Related To Story
Special Coverage
Blogs
Video Blogs
 Fake Travel InvoicesWecht Video Blog: Private Client Prospects |
Day 14: Bob Mayo Blogs The Cyril Wecht Trial In Pittsburgh
Channel 4 Action News reporter Bob Mayo is covering the trial of Dr. Cyril Wecht at the federal courthouse in downtown Pittsburgh. He will be posting blogs as often as possible from court. These are the raw notes that were sent on his mobile device.
Wecht Day 14 - Feb. 25, 2008 - 8:30 a.m. update The judge welcomes the jury back for a new week. He holds up what appears to be a sealed green envelope and tells the jury that he presumes that it's from them. He says he'll give it to his clerk for now. The judge says that he presumes it's a thank you for the cakes he's provided the jury. The judge then asks attorneys for both sides if they have any objection to his opening the card, saying that if they do then he'll keep it sealed until the end of the trial. Judge Schwab tells the attorneys that he's serious in saying that. The prosecution says it has no objection. The judge asks the defense if it has any objection. Attorney Jerry McDevitt answers "no".The judge gave a cake to all of the jurors at the end of the first week of the trial and again on day 13. Some of the jury members also got cake from the judge on day 8. He's also promised them cake at the end of each month of the trial, which is expected to run a total of eight to 10 weeks.(An aside: Attorneys are unlikely to object to jurors thanking the judge or to object to the judge's gifts of food to the jury; doing so would certainly not endear them to the panel that will decide Wecht's fate.)8:32 AM Witness Eileen Young, a former administrative assistant to Wecht, is back on the stand.Assistant U.S. Attorney Jim Wilson: Good morning, Miss Young. Hopefully the end is in sight.Tell who Dr. Ravano is. She says Dr. Ravano worked at St. Francis Medical Pavilion. She (Dr. Ravano) would review various items concerning the private practice. Not a coroner's office employee.Wilson shows government exhibit 200.530: Correspondence concerning the fees that Dr. P.Q. Ravano charged for reviewing items for Wecht Pathology. The letter from Wecht (typed by Young) expresses concern that the bills she is submitting for private work are starting to run higher. The letter points out that the bills being submitted by other doctors (those would be two doctors also working as employees of the coroner's office) are as little as half the rate as what she's been submitting.Wilson is continuing to do what he was doing last week when the trial recessed on Thursday. She's walking Young through various entries on the calendar she maintained for Wecht, then comparing relevant private invoices and payments made and received. She was maintaining this while working as Wecht's county-paid administrative assistant in the coroner's office. The entries and documents show phone consultations and other private work Wecht conducted at and through the coroner's office.8:56 AM Did Dr. Wecht review slides for these private cases on a microscope there in the coroner's office? She says he did.
He asks if Wecht had a microscope at his private office. She answers that she doesn't know.Now examining documents that show Wecht would go to his private office to give depositions in private cases.Wilson show government exhibit 300.15. In this deposition document, Wecht is asked "Do you have a microscope here in this office that you could look at? In the deposition, Wecht answers, "No, no, I don't."Back to Wecht's calendar: Tuesday, January 20, 2004. It notes a private meeting with attorney Abigail Williams concerning the Powers case. She doesn't recall if it's a private case. Another exhibit from January 26, 2004 involving the same person and case. She still doesn't remember.Now he shows a letter dated January 27, 2004 from attorney Abigail Williams, accompanied by a check. The witness acknowledges that it appears to be in payment for the matter noted in the calendar for the day before.Now examining an invoice to Williams dates February 10, 2004. It includes travel expenses of $1,140 and an airfare cancellation fee of $100.The prosecution has cited instances in which Wecht did not incur airfare cancellation fees but charged them to his private clients.9:48 AM Based on the documents reviewed this morning, Wilson asks whether it was a regular pattern of the defendant to conduct telephone consultations and meetings with private clients at the coroner's office. He has her silently review the binder containing a printout of the calendar she maintained for Wecht. She acknowledges the pattern.He shows government exhibit 200.205. It documents Wecht working with state police and prosecutors from Armstrong County on the case of Kristen Tater. The total charge for Wecht's work is $4,530. The $30 is for mileage on the case. The notation is 80 miles, Pittsburgh to Uniontown.He notes her testimony last week that the mileage charge was really for incidental expenses.10:06 AM The prosecution concludes its direct questioning of Eileen Young, which has spanned several days.10:07 AM Defense attorney Mark Rush begins his cross-examination. He notes this is day five of her testimony. She said yes, and that she's breathed a sigh of relief (that her direct examination is over).Rush: One thing the government has clearly established is that if state police of a prosecutor wants to reach Dr. Wecht, they know where to reach him, didn't they? Yes. They called him at the coroner's office.
District attorneys, law enforcement, they called Dr. Wecht about their cases at the Allegheny County coroner's office? Correct.
Homicide Detectives? Correct.
If the world needed Dr. Wecht on a matter, they knew they could reach him at the Allegheny County Coroner's office? Correct.
If they wanted his skill, his brain? And numerous civil lawyers, trained in the law? They knew where to reach him at the coroner's office.Rush introduces a document from Wecht's calendar. A notation mentioning arrangements made by Margaret Philbin, the publicist for the U.S. Attorney's office. It notes U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan was guest-hosting a radio talk show. The topic was the high homicide rate, gun violence, and gun trafficking. It indicates that a phone call would be placed by Buchanan to Wecht at the coroner's office phone number, so that Wecht could appear as her guest on the radio program.Document from September 20, 2004. Wecht was scheduled to appear at U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan's office for a news conference on DNA funding.10:20 AM Testimony is continuing.
