Related To Story
Special Coverage
Blogs
Video Blogs
 Fake Travel InvoicesWecht Video Blog: Private Client Prospects |
Day 18: Bob Mayo Blogs The Cyril Wecht Trial In Pittsburgh
POSTED: 12:19 pm EST March 3,
2008
UPDATED: 3:28 pm EST March 3,
2008
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 18 - March 3, 2008 - 8:30 a.m. update Last week ended with former Chief Deputy Coroner Joseph Dominick still on the stand. Dominick is still in the courthouse this morning, but a witness from out of town is being taken out of turn.The witness is Bruce Hirsch. He is an officer of the Humanities Gift Registry (HGR) and he has come here from Drexel University to testify. In his testimony he discusses the circumstances of institutions obtaining bodies under the auspices of HGR under the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act. Medical and dental schools are among them.He's being questioned by Assistant U.S. Attorney Steve Stallings.Stallings: Let's talk about where someone or a family member after death expressly makes a decision to donate a body.Hirsch says that once we're notified of a person's death where a body is going to be donated, we keep records.Hirsch is explaining standard procedures of HGR for learning institutions to obtain donated bodies.Stallings: Are there record keeping requirements that must be kept of what bodies are at what institution at any given time?Hirsch: He thinks the law requires it, but even if it didn't they would.Says they are audited regularly, and that includes inventory.Costs per body now running at about $400.At sometime did Carlow University apply to receive bodies? It was sent to us in early March of 2006. The application was signed by the chairman, the provost, and with a cover letter by Dr. Wecht.Have any bodies been sent to Carlow under the auspices of HGR? No. Prior to March of 2006 did Carlow apply to receive bodies under the auspices of HGR? No.Asks about his understanding of what the law governing coroners on disposal of bodies.Did you have an understanding of whether unclaimed bodies come under the jurisdiction of HGR? A: Yes they do.8:56 AM Cross-examination of Hirsch by defense attorney Mark Rush.Your testimony was solely about how a body is handled if it is donated through HGR? That's correct.Rush shows a document: letter from Wecht dated March 9, 2006 to the witness at Humanity Gift Registry.Now shows a document that goes over guidelines for institutions that are not members of the Registry to obtain human cadavers for study. Witness indicates that Carlow and Wecht met the guidelines.Rush: Dr. Are you familiar with the limited liability provisions of the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act? He says as long as the institution follows the procedures, they are protected. Rush asks if that applies to individuals as well. The witness says he does not know.Rush asks you have no personal knowledge concerning the transfer of bodies from the coroner's office. A: No I do not. You do not have any opinion as to whether it was a good thing or not. He indicates he has no knowledge.9:11 AM Cross-examination by Stallings. Calls attention to Wecht letter. Shows on the letterhead that it's a Penn Avenue address (Note: that's Wecht's private office, not the coroner's office.) Shows witness another document -- a bond submitted in connection with the Carlow application-- it is from the private firm Wecht Pathology, correct? Nothing from the coroner's office? A: I don't recall, no.9:15 AM Witness Hirsch is excused.9:16 AM Stallings says the two sides have reached a stipulation concerning testimony of Valerie Wecht. If called to testify she would have said as follows: She has worked as a consultant to Wecht's private firm and was paid for her services. One of the services was to analyze and critique Wecht's television appearances. Also stipulate that one of the ways they obtain business is by potential clients see him on television.9:19 AM Former Chief Deputy Coroner Joseph Dominick is back on the stand. Prosecutor Jim Wilson says he has follow up questions on Wecht details.
Does he recall coroner's deputies being called upon to details for family members? A: Yes.
Transportation to and from the airport, Sport events, theater. Yes.
Transportation to and from airport for children and grandchildren for annual family vacations? Yes.
Also testifies they would be requested to drive Wecht's secretary to and from work during bad weather.
Wecht Day 18 - March 3, 2008 - 9:23 a.m. update Testimony is continuing.Wilson shows Dominick a memo Dominick wrote said that "only supervisory employees are assured a parking place." He acknowledges that Wecht's private employee Flo Johnson was assured a parking place. Shows Dominick another memo he wrote about coroner's office security doors; it reminds them that doors are to remained sealed. Dominick confirms that Johnson was given a security card to get through those doors and did not have to sign in or out.Do you recall a detail involving the defendant and a piece of swimming equipment? Yes.
Witness says an intern was sent to a sporting goods store to get a nose plug for Wecht.Dominick also testifies that coroner's deputies spent extra time on Wecht details they would get comp time.Dominick says he expressed concern to Wecht that deputies were making multiple trips during a shift. Wecht allayed his concerns and assured him it wasn't keeping them from doing their work.
Q: What priority would these details take? A: Generally wouldn't interfere, but they would sometimes take priority over things that were official duties.
