In August 2006, Victor Zaborsky was the Senior Marketing Manager for the Milk Processors Education Program (Milk PEP). It is the promotional arm of the International Dairy Foods Association and is based in Washington, DC. MilkPEP is funded by the nation’s milk processors, who are committed to increasing fluid milk consumption. MilkPEP activities are led by a 15-member board, which is monitored by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service. Milk PEP created an enormously successful public awareness campaign, “Got Milk” which promoted the benefits of milk through the innovative use of celebrities wearing milk mustaches. It won a Silver Effie award in 2007.
Personally, Mr. Zaborsky has resided in the District for over a decade; most of that time in a committed partnership with Joseph Price. Zaborsky and Price have shared houses on Capitol Hill, on Swann Street, and currently live together on 16th Street in the District. Zaborsky described his relationship with Joe Price and roommate Dylan Ward as comprising “…a family,” adding that Ward does “not really…share an equal part in the relationship, but we’re trying to develop it that way.” Price and Zaborsky have also expanded their familial relations as detailed here in this USA Today story from 2004.
“Maybe, maybe not. But the police can–and did, in this case–lie to you about what other witnesses have said in order to get you to say things you would not otherwise have said. As other posters have noted, this sometimes leads to false confessions. But that’s not really relevant to this current discussion.”
I’m not sure what you’re referring to, but, yes, one of the only times police are permitted to lie to a suspect is when an innocent man would know that the statement is a lie. (“We’ve got your fingerprints. – Someone saw you. – Your partner confessed.”)
If that rather common technique was used among these suspects, and I’d guess that it probably was, apparently it didn’t work.
Sometimes police get overly enthusiastic and lie to witnesses who are not suspects, or leak polygraph information to them, in order to try to get a useful response from them. Strictly illegal.
From what I’ve read, one of the suspects in this case did agree to take a lie detector test.
Since lie detectors do have the reputation among the public, of being somewhat accurate, when a subject readily agrees to take such a test and has no lawyer, that’s may be a good indication that that subject feels himself to be innocent.
Lawyers, once involved, seldom advise their clients to agree to polygraph tests, knowing what damage a false reading can do.
As I’ve said, I’m not a lawyer, but I’ve been around a bit.
“…If that rather common technique was used among these suspects, and I’d guess that it probably was…”
Again, if you can’t be bothered to read the transcripts or access any of the wealth of information and documentation on this site then you can hardly expect anyone to seriously engage with you in discussion of the case. I for one have neither the time nor the inclination to get you up to speed on every.single.pertinent.fact.of.this.case.
Grow up!
That’s hardly a way to get people on your side. Why not provide the actual documents instead and ask people to read them?
Lisa – You’re replying to a 12 year old comment from Anna when we were operating at full speed. Back then we all had document citations at our fingertips but with the passage of time that’s become more difficult. The FAQ is a helpful guide to get up to speed but if people want a more thorough understanding of the case and principals, there are few alternatives to doing a deep dive into what’s been written here and commented upon, a heavy lift I know but it’s nothing that can’t be completed in a couple days. But there is a payoff, we firmly believe that the answer to what happened that night is in these pages somewhere – someone or several someones – have pieced it all together.
“From what I’ve read, one of the suspects in this case did agree to take a lie detector test.
Since lie detectors do have the reputation among the public, of being somewhat accurate, when a subject readily agrees to take such a test and has no lawyer, that’s may be a good indication that that subject feels himself to be innocent.”
This is pretty much the point I’m trying to make. Go back and read the transcripts for both Joe Price and Dylan Ward. Dylan starts to get nervous as soon as the subject of a lie-detector test comes up. Joe initially says he’ll take one, but ultimately does not. And he almost immediately starts asking to talk to Dylan.
So, one may conclude that Joe may be more guilty than Dyl, who sees himself as a witness, not a perp.
“This is pretty much the point I’m trying to make. Go back and read the transcripts for both Joe Price and Dylan Ward. Dylan starts to get nervous as soon as the subject of a lie-detector test comes up. Joe initially says he’ll take one, but ultimately does not. And he almost immediately starts asking to talk to Dylan.”
Your point being?
Any intelligent person would be nervous about taking such a test about such an important and emotional matter. Wouldn’t you?
Joe’s changing his mind could well mean that he finally got some outside advice concerning criminal law. As I’ve pointed out, most criminal lawyers strongly advise their clients, whether guilty or not, NOT to submit to state conducted polygraph exams. Joe, not being a criminal lawyer, probably didn’t know this at first.
Alt., did you actually READ the transcripts of Joe’s interviews? If you did you would know that that is not even remotely the sequence of events. If you want to engage, do your homework.
“…If that rather common technique was used among these suspects, and I’d guess that it probably was…”
“Again, if you can’t be bothered to read the transcripts or access any of the wealth of information and documentation on this site then you can hardly expect anyone to seriously engage with you in discussion of the case. I for one have neither the time nor the inclination to get you up to speed on every.single.pertinent.fact.of.this.case.
Grow up!”
“Alt., did you actually READ the transcripts of Joe’s interviews? If you did you would know that that is not even remotely the sequence of events. If you want to engage, do your homework.”
Methinks you doth protest too much. And I’d rather not engage with you on this, but, oh well.
In reading Joe’s interview, it is quite obvious to me that the detectives aren’t at all able to trip him up in any meaningful way. His story of the events of the night remains consistent, throughout an intensive grilling. He obviously has a desire to speak with his friends, which is very understandable, if indeed he and they aren’t under arrest and they are as close to him as he says they are. He is repeatedly denied permission to even speak with them.
Near the end of his interview he is beginning to ask about if he should get a lawyer. After much harassment and continual refusal to let him go and talk with his friends, he expresses a growing doubt about taking the polygraph under these circumstances. I’d say that realizing that he may not be free to even talk with his friends; the entire situation is beginning to feel more and more threatening to him. But I don’t see that he officially refuses to take the polygraph at this point. (It wouldn’t be an actually part of this interview, but one by the FBI.) he just wants to end this interview. (How would he suppose that talking with his friends possibly affect his polygraph answers?)
But then many of you folks have studied and analyzed this case so much that you think you know better than the court does, just who is guilty of what.
On the other hand, I, being unsure of these “Facts” of yours, will just have to remain in the dark, in the face of your expertise.
Altguy: What exactly is your issue with people forming and holding strong opinions on this case? You wandered in here about two weeks and expect to be treated as if you have the wisdom of King Solomon. The simple act of naysaying doesn’t get you that crown.
Only he is allowed to form and hold an opinion.
· Craig on 07/20/2010 at 6:14 PM
You say, “The distance from where Price was in the living room to the gate, is the better part of 30 feet, probably more. The distance + any reflections from the lights, inside and out would’ve obscured pretty much everything on the patio from his vantage point I bet. And Price admitted he was sitting, where he may not even have had line of site over the kitchen island some 15 feet away, to discern anything about the gate. He may have been an Eagle Scout, but I doubt he had eagle eyes”.
Joe does say that he was in the living room when asked by a detective if the person who might have gone out the back door had jumped the fence and when he (Joe) replied, “Why couldn’t the person…. have gone out the gate.”