Wecht Day 14 - Feb. 25, 2008 - 10:20 a.m. update Entry from September 19, 2003. FBI contacted Dr. Wecht to asking Wecht to be a master of ceremonies for a Pittsburgh CSI fundraiser for the Crime prevention association and the FBI. Young confirms she booked it in her role as his assistant in the coroner's office.Under Rush's questions, she describes working her two jobs-- for the coroner's office and for Wecht privately-- from 9 AM to 1 AM. She says that they blended.Introduces a memo from Dr. Wecht indicating a telephone conference with an Armstrong County assistant district attorney on a private case. Rush asks whether this prosecutor expressed any concern about Wecht conferring with him while at the coroner's office. She answers that he did not.10:30 AM Judge says they're breaking until 10:50.(Defense Attorney Rush is attempting to show that law enforcement officials from outlying counties had no problem with doing private business with Wecht at the coroner's office. Rush's words: "they were seeking justice." He's managed to document that U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan herself twice called upon Wecht to take part in activities unrelated to the coroner's office and that the FBI contacted him there to book him as the host of a fundraiser.)
Wecht Day 14 - Feb. 25, 2008 - 10:50 a.m. update Before the jury returns, the judge gives a heads up to the attorneys. He reminds them that the microphones in the courtroom are still on during the breaks. He indicates that means he can hear any comments within reach of the microphones back in his chamber.10:52 AM The jury is back. Rush notes that the January 5, 2004 appearance on the radio talk show was with the same Mary Beth Buchanan who signed the indictment against Dr. Wecht. The witness agrees.Rush turns attention to the Thursday, August 3, 2000. 10:30 AM calendar entry on a Westmoreland County homicide case. There's a notation for a phone conference with the Westmoreland County district attorney's office.Next: Wecht's calendar from September 2000. Monday, Sept. 25, 2:30 PM. Meeting with Westmoreland ADA Karen Patterson concerning the Philomena Robinson case at the coroner's office. Rush says this is homicide prosecution for Westmoreland County, not Allegheny County. Young says that's correct. Rush says he's adding Patterson to his list of state prosecutors who met with or conferred by phone with Wecht at the Allegheny County coroner's office.Next: Wednesday, January, 8 2003 at 3:30 PM. Meeting with DA Mark Aaron and Trooper William Myers to discuss the "baby Maco" case.
Rush: He's been involved in a lot of state prosecutions of homicide cases, has he not? Young: that's correct.
Rush: Let's add (Clarion County) DA Mark Aaron to our list.. and the trooper on the law enforcement side.
Rush: So we're now up to four district attorneys and one law enforcement officer.
Rush: In all the times Wecht used the microscope at the coroner's office, did it ever have to be replaced? Young: No.
Rush: So, he didn't wear it out, then? Young: No.Next: March, 2003. Tuesday the 18th at 3 PM. Meeting with (Greene County) Coroner Rohana, DA Marjorie Fox, State Trooper David Meyers.
Rush: Let's add Fox to our list of state prosecutors (who met with Wecht at the Allegheny County coroner's office on cases in which they used Wecht's private business.)Next: Wednesday, June 11, 1:30 PM. Meeting with an assistant district attorney from the Westmoreland County District Attorney's office. It took place with Wecht at the Allegheny County coroner's office. Young confirms document.Next: a document from 1998 recovered from her hard drive. She says she doesn't have any memory of it.Next: G-200.50. July 2003 Calendar entry. On Tuesday, July 22, at 3 PM. It says (Westmoreland) District Attorney John Peck wants to discussion at the Allegheny County Coroner's office concerning a homicide case. Young confirms document. Rush: Let's add District Attorney Peck to our list.Government exhibit 200.58
August 2003, Thursday, the 7th at 10:30 AM. Trooper Brian Gross will bring gun for tissue sample per request of (Westmoreland District Attorney) John Peck.
Rush: let's add Trooper Gross to our list of law enforcement who have come to the Allegheny County coroner's office.
Rush: Do you know if Dr. Wecht met with law enforcement and prosecutors at night and at weekend at his home. She confirms he did.Next: June 30, 2003 invoice sent to DA Peck on Wecht's private stationery.
Rush: No paper cost to Allegheny County? Young: That's correct.Government exhibit 200.151
Calendar from May, 2004. Tuesday, May 11, at 11 AM. Meeting with Assistant District Attorney Larry Koenig and two doctors from Children's' Hospital. She confirms it was a meeting at the coroner's office involving the prosecution of someone charged with murdering a child.
Rush: Let's add ADA Koenig to our list.
Rush: so we now have a total of eight different state prosecutors who have come to the Allegheny County coroner's office to meet with Dr. Wecht.Next: May, 2004. May 19, 10:30 AM. Meeting with Westmoreland ADA Judy Petrush.
Rush: let's add her to that list. Then later that day, her boss John Peck and Westmoreland County Coroner Ken Bacha.
Young confirms that Wecht does all the autopsies for Westmoreland County that Bacha determines are needed. Rush's questions also indicate that Bacha is not a medical doctor and does not do autopsies himself.July, 2004. Thursday, July 22nd. Meeting with an Asst DA Chris Nichols concerning a case.
Rush: Let's add Nichols. We now have 10 state prosecutors.
Did any of them express concern about meeting at the Allegheny County coroner's office concerning meeting at the coroner's office? Young: No, they preferred it.
Did they ever say they were concerned Dr. Wecht may be creating evidence for a federal mail fraud prosecution? Young: No.September 27 meeting with ADA Larry Koenig on the Adriana McIntire case. She believes it was a child homicide case.Next: Thursday, October 7, 2004. 1:20 PM. Meeting with ADA Greg DeFloria from Westmoreland County concerning the Jason Drake (child homicide) case.