Wilson: did you give instructions to deputy coroners about recording these details in the logbook? He says he told them to immediately stop doing so. He says this came after a discussion with Wecht and the coroner's solicitor.Wilson asks about the circumstances under which a body would come into the coroner's office. Dominick says cases of suspicious , traumatic deaths, unclaimed bodies, inability to notify next of kin, medical errors, homicides, vehicle accidents.Dominick is asked about "storage" cases, where bodies would be held for a time.Wilson now asks about unclaimed body. Dominick describes when family could not afford to dispose of the body or does not want responsibility. Wilson asks what happens when no known next of kin. Dominick says they'll make all efforts, searching records, trying to locate family. Dominick says locating next of kin was always a priority.The prosecutor shows Dominick a 200 letter that the witness wrote to the county director of veterans' services. Wilson asks about a contract the coroner's office had with the Thomas M. Smith Funeral Home and Crematory. The home would cremate remains for the coroner's office at a set fee. A document shown-- a letter written by Dominick -- says the coroner's office arranges for between 30 and 40 unclaimed body cremations a year.Another document written by Dominick describes how the coroner's office worked with the Pittsburgh Institute of Mortuary Science in arranging for embalming of any decedent unclaimed after 48 hours. The service was provided at no cost to the county and gave the school's students an opportunity to embalm bodies. Dominick indicates the bodies were kept to 30 to 45 days.Dominick's letter says "the only time a body will be released to the Humanities Gift Registry (for scientific purposes) is when a family has requested this to be done and the decedent meets all the criteria of the accepting agency."Wilson directs Dominick to another memo written by the witness. It's a February 1999 member to coroner's staff concerning CORE -- the Center for Organ Recovery and Education. It says "referrals should only be made if the case has been given morgue status and the deceased did not expire in a hospital." It also says "if we do not have a next of kin or a positive ID, we can not make a referral."
Wilson: Did the coroner's office not have that authority? Dominick: they did, but they did not often use it.Wilson asks Dominick how he first learned that bodies would be going to Carlow College? Dr. Wecht mentioned it to him at the coroner's office. He doesn't recall who else was present.
Were you given any instructions about documenting the movement of the bodies? No.
About getting permission from next of kin or notifying next of kin? No.
How long did the discussion take? A few minutes.
You were already aware the defendant had a private business? Yes.
That his coroner's secretaries had done private work for Wecht Pathology during the business day? Yes.
Acknowledges having a conversation with Wecht expressing concern that Wecht's salary was getting up in the $70,000 range -- that Dominick felt it was a bit high. He says Dr. Wecht allayed his concerns. That the secretary did a number of things for the county, taking care of his scheduling.Wilson shows a 2002 Dominick memo to all deputy coroners as to who to contact for referrals to Wecht's business to perform private autopsies.Now a 2003 memo from Dominick telling deputy coroners not to make referrals or recommendations to funeral homes and other private businesses.Wilson asks Dominick to describe how he became aware of bodies being sent to Carlow. He says it would be on a weekly basis, for the class on Tuesdays.
Did you ever see a contract? No.
Did you ever attempt to find one? When they received a grand jury subpoena -- he was not able to find one.In answer to questions, Dominick describes Wecht saying that some bodies should go to Carlow before they were sent for embalming at the Pittsburgh Institute of Mortuary Science.10:20 AM Judge takes recess until 10:40 AM.
Wecht Day 18 - March 3, 2008 - 10:40 a.m. update Wilson continues questioning of Dominick. Shows him another exhibit introduced just before the break. It's a newspaper article -- apparently circulated by Wecht among staff, including Dominick -- about donations of bodies. The article discusses the Humanities Gift Registry and the Anatomical Gift Act. The previous witness, Mr. Hirsch, is quoted in the article. Dominick indicates that he did not know Mr. Hirsch.10:41AM Wilson shows Dominick a document generated at the coroner's office. It concerns a report on the Sept. 16, 2004, death of Lillian Takacs, age 86, of Monroeville, at a nursing home or personal care facility. There's notation of next of kin being notified. So far, appears to be being used to illustrate the coroner's office practices. There's a notation of "No Jurisdiction/Storage." That means this is a case where the body was being held for a time but would not be autopsied. This particular document indicates that, for financial reasons, next of kin will not be making funeral arrangements.In the following sequence, Assistant U.S. Attorney Jim Wilson walks the witness, former Chief Deputy Coroner Joe Dominick, through identifying and confirming various items of evidence.10:53 AM Wilson next shows Dominick the "Embalming Removal/Return Form" for the body of Takacs. The date of removal for embalming was 9-27-2004. Wilson establishes that Dominick doesn't know why the body was not removed for embalming for "nine" days. (It actually appears to be 11 days.)Now shows Dominick a coroner's office release form for the body. No clothing, jewelry or effects are listed. The word "None" is written. The body was released to a funeral home on 9-29-2004.Next, Wilson shows Dominick the Certificate of Death for Takacs. Dominick's signature appears on the certificate. As chief deputy coroner and a licensed funeral director, Dominick would be the person to sign, as the person responsible for disposition. The body was released to the Thomas M. Smith crematory, which had a contract with the coroner's office for disposal of unclaimed bodies.Wilson shows Dominick another document like the one above. The coroner's office calls these documents "stories." This one is for Amy Gray. The death occurred on Oct. 3, 2004, at the Pavlovic Personal Care Home in Coraopolis. The notation is "no jurisdiction/storage." It says that this was a natural death and no autopsy was requested. The document notes that a social worker stated that if there is no known next of kin that she would be willing to handle the funeral arrangements. The form recounts details of continuing efforts by the coroner's office to locate a next of kin. There's a notation that the social worker should be re-contacted to assist in the funeral arrangements.Later in the document there's a reported contact in October with a relative named Barbara Whitehouse who expressed an interest in making some sort of arrangements for the remains.The next document is the Embalming Removal/Return Form for the body of Amy Gray, followed by the death certificate for Gray. There's a notation that says "no autopsy performed." As was the case with the other document, Dominick says when he signed the document he believed it to be true and accurate.Another coroner's "story" document. This one is for Edward Newson, 70 years of age. The body was brought into the coroner's office for storage. There's a notation that the coroner's office was contacted by the next of kin who was in jail at the time. It says he'll try to get out and make funeral arrangements. the notation says "do not release remains." The next document Wilson is reviewing with Dominick is the embalming form for Newson, dated Nov. 16, 2004. Next document indicates the body was sent for cremation. Death certificate says that no autopsy was performed.Next: the coroner's office documents concerning Marston Fedorchak, Nov. 23, 2004. It says having no next of kin, his body was brought to the coroner's office. As with the other cases, there's a record of effects removed from the body. That includes one white metal watch, a bag of aluminum can tops, and $1.80 in coins. Those would be held at the coroner's office for a time.