It is elsewhere in his testimony where he states that he had observed that the back gate “…was not ajar.”
When the police first came, he had been in the kitchen showing the detectives around. The back yard was lighted. While he was in the kitchen showing the officers the back door, would he not have looked out at the gate? How could he not have easily seen if or not the gate was ajar? And why, for heaven’s sake, wouldn’t he have looked to see if it was? Joe wasn’t confined to the living room when the cops first came.
You are shamelessly picking and choosing pieces of transcript. Joe says “I was sitting in the living room” when he offers his hypothesis about the intruder scaling the fence rather than using the gate door. And then adds when the detective notices the ‘tell’ and says “how do you know?”:
“Because I didn’t get to go out there but, you know, the gate was — as far as I could tell from where I was sitting, the gate (indiscernible) the gate was not ajar.” All on Page 10 – sitting in living room when “saw” that gate was ajar. Now go look at photos.
He does say “sitting,” when he sees the gate ajar. When he says because I didn’t get to go out there, maybe he was refurring to the kitchen, but equally if not more likely he ment that he didn’t get to go outside. (Why would you say “Out there,” if you ment the next room.
He does not specifically say that he was sitting in the living room in that sentance, but I grant you it does seem as if he might have ment that.
Again he says he saw the gate not ajar. If he were making things up, why not say ajar? And why would he even remember at that point exactly where he was when he got a glimps of the gate?
Six lines up in same page 10 when the Detective asked whether he thought the intruder scaled the fence, Joe says “Yeah. And I was sitting in the living room . . .” Within the very same conversation, when pushed ‘how would you know’ is when he said “as far as I could tell from where I was sitting” that the gate wasn’t ajar.”
Pretty clear that the same “sitting” was done “in the living room” if you ask me.
The “Yeah” was probably not an answer to the question, but a vocal acknowledgement that the question had been asked by others. He then goes on to recount his answering question suggesting that it wouldn’t have been necessary for someone to jump the fence in order to exit the yard.
In the later sentence he recounts an observation he made while sitting some place, but he doesn’t tie it in to the afore mentioned conversation. So one can only assume that he was seated in the same place.
There is no other logical conclusion. He was sitting in the living room and did not have the vantage point necessary. And no one would ‘assume’ that an intruder would go to the trouble to scale a fence during a hasty exit. There was a reason for making such a comment that cannot be explained except that he knew the gate door was locked.
He did NOT make the comment that the intruder scaled the fence. He suggested quite the opposite.
Page 10, Line 4-5.
SGT: “And then this person – what did they do? Jump the fence?”
PRICE:
“Yeah.”
(Then says how illogical it was that the “intruder” didn’t go through the gate door, but gosh darn it, Joe implies, he must have.
But he knew it was locked.
SO you were wrong. It seems you make up just about anything to be contrary. If only the prosecution had you to sharpen their arguments!
Just a thought (which hadn’t occurred to me before) but didn’t Joe go to the back door with Officer Durham earlier that night?
just sayin’
Yep, and it’s then that he could have,(Would have)
observed if the gate was ajar.
That’s why he says, “I didn.t get to go out there.”
This was after the trio was told to sit on the sofa when hustled downstairs. They claimed to have talked about Dylan’samazingvision in seeing the door being unlocked (tho Victor told this to 911) and Joe seeing the gate.
And he can see a lock in the dark? Damn, I want their optometrist.
“…In reading Joe’s interview, it is quite obvious to me that the detectives aren’t at all able to trip him up in any meaningful way…”
I would certainly agree with you there. the MPD top detectives seem like a bunch of ham fisted rubes entirely not up to interrogating these intelligent men in these sesions.
Well, he said he’d be willing to take a polygraph, and he never did.
Your point about him asking for his friends is relevant. My recollection (and please correct me if I’m wrong) is that Joe starts asking to talk to Dylan (and he seemed much more focused on Dylan than on Victor) only AFTER the subject of a lie-detector test is raised. You can (and probably will) reasonably argue that this might just be a co-incidence, since the interview was growing more and more antagonistic, and Joe simply might have started asking for Dylan at that time by simple chance. But it certainly raised my eyebrows.
Bill,
You said: “Your point about him asking for his friends is relevant. My recollection (and please correct me if I’m wrong) is that Joe starts asking to talk to Dylan (and he seemed much more focused on Dylan than on Victor) only AFTER the subject of a lie-detector test is raised. You can (and probably will) reasonably argue that this might just be a co-incidence, since the interview was growing more and more antagonistic, and Joe simply might have started asking for Dylan at that time by simple chance. But it certainly raised my eyebrows.”
I have once more re-read the long police interrigation of Joe Price, and I can’t see any place where he specifically asks to speak to Dylan.
Near the end, he says he wants to talk to his lawyer. (I don’t see where he asked about seeing his friends up to this point.)
But IMMEDIATELY after he asks to see his lawyer, (Next sentance.) they ask him if he is willing to take a polygraph test and he says “That’s fine.” (I suspect that the interrigators are well awair that a lawyer would say, no way to a polygraph.) Then Joe is again asked if he is willing to take the lie dectector test,”…right now?” And again he says, “That’s fine.”
Soon after agreeing to take the test, he begins asking to see his friends. He names them both. I can’t see where he says anything specifically about Dylan, but rather in fact he asks to see “…both of them.”
Once he is told repeatedly that he can’t see them, he asks to leave. Thay than ask him if he is still willing to take the polograph. He replies, “I’m not taking the test RIGHT NOW if I can’t see them.” (Empasis mine.)
The interrigator then makes it clear that he can’t see his friends until after THEY take the test. And the interview ends, the interrigator cutting Joe off mid-sentance.
Could it be that your eyebrows may have been raised for the wrong reason?
You’re partially correct. He asks to see both Victor and Dylan at the end of the first interview, after being asked about a lie detector test. He asks to see Dylan in particular at the end of the second interview.
Now, you’ve got me stumpped. I know that Joe and others were interviewed earlier by various dectectives in questioning that wasn’t recorded. Now reports of these questionings as reported by various dectives may contain some of the material you are speaking of, but in the long recorded interview that I have, conducted by Sgt Wagner and Det. Norris,on the night of the murder, Joe doesn’t, at any point ask to speak to only Dylan. He is first asked by dectective Norris, on page 38, Line 7 the question “Would you be willing to take a lie dectector test?” and he replies “Absolutely, yes, yes.” then he goes on to discuss the admillability of the test, but explains that he wants to take the test so that the officers will see that he’s telling the truth.
This is much earlier from the time he is later asked again, twice, if he is willing to take the test and twice agrees. (Which I commented on before.)
If there is an earlier second, recorded interview I was un-awair of it. At the end of this interview, which seems to be the official one, Joe is leaving and says he is going to contact his lawyer.
After that happened, the idea of his later taking a polygraph was obviously dropped. These guys were pressed to take the test before they had lawyers. Way it usually happens.
If you search for “The Third Degree”, you’ll find the transcripts of Joe Price’s interviews. There were two. At the end of the first one, he walked out of the room. The second interview occurred after one of the detectives went out to the parking lot and convinced him to come back in and talk some more.