Rush: Let's add Mr. DeFloria to the list.
Rush: He wasn't hiding these meetings, did they? Young: No.
Rush: They didn't slip in the side or back door, did they? No.
They weren't hiding what they were doing? Young: No.Next: October 20, 2004. ADA Karen Patterson meets with Wecht on Randy Gross case.Next: Meeting with Armstrong County ADA Chase McClister on the Kristen Tater case. Young says it's a case she'll never forget. Little girl starved to death by parents. An case from outside Allegheny County.11:35 AMRush now wants to introduce another document. The prosecution is questioning its relevance. This is a letter the witness prepared concerning the Kristen Tater case to Scott Andreassi, the DA of Armstrong County. it says the child died from severe malnutrition and dehydration.Next: Wecht calendar entry for Tuesday, April 6, 2004. 2 PM. Meeting with DA Marge Fox, ADA Linda Chambers, ADA Tim Maher.
Rush: these three state prosecutors met with him at the Allegheny County Coroner's office.
Rush: that takes us to 14 state prosecutors. Any of these ever express any concern whatsoever about meeting at the Allegheny County Coroner's office? Young: No.
Did they ever express any concern this may be a violation of the federal mail fraud statute? No.
How long did it take to enter this calendar entry? Young: 30 seconds.
Rush: Did it ever occur to you putting in this entry may be a federal violation? Young: No.Next: another entry. Rush increases the count of state prosecutors who met with Wecht to 15.Next: May 21, 2003, 10 AM. Meeting with Charlie Moffat (now the County Police Superintendent. Formerly assistant City Police Chief)
Other names in the meeting: Kritko, Fochtman, Tim & Joe.
She does not know what that meeting was about.Next: Wecht schedule from June 2003. Tuesday June 3, 2 PM: Corporal Ray Melder, per Joe D (Dominick) at the Allegheny County Coroner's office.Next: December, 2003, the 3rd at 1 PM. Corporal John Tobin and Trooper Tom Maher, state police meeting with Wecht concerning a Fayette County homicide.
Rush: Let's add them to our list. Did any of these state troopers -- we now have eight -- express any concerns they may somehow be violating federal laws? Young: No.
Rush: They were interested in investigating murders correct? Yes.
Not mail fraud? No.
Rush: When these meetings occurred, did you ever do typing for these folks? No.
Did they ever have you fax anything? She would have if they asked her.
Did it ever occur to you that it would be a crime to send a fax in an investigation of a homicide in another county? No.
The citizens of Allegheny County are pretty generous, aren't they? Yes.
During these visits, did Dr. Wecht provide cookies, and sweet rolls? Yes.
At his own expense? Yes. Then Young adds, "Chocolate candy, too."
Rush: During the direct examination, you discussed having meetings with Mr. Wilson, yes? Young: Many times, I did not keep track. When they asked, I would come.
Rush: More than 10? Yes.
More than 15? She names several people, says she never kept track. Says that prior to her grand jury testimony, it may have been every day.
Rush: How many times did you look at the image of your computer's disk drive with Mr. Wilson? She says she didn't keep track.
Rush: You never reviewed your laptop computer that Dr. Wecht provided, did you? No.
Rush: You reviewed a mirror image the FBI created? She indicates that's correct.
Rush: Were you present when your computer was seized by the FBI? Young: Yes. At the coroner's office.
Did you ever take the time to see if anything was deleted from the mirror image? No.
And you don't know how many agents may have handled that computer? Young: I have no idea.
Rush: did they ever show you any chain of custody logs? Young: No.12:00 Noon. Testimony is continuing.Do you remember moving boxes from the coroner's office to Wecht Pathology? A: 15 to 20.
Did they ever show you the documents they seized? Doesn't believe so.
In these many meetings with the government, did you ever tell them "If you show me the sheets, I can tell you how I billed them?" Yes.
Did they ever show you the sheet that you've testified that you relied on to bill the private clients? A: I cannot recall ever seeing on since this started.
Rush: We're going to show them to you.
Rush: Did you explain to the government that you did not use the American Express charges to bill the clients? A: A multitude of times.
Rush: They showed it to this jury time and time again and tried to show a correlation, and it's not what you used? A: That's correct. (She indicates that whenever possible she would pre-bill the clients for air fare expenses.)
Rush: These are estimates, correct? That's correct. (She indicates that she told clients that they would put a "guess-timate" and they had no problem, they said it would be fine.)
Rush: They had no problem with per diem...to get this brain. And you told that to the government, didn't you? A: Yes.
Many, many times before you appeared before this jury? A: That's correct.
You never once converted an American Express bill into an invoice, did you? That's correct.
And you told Mr. Wilson that before he asked this question before this jury. A: Yes.
Rush: Did you ever set out to defraud any clients out of an airfare charge for Dr. Wecht? A: I would never do that. I never reconciled the credit card charge with what I pre-billed.
Rush: And you didn't do that because the understanding with the client was 'this was the bill', if you have a problem, let me know. They never did? A: That's correct.
Did you ever get some right? I would hope the majority were right-- we were getting them from US Air. They called the airline and got it from them.
Says it didn't occur to her -- that she was never trying to trick anybody. "I was very honest with them."
Did Dr. Wecht ever say "let's pad these airfares?" A: Scoffs, "No, he would never ask me to do that."
Rush starts to introduce documents that apparently show notations on airfare figures gathered by Flo Johnson and provided to Young prior to the actual flights. The prosecution objects that it hasn't had the chance to review them. Rush says they were gathered as a result of her testimony. The judge says they'll break for lunch, and during lunch they'll be provided to the prosecution and the court.12:20 PM Breaks for lunch. Back at 1:30 PM.
