Day 20: Bob Mayo Blogs The Cyril Wecht Trial In PittsburghPOSTED: 9:38 am EST March 5,
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 20 - March 5, 2008 - 8:37 a.m. update Judge Arthur Schwab to the jury: ladies and gentlemen, it's good to have you all back... We have at least two more days this week to work together. To prosecution: asks when they'll file a response to document 795.(Note: the juror who was absent to go to the hospital yesterday is back.)8:39 AM Defense attorney Jerry McDevitt resumes his cross-examination of prosecution witness former Chief Deputy Coroner Joseph Dominick, who is testifying under a grant of immunity. McDevitt recaps that there was never any discussion that sending bodies to Carlow was part of Wecht's agreement with the school. Dominick agrees.Have you ever spoken with Sister Grace Ann Geibel (note: the head of Carlow with whom Wecht reached his agreement.)? No. Q: On Monday, you said Dr. Wecht never told you to shortcut procedures for notifying next of kin of unclaimed bodies? That's correct.As the chief deputy coroner, under statute are there times when you are expected to stand in the shoes of the coroner, assume the powers of the coroner? That's correct. Are you expected to have at least a layman's understanding of the powers of the coroner? That's correct. Your understanding of the uniform anatomical gift act? I have an understanding of it. Q: under certain circumstances the coroner has the power to donate unclaimed bodies to universities? A: That's correct. It was deputies Strimlan, Craig (names others) who made the determination? That's correct.You observed FBI Agent Bradley Orsini with deputy Strimlan (sp?) and others? Yes. He believes a number of secretaries were with him at time, Dr. Strimlan, Chicwac (sp?) , number of deputy coroners, and I myself was with him on a number of occasions.Who was supervisor on the 3 to 11 shift in November 2005? Doesn't recall. He says Darlene Craig would have been the ultimate person in charge when he (Dominick) was not there. McDevitt asks if the status of a body as unclaimed would have been Craig's to make during that shift. A: That's correct.Dominick agrees that Wecht's policies on dealing with unclaimed bodies exceeded the requirements of the law. ----8:53 AM McDevitt begins to go over a list of names covered by the prosecution of people whose unclaimed bodies were sent from the coroner's office to Carlow University. Shows witness a copy of the morgue report for Lillian Takacs. The form indicates the body was unclaimed. Dominick says that means either no one would assume responsibility for her burial or there was no known next of kin. McDevitt shows a cremation authorization form for her.Now McDevitt asks Dominick about the late Amy Gray, calling up her morgue report. He notes and Dominick agrees that once again the body was unclaimed. Dominick acknowledges that ultimately a Barbara Whitehouse -- who said she was an aunt -- did not claim the body.Defense shows witness a copy of the state law governing unclaimed anatomical gifts. Directs him to the section applying to next of kin. Government objects, judge orders the document taken down. There are several attempts by McDevitt to establish a basis for questioning Dominick about the document. The judge continues to sustain the government objections. McDevitt establishes through Dominick that the law does not give that authorization power to an aunt. It does -- after a list of other, closer relatives-- give that power to the coroner.Now looking the morgue report for Mr. Newson from November 2004. Once again, this was a case of an unclaimed body.McDevitt goes through a total of a half dozen cases previously covered the prosecution and re-establishes that they all involved unclaimed bodies.How we are on the case of Hilda Kline, who died Feb. 8, 2005. The day her body was released from the morgue was March 1, 2005. Now they look at the cremation authorization and Dominick agrees that this is a case of an unclaimed body.Next: the case of Gerald Oliver, who died 16 Feb 2005. There's a cremation authorization for him from March 10, 2005.McDevitt notes: eight in a row from December through March. Asks if McDevitt would agree that each one so far is unclaimed and that the paperwork shows it. Dominick agrees.9:20 AM Now on the case of Charlotte Kegel. They agree that there were some issues raised about this case. Records indicate the body was ultimately send to Slater Funeral home. You have no knowledge that Dr. Wecht made the decision (to send this specific body to Carlow)? Dominick says he has no knowledge of Wecht being involved in any of the decisions.Now on Peter Dohanic's case from July 1, 2005. The date of cremation was 9/1`3/2005. Dominick agrees that this was an unclaimed cadaver, based on the records.Moves on to case of Florence Smith, who died in August 2005. Dominick agrees that this was an unclaimed cadaver, based on the records. Dominick agrees this almost a year into the program and that 10 bodies were unclaimed with an issue with Mrs. Kegel. Q: So it looks like what was supposed to be done was generally being done? A: Yes, sir.Moves on to Michele Rohosky's case. Wecht Day 20 - March 5, 2008 - 9:27 a.m. update Dominick agrees that Rohosky is an unclaimed body case.Now on case of Jane Moyer, who died 10/29/2005, She was cremated 11/30/2005.Asks about case of Greta Brown. There's an embalming form with PIMS scratched out and Carlow College written in. Who is the deputy who filed release? J. Smith, with initials of Michael Chicwac (sp?). Body was sent at 7pm. McDevitt: that's the 3 to 11 shift I was talking about? That's correct. Who signs the release for Moyer? Chickwac (sp?). So he's involved with two of them? Dominick: that's correct.McDevitt asks about the case of Charles Dumont, noting that's one for which there was an issue. The date of death is November 15, 2005. Q: The November time frame we're talking about? That's correct. Time of removal: 9pm. Who signed? (Coroner's Deputy) John Smith. McDevitt: That's the second time we've seen that name? That's correct.McDevitt asks about body of Mary Ford. Unclaimed? A: I believe it was. Q: Is this the morgue report for Ms. Ford, Dec. 14, 2005. Can you tell if the body was cremated or not? Cannot. Embalming release form dated 11-21-05, 9pm. Q: that 3 to 11 shift again? Yes. Third