the ER documentation to see what Robert Wone’s “ins and outs” were. When I first heard about this case, my impression was that Wone was declared DOA at the ER, but as soon as I read the autopsy report, it was clear to me that GWU made a Herculean effort to revive him, and that it would be very, very difficult to make an accurate estimate of how much, if any, of Robert Wone’s blood was “missing”.
My take on the puncture marks was initially similar to yours–those are all sites where people would be trying to place IVs, and no one bothers to document an unsuccessful IV attempt. The ME even initially assumed that these were from failed IV attempts. However, both the EMT and the ER nurse said no one tried to place an IV in the feet or the neck. The ER nurse was pretty firm on this point. It seemed like odd testimony to me, but I thought that maybe their protocol is to go for the antecubitals (the big veins in the crooks of your elbows), and if that fails, then immediately go for the deeper veins. My reading of the EMT’s testimony is that he got IV access in one of the antecubs en route to the ER, but again, the records would be helpful here. If they already had IV access, I would imagine they would go for the deep lines next and not bother with the feet or the neck. Bottom line: There’s testimony by the EMT and the ER nurse who were on the case that no one tried to put an IV in the neck or the feet. If the defense wants to contest that testimony, they’re going to need to find someone will at least say that they MIGHT have tried to put an IV in one of those sites, even if it means subpoenaing the entire trauma team from that night.
I’m curious as to what you think about the time between the stabbing and Robert Wone’s loss of consciousness. The defense is going to argue that it was “immediate” due to pericardial tamponade. I’m not buying it. Even with a collapsed right lung, a punctured aorta, and the possibility of pericardial tamponade, I would guess that Robert Wone would have been conscious for a bare minimum of 5-10 seconds. In other words, enough time to grab at his chest, roll off the bed, or flail at his attacker. Yet there’s no evidence he did any of these things. And if you assume that the attacker stabbed him and then held him down until he lost consciousness, why didn’t Joe and Victor see or hear the attacker when they came down the stairs? They heard groans THROUGH THEIR CLOSED DOOR, but they didn’t hear someone running down the stairs?
The only needle mark that stands out in any way is the ankle, since you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel there, but I have seen it plenty of times. As for the neck, the external jugular and much more importantly the internal jugular are accessed via the neck. The subclavian large bore cordis catheter (a really big IV inserted under the clavicle into the subclavian vein) can just as easily and commonly be inserted into the internal jugular. Also the individuals who would be placing the chest tubes would be in the way of anyone placing a subclavian since you both stand at the side of the patient’s chest. Not impossible, but such a situation would precisely lead me to place the catheter in the neck since either you declare a patient like this DOA, or you go full tilt with as many therapies at once as possible. It is clear that they gave it a dedicated attempt but also had reason to beleive that cutting the chest open to attempt to stop the bleeding was futile and they discontinued efforts when that was the next step were they to continue.
Regarding the testimony of the RN especially, I still cannot in my mind accept that she could truthfully claim that the needle marks were not made during the resuscitation. There is just NO way she knows this as a fact. you have 10 or 15 people around the patient. Certain members of the team are assigned certain tasks: chest tube rt., chest tube lt., airway, IV, central line, blood gases and blood draw for cross matching, x-ray techs and on and on. At any point in time, if IV attempts are not going well and the patient is not well, it is very common for a nurse or physician to grab an IV catheter and join the hunt using whatever part of the body they are closest to which will accept an IV. How many times stuck and where absolutely no one takes note of when working a trauma arrest. So hoe this RN could testify with any level of certainty is beyond me. As i said, I could not reliably testify as to where I may haves stuck a patient probably 24 hours out depending on how busy i was. After four years? I would expect people to think I was full of it.
Regarding when Wone would loss consciousness after being stabbed, assuming he was conscious at least immediately upon being stabbed, he, like all of us, is guaranteed about 45 seconds when our heart stops (unless your brain is smooched also). Instant death from cardiac tamponade is impossible. CLOSE but no cigar. Exactly how much movement he would be capable of is debatable since you need a blood pressure to get your muscles to work. And if i were the defense i would argue the cardiac tamponade, which could potentially stop the heart in less than a minute, but also the fact that his inferior vena cava was severely lacerated, and his aorta was lacerated. With the root of his aorta cut, his blood pressure immediately falls since the blood leaving the heart is now just spilling into the chest cavity rather than moving through the arteries to the rest of the body….including the brain.
His vena cava his bleeding profusely into his chest and abdomen. His right lung is severely lacerated through two lobes and was collapsed on autopsy despite the chest tube. I think stating that he was unconscious in less than a minute is very reasonable. Bleeding to death rapidly, pericardial tamponade on autopsy extensive enough to have caused his death in and of itself (2oo ml of blood if a LOT for the pericardial sac) and a right tension pneumothorax rapidly developing, collapsing his rt lung and placing further tension against the heart already impeded by the pericardial tamponade. Quick but instant death is impossible. But near instant incapacitation is a strong argument.
Reading the autopsy again it strikes me that the wounds were delivered with great force…enough to cut through sternal cartilage and proceed further into the heart and aorta…and that they were delivered right to left by someone (if Robert was lying on his back) standing on his left side near his waist as each wound had a 4 o’clock trajectory from his midline (he was stabbed in a downward manner with the knife entering the chest angled toward his left hip). Someone was certain that their intent was to kill when they did this, as each wound was well placed to hit ‘important’ stuff, regardless of your knowledge of anatomy.
So if I am reading this correctly, your feeling is the defense should go with cardiac tamponade, even though that still lives a minute or so of life/consciousness, correct? If so, why would there be no defensive wounds at all?
To add to Elizabeth’s question, if the victim were sleeping (but not drugged or otherwise incapacitated), how does that change things? Could there conceivably be no defensive wounds in such a scenario?
sorry “still leaves a minute or so..”
Absent restraint by a third party, whether physical or chemical, MUST have occurred. The wounds are, according to the autopsy drawings, very consistent with each other. Same angle, same depth, same 10 o’clock, 4 o’clock heading. They sure make it appear the Wone was ling perfectly still the whole time. And the murder attacked without moving from his exact spot also.
“But near instant incapacitation is a strong argument.”
“Near instant” won’t help the defense–the timeline is too tight. Price and Zaborsky heard the grunts and went downstairs almost immediately.
“Reading the autopsy again it strikes me that the wounds were delivered with great force”
Agree. This was done by someone who was decisively–and calmly, given the consistency wound pattern–by someone who was fully intending to kill. This looks like a brutal and planned attack against someone who was incapable of defending themselves.
I have always thought that the low breathy grunts came from Robert. Now I wonder if they came from the murderer as he was delivering the blows with “great force.”
Only if the killer was one of the defendants. I find it hard to believe that an intruder would make a bunch of loud grunts that could be heard by two people who were upstairs behind a closed door, and then immediately shift into “silent mode” and tip-toe down the stairs.
You would be very surprised how very little external bleeding can take place when someone is stabbed in the heart…or shot in the heart. We discover MANY thoracic and abdominal stab wounds by close inspection rather than any hint of blood. Blood follows the path of least resistance which is into the thoracic/pleural cavity…and when the diaphragm is ruptured as it was in this case, into the abdominal cavity. Your entire blood volume can fit into those areas. No, blood would not be spurting out thin knifed stab wounds as the tend to close together rather than leave a non-resistant to flow of blood hole.
It is 100% without exception, in any similar patient, certain that the two chest tubes once inserted were used to drain very large amounts of blood from the chest. This is the whole point in this type of patient. While you drain only the amount necessary and like to stop after 1500cc or so each and then stop the bleeding surgically, such massive injuries immediately fill the chest again with 1000’s of cc’s of blood and you wither drain more or you cannot pushing oxygen into the lungs from the pressure.
Let me ask you again: why is the shirt soaked in blood, but next to none transferred to the sheets? If there was sufficient blood to soak the shirt, what does that say about your contention that it absolutely 100% would not have bled much?
THAT I will not even hazard a guess to. I am in no way trying to say that ANY of this case makes sense. Only tossing out my focused knowledge on the amount of external bleeding possible, the blood loss and needle marks as explainable, and the tox screen.
The remainder of the evidence, the claims by the housemates, then the ‘if they did stage the scene, who stages one so absurdly…so can it be staged’, followed by the crazy brother the jealous lover(s), the lack of motive, the stabbing of a person who acted dead when stabbed but was not…on and on…has me just as confused as everyone else.
The ONLY sane, explainable items 9to me anyway) are those I have presented.
One of the things I find confusing is what an aggressive effort was put on in the ER. My understanding is that the EMTs thought him dead at the scene, never got a pulse, etc. — why would there be such an effort to resuscitate at the ER if he was obviously already dead? It just seems odd to me. Or am I misunderstanding or mistaking the testimony of the EMT?
BTW I want say that I really appreciate your perspective, lawmed. I am certainly not a doctor, so it is very helpful to me to have someone walk through the autopsy and medical testimony to put it in context.
“My understanding is that the EMTs thought him dead at the scene, never got a pulse, etc. — why would there be such an effort to resuscitate at the ER if he was obviously already dead?”
I’ll leave the definitive answer to lawmed, but I would say that the ER team was pretty much obligated to do this, given the circumstances. Anytime someone has been the victim of a recent trauma–and the story was that Wone had been stabbed minutes earlier–you do this type of resuscitation. If you’re quick–and lucky–you can sometimes get enough fluid into the patient, restart the heart, and get the patient into the OR in time to repair the injuries.
Which of course adds that extra dollop of heinous to the decision to delay their call to authorities, if the men did that, to their failure to call for potential help for Robert while they considered only their own interests. Was there a window of time after Robert was stabbed during which he might have been saved? It is horrible to consider.
Right on.
LM:
What kind of health professional are you?
You give the impression that you are a MD who is an expert in
trauma, especially of the chest.