Wecht Day 14 - Feb. 25, 2008 - 1:30 p.m. update The jury is not yet back in the room. Judge Schwab is ruling on the relevance and admissibility of defense evidence.
Rush says they are notes that Young relied upon in preparing billing to Wecht's private clients. He says he's been told the government has a wholesale objection to this evidence.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Steve Stallings says there's an order that says exhibits cannot be introduced without first being provided to the other side. He says the nature of some of the documents is such that he has serious questions about their authenticity and reliability. He says they can't verify the handwritten notes, who made them and when they were made.Judge: Why weren't they produced a long time ago?
Rush: We weren't aware that the airfares were going to be an issue to the extent that they were.The judge says since it's not in dispute that she relied on figures from Flo and the defendant, why is this necessary? Rush says it seems the government is disputing it. Judge asks if prosecution is willing to stipulate that the witness based her pre-billing figures on slips of paper Flo and the defendant provided. These are notations from calls to airline before the flight was booked.Judge: My suggestion is that you move to another area, and that the originals be provided to the government this afternoon so they can look at them tonight. We'll deal with this tomorrow morning.Rush says he might be able to make the point with three existing government exhibits.They're delaying bringing back the jury while they make arrangements to obtain the originals of the documents the defense wants to introduce.(Based on my blog report about the jury's note to the judge this morning, another reporter just requested a copy of the note from the judge's staff. The answer back from the judge via staff is "no." The staffer confirms that it was a thank-you note.)1:50 PM The jury is back. The judge apologized for the delay, saying it was necessary to save time later.Rush tells witness Young they're going to continue reviewing some of the airfare charges.Next document: Something Flo created when she called the airline to get figures on expected US Air costs for specific flights and dates. Flo would bring these handwritten notes back to her. Wecht might then check off which flight he wanted from the handwritten notes.Now Rush introduces an invoice "pre-bill" prior to the travel. Trip to Phoenix, Feb. 4-6, 2004. The figure matches one from the handwritten note, for a total of $662.70. That's the figure Flo obtained by phone from US Airways as recorded in he handwritten notes.Rush again has her confirm that she never relied on American Express credit card bills as the source of pricing for airfare. Rush now shows an American Express bill for this flight as $662.70. He says he's showing this to show that the figure sometimes did in fact match the pre-bill invoice.Rush: The government never showed that to you, did they? A: No.The defense introduces another document. This is another handwritten note from Flo (Johnson) recounting a call to US Airways to get flight and cost information. There's a notation from Wecht to Eileen Young that one of the entries seems perfect to accommodate meetings and testimony of the out of town private case. Rush shows the invoice and the American Express credit card bill: they match at $886.70... even though she did not use the credit card bill when she prepared the invoice.2:04 PM Rush introduces and shows to the witness another handwritten note from Flo (a private employee of Wecht) listing possible flight and cost information.Again, there's a handwritten notation from Wecht indicating which flight would work best for him. The price is $644.70, plus $5 reservation fee for a total of $649.70Now Rush has her confirm an October 4, 2004 invoice with the airfare listed as $649.70 matches the figure from the note to the penny.Again, Rush has her confirm an American Express bill for the flight for $654.70... $6 less than she charged the client. Rush asks if she were involved in a scheme to systematically overcharge private clients, she wouldn't be undercharging them, would she? Young answers no.Next exhibit: August 12, 2002 pre-bill invoice for a trip to Orlando on August 20. The round trip coach airfare is listed as $1,043.Now Rush shows the American Express bill for that trip: $1,043... matching the pre-bill figure.
Rush: As part of your practice, the information would come from? A: Flo or Dr. Wecht.
Right on the money? Yes.Another exhibit: February 3, 2002 pre-bill invoice for a trip to and from Scranton for $626.50. Now shows an American Express credit card bill for the flight for $626.50.Next: November 14, 2002 invoice for a trip on November 20, 2002 in keeping with her practice of "pre-billing." Round trip, Pittsburgh-Charlotte for $910. Now he shows the American Express credit card bill for $910.... the same figure as appeared on the pre-bill invoice.
Rush: he says again the practice was that Flo or Dr. Wecht would have obtained the estimated figure by phone from US Airways, she would have used that figure to bill the client.
He also notes and she agrees that the American Express credit card bill again shows no overcharge in this case.Another example: A pre-bill invoice for a round trip airfare to and from Erie for $572 on December 9, 2002. Again she shows that the American Express card bill of $572 matched. Rush again notes that she did not use the credit card bill as her source. He says his point is to show that there are credit card bills not shown to her by prosecution that document clients being billed correctly.Next: a pre-bill invoice showing an airfare, round trip, Pittsburgh-Rochester for $841 on 1/22/2003.Rush: Nobody inflated that number? Young: No.
Rush says sometimes the cost went up between the estimate obtained from the airline by Flo or Wecht and when the ticket was purchased. She agrees.
When that occurred that wasn't part of scheme? There wasn't any intent to defraud the clients? No.Moves on to numerous other examples in the same pattern: Invoices sent out before the flight, based on estimated figures obtained by Flo or Dr. Wecht by phone from the airline. Followed by credit card bills that show that in these cases the private clients were *not* overcharged. In some examples she actually undercharged the clients.2:52 PM Among the trip invoices is one for a round trip to New York in Sept, 2003 dealing with the case of basketball player Jayson Williams.3:07 PM Defense attorney Rush is continuing to walk witness Eileen Young through examples in which Wecht's private clients were not overcharged when pre-billed with invoices based on air fare estimates obtained beforehand from US Airways.3:10 PM Rush, in discussing yet another example:
Q: No scheme or artifice to defraud anyone here on airfare, is there? A: No.3:13 PM Judge asks the jury if they can go until 3:30. They agree.3:30 PM Day 14 of the Wecht Trial concludes. They'll be back in session at 8:30 AM Tuesday.