Bill Orange,
Thanks for the info on the second third degree. I hadn’t expected there to be one. Reading it through, my impression is that Joe’s statements are consistent with his previous story and he certainly doesn’t seem to be holding back nor does he seem guarded in his answers. The asking about Dylan thing seems to be coming after and because of some conversation that he’s had during his cell phone conversations. (Conversation he hears on the phone is, of course, is not in the transcript, only his responses.) He then explains that Dylan’s lawyer has been trying to get a hold of him.)
It seems significant to me that the whole second interview has been held AFTER Joe talked to his lawyer, and in spite of his lawyer having advised Joe not to agree to it. Joe seems to me to be behaving exactly as someone would if they thought they had nothing to hide.
The one thing that jumps out at me is, if Joe has been telling the truth in general, he MIGHT have fudged over the one fact that he impulsively pulled the knife out of his friends chest during the first moment he sat down on the bed. (That would be a very human thing to do.) He could have immediately thought “Dummy!” and even tried to wipe his fingerprints off of the handle. Then on second thought he realized that it would be better to simply admit he had touched the knife. He could have remembered at any time, the thing that we have all heard. “Don’t remove the knife, it can cause internal bleeding and cause the patient to die.” So, he decides not to say that he removed the knife, but rather that he touched it. Remember that at the time of interrogation, he doesn’t know if the act of removing the knife could have lessened Robert’s chances of survival.
It’s just pure speculation, on my part of course. One or more of these guys may be as guilty as sin for all I know. I’m just trying to play the role of Devil’s advocate, which I don’t see many doing.
I’ve never met any of the suspects personally. But I did have, well before the murder, feedback from one whose judgment I highly respect. Someone who happens to be a good friend of theirs. This information proved to be that Joe and his associates, particularly Joe, was a kind, generous and caring person.
I’m curious about your friend that you mentioned in your last paragraph. My impression of Joe Price is that he has always been able to attract a loyal core of friends. On the other hand, a number of people who meet him dislike him almost immediately. Everyone seems to love him or hate him. I’ve mentioned Lisa Goodard a number of times as a good example–she’s one of the most intelligent and moral people that I know, and she has stood behind Joe Price throughout all of this.
Reading through the interviews again, two things jump out at me now: (1) I don’t see them ever asking Victor to take a lie-detector test (I could’ve easily missed it.), and (2) I’m even more convinced that the judge blew it with respect to the obstruction charge against Joe. He was absolutely sure he heard the door chime. If the judge concluded that the was know unknown intruder, I really don’t see how she could have imagined any scenario in which Joe Price wasn’t (at a minimum) obstructing Justice.
Bill Orange,
Yes, Joe said he was absolutely sure he heard chimes and repeated that several times. However, if he were making up that fact, why not simply say that he heard, or may have heard, footsteps either coming up and down the steps as well? Instead he insists that he heard neither.
One thing that I’ve noticed is that in all of the questioning, beginning in the night of the murder, the authorities repeat over and over again that there is no sign whatsoever of an intruder anywhere.
Now, maybe, at some point in time the CSIs went over everything with a fine-toothed comb. But I can’t see that teams of investigators were out in the back yard or anywhere else that night on Swann Street with – what? Flood lights and scaffolds and microscopes and magnifying glasses and black lights? Not; like the DCPD that I remember.
Yet the authorities immediately took the strong position that there could have been no intruder. Period! And they held that position through out. Could be that they’re right of course. But whenever I see a bureaucracy so ready to prove a negative, and never deviating whatsoever from their first quickie report of a situation, I sometimes wonder.
Now, as far as the back gate goes, there are ways that could have been opened. A gate latch can be slipped from the outside, using a stick or hooked with a jimmy wire through the fence. Or, easily slipped with a credit card, just as many door locks can be. Maintenance guys or previous owners could have been careless with keys. And, is it so impossible that an intruder with socks over his sneakers or barefoot couldn’t have moved rather silently up and down stairs if he knew how? (Simply stay near the wall to avoid creaks.)
But to simply say that the intruder thing COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED seems extreme to me. It’s not like the defendants were suggesting that someone came down the chimney or used a skyhook. Even if one considers the intruder theory highly improbable, aren’t the other theories being tossed around here, concerning the defendants as killers a bit improbable as well? Without motives, history, evidence? How come most everyone on this site considers the defendants so definitely guilty?
Perhaps it’s, in part, because those who considered them likely to be not guilty have left the site once that verdict was reached.
I appreciate you correcting me when I’m wrong about something. Guess what? I make errors. And to those offended by my questioning this or that conclusion, I say, don’t bother to read my stuff if it bothers you. I’m just trying to reach those who may still have open minds. If I’ve jumped on anyone, it’s on those who dumped on me. I apologies. That wasn’t big of me.
You made me laugh out loud in thinking that the intruder used a credit card or other device to get IN the back gate yet climbed over the fence to get out (since it was deadbolted that can only be accomplished with an outside key).
Of course there are many possibilities one can come up with to explain each strange thing (maybe Joe told Tara he wiped blood because he was referring to having nicked himself shaving and hadn’t cleaned it so while he waited for the ambulance thought it was an excellent multi-tasking opportunity). When viewed in the context, however, as Judge Leibovitz did (and assuming she knows more than you or I) it was definite that that there was NO unknown intruder in their home that evening (her finding was unequivocal). And as she stated, she couldn’t pin down within a reasonable doubt as to WHO did WHAT, she clearly believed that at a minimum the three knew who killed Robert Wone and it was entirely possible that it was one/more of them.
The irony is that BECAUSE the three conspired and obstructed so well, none of them could be convicted of conspiracy and obstruction. In other words, not a truth-teller among them – and the three are VERY good criminals.
Bea: You said: “You made me laugh out loud in thinking that the intruder used a credit card or other device to get IN the back gate yet climbed over the fence to get out (since it was deadbolted that can only be accomplished with an outside key.”
Wha? Where on earth did you get that information?
According to more than one posting that I’ve read on this site, the gate in the back yard of 1509 Swann Street, was locked from the outside by a key, but easily opened from the inside via the use of a thumb latch. This is the norm for back yard gates. Where have you seen a situation where you needed a key to exit your back yard? Common back yard gates such as the one in question, can be opened from the inside upon exiting the yard but, if you’re setting your trash out, for instance, be careful not to let your gate close behind you because it will automatically re-latch and you will then need a key to re-enter your yard from the outside.
If this gate were of some other unusual configuration, such as being only open able from the inside via use of a key, then I think that that the prosecution or the Judge would have pointed out that interesting fact. But I can’t see that they did.
Where did you get your information regarding the gate latch? Did you just assume it?
Seriously, do you like just misunderstanding things – it does seem a tactic of yours.
My point is that YOU stated:
“Now, as far as the back gate goes, there are ways that could have been opened. A gate latch can be slipped from the outside, using a stick or hooked with a jimmy wire through the fence.”