Next document indicates the body was sent for embalming. Another document shows the body released to the funeral home that handed cremations for the coroner's office.
Again, Wilson shows the corresponding death certificate. It says the body was unclaimed and that there was no autopsy.
Again, Dominick says when he signed the document he believed it to be "true and correct."11:37 AM Next document: Frances Baich, 88 years old. Died November 24, 2004. There is next of kin located, but the body was unclaimed. The notations indicate that the body was ultimately cremated for the coroner's office.
Before that, the body was taken for embalming. Again, the death certificate says that no autopsy was performed. In answer to Wilson's question, Dominick says he had no reason to believe that was not correct.Next: Kenneth Bable, died Dec. 19, 2004. Notation: No jurisdiction, storage. The notation says that no next of kin has been located, but that a person at the nursing home was attempting to reach a person listed a contact.
Wecht Day 18 - March 3, 2008 - 11:45 a.m. update Dominick's testimony is continuing.Documents show that a search for next of kin for Mr. Bable was continuing. Another document shows that the body was taken for embalming. But the Pittsburgh Institute of Mortuary Science is crossed out and Carlow University is written in. The date is 1-12-2005.Now Wilson shows the death certificate. It shows the body was released to the crematory... and it says that *no* autopsy was performed.
Q: Did you have any reason to believe the document was not accurate when you signed it? A: No.Next example: Gerald Oliver, died Feb. 16, 2005. Documents indicate that the next of kin was notified and would not accept the responsibility of making funeral arrangements.
The notation is that attending physician would sign on the cause of death as a stroke.
In this case, in addition to the body being taken to PIMS for embalming, there's also a handwritten notation that the body was going to Carlow University.
The death certificate for Mr. Oliver indicates this was a hospital death and that no autopsy was performed. Again, in answer to Wilson's question, Dominick says he had no reason at the time to believe that was not accurate.Next example: Hilda Kline, 93 years old, who died at a nursing home on Feb. 8, 2005. The coroner's office had no jurisdiction. The body was being stored, and efforts were being made to find next of kin. A later notation says there are no living family members, friends, or anyone with power of attorney.
In this case, the embalming removal and return form. It says PIMS, and makes no mention of Carlow University.
Another version of the same document for Kline has PIMS crossed out and Carlow University typed in. Dominick's signature is one of those on this form.
The death certificate indicates that no autopsy was performed.
Q: At the time Dominick signed this death certificate, was he aware there was no autopsy? A: He had no recollection at the time. Says 5,000 bodies a year went through the coroner's office, and he says that these forms were generated for his signature -- that he would not have had specific memory of the case.Another document: for Charlotte Kegel. 93, years old. Died April 4, 2005. It says there is no permission given for organ donation. This is listed as a "no jurisdiction/storage case." The report says there is no next of kin and Kegel did not ever speak of family. Next document is a computer database search conducted by the coroner's office in an attempt to find a next of kin.
Now Wilson shows the embalming form which says Kegel's body was taken to PIMS -- the Pittsburgh Institute of Mortuary Science -- for embalming and then returned. That was on April 5, 2005.
Next there's a second removal form dated April 6, 2005-- this one with PIMS struck out and Carlow University written in.
The body was later released by the coroner's office to William Slater and Sons Funeral Home on April 11, 2005. (Wilson notes that the body in this case was not sent for cremation.)
Now, Wilson shows Kegel's death certificate. It is marked indicating that there was no autopsy performed.Next example, documents related to Peter Dohanic, who died on July 1, 2005.
In this case the body was brought to the coroner's office by the Craig Funeral Home. Dominick indicates that could happen when relatives have not agreed to funeral arrangements.
Wilson shows the body doing to PIMS for embalming. This document is different from the removal/return form. This is a form that was designed by Dominick.
Now Wilson shows a second version of the form with PIMS struck out and Carlow written in. It's marked that the above has not been claimed by any relative. Wecht's name appears, but as a stamped version of his signature.
The death certificate indicates that ultimately the body was sent for cremation and that no autopsy was performed.
Now Wilson shows the morgue report for Mr. Dohanic.12:25 PM Judge breaks for lunch. Says they'll return at 1:30 PM.
Wecht Day 18 - March 3, 2008 - 1:28 p.m. update Judge Schwab: for your information, the jury wishes to quit today about 3 p.m. One of the jurors is sick, but came in anyway.1:29 PM Wilson asks witness he was involved in the coroner's office budgeting. Dominick says he was, and answers that the principal source of funding for the coroner's office is Allegheny County.Wilson shows March 31, 2004, letter from Dominick to county budget director Guy Tumulo. It requests the creation and funding of two positions. The letter says Dominick has been working with the budget office and the office is now down to "bare bone expenditures."Now, we're back to Wilson reviewing reports on deaths. The evidence now is concerning a Florence Smith. Body received at the coroner's office on 8-27-05. There's a notation that a deputy will follow-up with a search of the apartment for possible next of kin information.