Wecht Day 14 - Feb. 25, 2008 - 8:30 a.m. update The judge welcomes the jury back for a new week. He holds up what appears to be a sealed green envelope and tells the jury that he presumes that it's from them. He says he'll give it to his clerk for now. The judge says that he presumes it's a thank you for the cakes he's provided the jury. The judge then asks attorneys for both sides if they have any objection to his opening the card, saying that if they do then he'll keep it sealed until the end of the trial. Judge Schwab tells the attorneys that he's serious in saying that. The prosecution says it has no objection. The judge asks the defense if it has any objection. Attorney Jerry McDevitt answers "no".The judge gave a cake to all of the jurors at the end of the first week of the trial and again on day 13. Some of the jury members also got cake from the judge on day 8. He's also promised them cake at the end of each month of the trial, which is expected to run a total of eight to 10 weeks.(An aside: Attorneys are unlikely to object to jurors thanking the judge or to object to the judge's gifts of food to the jury; doing so would certainly not endear them to the panel that will decide Wecht's fate.)8:32 AM Witness Eileen Young, a former administrative assistant to Wecht, is back on the stand.Assistant U.S. Attorney Jim Wilson: Good morning, Miss Young. Hopefully the end is in sight.Tell who Dr. Ravano is. She says Dr. Ravano worked at St. Francis Medical Pavilion. She (Dr. Ravano) would review various items concerning the private practice. Not a coroner's office employee.Wilson shows government exhibit 200.530: Correspondence concerning the fees that Dr. P.Q. Ravano charged for reviewing items for Wecht Pathology. The letter from Wecht (typed by Young) expresses concern that the bills she is submitting for private work are starting to run higher. The letter points out that the bills being submitted by other doctors (those would be two doctors also working as employees of the coroner's office) are as little as half the rate as what she's been submitting.Wilson is continuing to do what he was doing last week when the trial recessed on Thursday. She's walking Young through various entries on the calendar she maintained for Wecht, then comparing relevant private invoices and payments made and received. She was maintaining this while working as Wecht's county-paid administrative assistant in the coroner's office. The entries and documents show phone consultations and other private work Wecht conducted at and through the coroner's office.8:56 AM Did Dr. Wecht review slides for these private cases on a microscope there in the coroner's office? She says he did.
He asks if Wecht had a microscope at his private office. She answers that she doesn't know.Now examining documents that show Wecht would go to his private office to give depositions in private cases.Wilson show government exhibit 300.15. In this deposition document, Wecht is asked "Do you have a microscope here in this office that you could look at? In the deposition, Wecht answers, "No, no, I don't."Back to Wecht's calendar: Tuesday, January 20, 2004. It notes a private meeting with attorney Abigail Williams concerning the Powers case. She doesn't recall if it's a private case. Another exhibit from January 26, 2004 involving the same person and case. She still doesn't remember.Now he shows a letter dated January 27, 2004 from attorney Abigail Williams, accompanied by a check. The witness acknowledges that it appears to be in payment for the matter noted in the calendar for the day before.Now examining an invoice to Williams dates February 10, 2004. It includes travel expenses of $1,140 and an airfare cancellation fee of $100.The prosecution has cited instances in which Wecht did not incur airfare cancellation fees but charged them to his private clients.9:48 AM Based on the documents reviewed this morning, Wilson asks whether it was a regular pattern of the defendant to conduct telephone consultations and meetings with private clients at the coroner's office. He has her silently review the binder containing a printout of the calendar she maintained for Wecht. She acknowledges the pattern.He shows government exhibit 200.205. It documents Wecht working with state police and prosecutors from Armstrong County on the case of Kristen Tater. The total charge for Wecht's work is $4,530. The $30 is for mileage on the case. The notation is 80 miles, Pittsburgh to Uniontown.He notes her testimony last week that the mileage charge was really for incidental expenses.10:06 AM The prosecution concludes its direct questioning of Eileen Young, which has spanned several days.10:07 AM Defense attorney Mark Rush begins his cross-examination. He notes this is day five of her testimony. She said yes, and that she's breathed a sigh of relief (that her direct examination is over).Rush: One thing the government has clearly established is that if state police of a prosecutor wants to reach Dr. Wecht, they know where to reach him, didn't they? Yes. They called him at the coroner's office.
District attorneys, law enforcement, they called Dr. Wecht about their cases at the Allegheny County coroner's office? Correct.
Homicide Detectives? Correct.
If the world needed Dr. Wecht on a matter, they knew they could reach him at the Allegheny County Coroner's office? Correct.
If they wanted his skill, his brain? And numerous civil lawyers, trained in the law? They knew where to reach him at the coroner's office.Rush introduces a document from Wecht's calendar. A notation mentioning arrangements made by Margaret Philbin, the publicist for the U.S. Attorney's office. It notes U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan was guest-hosting a radio talk show. The topic was the high homicide rate, gun violence, and gun trafficking. It indicates that a phone call would be placed by Buchanan to Wecht at the coroner's office phone number, so that Wecht could appear as her guest on the radio program.Document from September 20, 2004. Wecht was scheduled to appear at U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan's office for a news conference on DNA funding.10:20 AM Testimony is continuing.