It would help a lot to know exactly where your expertise comes from. thanks
I have 18 years experience as a nurse anesthetist and am a former paramedic. For 7 of those 18 years my practice consisted exclusively of providing resuscitation and anesthesia to acute trauma patients in a free standing trauma center, which is the only trauma center in the country rated at a level higher than level 1. I went to law school for fun and do not practice law. I have been directly involved in thousands of trauma resuscitations. I have personally, in various patients, inserted all the devices which were inserted into he victim on arrival to the ME, and aside from chest tubes I have placed them thousands and thousands of times. I have caused similar needle punctures routinely in similar patients, as all of those described by the ME. I am certainly not attempting to be an infallible know it all and hope i am not coming off that way. Leaving most all of the legal issues aside, I am commenting, with some air of authority I suppose but that is because this is something I know inside and out, on what can be gleaned from the autopsy report and relevant testimony. The medical record would be a big help, but there are specific things in the evidence available which, unless GWH and EMS entered an alternate universe that night, took place like clockwork. Trauma care is based on now universally accepted protocols from a resucitation standpoint.
Trauma patients in cardiac arrest after penetrating trauma (knife, gun…but especially knives, screwdrivers, ice picks, etc) have a much higher chance of survival as opposed to blunt trauma arrests (hit by bus, fell off roof) because you are often dealing with a wounds which are you can immediately trace through the body, identify bleeding which in the case of a knife wound is incision like and much easier to fix by simply clamping it of and/or sewing it up..as opposed to a smashed liver which will bleed until the is no more to bleed.
So, when a penetrating trauma arrest arrives, they are not pronounced dead out of hand unless they appear to, or are known to have been long past resuscitation dead. I have seen stab wounds to the heart arrive in cardiac arrest discharged home 3 days later. And you can’t take them time to scratch your head and have a pow wow about should you or should you not give this one a whirl.
So that night was admitted a relatively young man allegedly discovered within a very short time of being stabbed (from a medical standpoint at the time…not based on the now various timelines), thus a very short time from his cardiac arrest. Yes by the time he arrived in the ER he likely had been in cardiac arrest for 15-20 min minimum, likely a bit linger depending on response tome, on scene time and travel time.
On arrival he was given a ‘dramatic’ for lack of a better lay description, resuscitation with large bore central venous IV’s above and below the chest per protocol (in case certain major vessels must be clamped which would stop the flow of one of the iV’s, a chest tube on each side of his chest to drain blood and remove air, relieving any pressure on the heart or collapse of a lung (thought the rt lung remained collapsed). ans a needle was stuck into the sack surrounding the heart to drain any pericardial tamponade. Each of these procedures takes place with 10-15 min of arrival and each has the potential to reverse a potential cause of the cardiac arrest.
Standard chest tube procedure is to remove about 1000cc of blood and clamp it of temporarily since the removal of that amount of blood should remove the pressure on the lung and heart, but more encourages potentially more bleeding into the chest. 2000cc of blood out of the chest tubes is VERY conservative…and is the minimum amount of blood alleged to be “missing”.
The needle marks are all explained contrary to the testimony of the nurse. I personally have made such marks on trauma patients during treatment many times.
The ME testimony, which I am just reviewing in detail, is quite honestly utterly absurd in places and how she said it with a straight face and continued to defend some of her statements in the face of very obvious and well know issues proving her wrong is another whacky twist here. The ER actually provided a ‘basic’ resucitation for this patient and for a trauma center. An aggressive resucitation would have had then cutting his chest open immediately to determine if a repairable heart or great vessel injury existed, since a clamp or a few sutures and plug the biggest hole in seconds. Has he been stabbed on the front lawn of GWH they would have done this. But they recognized he had been down too long at that point and pronounced him.
I know there are more questions and I have more issues I would love to address regarding the wounds suffered, their treatment, their affect over time on the body, and the testimony of various medical professionals. So, this morning I accepted an unsolicited invitation from the blog owners to write a piece on these very issues. I will review all testimony of the ME, EN and EMT, the autopsy report and any other documents anyone is aware of which speak to his wounds and care….but hold your horses, I am NOT in any way a blood spatter or forensics expert. I can tell you the basics about how much a particular penetrating injury bleeds, and where, but questions about towels and blood stained shirts/sheets, you are on your own in determining their relationship to the wounds.
Precisely what day this will be ready to publish I do not know. it depends on where the review takes me and how much relevant material for review I find. The last professional hat i wear is investigating medical records and medical evidence for malpractice and other attorneys, ti determine breach of standard of care, cause of death and chain of events. Stay tuned til then.
lawmed,
I hope you take into consideration the testimony by medical officials (both hospital and first responders) that there are marks on Robert Wone’s body that were not caused by them.
I’m looking forward to your report!
I shall! Already reading back all the testimony. I note the ME testified the the needle marks on the arm occurred post-mortum, with no explanation of how that happened, AND that Wones EKG showed Pulsless Electrical Activity in the ambulance which means there was some organized cardiac activity (no mention of the rate or the specific type of activity on the EKG) but no pulse could be felt. This is a hallmark of cardiac tamponade….but it does not only occur with cardiac tamponade. It can often occur with tension pneumothorax, or, sometimes it occurs during the process of dying for any reason. It is most associated with a collection of fluid, blood or air in the chest or pericardium which causes pressure the heart cannot effectively pump against. Thus..heart beats but no blood pressure so no pulse. Quickly fatal if underlying cause not fixed. What is certain is that it does not last for long until the heart stops completely. I submit that it is a rather important piece of evidence available to the defense that Wone was not stabbed followed by a delay in calling 911.
His wounds would have killed him fast and the PEA would not likely still be present had any significant delay occurred.
I noticed that, too, but I didn’t put much stock in it. How easy is it to distinguish PEA from a true “flatline” in the back of an ambulance? There’s a lot going on, and everything is literally moving. My assumption was that he was trained to call it PEA (even if it might be a true flatline) and proceed with lifesaving measures.
The fact that the defense didn’t ask about it lead me to believe that either (a) they didn’t realize the significance of the testimony (which is a pretty big miss in a trial like this) or (b) they KNEW he was mistaken and would simply correct himself if they asked him about it.
I agree…either the significance was lost on them or they had already had the EKG strip…assuming it survives, reviewed and it reflected a whole lot more of death than life.
It seems like the above commentators are running their own little criminal trial and I am not comfortable with that as one of the goals of this blog.
I also must come to defense of the GMU ER RN who was on the scene and actually charged with documenting the entire episode.
What Lawmed reconstructs as the scene is purely hypothetical and speculative based on documentation that she has not officially reviewed and events at which she/he was not present.
I suggest she/he review her own standards of practice and whether that includes public testimony about a case for which she has not professionally reviewed the documentation and/or was simply not there.
If the ER RN that was there and- charged with documenting the ER episode- says the staff did not put in the bizaare needle marks, then I take the ER RN at her sworn word.
The ER RN’s license is on the line, lawmed’s alleged license is not on the line .
I disagree. The whole point of this blog is to discuss the available evidence. Based on lawmed’s expertise, he does not think the ER nurse’s testimony is accurate. I happen to disagree with him on this, but I’m quite happen to hear his opinion on the matter.
Sorry you feel that way. Comments in this blog carry on hundreds of ‘little criminal trials’ a day.
I have commented only on documents available or testimony presented.
Nothing personal against your friend (you??) the nurse. She is a witness in a well known trial and is subject to scrutiny in her testimony.
I see you had an agenda when you asked for my ‘credentials’. What do you do for a living? Who are you friends with that is involved in the trial?
Please let me know if you are one of the owners/editors of this blog so that i can properly evaluate your opinion on what is or is not a goal of this blog, and your views on compliance.
I look forward to reading your piece. I have a question I hope you will address. You said above, “blood would not be spurting out thin knifed stab wounds as the [edges of the wound] tend to close together…” This makes sense (if my insertion is correct)–but I wonder then how you would explain that one of Robert’s wounds was said to be so large that ‘one could put one’s fingers into it.’ (Not sure where I read that, but if you are reviewing all relevant documentation I expect you’ll come across it.)
Autopsy report shows the wounds to be almost exactly the same size at the surface of the shin, and characterized as ‘slits’ and the same depth.
I am looking forward to the report as well.
I would note that the ME reported her calculations as to the blood found, and discounted several suggestions from the defense as to where additional blood may have been lost, but she in no way endorsed the idea that the blood must have been lost at the scene. That is an inference we seem to have drawn here at this blog and which may require revision.
Also, is tamponade in some ways a red herring? You make a convincing case that it may have occurred, as will, I expect, the defense experts, but what does it really tell us?
The defense seems to be using it to explain two factors: the lack of blood at the scene and Robert’s failure to react. If we assume it occurred, then wouldn’t it necessarily have been in connection with the wound to the heart and that wound would necessarily have had to be the first one (as noted by many other posters here)? How do we explain that the initial tamponade-causing wound was also slit-like with no sign of a reaction? Is sleep enough or could some sort of prior incapacitation also be inferred?
If the amount of blood at the scene is consistent with sudden tamponade, what about the blood on the towel that was allegedly used by Joe to apply pressure to the wounds and the lack of blood on Robert, Joe himself or elsewhere in relation to that process?
Finally, what of the testimony of the first responders and the ME that they had seen innumerable stabbing vicitms but never seen results such as this? Did our intruder have an incredibly, unfotunately lucky first stab that did not cause the victim to respond and caused instant incapacitation from tamponade and didn’t spread blood anywhere else?
Or, does tamponade explain away some of the odd circumstances but really not do anything to support the intruder theory or explain the behavior and statements of the defendants?
And what kind of bizarre medical response would yield a completely blood-drenched back of robert’s shirt, but almost no blood transferred to the bedsheets? Lets remember that evidence tampering is one of the charges—not murder—and that unless medical analysis can explain the lack of blood transfer from the shirt to the bedsheets, tampering appears clear.
Also please note the tiny dab of blood on the towel that Joe supposedly used to press against Robert’s wounds. Was there another towel? Was it the one in the dryer? Why did Victor say in his videotaped statement to police that night that as he was coming down the stairs from his bedroom he “saw blood everywhere?” Get your contrived stories straight, guys.