This strongly suggests that you think the burglar did not scale the gate to get IN but instead opened the gate to get in. But we know that the back gate was indeed locked from the outside with a key when police investigated. Under your theory, the perp would jimmy open the lock to get IN yet if he went out using the latch then the gate would have been unlocked, which it was NOT. Are you suggesting he managed to get in without managing to unlock the gate and then scaled the fence to get out? A locked gate requiring a key is a pretty damning piece of evidence – would seem irrational to argue that he didn’t scale to get IN if he went over to get OUT.
But of course the most bizarre part was that Joe Price “knew” he hadn’t used the latch to leave – why? Because he knew for certain that the gate was still locked (with the key)? Methinks so.
You misunderstand entirely. As with a common door lock, slipping a gate latch mechanism to gain entrance, as with a credit card or whatever, does not unlock the cylinder.
The gate, though it has been opened, remains locked.
Upon exiting,a gate like this one, once it’s opened from the inside by the thumb latch, the lock mechanism does indeed remain locked. (The cylinder is on the outside only.) Once closed again the latch re-engages and a key is required to open it again from the outside. (Unless, of course, you are talking about slipping the latch again.)
No key was required to exit this gate nor would exiting it by using the thumb latch leave the gate unlocked on the outside once it was closed again. The cylinder on the outside, of course, remained locked. In other words, locking a gate and unlatching it to open it are too separate things, depending on which side of the gate you are on. Confusing? Not if you think it out.
This is not true of any lock I’ve encountered and I simply can’t imagine that the deadbolt lock could be “jimmied” to start with. But I don’t think you really care about what’s genuinely possible, and certainly not what is “likely.” You’ve never once addressed the fact that Joe “assumed” that the burglar
scaled the fence to exit. The ONLY reason one would assume that is if he knew the gate was locked. Since unlatching it would have unlocked it (yes, deadbolt latch), his assumption is yet another example of circumstantial evidence of his guilt.
Bea,
You say,
“You’ve never once addressed the fact that Joe “assumed” that the burglar
scaled the fence to exit. The ONLY reason one would assume that is if he knew the gate was locked. Since unlatching it would have unlocked it (yes, deadbolt latch), his assumption is yet another example of circumstantial evidence of his guilt.”
Bea, yes he did know that the outside of the gate was locked, and he never said otherwise.
Where do you get the “Fact” that Joe “assumed” that the burglar scaled the fence to exit? As a matter of fact Joe never said that in his testimony. He obviously assumes and suggests the opposite. That the burglar could have simply gone out the gate using the thumb latch.
And, NO, unlatching the gate from the inside, WOULD NOT have unlocked the gate’s spring lock. Once re-closed, it would have remained locked to anyone trying to re-enter from the outside.
That’s the purpose of the gate’s lock/latch mechanism. To keep outsiders out, not to keep insiders in.
Of course Joe knows that the gate is locked. (From the outside only.) He also knows that one can easily exit that gate without it’s becomming unlocked.
(“deadbolt” latch, where did you get that?)
Has anyone ever said that there was a locked deadbolt on the gate?)
It seems clear to me that you’ve made a series of false assumptions here.
My back gate has a deadbolt. I use a thumb latch to exit. When I do, the gate is no longer locked and I must use a key from the outside to relock it. I believe this is standard. We are not talking about a spring lock. We are talking about a deadbolt lock which is opened from the inside by a latch and the outside by a key.
Joe specifically said that the door gate does NOT lock upon shutting it (spring lock).
Sheesh.
Bea, You say
“Joe “assumed” that the burglar
scaled the fence to exit.”
Bea, NO, On the contrary.
On page ten of the first recorded interrogation, after Joe suggests that an intruder could have gone out the back door, Sgt. Wagner asks him the question, “Then what did they do, jump the fence?”
Joe’s responds by saying that when asked that same question by some detective back at the house, His (Joe’s) response had been to ask “Why wouldn’t the person going out the back door go through the gate?”
Then he goes on to state that when he looked out, back at the house, the gate was not ajar. But he does not mention that it was locked, undoubtedly because, just as I’ve said, it would remain locked from the outside and not the inside.
I can’t see anywhere where Joe suggests that the exiting intruder jumped the fence.
Joe probably had a clearer understanding of how his gate operated at that point, than Sgt Wagner did.
Altguy, if you are reading Joe’s transcript and not seeing a “tell” that he’s lying, then you really aren’t being genuinely objective despite claims (and accusations as to others) to the contrary.
After the Detective (quoted by you) asks Joe, what did the burglar do – jump the fence? (strongly suggesting how ridiculous this is) then Joe shows his hand BECAUSE HE KNOWS THE GATE IS LOCKED. Otherwise, a normal person with NO knowledge would say that he didn’t know, probably that he went through the gate.
AS JOE ANSWERS:
“Yeah. And I was sitting in the living room saying to (indiscernible) like why in the hell would you jump the fence? Why wouldn’t the person going out the back door go through the gate?
DET: Well, how do you know –
SGT: Amen. Good thinking.
PRICE: Because I didn’t get to go out there but, you know, the gate was — as far as I could tell from where I was sitting, the gate (indiscernible) the gate was not ajar.”
First, Altguy, go look at the house photos again. He couldn’t have seen this. Second, so what if it was ajar? His point to detectives was that the burglar would have had to have pulled the door closed or he’d have seen it ajar. So it’s MORE ridiculous for a burglar to shut the door behind him (ceding for the moment that Joe COULD see) than it would be to scale the fence???
Just plain absurd. He’s lying. Would love to see the video of him stammering through all this.
Bea,
Unless the situation is as Joe knew it to be. The gate is ALWAYS open able from the inside with
out a key.
You’reinterpretation of his response not only makes no sense to me, but seems highlybiased Sorry.
Bea,
You say ”First, Altguy, go look at the house photos again. He couldn’t have seen this.”
Not by glancing out his back door or window, he couldn’t see the gate?
From the gallery photos of the kitchen, you can VERY CLEARY see the entire gate.
You say, “I simply can’t imagine that the deadbolt lock could be “jimmied” to start with.”.
Seriously, where did you get information that the gate had a dead bolt? Or even a double cylinder?
(Who would want to lock themselves in their own yard?)
Bloggers on this site have stated that the gate was open able from the inside by a thumb latch, and did not require a key to exit. (Only to enter.) Do you have information to the contrary?
If you do look at the two house photos, clearly showing the gate, you will see that it has many open slats in it. Why couldn’t an intruder have slipped something through the gate and depressed the inside thumb latch, thereby opening the gate? And why do you say that’s ridiculous?
Exiting said gate would not be at all a problem, as Joe clearly states, and understands. (It’s his house after all.)
And you ask why a murderer, hastening out said gate, would close the gate behind him? I would think that if he feared that he might have pursuers behind him coming from the house, he would indeed take a second to close the gate behind him, not wanting those in pursuit to see which way he went.
Logical to me. Why not to you?
The distance from where Price was in the living room to the gate, is the better part of 30 feet, probably more. The distance + any reflections from the lights, inside and out would’ve obscured pretty much everything on the patio from his vantage point I bet. And Price admitted he was sitting, where he may not even have had line of site over the kitchen island some 15 feet away, to discern anything about the gate. He may have been an Eagle Scout, but I doubt he had eagle eyes.