Next: an embalming removal form for Smith dated 8-28-2005.
Next: the same form, but on this one PIMS has been x-ed out with a typewriter and Carlow University has been made directly above. The date of removal is 8-31-2005.
Another document: the burial or cremation permit for Florence Smith. This is a state form.
Next document, labeled "cremation authorization" and prepared by the coroner's office is needed for the previous document and accompanies it.---
Next: documents related to the body Michelle Rohosky, who died in September of 2005. The recount efforts to locate her next of kin. In this case, the embalming form is altered in a different way. The form itself says the body was transported to PIMS for embalming, but the words "to Carlow College for autopsy and" is typed in above the reference to the Pittsburgh Institute of Mortuary Science. For Ms. Rohosky's death certificate the form asks "was an autopsy performed?" The "No" box is checked.Next: documents related to the body of Jane Moyer. Once again, this marked as a "no jurisdiction/storage case" and efforts to locate a next of kin. The embalming removal form from October 31, 2005, followed by a second version of the form, but this one has the reference to embalming at PIMS scratched out and "Carlow University for Autopsy" written in. The death certificate for Moyer indicates that no autopsy was performed.Another document, this one for the body of Gretta Brown, who died in November 2005. Paramedics found this elderly woman's body in her own home. The embalming removal form once again has Pittsburgh Institute of Mortuary Science scratched out and Carlow College handwritten in. In this case, death certificate indicates that an autopsy was performed.
Wilson asks Dominick if there's any indication that the coroner's office had done the autopsy. Dominick answers that there was not.Next example: a coroner's report on the death of Charles Dumont. died November 13, 2005. There are again two versions embalming forms; the second one again has PIMS scratched out and Carlow written in. Once again, the death certificate indicates that no autopsy was performed.Another case: Mary Ford, 83, died November 17, 2005, at Kane Regional Center in Glen Hazel. In this case, Carlow College is typed in addition to the reference to the Pittsburgh Institute of Mortuary Science (PIMS).Wilson: Did there come a point in time when you expressed concern to the defendant? Yes. Dominick says he was in the coroner's office. He asked what benefit we were receiving at the coroner's office by these bodies being autopsied at Carlow. He said in addition to being good experience for Carlow students, it would provide information on cases that might otherwise "fly under their radar."
Did he ever get information back from Carlow on the autopsies or that provided additional insight? Dominick says he did not.
Wilson: were you ever asked by anyone at the coroner's office to get any information about which bodies went to Carlow? He says no... and that he wasn't aware of any records readily available.2:21 PM Defense Attorney Jerry McDevitt begins cross-examination.
Wecht Day 18 - March 3, 2008 - 2:21 p.m. update McDevitt establishes that Dominick has never spoken to any member of the current defense team, and that the defense is hearing what Dominick has to stay for the first time today. Dominick describes lengthy meetings with the prosecution and the FBI.Q: How long, total, would you say you spent meeting with the prosecution? A: 15 hours.
McDevitt says that's 15 more hours than with the defense.
Have you ever told a lie or untruth to the government, beginning with your original interview with FBI Agent Orsini? Dominick answers no, he has not.
McDevitt: did they have every opportunity to ask you about your conversations with Dr. Wecht? He says they did.
You recall that you said you had no reason to believe anything was false on those death certificates when you signed them? He agrees.
You weren't intending to falsify anything? No.
So no one, including Dr. Wecht, ever told you to falsify anything? No, he did not.McDevitt: Your testimony is that the first conversation you had with Dr. Wecht was in August of 2003 about bodies going to Carlow, prior to the public announcement of the program? Dominick agrees.
McDevitt asks if that was in his grand jury testimony. He doesn't know.
Asks if that conversation is documented in any way? Dominick indicates he is not aware of any. McDevitt calls it an "unwitnessed, undocumented conversation."
Did this conversation happen at or around the time the bodies started going to Carlow? Dominick says he doesn't know and that he doesn't recall when the bodies started being shipped to Carlow.Do you recall being questioned before the grand jury about unclaimed bodies? He doesn't remember being asked about specific dates.As you sit there, you have no idea when they contend these bodies were first shipped to Carlow? Objection. Sustained.You have no idea what Dr. Wecht's agreement was with Carlow? A: he has no idea what if was or if there was a written agreement.McDevitt reads from Dominick's sworn grand jury testimony, indicating that the bodies started going to Carlow in 2003, around the time of the announcement of word of Wecht's agreement.McDevitt shows document that appears to show that first body was not shipped Carlow until 9/27/04, nearly a year after the agreement. Dominick says he still believes he was told that was the game plan. McDevitt establishes that Dominick can't say the conversation with Wecht about transporting bodies happened before or after that.He never said the transporting of bodies was part and parcel of the agreement, did he? A: No.McDevitt asks if he didn't have adequate time to prepare proper paperwork to document the movement of the bodies.
Dr. Wecht didn't tell you to ever short change the unclaimed cadaver procedures, did he? No.McDevitt asks and Dominick confirms that Wecht's intention was to use unclaimed bodies and not to short-change procedures to identify next of kin.McDevitt asks question as to why late in the sequence there was a change in the way death certificates were signed.. to indicate an autopsy was done. His question seems to suggest that the FBI investigation influenced how coroner's employees were preparing the paperwork.3:00 PM testimony ends until tomorrow.