I agree that it could go either way at this point. I am trying to reserve my judgement after everything has been presented- all of the witnesses, statements, experts, etc. I’m trying to not do what Harry Jaffe did- innocent innocent innocent. There is no smoking gun. If you look at all of the evidence on an indivdual basis then it looks weak but if you put all of the evidence together then I think it makes a very good case. It takes a lot of thought to put everything together and you cannot put everything together until the entire trial has ended. The trial will be decided on the sum of all the evidence and not all of the evidence has been presented.
On another note I have been reading updates about the trial on a daily basis and this in turn has really made me impatient for a verdict to the next 10 days of nothing is going to be like torture!
(This is a follow-up to my comment in the “12 Day: Wrap” blog, which is now closed to comments)
Again, this is only my personal view, but I think that the fact that all three defendants consistently stated that it must have been an intruder, even when sprinkled with “glances” from Mr. Price to Mr. Ward, does not constitute evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants entered into an agreement to commit a criminal act. Conspiracy law is a very powerful tool that carries heavy consequences for all of co-conspirators, but one that, for that same reason, is not easily established.
What about the consistency in their inconsistencies? They all quote exactly the same wrong information, which unfortunately is readily proven.
I’m with Carolina on this. They all told the same story. Maybe the defense is going to throw up a surprise witness that will discount the earlier testimony, but I just can’t get around the delay in calling 911. That was very solid testimony, and the defense did little, if anything, to discredit it. I realize that eye-witness (or in this case, ear-witness) testimony can be inaccurate, so I would give them reasonable doubt if there was nothing else against the defendants here. But there’s a lot more than just this going against the defendants, which leads me to believe that there was tampering with the crime scene and a delay in calling 911. But they all said that they Victor called 911 almost immediately. They didn’t come up with three different stories. They came up with one story. And really, the only way you can do that is through a conspiracy.
I do, however, think they have a good chance to beat the conspiracy charges on this whole “for truth” versus “not for truth” issue, in that earlier this week, the prosecution said that they were considering admitting each defendant’s statement in such a way that it could only be used against that particular defendant. (I may have this completely wrong, by the way, but that’s my understanding of it.) If that’s the case, then there’s no way that the prosecution can show that the stories all match up, and therefore no way to prove a conspiracy.
Oh man, I am trying to remember my Crim Law and Evidence classes only 3 to 5 years ago, but I believe that any statements made between the parties would not be considered hearsay and could be used to prove a conspiracy because they aren’t being offered for the truth of the matter asserted, but rather to establish an agreement between the parties.
Otherwise, there would be no way to ever prove a conspiracy.
Evening Goose – there’s been a great deal of discussion about “for truth” and “not for truth” statements and although I realize you are referring to statements between parties, there’s an enlightening tutorial and discussion on the defendants’ statements that can be found in the “Truth and Consequences” thread. This week, the prosecution has entered all of their recorded, initial August 3rd statements “for truth.”
It is a great (and mind-bending) read – and will refresh your memory from Crim Law, not to mention that it has been extremely helpful to the non-lawyers here.
Hope that is helpful,
Kate
I disagree that the timeline is as clear as you think. The key to the timeline is the scream heard by the neighbors. But who screamed? Was it Robert? Was it Victor? Was it somebody else? Nobody knows. And yet this unknown scream is the key to the timeline! Very weak.
Victor said he screamed. Joe said Victor hysterical. I think we can assume it was Victor.
On the other hand, once they got their story together (including the incorrect details they hoped to make things more plausible) they all described the sounds they heard as low, breathy grunts. Not screams. Grunts. One Two Three, in a row, as Joe so gallantly demonstrated for Kathy Wone.
Yes, Carolina – as he so gallantly demonstrated to Kathy Wone … with hand gestures.
That piece of testimony disturbs my sensibilities in the extreme.
Kate
Somebody screamed before 11:35 PM. It was loud enough that the next-door neighbor heard it. Victor says he started screaming when he saw the body. There’s not much wiggle room here. If the scream was from Robert, then it was heard by the next-door neighbor but not but the people in the house, and it means that Robert screamed and then laid perfectly still on the bed while someone stabbed him three times. There’s little chance that Robert screamed after the stabbing–he had a collapsed lung and a punctured diaphragm at that point. I’m sorry, but the scream sets the timeline. If it were the ONLY piece of evidence that was being considered, I would probably be able to find reasonable doubt here. But it’s not the only piece of evidence–there’s a LOT more. And it’s the totality of the evidence that really sinks them.
Good point, Bill O. If Robert screamed before 11:35 loud enough for the neighbors to hear yet our three defendants didn’t react until it turned to breathy grunts one minute before 11:49, then that doesn’t set well either.
Agree. But I’m still troubled that the neighbors weren’t ask to estimate the time between the scream and the arrival of screaming sirens responding to the 911 call. I know that even if the neighbors heard the scream at the very end of the 11 pm news with Maureen Bunyan,at 11:35 pm, a 14-minute lag to the 911 call is still damning for the Swann crowd, but tying the scream to the arrival of the paramedics would give a clear timeline.
My impression is that the prosecution just didn’t think to ask this question. And the defense KNEW not to.
What about the obstruction charges?
Disagree, Kim, because you’re taking these out of context. What sinks these guys isn’t one thing. It’s all of it. Start with Victor (with Joe’s same comments) that he “immediately” went upstairs to make the call and yet said “the intruders” and “they evidently had one of our knives”. MUST have been communication before the call. And while Dylan claims to have seen the unlocked door, and they all say he was the first to notice, there was a time travel backward since Victor tells this to the 911 dispatcher too. Joe claims not to have touched Robert but to check pulse and raise his shirt to see the puncture wounds yet he’s said ‘blood was everywhere’ and all but said to Tara Ragone that he wiped up blood – suggesting that the lack of blood had to do with his ‘wiping’. And then there’s the knife he pulled from Robert’s chest/found on his chest which was tampered with to look like the murder weapon. If it wasn’t the murder weapon (evidence exists and will be more) then how was it that he pulled it from Robert’s chest and then wiped blood on it?
The concocted story cements the conspiracy (“we didn’t have time to concoct a story” after the cops arrived – yet too were seen whispering and admitted that they did discuss it). Joe claims that Victor didn’t tell him “11:43” until they were downstairs but can be heard on the 911 tape.
Jason Torchinsky will testify that Joe called him before the funeral to see if he’d be willing to get Kathy Wone to waive her atty-client privilege to discuss what the cops asked and what she answered – who asks a grieving widow to do this BEFORE the damned funeral?
“Wiping blood is not tampering”? But he claimed he didn’t wipe blood to start with.
My point is that you can’t take things out of context – and the stink eye and manipulation by Joe is just icing on the cake. You can’t forget the cluster F of coincidences that would allow an intruder to get in, pick up the not-murder weapon, and within “one -three minutes” go upstairs and stab a man to death with precision skills and no fishtailing, descend the (wooden) stairs without nary a sound (or less sound than a dying man’s breathy grunts) though Sarah could hear people on the stairs from the basement ordinarily. Of course, the fact the ‘intruder’ could scale the fence not once but twice and not disturb the debris on the fence top – nor have the sense to leave through the back gate (as Joe points out).
To borrow a phrase: it gets curiouser and curiouser.
I do not believe that I am taking things out of context. We know there are three separate charges: (1) conspiracy to comit a crime, i.e., tamper with evidence and obstruct justice; (2) evidence tampering; and (3) obstruction of justice. Conspiracy is separate and distinct from the substantive crime contemplated by the conspiracy. In order to establish the existence of the conspiracy charge, the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendants entered into an agreement to commit crimes #2 and #3, that all of them had knowledge of the agreement to commit these crimes, and that there was one or more overt acts in furtherance of that agreement. The discrepancies you note, in my view, go more towards the substantive crimes of tampering and obstruction, not conspiracy. Mere “communications” among defendants do not establish a conspiracy. The communications must evidence an intent to enter into an agreement to commit the underlying crimes. And herein lies the government’s weakness, in my humble opinion.
Hi Kim. We just disagree. Rarely do you have evidence of people overhearing others come up with their plan of conspiracy – it must be inferred from facts such as what are present in this case. The 19-49 minute time frame delay following by the 911 call itself is sufficient at this stage to go forward – add in all the other inferences that these three concocted the plan and the statements of the defendants themselves, and I think its more than adequate. Of course, time will tell whether the Judge will find each statement and collective review sufficient that a reasonable jury would ‘find’ the conspiracy between these men.
As I said earlier, the agreement to accomplish the criminal act may be inferred from statements, acts, conduct, etc, which is something the courts have allowed over the years in order to allow prosecutors to use conspiracy law in a context beyond its genesis, which was organized crime. I just don’t believe that what has been presented thus far rises to the level of evidence of conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. But, what do I know?? And I’m sure the judge will make the right call.
I suspect (and hope) she will – you and I just see it differently. And the trial is far from over.
Is it not sufficient that since the evidence was tampered with, and all three are sticking with the same totally implausible story, that a conspiracy obviously exists. Isn’t the fact that they are all in this together good enough for a conspiracy? They are doing it, why would the prosecution have to prove they agreed to do it? It’s happening. (So much harder to make this point in writing than I would have anticipated. DId I make any sense?!)
Well said as always.
Bea,
I know V mentioned the knife on the 911 call and Price mentions it in his videotaped statement, I believe–that he noticed the knife missing from the kitchen.
Did V or Price ever say WHEN they went to look in the kitchen?
Their story has them hearing the “low grunts” etc., going downstairs, 911 call, applying towel to wound……..detour to kitchen to check knife supply, while Mr. Wone lay bleeding?
Also the picture of the placement of that knife! And no blood on the table or anything? He pulls the knife out or off of Mr. W (whichever story he decided to stick with) and no blood?
I know you directed this question to Bea, but if I may, there was some discussion about the knife a week or so(?) ago. There seemed to be some consensus that upon seeing the knife one would immediately know if it was from their own home, so no need to detour to the kitchen. How ’bout it? Would you know if you saw the knife if it came from your own kitchen? I’m not a chef and my cutlery is not very distinctive, so for me, I’m not so sure.