Wecht Day 14 - Feb. 25, 2008 - 10:20 a.m. update Entry from September 19, 2003. FBI contacted Dr. Wecht to asking Wecht to be a master of ceremonies for a Pittsburgh CSI fundraiser for the Crime prevention association and the FBI. Young confirms she booked it in her role as his assistant in the coroner's office.Under Rush's questions, she describes working her two jobs-- for the coroner's office and for Wecht privately-- from 9 AM to 1 AM. She says that they blended.Introduces a memo from Dr. Wecht indicating a telephone conference with an Armstrong County assistant district attorney on a private case. Rush asks whether this prosecutor expressed any concern about Wecht conferring with him while at the coroner's office. She answers that he did not.10:30 AM Judge says they're breaking until 10:50.(Defense Attorney Rush is attempting to show that law enforcement officials from outlying counties had no problem with doing private business with Wecht at the coroner's office. Rush's words: "they were seeking justice." He's managed to document that U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan herself twice called upon Wecht to take part in activities unrelated to the coroner's office and that the FBI contacted him there to book him as the host of a fundraiser.)
Wecht Day 14 - Feb. 25, 2008 - 10:50 a.m. update Before the jury returns, the judge gives a heads up to the attorneys. He reminds them that the microphones in the courtroom are still on during the breaks. He indicates that means he can hear any comments within reach of the microphones back in his chamber.10:52 AM The jury is back. Rush notes that the January 5, 2004 appearance on the radio talk show was with the same Mary Beth Buchanan who signed the indictment against Dr. Wecht. The witness agrees.Rush turns attention to the Thursday, August 3, 2000. 10:30 AM calendar entry on a Westmoreland County homicide case. There's a notation for a phone conference with the Westmoreland County district attorney's office.Next: Wecht's calendar from September 2000. Monday, Sept. 25, 2:30 PM. Meeting with Westmoreland ADA Karen Patterson concerning the Philomena Robinson case at the coroner's office. Rush says this is homicide prosecution for Westmoreland County, not Allegheny County. Young says that's correct. Rush says he's adding Patterson to his list of state prosecutors who met with or conferred by phone with Wecht at the Allegheny County coroner's office.Next: Wednesday, January, 8 2003 at 3:30 PM. Meeting with DA Mark Aaron and Trooper William Myers to discuss the "baby Maco" case.
Rush: He's been involved in a lot of state prosecutions of homicide cases, has he not? Young: that's correct.
Rush: Let's add (Clarion County) DA Mark Aaron to our list.. and the trooper on the law enforcement side.
Rush: So we're now up to four district attorneys and one law enforcement officer.
Rush: In all the times Wecht used the microscope at the coroner's office, did it ever have to be replaced? Young: No.
Rush: So, he didn't wear it out, then? Young: No.Next: March, 2003. Tuesday the 18th at 3 PM. Meeting with (Greene County) Coroner Rohana, DA Marjorie Fox, State Trooper David Meyers.
Rush: Let's add Fox to our list of state prosecutors (who met with Wecht at the Allegheny County coroner's office on cases in which they used Wecht's private business.)Next: Wednesday, June 11, 1:30 PM. Meeting with an assistant district attorney from the Westmoreland County District Attorney's office. It took place with Wecht at the Allegheny County coroner's office. Young confirms document.Next: a document from 1998 recovered from her hard drive. She says she doesn't have any memory of it.Next: G-200.50. July 2003 Calendar entry. On Tuesday, July 22, at 3 PM. It says (Westmoreland) District Attorney John Peck wants to discussion at the Allegheny County Coroner's office concerning a homicide case. Young confirms document. Rush: Let's add District Attorney Peck to our list.Government exhibit 200.58
August 2003, Thursday, the 7th at 10:30 AM. Trooper Brian Gross will bring gun for tissue sample per request of (Westmoreland District Attorney) John Peck.
Rush: let's add Trooper Gross to our list of law enforcement who have come to the Allegheny County coroner's office.
Rush: Do you know if Dr. Wecht met with law enforcement and prosecutors at night and at weekend at his home. She confirms he did.Next: June 30, 2003 invoice sent to DA Peck on Wecht's private stationery.
Rush: No paper cost to Allegheny County? Young: That's correct.Government exhibit 200.151
Calendar from May, 2004. Tuesday, May 11, at 11 AM. Meeting with Assistant District Attorney Larry Koenig and two doctors from Children's' Hospital. She confirms it was a meeting at the coroner's office involving the prosecution of someone charged with murdering a child.
Rush: Let's add ADA Koenig to our list.
Rush: so we now have a total of eight different state prosecutors who have come to the Allegheny County coroner's office to meet with Dr. Wecht.Next: May, 2004. May 19, 10:30 AM. Meeting with Westmoreland ADA Judy Petrush.
Rush: let's add her to that list. Then later that day, her boss John Peck and Westmoreland County Coroner Ken Bacha.
Young confirms that Wecht does all the autopsies for Westmoreland County that Bacha determines are needed. Rush's questions also indicate that Bacha is not a medical doctor and does not do autopsies himself.July, 2004. Thursday, July 22nd. Meeting with an Asst DA Chris Nichols concerning a case.
Rush: Let's add Nichols. We now have 10 state prosecutors.
Did any of them express concern about meeting at the Allegheny County coroner's office concerning meeting at the coroner's office? Young: No, they preferred it.
Did they ever say they were concerned Dr. Wecht may be creating evidence for a federal mail fraud prosecution? Young: No.September 27 meeting with ADA Larry Koenig on the Adriana McIntire case. She believes it was a child homicide case.Next: Thursday, October 7, 2004. 1:20 PM. Meeting with ADA Greg DeFloria from Westmoreland County concerning the Jason Drake (child homicide) case.
Rush: Let's add Mr. DeFloria to the list.
Rush: He wasn't hiding these meetings, did they? Young: No.
Rush: They didn't slip in the side or back door, did they? No.