Wecht Day 18 - March 3, 2008 - 8:30 a.m. update Last week ended with former Chief Deputy Coroner Joseph Dominick still on the stand. Dominick is still in the courthouse this morning, but a witness from out of town is being taken out of turn.The witness is Bruce Hirsch. He is an officer of the Humanities Gift Registry (HGR) and he has come here from Drexel University to testify. In his testimony he discusses the circumstances of institutions obtaining bodies under the auspices of HGR under the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act. Medical and dental schools are among them.He's being questioned by Assistant U.S. Attorney Steve Stallings.Stallings: Let's talk about where someone or a family member after death expressly makes a decision to donate a body.Hirsch says that once we're notified of a person's death where a body is going to be donated, we keep records.Hirsch is explaining standard procedures of HGR for learning institutions to obtain donated bodies.Stallings: Are there record keeping requirements that must be kept of what bodies are at what institution at any given time?Hirsch: He thinks the law requires it, but even if it didn't they would.Says they are audited regularly, and that includes inventory.Costs per body now running at about $400.At sometime did Carlow University apply to receive bodies? It was sent to us in early March of 2006. The application was signed by the chairman, the provost, and with a cover letter by Dr. Wecht.Have any bodies been sent to Carlow under the auspices of HGR? No. Prior to March of 2006 did Carlow apply to receive bodies under the auspices of HGR? No.Asks about his understanding of what the law governing coroners on disposal of bodies.Did you have an understanding of whether unclaimed bodies come under the jurisdiction of HGR? A: Yes they do.8:56 AM Cross-examination of Hirsch by defense attorney Mark Rush.Your testimony was solely about how a body is handled if it is donated through HGR? That's correct.Rush shows a document: letter from Wecht dated March 9, 2006 to the witness at Humanity Gift Registry.Now shows a document that goes over guidelines for institutions that are not members of the Registry to obtain human cadavers for study. Witness indicates that Carlow and Wecht met the guidelines.Rush: Dr. Are you familiar with the limited liability provisions of the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act? He says as long as the institution follows the procedures, they are protected. Rush asks if that applies to individuals as well. The witness says he does not know.Rush asks you have no personal knowledge concerning the transfer of bodies from the coroner's office. A: No I do not. You do not have any opinion as to whether it was a good thing or not. He indicates he has no knowledge.9:11 AM Cross-examination by Stallings. Calls attention to Wecht letter. Shows on the letterhead that it's a Penn Avenue address (Note: that's Wecht's private office, not the coroner's office.) Shows witness another document -- a bond submitted in connection with the Carlow application-- it is from the private firm Wecht Pathology, correct? Nothing from the coroner's office? A: I don't recall, no.9:15 AM Witness Hirsch is excused.9:16 AM Stallings says the two sides have reached a stipulation concerning testimony of Valerie Wecht. If called to testify she would have said as follows: She has worked as a consultant to Wecht's private firm and was paid for her services. One of the services was to analyze and critique Wecht's television appearances. Also stipulate that one of the ways they obtain business is by potential clients see him on television.9:19 AM Former Chief Deputy Coroner Joseph Dominick is back on the stand. Prosecutor Jim Wilson says he has follow up questions on Wecht details.
Does he recall coroner's deputies being called upon to details for family members? A: Yes.
Transportation to and from the airport, Sport events, theater. Yes.
Transportation to and from airport for children and grandchildren for annual family vacations? Yes.
Also testifies they would be requested to drive Wecht's secretary to and from work during bad weather.
Wecht Day 18 - March 3, 2008 - 9:23 a.m. update Testimony is continuing.Wilson shows Dominick a memo Dominick wrote said that "only supervisory employees are assured a parking place." He acknowledges that Wecht's private employee Flo Johnson was assured a parking place. Shows Dominick another memo he wrote about coroner's office security doors; it reminds them that doors are to remained sealed. Dominick confirms that Johnson was given a security card to get through those doors and did not have to sign in or out.Do you recall a detail involving the defendant and a piece of swimming equipment? Yes.
Witness says an intern was sent to a sporting goods store to get a nose plug for Wecht.Dominick also testifies that coroner's deputies spent extra time on Wecht details they would get comp time.Dominick says he expressed concern to Wecht that deputies were making multiple trips during a shift. Wecht allayed his concerns and assured him it wasn't keeping them from doing their work.
Q: What priority would these details take? A: Generally wouldn't interfere, but they would sometimes take priority over things that were official duties.
