City Desk

Witness: Joe Price Told Me ‘There’s a Difference’ Between Tampering and Wiping Up Blood

1509SwannTara Adams Ragone, an old friend of murdered D.C. attorney Robert Wone, testified Wednesday about phone conversations she had with suspect Joe Price in the aftermath of Wone's mysterious 2006 death.

Price and his Dupont Circle housemates Dylan Ward and Victor Zaborsky, stand accused of conspiracy, obstruction of justice and tampering with evidence in connection to Wone's killing.

"I hate that I'm having the questions that I'm having–but I have questions," Ragone recalled saying to Price during an Aug. 18, 2006, chat. "If the scene was tampered with," she later added, "I'd have a big problem with that."

To which, Ragone recalled Price saying, "There's a difference between tampering with a crime scene and wiping away blood because you're freaking out."

Prosecuting attorney Glenn Kirschner asked Ragone to describe another conversation, which occured four days after Wone's murder on Aug. 2, 2006. Ragone said Price was complaining about how police officers weren't processing the crime scene correctly, touching door knobs and such. Price had noted, in particular, that a glass on the kitchen counter had been overlooked entirely, she said.

Ragone also recalled Price venting about how police had so casually stopped at 7-11 en route to question him at the station that night while his friend's killer was still at large. Price and his fellow defendants have maintained that an unknown intruder broke into the house at 1509 Swann Street NW and killed their friend.

Several times during Ragone's testimony, Judge Lynn Leibovitz advised the gushing witness to slow down so the court reporter could keep up.

On cross-examination, defense attorney Bernie Grimm asked whether Ragone had been keeping up with "the blog" and other news articles on the case. Ragone said yes.

Staff photo by Alex Burchfield and Kim Chi Ha

Blog Widget by LinkWithin
  • DC Voter

    Some poor, hapless, soul, commenting and clearly a newcomer to "the blog", has made THE unforgiveable transgression. That of suggesting that there might just be a nugget of a possibility that Robert Wone was not a completely, 100%, irrevocably, always and forever, happily married for the nine lives of a cat, to the Madonna Kathy, straight guy.

    It was ugly! But have no fear, the trolls and harridans hurriedly arose on mass, like a fearsome wind from the west, brandishing their ripostes, and shielding Robert Wones good name with their ""homophobia" and "blaming the victim" cards.

    Herein Robert Wones "goodness" equates in equal measure to his straightness. While the defendants are guilty beyond question of the most depraved, debauched, behavior imaginable (and it is imagined, vividly and in detail, and much discussed on "the blog")to raise any question as to Wone, is to be homophobic.

    After putting that, not even worthy of disdain, notion to rest "again" the gang was relieved to get back to being 3rd tier Washington lawyers and kin happily nattering on about the proper use of the words "who" and "whom" and whether there is some dark psychological import to the failure on the part of the defendants as to remember whether they did or they did not put the cover back on the grill after barbecuing that night. "Normal" people would remember that, what are they covering up? It must be auto-electric ejaculation devices hidden in the shrubbery.

    I read somewhere yesterday that this case has cost taxpayers 100 million dollars. Can that possibly be true?

  • BlondeAnon

    I'm an avid reader of the blog and think it has a lot to do with why mainstream media is finally covering this trial. Many kudos to the editors of the blog for shining a light on this trial as well as Robert Wone's memory. The fact that they let all commenters voice their opinions, good, bad, or trolling, should be applauded as well.

    The commenter above seems put off by some commenters on the blog. Sometimes I am too, but it seems to me that nowadays all blogs and sites have the trolls. You take the good with the bad. I've learned to skip over the comments of those I find to merely be there to stir up trouble.

    Don't throw throw the baby out with the bathwater. The blog is a fantastic resource, and allows you to come to your own conclusions.

    As for Robert, I have no reason to think he was there to experiment, but if he were, it would in no way change my views of the case. That is simply irrelevant. It's clear that at some point, he was incapacitated, and unable to defend himself.

  • Keith B

    DC, if you're going to use such flowery language to craft a wall of text that pretty much says nothing, you could have at least used "en masse" properly.