They weren't hiding what they were doing? Young: No.Next: October 20, 2004. ADA Karen Patterson meets with Wecht on Randy Gross case.Next: Meeting with Armstrong County ADA Chase McClister on the Kristen Tater case. Young says it's a case she'll never forget. Little girl starved to death by parents. An case from outside Allegheny County.11:35 AMRush now wants to introduce another document. The prosecution is questioning its relevance. This is a letter the witness prepared concerning the Kristen Tater case to Scott Andreassi, the DA of Armstrong County. it says the child died from severe malnutrition and dehydration.Next: Wecht calendar entry for Tuesday, April 6, 2004. 2 PM. Meeting with DA Marge Fox, ADA Linda Chambers, ADA Tim Maher.
Rush: these three state prosecutors met with him at the Allegheny County Coroner's office.
Rush: that takes us to 14 state prosecutors. Any of these ever express any concern whatsoever about meeting at the Allegheny County Coroner's office? Young: No.
Did they ever express any concern this may be a violation of the federal mail fraud statute? No.
How long did it take to enter this calendar entry? Young: 30 seconds.
Rush: Did it ever occur to you putting in this entry may be a federal violation? Young: No.Next: another entry. Rush increases the count of state prosecutors who met with Wecht to 15.Next: May 21, 2003, 10 AM. Meeting with Charlie Moffat (now the County Police Superintendent. Formerly assistant City Police Chief)
Other names in the meeting: Kritko, Fochtman, Tim & Joe.
She does not know what that meeting was about.Next: Wecht schedule from June 2003. Tuesday June 3, 2 PM: Corporal Ray Melder, per Joe D (Dominick) at the Allegheny County Coroner's office.Next: December, 2003, the 3rd at 1 PM. Corporal John Tobin and Trooper Tom Maher, state police meeting with Wecht concerning a Fayette County homicide.
Rush: Let's add them to our list. Did any of these state troopers -- we now have eight -- express any concerns they may somehow be violating federal laws? Young: No.
Rush: They were interested in investigating murders correct? Yes.
Not mail fraud? No.
Rush: When these meetings occurred, did you ever do typing for these folks? No.
Did they ever have you fax anything? She would have if they asked her.
Did it ever occur to you that it would be a crime to send a fax in an investigation of a homicide in another county? No.
The citizens of Allegheny County are pretty generous, aren't they? Yes.
During these visits, did Dr. Wecht provide cookies, and sweet rolls? Yes.
At his own expense? Yes. Then Young adds, "Chocolate candy, too."
Rush: During the direct examination, you discussed having meetings with Mr. Wilson, yes? Young: Many times, I did not keep track. When they asked, I would come.
Rush: More than 10? Yes.
More than 15? She names several people, says she never kept track. Says that prior to her grand jury testimony, it may have been every day.
Rush: How many times did you look at the image of your computer's disk drive with Mr. Wilson? She says she didn't keep track.
Rush: You never reviewed your laptop computer that Dr. Wecht provided, did you? No.
Rush: You reviewed a mirror image the FBI created? She indicates that's correct.
Rush: Were you present when your computer was seized by the FBI? Young: Yes. At the coroner's office.
Did you ever take the time to see if anything was deleted from the mirror image? No.
And you don't know how many agents may have handled that computer? Young: I have no idea.
Rush: did they ever show you any chain of custody logs? Young: No.12:00 Noon. Testimony is continuing.Do you remember moving boxes from the coroner's office to Wecht Pathology? A: 15 to 20.
Did they ever show you the documents they seized? Doesn't believe so.
In these many meetings with the government, did you ever tell them "If you show me the sheets, I can tell you how I billed them?" Yes.
Did they ever show you the sheet that you've testified that you relied on to bill the private clients? A: I cannot recall ever seeing on since this started.
Rush: We're going to show them to you.
Rush: Did you explain to the government that you did not use the American Express charges to bill the clients? A: A multitude of times.
Rush: They showed it to this jury time and time again and tried to show a correlation, and it's not what you used? A: That's correct. (She indicates that whenever possible she would pre-bill the clients for air fare expenses.)
Rush: These are estimates, correct? That's correct. (She indicates that she told clients that they would put a "guess-timate" and they had no problem, they said it would be fine.)
Rush: They had no problem with per diem...to get this brain. And you told that to the government, didn't you? A: Yes.
Many, many times before you appeared before this jury? A: That's correct.
You never once converted an American Express bill into an invoice, did you? That's correct.
And you told Mr. Wilson that before he asked this question before this jury. A: Yes.
Rush: Did you ever set out to defraud any clients out of an airfare charge for Dr. Wecht? A: I would never do that. I never reconciled the credit card charge with what I pre-billed.
Rush: And you didn't do that because the understanding with the client was 'this was the bill', if you have a problem, let me know. They never did? A: That's correct.
Did you ever get some right? I would hope the majority were right-- we were getting them from US Air. They called the airline and got it from them.
Says it didn't occur to her -- that she was never trying to trick anybody. "I was very honest with them."
Did Dr. Wecht ever say "let's pad these airfares?" A: Scoffs, "No, he would never ask me to do that."
Rush starts to introduce documents that apparently show notations on airfare figures gathered by Flo Johnson and provided to Young prior to the actual flights. The prosecution objects that it hasn't had the chance to review them. Rush says they were gathered as a result of her testimony. The judge says they'll break for lunch, and during lunch they'll be provided to the prosecution and the court.12:20 PM Breaks for lunch. Back at 1:30 PM.
Wecht Day 14 - Feb. 25, 2008 - 1:30 p.m. update The jury is not yet back in the room. Judge Schwab is ruling on the relevance and admissibility of defense evidence.