Wilson: did you give instructions to deputy coroners about recording these details in the logbook? He says he told them to immediately stop doing so. He says this came after a discussion with Wecht and the coroner's solicitor.Wilson asks about the circumstances under which a body would come into the coroner's office. Dominick says cases of suspicious , traumatic deaths, unclaimed bodies, inability to notify next of kin, medical errors, homicides, vehicle accidents.Dominick is asked about "storage" cases, where bodies would be held for a time.Wilson now asks about unclaimed body. Dominick describes when family could not afford to dispose of the body or does not want responsibility. Wilson asks what happens when no known next of kin. Dominick says they'll make all efforts, searching records, trying to locate family. Dominick says locating next of kin was always a priority.The prosecutor shows Dominick a 200 letter that the witness wrote to the county director of veterans' services. Wilson asks about a contract the coroner's office had with the Thomas M. Smith Funeral Home and Crematory. The home would cremate remains for the coroner's office at a set fee. A document shown-- a letter written by Dominick -- says the coroner's office arranges for between 30 and 40 unclaimed body cremations a year.Another document written by Dominick describes how the coroner's office worked with the Pittsburgh Institute of Mortuary Science in arranging for embalming of any decedent unclaimed after 48 hours. The service was provided at no cost to the county and gave the school's students an opportunity to embalm bodies. Dominick indicates the bodies were kept to 30 to 45 days.Dominick's letter says "the only time a body will be released to the Humanities Gift Registry (for scientific purposes) is when a family has requested this to be done and the decedent meets all the criteria of the accepting agency."Wilson directs Dominick to another memo written by the witness. It's a February 1999 member to coroner's staff concerning CORE -- the Center for Organ Recovery and Education. It says "referrals should only be made if the case has been given morgue status and the deceased did not expire in a hospital." It also says "if we do not have a next of kin or a positive ID, we can not make a referral."
Wilson: Did the coroner's office not have that authority? Dominick: they did, but they did not often use it.Wilson asks Dominick how he first learned that bodies would be going to Carlow College? Dr. Wecht mentioned it to him at the coroner's office. He doesn't recall who else was present.
Were you given any instructions about documenting the movement of the bodies? No.
About getting permission from next of kin or notifying next of kin? No.
How long did the discussion take? A few minutes.
You were already aware the defendant had a private business? Yes.
That his coroner's secretaries had done private work for Wecht Pathology during the business day? Yes.
Acknowledges having a conversation with Wecht expressing concern that Wecht's salary was getting up in the $70,000 range -- that Dominick felt it was a bit high. He says Dr. Wecht allayed his concerns. That the secretary did a number of things for the county, taking care of his scheduling.Wilson shows a 2002 Dominick memo to all deputy coroners as to who to contact for referrals to Wecht's business to perform private autopsies.Now a 2003 memo from Dominick telling deputy coroners not to make referrals or recommendations to funeral homes and other private businesses.Wilson asks Dominick to describe how he became aware of bodies being sent to Carlow. He says it would be on a weekly basis, for the class on Tuesdays.
Did you ever see a contract? No.
Did you ever attempt to find one? When they received a grand jury subpoena -- he was not able to find one.In answer to questions, Dominick describes Wecht saying that some bodies should go to Carlow before they were sent for embalming at the Pittsburgh Institute of Mortuary Science.10:20 AM Judge takes recess until 10:40 AM.
Wecht Day 18 - March 3, 2008 - 10:40 a.m. update Wilson continues questioning of Dominick. Shows him another exhibit introduced just before the break. It's a newspaper article -- apparently circulated by Wecht among staff, including Dominick -- about donations of bodies. The article discusses the Humanities Gift Registry and the Anatomical Gift Act. The previous witness, Mr. Hirsch, is quoted in the article. Dominick indicates that he did not know Mr. Hirsch.10:41AM Wilson shows Dominick a document generated at the coroner's office. It concerns a report on the Sept. 16, 2004, death of Lillian Takacs, age 86, of Monroeville, at a nursing home or personal care facility. There's notation of next of kin being notified. So far, appears to be being used to illustrate the coroner's office practices. There's a notation of "No Jurisdiction/Storage." That means this is a case where the body was being held for a time but would not be autopsied. This particular document indicates that, for financial reasons, next of kin will not be making funeral arrangements.In the following sequence, Assistant U.S. Attorney Jim Wilson walks the witness, former Chief Deputy Coroner Joe Dominick, through identifying and confirming various items of evidence.10:53 AM Wilson next shows Dominick the "Embalming Removal/Return Form" for the body of Takacs. The date of removal for embalming was 9-27-2004. Wilson establishes that Dominick doesn't know why the body was not removed for embalming for "nine" days. (It actually appears to be 11 days.)Now shows Dominick a coroner's office release form for the body. No clothing, jewelry or effects are listed. The word "None" is written. The body was released to a funeral home on 9-29-2004.Next, Wilson shows Dominick the Certificate of Death for Takacs. Dominick's signature appears on the certificate. As chief deputy coroner and a licensed funeral director, Dominick would be the person to sign, as the person responsible for disposition. The body was released to the Thomas M. Smith crematory, which had a contract with the coroner's office for disposal of unclaimed bodies.Wilson shows Dominick another document like the one above. The coroner's office calls these documents "stories." This one is for Amy Gray. The death occurred on Oct. 3, 2004, at the Pavlovic Personal Care Home in Coraopolis. The notation is "no jurisdiction/storage." It says that this was a natural death and no autopsy was requested. The document notes that a social worker stated that if there is no known next of kin that she would be willing to handle the funeral arrangements. The form recounts details of continuing efforts by the coroner's office to locate a next of kin. There's a notation that the social worker should be re-contacted to assist in the funeral arrangements.Later in the document there's a reported contact in October with a relative named Barbara Whitehouse who expressed an interest in making some sort of arrangements for the remains.The next document is the Embalming Removal/Return Form for the body of Amy Gray, followed by the death certificate for Gray. There's a notation that says "no autopsy performed." As was the case with the other document, Dominick says when he signed the document he believed it to be true and accurate.Another coroner's "story" document. This one is for Edward Newson, 70 years of age. The body was brought into the coroner's office for storage. There's a notation that the coroner's office was contacted by the next of kin who was in jail at the time. It says he'll try to get out and make funeral arrangements. the notation says "do not release remains." The next document Wilson is reviewing with Dominick is the embalming form for Newson, dated Nov. 16, 2004. Next document indicates the body was sent for cremation. Death certificate says that no autopsy was performed.Next: the coroner's office documents concerning Marston Fedorchak, Nov. 23, 2004. It says having no next of kin, his body was brought to the coroner's office. As with the other cases, there's a record of effects removed from the body. That includes one white metal watch, a bag of aluminum can tops, and $1.80 in coins. Those would be held at the coroner's office for a time.