If I saw one of my knives, I would be realtively certain that it belonged to me, especially one of the larger ones. I wouldn’t say my knives are distinctive, per se, but certainly familiar enough to me to know the general look of it when seeing it in my own home. A couple of them are very distinctive (as in, crazy Japanese knife with purple handle and blade), and I would definitely know those, but even the standard black-handled w/ steel blade, yes, I would know those on sight.
Yes, I would recognize one of my knives at a glance, no question, but that’s not what Victor said.
What Victor said was “evidently they have one of our knives,” indicating that he thought the “intruder” was loose in his house with one of their knives. How on earth would he surmise this? Additionally, he claims to be “afraid to go downstairs” yet does not ask for the police, even when prompted. He shows no concern for Dylan or for Sarah (Joe said that he thought the chimes were Sarah returning home), his vulnerable friend of 20 years ~ a lone female not known for her agility cornered in a basement.
No sale.
AZ – Good point. The use of the word “Evidently” suggests (at least to me) that Victor was told that info re: the knife, and didn’t observe it himself. I assume the source of the info was Joe as he made up the intruder story.
My question was, along with V’s statement, did V or J say WHEN they noticed the knife missing “from the kitchen”? I didn’t notice it in their timeline of events: Bed, grunts, walk downstairs, discover Robert….visit to the kitchen???!!! When did they notice this? I thought they said the 911 call was made, blood purportedly staunched…..visit to the kitchen??!!!
Also, that glass of water in the kitchen. We are really supposed to imagine an unknown “intruder” stopped off for a beverage?
Susan, I don’t think you have a good grasp of the evidence. The intruder didn’t have a glass of water– Joe, Dylan and Robert each had one when Robert arrived.
I’m also not following your knife angle. I think almost anyone would recognize one of their own knives, especially if it inhabited a block and was used daily. One look at the knife in/on Robert or the table should be all it took to know it was from their own kitchen.
Removing a knife stuck in someones chest is a very UNUSUAL reaction to finding one there by surprise. I can’t recall ever hearing of a family member, friend, passerby, coming across a stabbed individual, with the knife still stuck in, and reacting by grabbing it and yanking it out. Instinct is not to touch it….and something in the back of your mind says you heard something somewhere that says never do that.
and your memory was right since removal can cause bleeding which the knife was occluding.
I agree that it was a very bad thing to do, and if the third wound was the one that hit the aortic root, then it dramatically reduced the chances of survival.
And while it may be an unusual thing to do, Joe Price is, shall we say, a very assertive individual, so it doesn’t strike me as unusual for him, given his personality.
I think the “Don’t pull it out!” lesson really didn’t hit the popular culture until later that year, when Steve Irwin pulled a stingray barb out of his chest and died almost immediately thereafter. Incidentally, I think the Irwin case is a nice comparison to this one. If anything’s going to stop the heart “instantly”, a poisoned stingray barb directly to the heart would be high on the list. Yet Irwin remained conscious long enough to pull the thing out. The idea that Robert Wone was incapacitated “immediately” is just absurd.
You have to consider that the reason for pulling out the knife was to get rid of the knife, along with bloody towels, while preparing to move the body to an empty lot.
I don’t see him even thinking about pulling the knife out for any humanitarian reason or any “attempt” to save the victim. Getting rid of the knife was likely part of Plan A that suddenly ended when somebody screamed.
Yup. I think it was exactly that.
I’m really trying to give them as much benefit of the doubt as I can. In that light, I think that pulling out the knife makes Joe Price look dumb but not necessarily guilty.
In that case, there is something very UNUSUAL about someone who is assertive enough they will yank a knife out of a chest but not start CPR. Although Bill 2 provides an answer below.
That’s for certain.
That would be putting it mildly.
You would think Eagle Scout Joe would have recalled this, wouldn’t you?
I am new to the blog, so forgive me if this has been previously discussed and answered. I just finished reading the original affidavit for Ward and the part I found most interesting was the overheard phone call between J. Price and his brother, asking “Did Dylan come out?” Did the police ever try to obtain these phone records to determine in what context J. Price asked this question? I would sure like to know what else was said during that phone conversation.
They would only have records of the time and duration of the call, and the location of the caller and called not the content of the conversation. The phones weren’t tapped!
In Joe’s own words: “Someone came in the back of our house … looking for something to sell or whatever, came upstairs, stumbled on to a surprise, and, you know, stabbed the guy and took off. … I mean, that’s my theory.” The question is, has the prosecution shown, or will it by the close of its presentation, that this cannot reasonably be the case?
Or is it more reasonable that something else happened and that the clean wounds, needle marks, the lack of blood, the striation marks, the knife wipe-down/fiber evidence, the delay in calling 911, the 911 call, the defendants’ behavior, their statements and the intruder theory itself are evidence of tampering and obstruction of justice? Does one ignore the various odd circumstances and go with the intruder as the simplest possible explanation? At what point do the circumstances pile up and tip the balance? Are the intruder theory and a conspiracy necessarily exclusive?
Many of those who have been following this site, speculating and theorizing along the way, have access to much more information than is being presented at trial, particularly from the charging affidavit. The prosecution chose not to follow through on many of the more incendiary claims in that affidavit and other elements were excluded by the judge. Even some of the surviving claims seem to have been less clear cut than as gathered from the affidavit, possibly even baseless. We are left with a much less sensational case and a trial which had yielded no bombshells. The prosecution is not living up to the buildup set forth in the affidavit or even its opening statement. The knife switch evidence has been less than stunning, the police investigation seems to have been even weaker than previously thought, the fence is not insurmountable, Wagner was clearly biased and what Sarah and Tara yielded was less dramatic than expected. There is little direct conspiracy evidence, particularly with regard to Dylan, other than the three conforming statements.
Yet, the crime scene evidence and observations, as presented by the prosecution, could be enough to withstand an acquittal motion, which, remember, rests on whether or not the prosecution has made a case. The defense has shed some doubt, but none of it fatal yet — the first responders and Goslinoski held their own and Deedrick’s expertise gets the benefit of the doubt for now. All this may change if/when the defense presents their case and calls their experts, but doesn’t come into play for the upcoming motion since they didn’t out and out impeach anyone on the stand. But the prosecution has its work cut out to knit all of its random odd facts and observations into a coherent case for conspiracy.
Thanks Hoya, greatly appreciate your excellent analysis – let us hope the prosecution has one or two or five really excellent legal writers to get the job done before court is again in session.
Many thanks,
Kate
Yes, I too thank you for this analysis.
While I agree that the prosecution case has seemed a little disjointed, the basic evidence presented by the prosecution seems sufficient to withstand a motion for acquittal:
1. Wone was murdered by stabbing at the Swann Street residence of the defendants.
2. All three defendants were present in the home at the time of Wone’s murder.
3. There is relatively little blood evidence in the bedroom where Wone’s body was found. Although there may be an explanation for this (see LawMed’s comments), I am not sure it could be inferred from the evidence presented thus far. It seems to be a reasonable inference from the evidence presented that some blood was cleaned up. There is some evidence that Price wiped away some blood and moved the knife (perhaps even taking the knife out of Wone’s body). In doing so, figure prints may have been compromised. Also, a towel that purportedly was being pressed on the wounds is not present. There are puncture wounds on the body that no EMT or medical professional acknowledges making and which the EMTs and GW medical staff deny making.
4. Despite the defendant’s protests that they did not have time to concoct a story, all three presented similar accounts of what transpired and the same alternative theory of one or more intruders. Price stated that the knife used by the alleged intruder was from the kitchen of the residence. This theory deflects suspicion away from the defendants or someone who they are willing to protect.
5. There seems to be a gap between the time when one of the defendants found the body and when 911 was called. Why the delay? A reasonable inference is that the defendants needed time to do some of the acts above or to permit someone else to flee before they called 911.
The case seems strongest against Price. Like most lawyers, he makes an awful witness and seems to have made the most damaging statements to third parties.
Is it even possible to fit random and odd things coherently together? Can the fact that taken in its totality the whole thing makes no sense actually aid the prosecution’s case?
I know I’ll get chewed out for this, but can someone explain why Kathy Wone is suing for $20M? I’m sure she’s hoping to get answers to all the questions about her husband’s death, but I doubt that she’ll get them. She’ll be putting herself through the wringer and will still be in the same place she is now, but years later and many lawyer bills poorer. Is it her idea just to harass these men forever? It might give her some satisfaction, but it ruins the rest of her life in the process.
I should add that while I do believe that the boys are guilty of obstruction, etc. I don’t think any of them murdered Robert.
Also, on an unrelated matter, the Wone wedding announcement said he changed his name from “Won” to “Wone” but the editors have pointed out that it rhymes with “Swann,” so why make the name even harder to pronounce correctly?
Her idea to ‘harass these men forever’??? She wants answers. These men have told everyone that they’re keeping their mouths shut – and it appears you agree that they’re not telling what they know (at a minimum) of how her husband was MURDERED.
The civil suit is being done free of charge by the Covington firm which previously employed Robert Wone. If she gets a judgment, she’ll try to get some compensation. You may recall that OJ Simpson was acquitted in criminal court but was found liable in civil court. The Goldman family has continued to pursue money to prevent OJ (among other reasons) from living a life of luxury. Of course, now he’s in jail for some other criminal actions. Still, I’m sure taking away OJ’s Heisman Trophy was but a small victory for the Goldman family which lost their son.
If I were Kathy Wone, I’d continue with the suit (which, as you may know, is suspended pending outcome of the criminal proceeding) if no other reason than to force these men to be DEPOSED under oath to find out as much as she can. In civil actions one CAN ask the defendants questions, unlike in criminal law. If she prevails, and they are found liable for her husband’s death, I do hope she takes their assets.
Of course, like OJ, they bought a home in Florida where one’s home is exempt from such actions – coincidence, you think? Or are they concerned that Kathy Wone will prevail?
Robert Wone changed the spelling because (it has been reported) it assisted with pronunciation. It was his call and I see no reason to doubt it. Let’s give him some dignity, shall we?
Well said, Bea and Bill both!!!
Forgive me, but I am curious about a book/movie deal for these three. Is it a law in my state only or a federal law that you cannot profit from a crime?