No one is ‘locked inside’ the patio – deadbolt requiring key from outside but with a thumb latch on inside.
If I’m a genuine unknown intruder trying to leave, I’ll use the deadbolt LATCH to EXIT. Would not occur to me to scale the fence. I’m less worried about shutting the gate door than I am having my ass get caught.
Joe’s theory ONLY makes sense if one knows that the gate remains locked.
Why can’t you get this??
· Bea on 07/20/2010 at 8:26 PM
Bea, You say,
“My back gate has a deadbolt. I use a thumb latch to exit. When I do, the gate is no longer locked and I must use a key from the outside to relock it. I believe this is standard. We are not talking about a spring lock. We are talking about a deadbolt lock which is opened from the inside by a latch and the outside by a key. Joe specifically said that the door gate does NOT lock upon shutting it (spring lock).” Sheesh.
I have closely read both of Joe’s interrogations as well as other reports and didn’t see this in Joe’s statements.
Can you tell me exactly where Joe (or anyone else) said that that gate does not remain locked upon shutting it after an exit?
I’d like to know where you saw that. If it’s true then one of my assumptions is wrong. (Perhaps more.)
I don’t know which kind of gate is standard, or if there is a standard, but I am familiar with gate locks, which do remain locked on the outside after exiting from the inside.
Trial, June 5, WMRW Post:
“One particular error that came to light last week regarded the locking mechanism on the patio gate to 1509 Swann Street. The testimony wasn’t clear for days, but we think we have it figured out in the wake of former MPD detective Bryan Waid’s time on the stand.
Based on defendant Joe Price’s statement to police, he said that the intruder would’ve climbed over the fence for entry and egress as well. For months, this has led us to believe that the dead bolt on the heavy patio gate was keyed on both sides; it was not. The inside of the lock had a thumb latch on it to release the deadbolt, the outside was keyed.”
Thanks,
Doesn’t say, however, if opening the gate with the thumb latch unlocks the gate (revolves the cylendar) so that it becomes unlocked on the outside.
The house is for sale. Schedule a viewing and test the damn gate.
“cylendar”
Ben! we have all missed you so much. Don’t hide your light under a bushel!
“But to simply say that the intruder thing COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED seems extreme to me.”
I wouldn’t go so far as to say it’s impossible. I just think it’s extremely unlikely.
“Perhaps it’s, in part, because those who considered them likely to be not guilty have left the site once that verdict was reached.”
Possible, but again, I think that’s extremely unlikely. Most–if not all–of us expected either simple verdicts of guilty or not guilty. What we ended up with is a rather bizarre verdict of at-least-one-of-them-is-guilty-but-I-can’t-be-sure-which-one(s)-so-I’m-finding-them-all-not-guilty. There’s simply no way you can read that verdict and think that the defendants were truly exonerated.
“How come most everyone on this site considers the defendants so definitely guilty?”
Largely because they had a dead body in their guest bedroom, and they won’t testify as to how it got there. That’s why many of us are still here–because the defendants STILL aren’t talking, and there’s a civil suit in progress that’s going to drag a lot of people in for depositions. I think that’s going to go a long way toward getting some answers about what happened to Robert Wone.
This conversation reminds me of the very sad story of Dr. Sam Shepard, Cleveland’s own true crime inspiration for The Fugitive. Dr. Sam was a wealthy womanizer whose pregnant wife was bludgeoned to death in their bed while he was home. Rather than sob uncontrollably about the horrible thing done to his wife, Dr. Sam played the victim, donned a neck brace and was whisked off to his family’s osteopathic hospital where he could not be questioned for days. Ultimately, he claimed he awoke in his home, struggled with a “bushy haired man,” was knocked unconscious and found his bloody, dead wife. Of course he was tried and when the jury heard about what a horrible womanizer he was, he was sentenced to life for the murder. The conviction was overturned by the US Supreme Court, and he was acquitted on retrial in the case that made F. Lee Bailey’s career. Even with the ultimate acquittal, Dr. Sam died a broken, disgraced man, for most everyone believed he did it. In Cleveland, many still do.
But. . . Turns out, a guy who washed windows at the Shepard home in the weeks before the murder was, years later, convicted of multiple murders. His DNA matched the drops of blood found in the Shepard home at the time of the murder. He confessed to the murder, but then recanted. Oh, and I understand he had a big head of bushy hair. . .
Don’t get me wrong, I think that if you see hoof marks in the Midwest, think horse, not zebra. Still, like Dr. Sam, either these guys are guilty, or they are incredibly, odds-defying, unlucky as heck. . .
And, again, he avoided the police, which made him look suspicious. The case of Gary Condit gets cited a lot on here, too. As far as I’m concerned, Condit deserved the third degree. If you’re mistress vanishes into thin air, the police are going to have some questions for you. If you lie about her being your mistress, they’re going to have even more questions for you. A similar line of reasoning holds for people whose houseguests end up stabbed to death.
Hey Bill Orange – I had the same take on Gary Condit that you express here, believing that he had lied to the police thereby diverting their attention from other possible culprits. But I read – somewhere on this blog recently – that he divulged his relationship with Chandra Levy during his first police interview. Actually it was the news media he refused to provide the truth of the relationship to (and so what?) He may be a cad, but the blame for a botched investigationcan’t be laid at his feet.
I still think Gary Condit had something to do with CL’s death. She left her apt w/o her wallet. She was instructed by Condit to never bring her ID with her when they were together. I think she became to demanding of him. She told her family about him.
craig,
“You wandered in here about two weeks and expect to be treated as if you have the wisdom of King Solomon. The simple act of naysaying doesn’t get you that crown.”
I am smart enough to see that you are mostly a group that doesn’t like outside opinions. Though a couple of folks here have really seen merit in my attempt to come up with alternative views, many of you obviously feel threatened by any such attempt. I’m not sure why. You simply enjoy smelling your own farts, I guess. I leave you to, yourselves.
It boils down to the fact that you haven’t managed to convince anyone, and so you blame us for not being wise enough to take your theories as gospel. Talk about someone with their head up their own arse.
If you had anything legitimate to say, you’d say it for its own sake, not because everyone fell in line and made you the new pied piper.
Enjoy smelling your own farts???? What the….who the…how the…what the hell does that mean? My farts of course smell like a combination of lavender and vanilla with a hint of rose, so I of course enjoy their smell, but what has that got to do with this case?
alternateguy says: “I leave you to, yourselves.”
Oh, stop. You said that before. You know you can’t pry yourself away.
And he’s back again. Obviously, anything he says is suspect. How many more times will he announce his departure?
How many more times will Cher do a farewell concert tour?
Our symphony of “farts”, I guess, is just too fragrant to pass up, even for alt.
I don’t really feel threatened by anyone on here. Nor do I enjoy smelling my own farts. I’ve been open to alternative opinions on here, and I’ll freely admit that several of my predictions have been flat-out wrong. For example, I thought that all three were going to be convicted, and they weren’t. That being said, it’s a blog, and you should expect to be jostled around every now and then. It just goes with the territory.