Next document indicates the body was sent for embalming. Another document shows the body released to the funeral home that handed cremations for the coroner's office.
Again, Wilson shows the corresponding death certificate. It says the body was unclaimed and that there was no autopsy.
Again, Dominick says when he signed the document he believed it to be "true and correct."11:37 AM Next document: Frances Baich, 88 years old. Died November 24, 2004. There is next of kin located, but the body was unclaimed. The notations indicate that the body was ultimately cremated for the coroner's office.
Before that, the body was taken for embalming. Again, the death certificate says that no autopsy was performed. In answer to Wilson's question, Dominick says he had no reason to believe that was not correct.Next: Kenneth Bable, died Dec. 19, 2004. Notation: No jurisdiction, storage. The notation says that no next of kin has been located, but that a person at the nursing home was attempting to reach a person listed a contact.
Wecht Day 18 - March 3, 2008 - 11:45 a.m. update Dominick's testimony is continuing.Documents show that a search for next of kin for Mr. Bable was continuing. Another document shows that the body was taken for embalming. But the Pittsburgh Institute of Mortuary Science is crossed out and Carlow University is written in. The date is 1-12-2005.Now Wilson shows the death certificate. It shows the body was released to the crematory... and it says that *no* autopsy was performed.
Q: Did you have any reason to believe the document was not accurate when you signed it? A: No.Next example: Gerald Oliver, died Feb. 16, 2005. Documents indicate that the next of kin was notified and would not accept the responsibility of making funeral arrangements.
The notation is that attending physician would sign on the cause of death as a stroke.
In this case, in addition to the body being taken to PIMS for embalming, there's also a handwritten notation that the body was going to Carlow University.
The death certificate for Mr. Oliver indicates this was a hospital death and that no autopsy was performed. Again, in answer to Wilson's question, Dominick says he had no reason at the time to believe that was not accurate.Next example: Hilda Kline, 93 years old, who died at a nursing home on Feb. 8, 2005. The coroner's office had no jurisdiction. The body was being stored, and efforts were being made to find next of kin. A later notation says there are no living family members, friends, or anyone with power of attorney.
In this case, the embalming removal and return form. It says PIMS, and makes no mention of Carlow University.
Another version of the same document for Kline has PIMS crossed out and Carlow University typed in. Dominick's signature is one of those on this form.
The death certificate indicates that no autopsy was performed.
Q: At the time Dominick signed this death certificate, was he aware there was no autopsy? A: He had no recollection at the time. Says 5,000 bodies a year went through the coroner's office, and he says that these forms were generated for his signature -- that he would not have had specific memory of the case.Another document: for Charlotte Kegel. 93, years old. Died April 4, 2005. It says there is no permission given for organ donation. This is listed as a "no jurisdiction/storage case." The report says there is no next of kin and Kegel did not ever speak of family. Next document is a computer database search conducted by the coroner's office in an attempt to find a next of kin.
Now Wilson shows the embalming form which says Kegel's body was taken to PIMS -- the Pittsburgh Institute of Mortuary Science -- for embalming and then returned. That was on April 5, 2005.
Next there's a second removal form dated April 6, 2005-- this one with PIMS struck out and Carlow University written in.
The body was later released by the coroner's office to William Slater and Sons Funeral Home on April 11, 2005. (Wilson notes that the body in this case was not sent for cremation.)
Now, Wilson shows Kegel's death certificate. It is marked indicating that there was no autopsy performed.Next example, documents related to Peter Dohanic, who died on July 1, 2005.
In this case the body was brought to the coroner's office by the Craig Funeral Home. Dominick indicates that could happen when relatives have not agreed to funeral arrangements.
Wilson shows the body doing to PIMS for embalming. This document is different from the removal/return form. This is a form that was designed by Dominick.
Now Wilson shows a second version of the form with PIMS struck out and Carlow written in. It's marked that the above has not been claimed by any relative. Wecht's name appears, but as a stamped version of his signature.
The death certificate indicates that ultimately the body was sent for cremation and that no autopsy was performed.
Now Wilson shows the morgue report for Mr. Dohanic.12:25 PM Judge breaks for lunch. Says they'll return at 1:30 PM.
Wecht Day 18 - March 3, 2008 - 1:28 p.m. update Judge Schwab: for your information, the jury wishes to quit today about 3 p.m. One of the jurors is sick, but came in anyway.1:29 PM Wilson asks witness he was involved in the coroner's office budgeting. Dominick says he was, and answers that the principal source of funding for the coroner's office is Allegheny County.Wilson shows March 31, 2004, letter from Dominick to county budget director Guy Tumulo. It requests the creation and funding of two positions. The letter says Dominick has been working with the budget office and the office is now down to "bare bone expenditures."Now, we're back to Wilson reviewing reports on deaths. The evidence now is concerning a Florence Smith. Body received at the coroner's office on 8-27-05. There's a notation that a deputy will follow-up with a search of the apartment for possible next of kin information.