I am from the great state of Colorado – home of the original Amendment 2 – “the hate state.” Don’t know if any of you are old enough to remember that? I doubt it since someone on the blog today referred to these guys as middle-aged! Puhlease!!
Elizabeth, You should only know that at least one person here is a certifiable old fart.
Signed,
certifiable if not certified
Two uses of the word “fart” on the blog yesterday. Coincidence?!
You’re most likely right, Bea, about their concern that Kathy Wone will prevail. As soon as I heard they bought a place in South Florida, I felt that the Wone lawsuit was the real reason.
I don’t have a lot of confidence in the people prosecuting this case, but I feel the trio won’t get away with anything when it comes to the Wone lawsuit.
I don’t think Kathy Wone is going to be stuck with any legal bills. Her husband was a respected attorney, and a number of their mutual friends were also lawyers. I suspect that she will get free representation. And call me vindictive, but I think I could live a very satisfactory life knowing that I’m constantly making things miserable for the three people who are obstructing justice for the murderer of my husband.
“I should add that while I do believe that the boys are guilty of obstruction, etc. I don’t think any of them murdered Robert.”
Okay, I’ll bite. If you don’t think any of them murdered Robert, then why do you think they’re obstructing? (And for the record, the defendants are three highly-educated middle-aged men. They aren’t “boys”, and it always galls me when people refer to adult criminal defendants as “boys”. This was not a “youthful indiscretion” by a bunch of drunk high-school students.)
“Also, on an unrelated matter, the Wone wedding announcement said he changed his name from “Won” to “Wone” but the editors have pointed out that it rhymes with “Swann,” so why make the name even harder to pronounce correctly?”
My understanding is that it’s pronounced “Wan”. If he changed the spelling to make it more pronounceable, then I agree with you that he failed. But I think it’s more likely that he changed it because “Robert Won” would probably prompt people to ask, “What did Robert win?” He was reportedly a modest man, so I can understand why this would get embarrassing. And I think that the joke probably got pretty old.
I think you’re right. Kathy probably wouldn’t worry too much about the legal bills. Here’s the quote from Washingtonian article.
On Monday morning, Jason Torchinsky e-mailed Robert Gage, the lead partner in Covington’s real-estate practice and Robert Wone’s boss for most of the six years he was at the firm. Gage was on vacation in Italy. He phoned Torchinsky from a train and asked him to send an e-mail explaining the entire situation and the sequence leading up to Joe Price’s phone call. Ten minutes later, Torchinsky got an e-mail from Eric Holder.
“I’d be glad to assist,” he wrote. Continuing, he said, “If you want me to represent Robert’s wife I can do that as well.” In an almost immediate e-mail follow up, Holder said, “I hope this goes without saying but this would of course be free of charge.”
http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/people/15483.html
The defendants are highly educated men, and not boys. Whether they are middle-aged men depends on where one draws the line, but they are in the 30s and 40s and are not boys. I agree that to refer to adult male criminal defendants as “boys” diminishes their moral responsibility.
In the Deep South, it was common to refer to African-American males as “boys”, and it diminished the dignity to which they should have been entitled. The defendants should be entitled to the dignity of being referred to as men or defendants (even if their own behavior was not consistent with their moral responsibility or dignity).
As to why Robert Wone changed the spelling and/or pronunciation of his name, I see no reason for idle speculation. He is entitled in death to his dignity, and to be free of idle speculation as to his name and his orientation, just as the defendants are entitled to the dignity of a fair trial and not being viewed as juveniles.
Bill Orange, quoting Marie of Romania, wrote: ‘“I should add that while I do believe that the boys are guilty of obstruction, etc. I don’t think any of them murdered Robert.”
Okay, I’ll bite. If you don’t think any of them murdered Robert, then why do you think they’re obstructing?’
There is a possible explanation. What if the defendants did not commit the murder but they know who committed the murder? There is one possible suspect who fits that description. I am not saying that MP did it, but that would be an explanation.
Since the present conspiracy case cannot establish if Price, Zaborsky and Ward are innocent of the murder, Kathy has a right, and may feel an obligation, to pursue the civil avenue, unless or until it is somehow conclusively proven that someone else did it, through a confession or other evidence.
Somehow I have a feeling that if she were to prevail and actually collect that at least some of the proceeds would end up here:
https://whomurderedrobertwone.com/2009/04/04/still-giving-back/
“She’ll be putting herself through the wringer and will still be in the same place she is now, but years later and many lawyer bills poorer. Is it her idea just to harass these men forever? It might give her some satisfaction, but it ruins the rest of her life in the process.”
One could say that her life has already been ruined. I’m sure this suit is important for her and may well be her way of honoring her husband. I know that if it was me, I would want answers and would want to do the right thing for my loved one. Right now Kathy isn’t getting the answers that she deserves. I can’t even imagine what that is like for her. It’s seems pretty clear that the defendants know more than they are telling. So it seems inappropriate to me for you to say that her idea is to harass them forever. She didn’t ask for this to happen to her. She is simply trying to find out what happened to her husband and seek the justice that she deserves. Can you put yourself in her shoes?
Oh please don’t say her life is ruined! My only hope in all this mess is that Kathy Wone will go on to have a happy, fulfilled life.
Horrible things happen to wonderful people all the time, and no, none of them “asked for this to happen.”
Marie – I think if they do get off on these charges (finger’s crossed that they don’t!) and Mrs W DOES’T follow through with the civil suit. Then, she will never have true closure. I think that closure/ closure events are key to the moving on process. (for example, when a elderly relative dies, the funeral (and gathering of loved ones) is the closure event) Same principle applies here. Either a win in the criminal or civil trial will be this event. Additionally, from what I have read, (AGAIN, no lawyer here – feel free correct me) the standard as to which she will have to prove responsibility is less in a civil proceeding compared to a criminal trial.
Hello Marie – as I understand from your blog name, you are from Romania. No doubt, you have personal experience that English pronunciation can be difficult, especially when an “e” is placed at the end of a name.
If Robert hadn’t added the “e” to his name, natural-born citizens would mispronounce his name as ‘Wun,” as in, “We won the soccer match!” Robert’s choice to change the name must be related to the fact that his family actually pronounces the name “Wone” as in the word “Gone”.
I hope this is helpful and I certainly hope I have not offended you, but I used to teach conversational English to Italian businesspeople and the “e” on the ned of the word was always a matter of consternation.
As a matter of fact, when I first came to this site, I was very confused by the various mis-pronunciations I heard on the broadcast media, that I asked the long-time contributors and Editors the same question.
Welcome and cheers,
Kate
Oh Kate, that’s priceless. Romania, indeed.
Romania, PA!
My grandmother was a Romanian Gypsy who emigrated from Craiova as a young girl. And my middle name is Marie.
I also teach ESL, but to Latinos. I’ve always taught them that an E at the end generally means the preceding vowel is long. “Gone” is, of course, an exception.
“Is it her idea just to harass these men forever?”
God, I hope so.
Craig, thanks so much for your work the last three weeks, and all (which I’ve barely begun to read) that went before. It represents a great deal of dedication on your part, which does honor to Robert’s memory as well as providing a valuable service to the rest of us. I’ve been gratified to read your summaries, your commentary on courtroom atmospherics, and your wit. Best of luck on your LSAT’s!
Thanks to all the editors/creators/interns that have worked on this site. It is a great contribution to the community and to the quest for truth and justice in this case.
Okay, sorry about calling them “boys” — I was being facetious, but I know that doesn’t translate well on the internet.
If I had to guess, I’d say Michael did it and they’re covering up for him. But I truly don’t think Kathy Wone will get any more information out of them in that trial. If they’ve managed to keep the pact of silence this long, why would they change in a civil trial? They’ll continue with their story, although I suppose a jury might well convict them. And I doubt that they’ll have any money after this trial. A house in Florida isn’t much to live on the rest of their lives. I think their employment prospects are pretty poor.
I know a little bit about retribution. My grandfather was murdered and his killer was acquited, despite witnesses who saw him shot from behind. (Thank you, DC juries!) Some of his sons spent their whole lives trying to get justice — and dying, bitter about failing. In the end, their lives were ruined by being consumed with hatred. I sincerely hope this doesn’t happen to Kathy Wone. We have only to look at the Middle East (or the U. S. South, for that matter) to see where not forgiving one’s enemies gets you.
Also, I wasn’t trying to be rude about his name change. I have a number of Asian friends who have altered spellings so that the phonetic pronunciation is correct: e.g. Wang to Wong. It just struck me that going from Won to Wone was more confusing that say, Wan. The editors mentioned how insulting (I agree) it is that the defendants’ attorneys keep mispronouncing it.
Hi Marie,
You may be right about forgiveness, and if Kathy Wone needs to go through a civil trial to get some closure, I’m all for it. I am not terribly concerned about whether the defendants feel ‘harassed’ or not in having to defend that suit as well.
You’re likely right that they’ll tell the same story, but realize that under oath, they’ll be faced with new questions, like (for Joe): isn’t that your voice on the 911 call asking for the time? what did you mean that it was a ‘catch-22’ that if you responded fully one of you might be arrested? why did you try to get Jason Torchinsky to call Kathy to waive the atty-client privilege? what blood did you wipe up that prompted your response to Tara Ragone about tampering? when Victor tells the 911 operator that you’re already stanching blood but hands you a towel, where did the first one go? tell me about your trying to ‘buy’ the Asian dancer by offering drugs.
She (through her lawyers) would get to cross examine each one of them for hours – not just about the above but on anything having to do with the murder, even about their use of the electro-stim and restraints, about drug use, etc. Things ‘turn up’ over time, too, as with the OJ case when someone found a TV clip of him wearing the very shoes which matched the prints left which he claimed never having owned.
If there isn’t a conviction in this case, then I’ll be following the civil trial too. I have so many questions and I never met Robert Wone. I can’t imagine how many more questions Kathy has as she goes to sleep without her husband each night.
Bea (or any criminal attorneys out there) – In the civil case, can the defendants plead the 5th to avoid answering questions such as the ones in your above comment? It appears to be different from the OJ civil case, where he was found not guilty of murder, as he was protected from further criminal prosecution by double jeopardy. In this case, even if the defendants are convicted, they still may be subject to prosecution for murder.