Alternateguy:
You appear to me to have come into this blog to sabotage it- cause mischief.
I do not see any search for the truth coming from you.
Frankly, I disregard your comments, would not waste my time on them.
This is one of the problems with freedom-irresponsibility.
I suspect that you one of the defendants or related to them in some way.
This is just a game to you I suspect.
He’s already lied to us twice about leaving. Shortly after, we discover that he’s still here. Perhaps he’s trying out for the Carlotta Campion role in a drag version of Stephen Sondheim’s “Follies.” Carlotta was the role made famous by Yvonne De Carlo who sang the show-stopping “I’m Still Here.”
Maybe like another great interperter of that song, Shirley MacLaine, he has many lives?
Bill 2,
Yeah, I’m still here. More than one kind blogger, as well as one of the editors, asked me to stay. I do have other things I should be doing. And I suspect that’s true of most of you.
EAGLE,
(I guess an eagle would be all for freedom and responsability.)
Perhaps I came here to sabotage (alter) some particular views of what this blog is about.
Pardon my mixed metaphors, but when I first encountered this site, I found that a lot of bloggers here, but not all, seemed to be jumping on a bandwagon to railroad the defendants.
So don’t waste your time on my comments if you can’t see that truth that sometimes comes from looking at things from different angles..
It’s a contradiction on your part to both suspect that I’m involved with the defendants and am seeing this as “just a game.”
While I’m quite positive that none of them see this as a game, I have no relationship to the defendants, except to see them as some guys engulfed in a terrible tragedy that may or may not be of their making.
Don’t leave, alt! Even though I disagree with nearly everything that you say, please continue to post, if only to give a sense of where Mr. Roswell and/or Spag may go with their defense in the upcoming trial.
carolina on 07/21/2010 at 7:27 AM
And he can see a lock in the dark? Damn, I want their optometrist.
– No I think the point of that thread is that he can see whether a gate was ajar in the dark.
But, carolina since you are so willing to tell people to go back and look at the evidence and you consistently call people out for missing facts, I would just like to point out that it appears that back area was very well lit. Please see JP Transcript p, 12 Line 4 – there was a light in the tree box in the back and JP Transcript p. 13 line 6 the back alley is very well lit. Please let me know if I am missing something that contradicts this testimony.
Bea on 07/21/2010 at 12:31 AM
Page 10, Line 4-5.
SGT: “And then this person – what did they do? Jump the fence?”
PRICE:
“Yeah.”
(Then says how illogical it was that the “intruder” didn’t go through the gate door, but gosh darn it, Joe implies, he must have.
But he knew it was locked.
– Bea it seems to me you are the one taking this quote out of context.
The problem with a police interrogation transcript is that everything is written line by line when this is not how conversations actually go. People talk over each other and acknowledge questions with words and gestures. Without seeing this part of the actual interview I think it is hard for any of us to glean exactly what JP was saying. I do think that both Bea and altguy have valid interpretations of that seven line statement. Unless we can hear the actual interrogation I think basing opinions on the transcript is very risky. Things are easily misquoted or out of order or just difficult to interpret.
KiKi:
Our eds have promised to post the full interrogation videos as soon as they are made available. Why don’t we all table this discussion and then take a fresh, objective look once they are posted?
I’m sure there are many subtleties we’ll all pick up, whatever our perspective.
I absolutely agree. I think we will all (no matter what our current thoughts are) be surprised at the differences in the videos vs the transcripts.
Defensive, aren’t we? Relax, honey. You may have run off FCSP but I ain’t goin’ nowhere.
In answer to this pencil-thin answer of carolina’s (to alternateguy or “altenateguy” when he gets too excited and types too fast) upthread:
” carolina on 07/21/2010 at 7:25 AM … SO you were wrong. It seems you make up just about anything to be contrary. If only the prosecution had you to sharpen their arguments!”
Carolina my dear, I think it would be safe to say that though unfortunately the prosecution does not have the benefit of this poster’s wisdom outside of this blog that the defense quite likely does.
Ever a person interested in timing, going so far as to think timing is all, I wonder at this mighty storm in a tea cup having taken place yesterday. My own feeling at the time was that Bea’s services were sorely needed elsewhere ~ like the real estate thread ~ at that juncture, yet “altenateguy” was valiantly taking one for the team over here (for hours) during the initial phases of the real estate skirmish. Odd I say, very odd. Fortunately, this is an internet blog and, as this very thread demonstrates, one can reenter the fray at any virtual point in the argument at any time.
Paging Bea.
So I believe what you’re saying, my dear, is that we have a flag boy drawing fire with his bullshit. Imagine that with this case!
Sorry, I didn’t know you guys were a team. Didn’t mean to interrupt you’re business. I’m just some old guy who obviously is no team player. Never was, really.
OK, I’ll accept that
Victor Zaborksy’s been working hard “to inspire and encourage families to share special moments with each other over OREO cookies and milk, just as Shaquille and his mom Lucille have done since he was young,” said Victor Zaborsky, marketing director, Milk Processor Education Program (MilkPEP). “We cannot think of a better partner to invite into our campaign than ‘Milk’s Favorite Cookie.'”
O’Neal has been a key player in the OREO brand’s Double Stuf Racing League (DSRL) campaign, and believes the partnership is a natural fit. “OREO cookies and milk are a slam dunk in my book. My mom and I have enjoyed them together since I was a little kid. Now, as an adult, I do the same with my children,” said Shaquille O’Neal. “It was fun to share another ‘dunk’ with my mom in this upcoming ad.”
I guess Victor has since moved on from previous attempts to inspire his dysfunctional family to bond over burned steaks, the S&M partner in the downstairs room, and dunking a dead body in the bathroom tub.
Perhaps given Victor’s renewed power within the family, Joe has been allowed to dunk his Oreos in skim milk only.
I wonder if Shaq and his mom know about August 2 and Victor’s 911 call. If they did, would they be working with Ma’am?
It is good, though, to see Victor out there working: can anyone imagine sitting home with Culuket?
Does milk do a body good? This just in:
http://southeastdairy.fueluptoplay60.com/2011-sammy-student-athlete-milk-mustache-of-the-year-award-winners-announced/
BTW, that is VZ in the photo on the right-hand side-June 2011.
Good find, Susan! He must be both well-liked and good at his job to have his employer back him through this. Crazy stuff.
Milk has been good to him. It’s not ecstasy or whatever else might have been at 1509 Swann.
I’d like a tox screen on all three of them right now. Victor’s the most likely to be clean – but maybe their station in life, and some life lessons, has changed them all in that regard.
Anyone ever played with the “Wayback Machine” on the web? It takes you back to “snapshots” of websites on particular days (depending on the site, it may be only a few each year). I went back to the August 2006 site of MilkPep and found this:
“Were you at the Sales Meeting?
More than 200 processors and ADA representatives attended theMilkPEP Sales Meeting July 31-August 2 in Denver. At the meeting attendees learned the nuts-and-bolts of MilkPEP’s 2007 programs, had a tutorial on best practices for improving school milk and garnered insights into the growing Hispanic market. To learn more about the meeting, download the session decks and get information about 2007 programming, click here.”