Rush says they are notes that Young relied upon in preparing billing to Wecht's private clients. He says he's been told the government has a wholesale objection to this evidence.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Steve Stallings says there's an order that says exhibits cannot be introduced without first being provided to the other side. He says the nature of some of the documents is such that he has serious questions about their authenticity and reliability. He says they can't verify the handwritten notes, who made them and when they were made.Judge: Why weren't they produced a long time ago?
Rush: We weren't aware that the airfares were going to be an issue to the extent that they were.The judge says since it's not in dispute that she relied on figures from Flo and the defendant, why is this necessary? Rush says it seems the government is disputing it. Judge asks if prosecution is willing to stipulate that the witness based her pre-billing figures on slips of paper Flo and the defendant provided. These are notations from calls to airline before the flight was booked.Judge: My suggestion is that you move to another area, and that the originals be provided to the government this afternoon so they can look at them tonight. We'll deal with this tomorrow morning.Rush says he might be able to make the point with three existing government exhibits.They're delaying bringing back the jury while they make arrangements to obtain the originals of the documents the defense wants to introduce.(Based on my blog report about the jury's note to the judge this morning, another reporter just requested a copy of the note from the judge's staff. The answer back from the judge via staff is "no." The staffer confirms that it was a thank-you note.)1:50 PM The jury is back. The judge apologized for the delay, saying it was necessary to save time later.Rush tells witness Young they're going to continue reviewing some of the airfare charges.Next document: Something Flo created when she called the airline to get figures on expected US Air costs for specific flights and dates. Flo would bring these handwritten notes back to her. Wecht might then check off which flight he wanted from the handwritten notes.Now Rush introduces an invoice "pre-bill" prior to the travel. Trip to Phoenix, Feb. 4-6, 2004. The figure matches one from the handwritten note, for a total of $662.70. That's the figure Flo obtained by phone from US Airways as recorded in he handwritten notes.Rush again has her confirm that she never relied on American Express credit card bills as the source of pricing for airfare. Rush now shows an American Express bill for this flight as $662.70. He says he's showing this to show that the figure sometimes did in fact match the pre-bill invoice.Rush: The government never showed that to you, did they? A: No.The defense introduces another document. This is another handwritten note from Flo (Johnson) recounting a call to US Airways to get flight and cost information. There's a notation from Wecht to Eileen Young that one of the entries seems perfect to accommodate meetings and testimony of the out of town private case. Rush shows the invoice and the American Express credit card bill: they match at $886.70... even though she did not use the credit card bill when she prepared the invoice.2:04 PM Rush introduces and shows to the witness another handwritten note from Flo (a private employee of Wecht) listing possible flight and cost information.Again, there's a handwritten notation from Wecht indicating which flight would work best for him. The price is $644.70, plus $5 reservation fee for a total of $649.70Now Rush has her confirm an October 4, 2004 invoice with the airfare listed as $649.70 matches the figure from the note to the penny.Again, Rush has her confirm an American Express bill for the flight for $654.70... $6 less than she charged the client. Rush asks if she were involved in a scheme to systematically overcharge private clients, she wouldn't be undercharging them, would she? Young answers no.Next exhibit: August 12, 2002 pre-bill invoice for a trip to Orlando on August 20. The round trip coach airfare is listed as $1,043.Now Rush shows the American Express bill for that trip: $1,043... matching the pre-bill figure.
Rush: As part of your practice, the information would come from? A: Flo or Dr. Wecht.
Right on the money? Yes.Another exhibit: February 3, 2002 pre-bill invoice for a trip to and from Scranton for $626.50. Now shows an American Express credit card bill for the flight for $626.50.Next: November 14, 2002 invoice for a trip on November 20, 2002 in keeping with her practice of "pre-billing." Round trip, Pittsburgh-Charlotte for $910. Now he shows the American Express credit card bill for $910.... the same figure as appeared on the pre-bill invoice.
Rush: he says again the practice was that Flo or Dr. Wecht would have obtained the estimated figure by phone from US Airways, she would have used that figure to bill the client.
He also notes and she agrees that the American Express credit card bill again shows no overcharge in this case.Another example: A pre-bill invoice for a round trip airfare to and from Erie for $572 on December 9, 2002. Again she shows that the American Express card bill of $572 matched. Rush again notes that she did not use the credit card bill as her source. He says his point is to show that there are credit card bills not shown to her by prosecution that document clients being billed correctly.Next: a pre-bill invoice showing an airfare, round trip, Pittsburgh-Rochester for $841 on 1/22/2003.Rush: Nobody inflated that number? Young: No.
Rush says sometimes the cost went up between the estimate obtained from the airline by Flo or Wecht and when the ticket was purchased. She agrees.
When that occurred that wasn't part of scheme? There wasn't any intent to defraud the clients? No.Moves on to numerous other examples in the same pattern: Invoices sent out before the flight, based on estimated figures obtained by Flo or Dr. Wecht by phone from the airline. Followed by credit card bills that show that in these cases the private clients were *not* overcharged. In some examples she actually undercharged the clients.2:52 PM Among the trip invoices is one for a round trip to New York in Sept, 2003 dealing with the case of basketball player Jayson Williams.3:07 PM Defense attorney Rush is continuing to walk witness Eileen Young through examples in which Wecht's private clients were not overcharged when pre-billed with invoices based on air fare estimates obtained beforehand from US Airways.3:10 PM Rush, in discussing yet another example:
Q: No scheme or artifice to defraud anyone here on airfare, is there? A: No.3:13 PM Judge asks the jury if they can go until 3:30. They agree.3:30 PM Day 14 of the Wecht Trial concludes. They'll be back in session at 8:30 AM Tuesday.
Copyright 2008 by ThePittsburghChannel. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