KK – EXCELLENT QUESTION. My understanding about the civil trials is that the line of questioning is pretty much wide open. (Kinda like a deposition…. I know depositions !!) BUT, since none have been charged with murder, can statements made at the civil proceedings be held against them in a seperate criminal proceeding for murder?
If so, this will be REALLY bad for the trouple. If Mrs. Wone’s attorney starts asking all those questions that we are but the procecuting attorneys in the criminal trial cannot and they come back with, “I’d like to envoke my fifth amendement right.” That practically an admission of guilt aka judgement awarded to Ms Wone.
JUST MY THOUGHTS
In a criminal case, if the defendant pleads the 5th, the jury is not allowed to draw an inference of guilt. However, pleading the 5th in a civil case does not “forbid adverse inferences” to the defendant. The judge will even instruct the jury that it may make an adverse inference from anyone’s refusal to testify.
So yes, things will get very interesting in a civil case. The defendants must be available for deposition and must respond to discovery and interrogatories (questions asked by the other side).
Civil lines of questioning are still confined by rules of evidence, relevance, and regular direct/cross court rules. It’s not a free for all, but the opening statement made by the plaintiff can be full of strong argument, unlike in a criminal trial where a prosecutor has to tread very lightly during opening statements.
Thanks Goose, Esq. So the answer is that the trouple CAN plead the 5th in their civil case depositions, but such a plea can be held against them by the jury, and thus they may be more likely be held liable for Robert’s wrongful death. Given that a murder indictment is a possibility since there is no statute of limitations on murder, do you think their civil counsel will advise them to take the 5th to every question? If I were one of the trouple, I would rather risk being found civilly liable and then living the life that OJ had in Florida (where some people welcomed him!!), trying to dodge the Goldman’s pursuit of his assets, etc. (until karma put OJ in a Las Vegas jail), vs risking having my statements used against me in a future murder trial.
Goose… THANKS for answering my question. Just so that Im clear, any statements made in a civil trial COULD be held against one or all of them in seperate criminal trial…
FYI – I LOVE having all this legal advise right at my typing finger tips. PLEASE don’t send me a bill. 🙂
“In a criminal case, if the defendant pleads the 5th, the jury is not allowed to draw an inference of guilt.”
I’ve never understood this. While I’m not supposed to draw an inference of guilt, am I at least allowed to conclude that, on balance, the defense team does not believe that defendant’s testimony will be a net benefit to their case?
What if they are found guilty in the present matter and Mrs. Wone, with some satisfaction they do some jail time, approaches the prosecutors to grant immunity from criminal prosecution to the trio for any testimony implicating them in murder or any other crime related to the Wone death? There goes their 5th amendment right to refuse to answer each and every question in the civil trial…no?
There can be many reasons why an innocent person would make a terrible witness. As we all know, attractive people are generally believed to be better people. (I know it’s wrong, but that’s how life works.) Imagine an unattractive, stammering person trying to defend himself from a smart lawyer. I think that generally defendants are better off keeping silent and letting their lawyers earn their money.
As an attorney herself, could she question them during their depositions?
I think that her counsel would advise her not to act as her own counsel. One of the lawyers could elaborate.
There is a famous saying that an attorney representing him/herself has a fool for a client. In my own experience, I have found that I cannot effectively represent myself regarding my personal matters. When I divorced my husband, we both initially agreed to represent ourselves to save money. It took about a month for both of us to hire counsel; for me because I couldn’t think rationally due to my emotions. I would think the emotional burden of a person’s husband’s wrongful death civil case (due to murder) would be way heavier than a divorce action, and thus use of counsel would be advised.
Carolina’s question was whether, as an attorney, kathy could question the defendants in a deposition, not whether she would represent herself in the civil action. Between Covington and no shortage of other attorneys who would be willing to join this action on a contingency, Kathy surely won’t represent herself. But she certainly could, as a co-counsel, pose questions to the defendants, which could be quite unnerving to them and be an interesting tactic. Might also give her a bit of satisfaction in a case where there may be scant satisfaction to be found.
Good point. But what I left out above is that I am a business transactions attorney, and have never stepped foot in a court (except getting sworn in to the CA Bar). I don’t know much about litigation, and I certainly know less about family law. Does anyone know what type of law Kathy Wone practices?
Yes, now if I could only jog my memory. It’s in the WaPo article.
health law.
“Okay, sorry about calling them “boys” — I was being facetious, but I know that doesn’t translate well on the internet.”
Sorry I bit your head of for that. Some of their defenders refer to them as “boys”, and it just rubs me the wrong way.
“If I had to guess, I’d say Michael did it and they’re covering up for him.”
Every time I try to think this through, I can never believe that one of the three wasn’t involved. I can see Joe risking a conviction for his brother (although as an attorney, he has the most to lose from a felony conviction), but not Victor, and certainly not Dylan. When Dylan was arrested, he was more or less “broken up” from Joe and Victor. I think he even spent several weeks in jail. I can’t see him doing that for Michael Price. At that point, he was in the best position to negotiate a very sweet deal, and he didn’t. The only reason why he wouldn’t cut a deal at that point is if he couldn’t–in other words, he had to be deeply involved in the murder itself.
“My grandfather was murdered and his killer was acquited, despite witnesses who saw him shot from behind. (Thank you, DC juries!) Some of his sons spent their whole lives trying to get justice — and dying, bitter about failing. In the end, their lives were ruined by being consumed with hatred.”
I’m very sorry for your loss, but I don’t think the situations are quite analogous, at least not yet. For starters, the verdict in this case isn’t in yet. And all Kathy Wone has done is file a single lawsuit. That’s a far cry from a life-long hatred for the defendants. Also, keep in mind that her lawsuit was filed BEFORE the criminal charges were made, and part of the rationale for her lawsuit was the foot-dragging being done by the prosecution. I think her lawsuit was a big part of the reason that the criminal charges were finally filed–it embarrassed the government.
Or maybe he couldn’t cut a sweet deal because he couldn’t – he had nothing to offer? As opposed to being too deeply involved. I don’t think that, but what if?
Possible. He did take a sleeping pill, and he seemed pretty dazed at the scene. So his team can argue that he slept through a violent murder down the hall. But even if that were the case, I think he would STILL have value as a prosecution witness. I would take him as a prosecution witness if he could provide credible testimony about any sort of interest Joe Price had in Asian men or any sort of rape fantasies that he had or anything negative he had said about Robert Wone. Oh, and I’d want him to pass another lie detector test, too. Which would probably be a deal-breaker, since I’m fairly convinced that he bombed the first one.
Is there actually any evidence he took a sleeping pill or is that just his word? Isn’t this a house that had Ecstasy in it? Even if it was one pill, that would be one pill over the line of legality, wouldn’t it? How do we know he wasn’t on something stronger?
That’s what I would like to know too. You’d think the investigators would’ve gotten Dylan’s psychiatric and medical records to see if he really was prescribed any sleeping meds and antidepressants. Did he see a therapist, and if so, was there anything unusual after the murder of Robert Wone?
There’s no way they’d be able to get his medical records, but his medications could have been confirmed just by looking in his medicine cabinet.
i thought price blurted out the ward meds for the world to hear at the police station — or at least he did i.d. a few of the prescriptions.
He did mention his prescriptions but that doesn’t mean that’s what Ward was on at the time. Isn’t he the one who had the Ecstasy?
As far as I know, there has been no mention of where the e was found, only that it was in the house.
In the civil suit, can the defendants ask for a bench trial? If so, do you think their chances are better or worse than with a jury?
In the civil trial, can Kathy Wone demand a jury trial?
Both sides in the civil case would have to waive a jury trial for there to be a bench trial.
As to Lawmed’s question about 5th amendment in the civil trial, defendants can assert the 5th amendment in the civil trial and refuse to answer questions, but their silence may be used against them in that trial unlike a criminal proceeding.
Right, but my point is, if the criminal prosecutors granted them immunity from any further prosecution on matters they testify to in the civil trial, are they not then PREVENTED from pleasing the 5th.
I propose this strategy if they are found guilty in this criminal matter and they get some jail time, and Mrs. Wone asks the prosecutors to grant immunity for murder or related further charges so she can have at them.
If they’re found guilty in this trial, one of them is going to flip. Victor won’t last a week in prison. Joe Price would sell out his grandmother to avoid prison. And Dylan has never stuck with anything his whole life.
Oh, one of these men will turn at the 9th hour when the trial looks to be finished and the tide is against them, that I consider a certainty.
I fervently hope that the government has made abundantly clear that a pleading at that time will have substantially less value than a pleading now.
What would be the point of the prosecution offering use immunity for testimony in the civil trial? It is not like they are all of a sudden going to go “gee, we have use immunity, now we’ll sing like birds and tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.” Better to have them deposed and refuse to answer anything and use that against them.
Question for the lawyers in the group:
Is this an all or nothing verdict? What I mean, can one or two of them be found guilty of one of the indictments, for example. Or do ALL THREE have to be guilty of one or more of the indictments?
I hope that I expressed my question clearly. Didn’t get much sleep last night. Thought that I heard someone jump my fence and try to steal my bike. Luckily it was just a lawyer and two interns filming a sequel. 🙂
Funny!
Each charge as to each defendant – could be guilty as to all for each charge, one charge as to two defendants but none for the other, two charges for one defendant and none for the other two.
Speaking of “pork”…Joe Price IS in fact looking quite porky these days.
…all that stress of being afraid one of the other two are going to come clean, I guess.
You are right. He is putting on the L-B-S. Maybe, he’s trying to eat all his favs before adjusting to prison food. 🙂 Sad too – because he was kinda hot only a few years ago (Check out the video that I linked.)
Looks like the Clean 15 to me.
What am I going to do for a whole week without updates on the trial? What am I going to do when the trial is over? I am going to have major withdrawals. I need to get a life.
I have a very important upcoming exam. But I still throw hours and hours on this site. Hope I can focus on my study next week.
Question for one and all!