Unfortunately, one can’t (using this program, anyway) “click” past this as it reroutes to asking for a log-in name/password. Anyone out there a member? Anyway, it looks like this is “the” big annual meeting for the dairy industry put on by MilkPep – and while I can’t find THAT year’s schedule, I did find another year in which the FINAL night included (after the “awards” show) a trip to the House of Blues for an event-ending gala.
I don’t know the first thing about this event. But IF there was a big gala ending on August 2, 2006, why did Victor not stay for it? Moreover, while we know he “came home early” it’s not been definitively established that he was certain to come home that night at all. There were certainly hints or suggestions that he’d caught an earlier flight from Denver but one would think the Marketing Director would have to stay and glad-hand until the end, go to sleep in the “host” hotel, and leave the next morning.
If anyone has “ins” with the prosecutors or the civil trial plaintiff’s lawyers, I’d love to know for sure that he didn’t have his room booked for that night in Denver. Maybe the format/schedule was different that year, of course, or maybe my assumption is incorrect that a person in his position would be expected to stick around until the end, but it does seem very odd to me. And we know that he was/is good at his job by the fact they’ve kept him on through thick and thin – wouldn’t his employer be curious why he skipped out on the final schmooze-fest? And once the news broke, wouldn’t they ask about the coincidence?
Possibly this is just me making a mountain out of a mole hill. Thoughts, anyone?
FYI, if you look at a 2002 entry at Arent Fox, you’ll see a much thinner Joe Price.
Mountain or mole hill, it’s food for thought, Bea. You and Susan have come up with some very interesting links and events. We owe thanks to both you and Susan for your dedication.
Good find, Bea. I’ll bet the investigators didn’t even look into that, given their cursory questioning of the three the night of the murder. I’d really like to know more about this issue too. Was Victor’s appearance at 1509 Swann St. a surprise to Joe and Dylan? Was he mad that Robert was staying over and did Joe and Dylan give him the impression that Robert was going to voluntarily be with them that night? What did Sarah know or say to Victor about it? I hope, if this case really is still being “actively investigated” by MPD, that someone is still trailing Sarah Morgan, Mike Price, Louis Hinton, and Scott Hixson as well.
I’d bet that Cathy Lanier’s interpretation of this case being “actively investigated” is that the name “Robert Wone” is merely on a list of unsolved murders. It’s not going to ever move to the front burner unless there is pressure coming down on Chief Lanier from the DC mayor and city Council.
It would be nice to think that DC detectives are fishing for additional info from Sarah Morgan, Mike Price, Louis Hinton, and Scott Hixson, but that’s a pipe dream.
Interesting stuff, Bea. That whole “coming back early” business is still unsettled in both our minds, apparently.
Yes. Emphasis on “apparently” (Victor’s strange wording during the 911 call).
I know when I’ve been at these kind of “events” I might try to duck out early (hate mingling) but not if I’m part of the host firm/organization (and I’m not Marketing). But to be back by 6:00pm into DC would require leaving early/mid afternoon, which seems crazy if there was an awards dinner and gala that night (IF similar to another year’s schedules). Surprise, surprise – calls Joe only when he arrives in DC.
There may be a logical explanation. Or not.
Very interesting Bea. What makes me think that the MPD didn’t even vaguely investigate what Victor was exactly supposed to be doing while out of town, what his original travel plans were before he changed them, if he had work responsibilities that he did not meet, what he told his bosses when he left, if Sarah or anyone else called him from DC or at what time he changed his plane reservations … what makes me think that?
Maybe the Eds will have some idea if the cops/prosecution ever checked to see if Victor was booked for the room that night (if not checked out by noon, did MilkPep pay – seems relevant) and if he had an ORIGINAL flight the next day or if it was later that night. Maybe he had “approval” to go home after most of the events ended, but it’s certainly curious – anything TRIGGER the rush home? Did he MISS anything important? I’d think that glad-handing would be a big part of the marketing guy’s job – this was bread and butter stuff, it would seem.
I just assumed it was a routine business trip – I really hope this was mined (calls to/fro Sarah? and was this a night Joe & Dyl expected to have entirely to themselves?).
AnnaZed, I hope the MPD is WAY ahead of us. But I’ve hoped for quite a number of things in this case that didn’t happen.
Oh, Bea. I can’t believe the DC MPD is way ahead of anything. Really. Sad, but true. Maybe if Cathy Lanier kept her word there would be some activity. But those were the laziest questioning sessions ever (VCB). Seriously. The city should be paying you, the editors and others for doing work they should have been doing!
Bea, all interesting points.
It makes me dwell for a moment on what we don’t know about the police investigation, such as:
(1) We do not have either complete transcripts or complete videos of all interviews of the Swann 3 the night of the murder, correct?
(2) We simply don’t know if the police had the Swann 3 disrobe and look for body injuries or track marks, because of (1) above, and further because such searches would unlikely be transcribed or videotaped, correct?
This question may be very naive, but is it possible to do a FOIA request for all police documents, photos and videos in a case that the police say is still “pending?”
Narrowing the issues: We know we don’t have everything from the police. Can we do FOIA requests that may bring up new material for us to discuss in trying to determine WMRW?
Have a nice day!!
Continuing with my naivety, could we at least get through an FOIA request those documents that the police provided the defense at any time? If they provided it to the defense, they may have no claim for confidentiality or claim of risk to an on-going police investigation. Just thinking out loud here.
Peace.
Bruce,
You probably didn’t follow the posts re the proceedings for what was to be the civil case but the MPD has argued that they still have an ongoing investigation. Mentioned many times here including this week. So there would be exemptions for releasing any of that so far non-public material wouldn’t there be?
Didn’t see your second post/your afterthoughts to FOIA requests for that info. Same argument would apply.
Why would materials that have already been disclosed to the defense be protected from a FOIA request?
My guess is that if we were able to get everything the prosecutors provided the defendants in the criminal trial, there is the risk we may not get much more than we already have, but also the real possibility of getting quite a bit more than we have now. But, it is a gamble.
And, future scholars of crime and (little) punishment may thank us for releasing and saving those precious primary sources. Any such materials, upon receipt, should be immediately deposited either in the National Archives in Philadelphia or in the Special Collections room at the Swem Library’s Archives at the College of William and Mary. Happy Michael-mas!
Boo!
More Victor Zaborsky-in-the-news:
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=159610
Your link didn’t go to the article, that is if you mean this one:
http://tinyurl.com/Got-Milk-Goes-Peanuts-For-H (Halloween)
It mentions the Maggie Gyllenhaal ads too. I’m pretty sure that the nutrients in the milk in a latte are negligible, but whatever.
I wonder who mans the http://twitter.com/#!/MilkMustache MilkMustache twitter feed?
Thanks, AnnaZed. Both links work when I click ’em. Here’s one on whether or not choc. milk is good or bad for kids:(we can’t leave VZ to be the sole spokesperson here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/09/chocolate-milk-bad-for-health_n_953845.html)
Victor admitted that he felt “old” around the boys, but going back to the future with Peanuts really may show his age and his brilliance (at marketing a seemingly lost cause.)