Next: an embalming removal form for Smith dated 8-28-2005.
Next: the same form, but on this one PIMS has been x-ed out with a typewriter and Carlow University has been made directly above. The date of removal is 8-31-2005.
Another document: the burial or cremation permit for Florence Smith. This is a state form.
Next document, labeled "cremation authorization" and prepared by the coroner's office is needed for the previous document and accompanies it.---
Next: documents related to the body Michelle Rohosky, who died in September of 2005. The recount efforts to locate her next of kin. In this case, the embalming form is altered in a different way. The form itself says the body was transported to PIMS for embalming, but the words "to Carlow College for autopsy and" is typed in above the reference to the Pittsburgh Institute of Mortuary Science. For Ms. Rohosky's death certificate the form asks "was an autopsy performed?" The "No" box is checked.Next: documents related to the body of Jane Moyer. Once again, this marked as a "no jurisdiction/storage case" and efforts to locate a next of kin. The embalming removal form from October 31, 2005, followed by a second version of the form, but this one has the reference to embalming at PIMS scratched out and "Carlow University for Autopsy" written in. The death certificate for Moyer indicates that no autopsy was performed.Another document, this one for the body of Gretta Brown, who died in November 2005. Paramedics found this elderly woman's body in her own home. The embalming removal form once again has Pittsburgh Institute of Mortuary Science scratched out and Carlow College handwritten in. In this case, death certificate indicates that an autopsy was performed.
Wilson asks Dominick if there's any indication that the coroner's office had done the autopsy. Dominick answers that there was not.Next example: a coroner's report on the death of Charles Dumont. died November 13, 2005. There are again two versions embalming forms; the second one again has PIMS scratched out and Carlow written in. Once again, the death certificate indicates that no autopsy was performed.Another case: Mary Ford, 83, died November 17, 2005, at Kane Regional Center in Glen Hazel. In this case, Carlow College is typed in addition to the reference to the Pittsburgh Institute of Mortuary Science (PIMS).Wilson: Did there come a point in time when you expressed concern to the defendant? Yes. Dominick says he was in the coroner's office. He asked what benefit we were receiving at the coroner's office by these bodies being autopsied at Carlow. He said in addition to being good experience for Carlow students, it would provide information on cases that might otherwise "fly under their radar."
Did he ever get information back from Carlow on the autopsies or that provided additional insight? Dominick says he did not.
Wilson: were you ever asked by anyone at the coroner's office to get any information about which bodies went to Carlow? He says no... and that he wasn't aware of any records readily available.2:21 PM Defense Attorney Jerry McDevitt begins cross-examination.
Wecht Day 18 - March 3, 2008 - 2:21 p.m. update McDevitt establishes that Dominick has never spoken to any member of the current defense team, and that the defense is hearing what Dominick has to stay for the first time today. Dominick describes lengthy meetings with the prosecution and the FBI.Q: How long, total, would you say you spent meeting with the prosecution? A: 15 hours.
McDevitt says that's 15 more hours than with the defense.
Have you ever told a lie or untruth to the government, beginning with your original interview with FBI Agent Orsini? Dominick answers no, he has not.
McDevitt: did they have every opportunity to ask you about your conversations with Dr. Wecht? He says they did.
You recall that you said you had no reason to believe anything was false on those death certificates when you signed them? He agrees.
You weren't intending to falsify anything? No.
So no one, including Dr. Wecht, ever told you to falsify anything? No, he did not.McDevitt: Your testimony is that the first conversation you had with Dr. Wecht was in August of 2003 about bodies going to Carlow, prior to the public announcement of the program? Dominick agrees.
McDevitt asks if that was in his grand jury testimony. He doesn't know.
Asks if that conversation is documented in any way? Dominick indicates he is not aware of any. McDevitt calls it an "unwitnessed, undocumented conversation."
Did this conversation happen at or around the time the bodies started going to Carlow? Dominick says he doesn't know and that he doesn't recall when the bodies started being shipped to Carlow.Do you recall being questioned before the grand jury about unclaimed bodies? He doesn't remember being asked about specific dates.As you sit there, you have no idea when they contend these bodies were first shipped to Carlow? Objection. Sustained.You have no idea what Dr. Wecht's agreement was with Carlow? A: he has no idea what if was or if there was a written agreement.McDevitt reads from Dominick's sworn grand jury testimony, indicating that the bodies started going to Carlow in 2003, around the time of the announcement of word of Wecht's agreement.McDevitt shows document that appears to show that first body was not shipped Carlow until 9/27/04, nearly a year after the agreement. Dominick says he still believes he was told that was the game plan. McDevitt establishes that Dominick can't say the conversation with Wecht about transporting bodies happened before or after that.He never said the transporting of bodies was part and parcel of the agreement, did he? A: No.McDevitt asks if he didn't have adequate time to prepare proper paperwork to document the movement of the bodies.
Dr. Wecht didn't tell you to ever short change the unclaimed cadaver procedures, did he? No.McDevitt asks and Dominick confirms that Wecht's intention was to use unclaimed bodies and not to short-change procedures to identify next of kin.McDevitt asks question as to why late in the sequence there was a change in the way death certificates were signed.. to indicate an autopsy was done. His question seems to suggest that the FBI investigation influenced how coroner's employees were preparing the paperwork.3:00 PM testimony ends until tomorrow.
Copyright 2008 by ThePittsburghChannel. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