The defense wants us to believe saying Robert was asleep when stabbed. Okay, fine. If that were the case and all the burglar was doing was looking for something to steal, WHY STAB HIM? He was either asleep (or drugged), so much so that when stabbed he made no response AT ALL. it’s not as if he could pick out the intruder in a line-up.
Back out of the door and try another one, Mr. Ninja Intruder! There are valuables in many uninhabited rooms!
-saying in sentence 1.
If the intruder was after sex toys, he should have gone to Dylan’s room first, where the mother lode of sex toys could be found. And Dylan was knocked out on Lunesta, so there would have been no need to commit murder. . . But I suppose it would have been difficult to scale the back fence with a bag full of sex toys . . .
The Defense better come up with a better intruder theory since no burglars would stab a sleeping occupant (who obviously posed no threat), clean up the crime scene, and leave without stealing a thing. If they argue that Robert was awoken thus threatening the alleged burglar, then they need to explain the lack of defensive wounds. If they argue that Robert was killed instantly with no chance to defend himself, then they need to explain the “low grunts” the defendants heard.
Maybe the Defense will bring out the assassin theory but there are plenty problems with that, too. What assassin would enter a home full of occupants who might very well be awake (when the 11 o’clock news was still on)? Why didn’t the assassin bring his own murder weapon? Who would want Robert dead? I bet the Defense could not identify a single party who would want to murder Robert; otherwise, we would have heard about it already.
“Who would want Robert dead?”
Lawyer jokes aside… I still marvel at the people who use his 7 to 14 day tenure at RFA as a possible motive. I can see Kim Jong Il slamming a fist on his desk and demanding his best assassins be put on the case. Robert probably made more waves as a real estate attorney.
I know this is, for many, pretty obvious… But In rereading Joe’s testimony- it’s hard not imagine the chilhood Joe always being the kid who let’s loose the phantom farts- then starts sniffing the air and suggesting repeatedly, “Whoa somebody really sliced the cheese!” / “Damn, somebody musta had sulfur for lunch but it sure wasn’t me and I can vouch it wasn’t Tommy or Jimmy either ’cause I know their farts and they don’t smell half this deadly so who was it? Maybe it was that black guy standing way over there?”
just a hunch. But I guess the prosecution can’t argue the “whoever smelt it dealt it” line of inquiry- despite it’s familiarity to boys everywhere…
even though i am observing this trial from 10,000 feet, i can see the steam coming from that deuce that the prosecution delivered to moultrie. sure, i can understand that many on this blog and elsewhere can fill in the blanks as to what may have happened to Mr. Wone years ago, but i am certainly not convinced BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT from the evidence that has been reported on here and elsewhere tha a guilty verdict on these charges is warranted as to each defendant! More likely than not that this gang was involved, perhaps, but that ain’t the standard here. can anyone point to the hard evidence presented to date that dylan is guilty of these charges beyond a reasonable doubt? so many seem to believe that joe was the mastermind here; but remember it was dylan who did jail time upon arrest. Was that jail time based solely on the hunch of the government, or do they have evidence to present that hasn’t been seen or heard yet. i have trouble believing that this trial gets beyond a summary judgment – non-suit — no need for all those fancy and expensive defense experts when all i believe that the prosecution has proven to date is that joe lied to sarah about who had a key.
for the next 10 days, the prosecution better be looking HARD for the answer to the aged old question — WHERE IS THE BEEF??????????
I think you’re missing the forest for the trees here. These three defendants had a dead body in their guest bedroom and no plausible explanation for how it got there. And the story that they told the police has numerous conflicts with the other available evidence.
not defending them in the least, bill o; simply suggesting that the prosecution delivery has been less than impressive – and that very little from my vanatage point has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. this gang doesn’t need a plausible explanation for anything (and that’s a good thing for them since they don’t have one in my opinion); the prosecution must prove the alegations. still waiting – i have trouble convicting when the best and most compelling evidence is the theory that it cannot be anything other than what the government alleges — would love to see some harder, more direct, more tangible evidence that seems missing to date.
The three most damning pieces of evidence against the defendants are as follows:
(1) The timeline. Acording to the defendants’ own story (!), there was an impossibly short time for an intruder to commit the crime and escape undetected. This renders the theory of an outside intruder totally implausible beyond a reasonable doubt.
(2) Missing blood. Wone lost a massive amount of blood and it is entirely unaccounted for. It is clear beyond a reasonble doubt that someone removed it from the crime scene. This estalbishes that the crime scene was tampered with, either by the defendants or by an intruder (but see #3 below).
(3) There was no intruder. The intruder theory — which is absolutely essentail if the defendants are innocent — is not supported by one iota of evidence. There are no facts to support the theory that an intruder killed Wone. This establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no intruder.
You missed the delay in reporting.
And no defensive wounds and unexplained fresh needle marks all over his body (and were denied firmly and repeatedly by EMT).
CC — I’d amend your #2, in order to avoid refutation, to simply note that the back of Robert’s W&M shirt was saturated with blood, but the bedsheet beneath him had just two small blotches of blood. Only reasonable interpretation is that robert was moved onto that bed at some point after he was stabbed. This fact is incredibly damning for the defense, whereas the “missing blood” argument can potentially be refuted by various medical arguments (the tamponade argument; “lawmed”‘s arguments about resuscitation attempts that may have included the venting of blood via tubes; the absorption of blood into soft tissue, etc.)
“this gang doesn’t need a plausible explanation for anything”
Yes, they do. They need a plausible explanation for how the stories that they HAVE ALREADY TOLD THE POLICE could possibly be true. THAT’s their reasonable doubt. This is an obstruction case, and the prosecution has shown that the defendants’ prior statements to the police are not consistent with the available evidence. In my humble opinion, they have done this beyond a reasonable doubt. I’m really not sure what happened that night, but I’m certain that Robert Wone wasn’t stabbed by an invisible, silent ninja who rearranged the crime scene and then walked through the wall and convinced the neighbors to lie about when they heard the scream.
You wrote: “Yes, they do. They need a plausible explanation for how the stories that they HAVE ALREADY TOLD THE POLICE could possibly be true. THAT’s their reasonable doubt. This is an obstruction case, and the prosecution has shown that the defendants’ prior statements to the police are not consistent with the available evidence. In my humble opinion, they have done this beyond a reasonable doubt.” Do you mean that the defense needs to establish a plausible explanation for what is otherwise implausible in order to create reasonable doubt? (Excuse me, but in my line of work I try to parse meanings, because computers are very rigid in their parsing.)
Exactly. They’re going to need to convince the judge that there was a reasonable possibility that their statements were true. Right now, I don’t think that there’s anyway you can look at their statements and compare them with the other evidence and conclude that they’re telling the truth.
bill o – you may be right. i think your analysis and always that of bea’s is fabulous and compelling, even though i disagree with it. but i question whether the judge will work as hard as you and bea on this; i know a jury would not have. my bigger issue is that i was expecting a whole lot more than what has been presented by inspector javert and company to date. unless the prosecution has something up its sleeve, my heart says the girls will and should be found not guilty; and to date the prosecutor like the emporer has no clothes . . .
Well, in the prosecution’s defense (so to speak), they’ve managed to get just about all of their key evidence in. If they can tie it all up in their closing statement, I think they’ll be fine.
Okay folks, Interested in a response.
Been following the case almost daily for almost 4 years.
So Many Questions:
Evidently, no one can use the argument that Robert was, “Incapcitated,” prior to death. (Drugs and Restrained.) That certainly helps the defense. But, no discusson?
What about the Semen in the Anus? Clearly not done by Robert alone? No discussion?
“Gaying Robert Up.” Agan, no lively discussion.
Thoughts?
Thoughts are – the trial doesn’t involve accusing the trio of murder, sexual assault nor rape. That’s why those topics are not part of their discussion.
Are there any pics of M. Price on this website? Are any of the photos included in the Go Mama Go Facebook page (Events photos) of M. Price?
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Washington-DC/go-mama-go/154480147823?v=app_2373072738
Looks like M Price in 13 and 14 under Event photos.
Yep, that’s him in 13 and 14.
Oh dear, in a Hurley hoodie. If you have to be over 21 to drink, you should have to be under 30 to buy those.
Have you seen the last couple of days of posts? Cuz… he’s right there.
There was some back and forth about the “attempted” burglary farther down Swann in the comments yesterday, did a quick Google search.
http://www.redfin.com/DC/Washington/1417-Swann-St-NW-20009/home/9869397
http://dc.blockshopper.com/property/02060113/1417_swann_street_nw/
Well, atleast we know who got the looks in the family. 🙂
The words “stumbled onto a surprise” really bother me. This implies that the “intruder” knew the basic layout of the house and was surprised to find Wone in the room. This would argue against any of the three defendants being involved in Wone’s murder, but would suggest they know the intruder. The prosecution has established a good case that the three defendants had a relationship that existed beyond being mere roommates. The real issue is whether this extended to Price’s brother.
The prosecution also has put forward a somewhat tenuous case that Price’s brother is involved in this: his possession of a key to the residence, his absence from his phlebotomy class on the night of the murder, a shaky alibi, his presence at the funeral and confrontation with the detective, his participation in the subsequent break-in and theft, and Price’s attempt to cover up the break-in. While subject to attack on a variety of fronts by the defense, I think there is enough there along with the other facts and inconsistencies, to make a case that survives a motion for acquittal.
I think these are reasonable inferences from the evidence adduced, even though there is not sufficient evidence to charge Price’s brother with murder.
On the topic of knives (and I sincerely hope that the prosecution gets around to this, though lord knows I am having something of a crisis of confidence in that area) the knife that was found at the scene is a very distinctive and even singular type of knife used for a specific purpose in cooking and creating distinctive cut marks. It is a boning knife, as we see in this evidence picture:
http://whomurderedrobertwone.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/wone_knife1031.jpg
In fact, I think it is a Wusthof 5″ boning knife just like this one (which by the way is on sale here for a very good price):
http://www.cutleryandmore.com/details.asp?SKU=6126
Being an person dedicated to all things culinary I am very conversant with all types of kitchen knives and their applications. This would in fact be an excellent choice for a murder weapon because the sharp point that proceeds to a curve is designed to make the business of separating meat from bone efficient (I am sorry that this is graphic and grotesque, I can’t think of a more delicate way to frame it). It also has a distinctive widening curve as it reaches the handle. Most chefs knives, used for chopping or slicing do not have this feature. If one were to stab a person or a side of beef with this implement in one in/out motion the incision would be wider at the opening, if driven with force only more so.