Has chocolate milk finally replaced cheap wine at the Miami Shores bungalow? Will the trouple members again trot out their Cerberus outfit for Halloween, or they all be “Great Pumpkins” due to gravity and expanding waistlines?
Maybe Miami Shores was Victor’s Victory: with the stable paycheck, he got to pick the dullsville location and its protection (not letting Joe walk away to Wilton Manors’ excursions).
Victor IS Charlie Brown, time and time again returning NOT to be duped, only to be duped again.
While he may be doing okay with his work for MilkPEP, it’s easy to see that he’s Charlie Brown in his personal life.
Somebody will always pull that football away so he’ll never know the joy of the game. He’ll never be a winner as long as he plays with the same team – a team of two who only need him for one thing: his silence about the death of Robert Wone. If not for that, he could be kicked to the curb and easily replaced with some trick from Craigslist.
And, that’s why he’ll always stay loyal to Team Price — fear of being alone. As Little Edie said in Grey Gardens, if you cannot get a man to propose to you, then you might as well be dead. After an unsuccessful and half-hearted bid by Dyl to become Mrs. “J.R.” Price, Victor got his partnership formalized in the spring of 2006. This agreement and the events of August 2 may have cemented the seemingly indissolvable bonds between Culuket and Ma’am.
The only way Victor breaks rank is if Joe kicks him to the curb for someone demanding an actual MRS. degree. While Joe is too smart to do that, he’s volatile enough that it may happen someday, believing that Victor will remain loyal even if dethroned. Joe likes playing with fire – the question will always linger in my mind. If he has no financial success and that mid-life crisis kicks in, he may well have a meltdown.
With which fires may one play, Bea, if one has no money and has no figure (in status and body-conscious south Florida?)
Alas, a glacially slow fade rather than a volcanic meltdown may be in store for Culuket as well as for this “actively-investigated” case, I am afraid.
I continue to be far less sympathetic to Victor than everyone else, it seems. He’s had five years to jump ship, and he has continued to stay on board, despite the fact that someone was stabbed to death in his house, and he’s been thoroughly humiliated in public. Generally speaking, if someone wants to stay in a bad relationship, I’m of the opinion that that’s their choice, but when someone winds up dead, you really should rethink that decision.
Furthermore, if I were the prosecutor on this case, Victor would be the first one I’d hit with murder/manslaughter charges (with Joe and Dylan as unindicted co-conspirators), because objectively speaking, the evidence against him is the strongest:
1. His reported behavior in the 24 hours prior to the death of Robert Wone was extraordinarily bizarre, including returning from a business trip early without telling anyone he was coming home, trying to chase Joe Price down at the gym, claiming he didn’t know that there would be a houseguest that evening, and then refusing to come downstairs to greet the guest when he arrived. By contrast, Joe and Dylan’s behavior that day, up until the 911 call, seemed to be fairly normal.
2. Victor made the 911 call, which can by played in its entirety for a jury. In the call, you can hear Victor telling Joe exactly how to place the towel(s) on Robert Wone, yet Joe was doing nothing to help Robert when EMS arrived. Keep in mind that Robert Wone was still alive at this point–both EMS and the ER noted pulseless electrical activity, meaning that his heart was still active and trying to pump blood.
3. There was a treasure trove of S&M gear found in Victor’s house. Granted, it was found in “Dylan’s room”, but I can’t see any way that the defense will be able to disassociate the gear from Victor. Any receipts will likely show that the gear was purchased by Victor’s registered domestic partner, and there’s no way to show that the room “belonged” to Dylan without producing a signed lease (which I doubt exists) or putting one of the three on the stand to testify to this effect. Furthermore, Victor reportedly like to stay in while the boys went out clubbing. It can be implied that he he like to have others over during these times rather than staying home alone.
4. Victor will make for the most dramatic “Law & Order” style arrest. He can be taken into custody during one of these ridiculous “milk mustache” events to ensure media coverage of the arrest and to ensure that everyone in the ad industry knows that he’s been arrested for murder. We never saw any sexual assault evidence at Robert Wone’s trial, but if the police are holding any such evidence in reserve, I’d throw in a sexual assault charge, too.
5. I would argue strongly against bail, given the gravity of the charges.
6. The verdict in the case is largely irrelevant for the prosecution. If he’s found not guilty, he has no additional fifth amendment rights and can be interviewed extensively by the police. If he’s found guilty, he can just rot in jail until he decides to talk.
Note that all of this assumes that the insurance company is not currently investigating this case. Under that scenario, I’d hold off on all charges until the insurance company was done with its investigation.
Bill O, I’d LIKE it if the prosecution tried anything to move this case forward, but I don’t see this happening (despite it having a lot of merit).
I’m not sure it would get to trial – the judge might see the “math problem” in the preliminary hearing (or the jury in a grand jury) but one has much better chances there since the standard of proof is only “probable cause” (and all sorts of evidence comes in that might not be allowed at trial). If one clears THAT hurdle, then no matter how much Joe and the lawyers Joe picks for him might tell him “you’ll win at trial” then Victor MIGHT have to rethink his position.
That said, I don’t think the prosecutors ACTUALLY believe Victor murdered Robert – and ethically a lawyer can’t bring charges against someone they don’t believe is guilty. In other words, playing an angle in this manner wouldn’t be acceptable. Now if they believe Dylan or Joe killed Robert. . .
I can’t see how the felony murder rule would NOT apply to Victor, but If the prosecutors don’t think he’s in any way responsible for Robert Wone’s death, they can immunize him. Either way, they can move forward. In any case, Victor is the starting point.
VZ in news….
http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/T9YNrigUQNZ/Actress+Nina+Dobrev+Launches+Like+Like+Searches/-zYDNl315jD/Victor+Zaborsky
When you see photos of Zaborsky posing for milk publicity, you have to wonder who is hopping in and out of his bed in Florida.
He looks amazingly refreshed; milk and a settlement do a (home)body good!
But while Ma’am is pictured with starlets and an unnamed Milkman in the Big Apple, what may Mr. Pure Energy and his would-be paramour be up to in Miami? The fleshpots of Wilton Manors are not that far away, as we have noted previously.
It’s a strong tribute to Kathy Wone’s good will that this man still has a job. If I had been in her place, I would be asking every celebrity in that campaign, “Got murderder? Because Victor Zaborsky does, and he’s not telling who it is.”
Victor certainly looks no worse for wear. Two years ago at this time, Miss High Heels was swanning around the halls of Moultrie, never once introducing herself to us, ever after several entreaties on our part. Even Victor was more engaged with us than her – him holding the door open to Leibo’s courtroom after a recess, for our dear Michael. Whatevs.
For the longest time we thought Legs worked for Schertler and Spag. That was just our guess since thay dynamic and pricey duo were in effect running the show. We learned that she was Bernie’s dame, well after hearing about her indiscreetely peddling the suicide theory. Who told us she belonged to Bernie? A chance meeting with a colleague of Schertler’s, of course.