Now, the knife that is said to be missing from Dylan’s knife set is the smaller or 4″ paring knife (sticking with the same maker for no reason at all) like this:
http://www.cutleryandmore.com/details.asp?SKU=6101
In the context of a carving set this smaller knife is used to “pare” away undesirable parts of meat before slicing. A good chef would keep it very sharp and it also would make an ideal stabbing weapon. The difference is that the sharp edge from the tip to the handle has no curved dip near it’s handle and would be bound to leave a different and distinctive type of wound.
Yes, I did a little experimenting in the kitchen with this (not on a pork loin).
I am no forensic scientist, but the stabs were very (very) different to my untrained eye. In fact I would say that the boning knife “could not” make a wound even similar to the paring knife. Why has there been no testimony about this?
Early on in the trial, the defense asserted that the knife missing from Dylan Ward’s set had been missing from the set for some time, that the set had been possessed by two other people before Ward came into possession of it and that the missing knife was actually in Seattle.
The prosecution did not seem to challenge the above assertions (at least I didn’t read anything about it).
So, has it been proven that the missing knife is accounted for in Seattle, which would make the fact that it is missing a non-issue?
Be all that as it may (and unless and until the defense produces that knife I am unconvinced that this is anything but an assertion) what I am interested to know is if these incisions, called methodical in nature, could have been made by a boning knife.
I would expect the expert opining to explain how they could be made by a knife with the distinctive outcurve near the handle of the one that was found at the crime scene and claimed by Joe to have been removed (in one way or another) from Robert’s person. If it can not be I would think that could be demonstrated; conversely if it could be (or must have been) then I would think that that too could be demonstrated.
I’m really hoping they put a knife expert up on the stand.
If I understand your original post correctly (and I think you’ve done some excellent detective work), your experimentation shows that the paring knife (i.e, the knife missing from Dylan’s set) leaves such a very different “stab mark” from the boning knife (knife left on the body) that the pictures of the shape of the wounds should provide good evidence of the type of knife used.
I would agree with your reasoning.
However, Ward’s attorney (David Schertler) asserted early on that the missing knife is in Seattle. I don’t know why he would make such an assertion if he could not back it up. That would be foolish.
So, if the missing knife is in fact in Seattle, then is there another knife that was used as the murder weapon and replaced with the knife ultimately found on the body?
When I first read about this case, it seemed to make sense to me that the murder weapon was the knife missing from Ward’s set. It seemed to make sense that the defendants disposed of this knife and replaced it with a random knife because a knife missing from the Ward’s set found sitting on the body would lead right to Ward. What’s he going to say? The intruder sneaked into my room and took the knife from my set. Or, is he going to say that he always kept that knife separate and apart from the others in a drawer in the kitchen and the intruder just happened to pick that knife.
However, if the knife was in Seattle at the time of the murder, this leaves a lot more room for reasonable doubt compared to the case that the knife is just missing.
I have to say that I really don’t believe Dylan’s lawyer. I don’t think that he’s going to produce the knife. I think he’s going to produce a witness who will say that he saw that knife set 15 years ago in Seattle, and that particular knife was already missing. And then we’re going to get some bizarre family lore about how a partial knife set got handed down from one generation to the next.
And I don’t think the judge is going to believe a word of it.
I think you are have surmised correctly. I really do. Let’s see what happens on this issue when the defense presents their case.
I will believe that Dylan’s special knife was innocently housed in Seattle in 2006 when Schertler produces it in court and not before. Given that they have had years to produce it I very seriously doubt that they will now. To say that the knife from that set was not at Swann St that night is only an assertion on Dylan’s part, nothing more. The purpose of that assertion is to enter doubt into the minds of observers. It was even erroneously reported in one news account that Schertler had produced the knife when he had not, an eventuality given the sorry state of news gathering these days that Dylan’s defense may reasonably have counted on.
I am with you on this. I would like to see the knife (and the person who now has it so they can be cross-examined). As Mr. Orange stated above, it seems that they will only produce a witness who says the knife has been missing for a generation or two.
It’s up to the defense to put someone on the stand during its case. Right now it’s still the prosecution’s case in chief.
Hi Bea! Don’t you think that the prosecution should put some expert evidence forward as to if this boning knife even could have made the wounds found on Robert?
AZ, yes I do. Something about the bruising from the handle would be nice too. I do think there’s a remaining knife wound expert – or maybe it’s my fantasy playing with me.
When I flip back and forth between those two knives, what strikes me is that the bases of them look very different. Since the base of the knife would be what leaves the marks on the skin, I would expect that this should be pretty easy to compare. (I’m assuming, of course, that the knife wounds were photographed.)
It appears to me that the knife found at the scene is much closer to 6 inches than it is 5 inches based on the ruler it is held up against.
From MyFoxDC report online:
“I saw the knife missing from the block…it happened so fast, it’s still not real to me, someone stumbled onto a surprise, stabbed the guy and took off…if I had anything to hide I wouldn’t be talking, I know better than that, I wouldn’t.” Price says on the tape.
-Joseph Price
Did he say when in the timeline he saw the knife missing? Again, I thought he heard what he said he heard, went downstairs, staunched the wound (along with picking up the knife, etc.) Did he then take a break to visit the kitchen before the police got there?
Also, “It happened so fast.” Sounds like a first-person type account. Otherwise, what “happened so fast”?
Agree with the person who wrote that there is something odd about “stumbled on a surprise” because wouldn’t it be normal to find someone sleeping behind a closed door? Unless that’s a guest room where someone isn’t normally sleeping. And you’d have to know that to be “surprised.”
Such a stumbler might exist in the person, say, of a housekey-possessing sibling of one of the housemates who knew that that room was customarily unoccupied, whether or not the door happened to be closed. And would it be stretching logic to suggest that, in such a situation, said housekey-possessing sibling might have been intending either to find something of value to steal for his drug habit or to stash his latest drug purchase in what he presumed was the vacant bedroom?
My issue with that is the knife. If you’re Michael Price, and you’re sneaking around in your big brother’s house, why would you grab a knife? If he’d gotten caught, would he really have stabbed his own brother to death? Isn’t it more likely that he’d just shrug and say, “You got me, bro!”
Yeah, you’re right. Really doesn’t make sense. But “stumbled onto a surprise” to me still suggests that, assuming the stumbler exists, Joe knows that he was familiar with the Swann St. house layout. Or perhaps the “surprise” for the “intruder” (and I include those with house keys among that possible universe) was more than just finding Robert in the room but also discovering a sadosexual “game” involving the incapacitation of a houseguest.
“The ME testimony, which I am just reviewing in detail, is quite honestly utterly absurd in places and how she said it with a straight face and continued to defend some of her statements in the face of very obvious and well know issues proving her wrong is another wacky twist here.”
Thank you law-med for your insightful quote above that crystallizes my feelings about all of the ME’s irresponsible opinions & conclusions. I don’t think she got anything right in this case. It’s spectacularly clear she was chasing evidence for the detectives theories. This is the worst kind of government misconduct.
examples please.
I will be writing an article for the blog which will detail examples, and cite both the direct findings in the autopsy report amd testimony, as well as ME statements of findings I take issue with, and in support cite readily available via internet, yet authoritative, accepted uncontroversial research and literature in Support of my views
Here is another teaser: ME testified that the normal blood volume for Wones would be 60000 cc and that she could account for only 2000cc in the body cavities/heart/intestines. Indicating that 4,000 cc’s was missing. The formula for determining normal blood volume is 0.7 x kg body weight. Womg weighed 59 kg. His normal blood volume was 4,830 ccs. The ME’c testimony that 4,000 cc of blood was missing is flawed from the start based on her fa=aulty calculation. Presumably
Her thought proess is entiely skew regarding whathatever amount of blood is not in a body cavity must then be characrerized as unaccounted for or missing.
Cut me open right now and it is pretty obvious that I will have much less blood in in my chest and abdomen than Wone but none of My blood is missing.
I am dying to type a half dozen more….but will do so soon enough/
And this is no small point for her to have to be precise on. If she wants to argue what i will show to be an unsupported argument, she should not ignore the common and simple math required here. Suddenly, if you beleive me and the entire world medical community that the calculation I present is correct, the (“missing blood”, drops from 40000cc to no quire 2000cc…a big difference indeed and after admitting she did not view the chest tube drainage canisters, or apparently allow for the blood contained in majority of the remaining body (vessels, muscle, organs. The “missing blood” theory stinks, is unsupported by science or evidence.
ERROR 60,000 cc above should read 6000 cc
AND 69 kg not 59 kg….tired.
lawmed,
If you are writing a paper following review of the facts/reports, I would appreciate your insight into the following, particularly because you identify familiarity with the law, having gone to law school. As you have limited (caveated) your remarks significantly, I would appreciate(and from some other posts, others appear to also be interested) this kind of insight in your commentary. As you know from law school, analysis of any facts in a case is always contextualized. this case being no exception. Much appreciated:
-other ways the needle marks could be made. You identify that the marks could be consistent but for the head nurse’s (as it seems to you, unrealistic) testimony. Is there a way where you see her testimony becoming consistent with the facts? (such as another way for needle marks to happen)
-How the back of the shirt is bloody, under what you identify are low external blood loss scenarios. In other words, if there is no possible way that the low external blood loss scenarios could cause the back of the shirt blood stains/little blood on the bed (and apparently no front stains), then the scenario that you describe could not be possible by definition. So, what are ways where these facts can be consistent with each other?
-whether the near paralysis possibility you raise would have an effect on Robert’s ability to scream. E.g., even if the possibility exists where the stabbings immobilized him during the failure of heart pressure, would that also immobilize (or would the collapsed lung) immobilize Robert’s lungs and/or incapacitate his ability to scream?