form we've seen with Mr. Smith's name and Mr. Chicwac's (sp?) initials? That's correct.McDevitt: do you have any knowledge or understanding of anything that happened in November of 2005 that would account for differences in the way the program was handled? A: Not that I can think of, sir.McDevitt: You didn't issue any directives in November of 2005 that changed in procedures in relation to whether a body was unclaimed. Indicates he did not and that Wecht did not.McDevitt says he now wants to cover the timeline for when Carlow announced its program with Dr. Wecht.Calls up an exhibit: a September 6, 2005 newspaper article. Government objects.McDevitt: Do you recall that there was extensive newspaper coverage of Carlow's program and the agreement with Dr. Wecht? Dominick agrees. The news conference was in the lobby of Carlow's biology building. Wecht, Dominick, others from coroner's office Sister Geibel, were among those present. Do you recall anything Sister Grace said? No, I do not. The newspaper article is September 6, 2003. McDevitt shows the witness another exhibit: Carlow's news release. Government objects. Judge sustains. McDevitt complains the government has been able to use documents the witnesses have not seen. McDevitt complains that different rules are being applied to him. There is a peppering back and forth on this. There is clearly tension between the defense attorney and the judge. McDevitt complains that a comment made in reference to the court of appeals is "improper, and assumes certain things."McDevitt asks Dominick if he's seen the exhibit. He says he has; it was a Carlow University news release distributed at the news conference which the witness received there. McDevitt complains when the judge sustains another government objection. McDevitt asks the judge what else he needs to do to establish relevance to pursue this line of questioning. Judge: I'm not going to have a course in trial advocacy and evidence. I think that someone of your experience knows how to lay a foundation... you have not done so yet on this document.Asks if Sister Grace Ann Geibel indicate at the news conference that she'd make lab space available in return for cadavers from the coroner's office. Government objects. Judge sustains. Asks if Wecht said that. Government: same objection. Judge: sustained.McDevitt: "We're here about an alleged agreement between Carlow and Dr. Wecht; how can it not be relevant?"Do you know when Dr. Wecht began using Carlow for private autopsies? A: I don't recall. During this press conference, was there any discussion of the academic program that was going to be built around Dr. Wecht at Carlow? Objection, sustained by judge. McDevitt asks judge if he's not going to be able to establish anything about the agreement from this news conference. Judge says not through this witness, unless he spoke.McDevitt asks Dominick if there aren't a number of government exhibits that establish when the program was set up. He agrees. Not one of them shown during the prosecution's direct examination? No.Q: Dr. Wecht told you he believed the program would be good for students? Yes. Only program of its kind in the country? That's correct.9:58 AM Testimony is continuing. Wecht Day 20 - March 5, 2008 - 10 a.m. update McDevitt asks about Joe Mancuso. Dominick says Mancuso was Wecht's autopsy technicians and is one of the best. McDevitt works to establish through Dominick that studying under Wecht and Mancuso working on autopsies involving criminal cases from outlying counties would have a unique learning experience.McDevitt: do you think it's important that the generation of knowledge that man (Wecht) has be passed on to another generation? Dominick: yes, sir.You said that Wecht explained that having the autopsies done at Carlow would help further examine cases that might otherwise fly under the radar? Dominick: that's correct.McDevitt asks Dominick about Wecht's interest in and concern for the elderly in nursing homes, and that educational autopsies done could theoretically bring to light " therapeutic misadventures."Defense attorney asks if witness an autopsy done at the coroner's office is done to establish the official cause and manner of death. Dominick agrees. Q: At Carlow, there's no one trying to make an official cause and manner of death, there's no forensic pathologist there? that's correct. Q: At Carlow it's an educational program, it's not the same thing? A: That's correct.10:09 AM McDevitt asks for a sidebar discussion with the judge and Wilson. Judge says we're going to break until 10:30.10:30 AM Testimony resumes.Q: How long did you serve at the coroner's office under Dr. Wecht? A: May 1996 until Dec. 31, 2005. Dominic continued as chief Medical Examiner's office through the summer of 2006.Dominick answers he was extremely proud at the professionalization of the coroner's office under Wecht. That people came from across the country and overseas to study there.During the time you were chief deputy, did you think you were involved in a federal crime? "I didn't think we were involved with any type of criminal activity", says he was extremely proud of the working doing there.McDevitt asks about when FBI Agent Orsini began asking questions. Do you recall in May 2005 entering into what's called a "queen for a day" agreement. (That's an arrangement to speak with immunity with federal investigators and prosecutors).Shows Dominick a defense exhibit: A May 2, 2005 document signed by Dominick and his attorney Wayne DeLuca. What was your understanding of what queen for a day met? A: The opportunity to testify or be interviewed without the possibility of being prosecuted.When any of the coroner's deputies had to go testify before grand jury, you told them to answer truthfully. You never told anyone not to tell the truth to anybody? That's correct.In the letter Dominick agrees to be fully debriefed concerning his knowledge by federal authorities.Do you recall how long after this letter you went in for the interview? He does not. How long it lasted? A: I don't. Notes that by his attorney and copious notes by the others there.Q: Agent Orsini? A: Believes Orsini took notes while he was there. Was he offered FBI "302s" (interview reports). Confirms he was offered 302s -- plural, but chose not to review them.McDevitt: would it surprise you to know that the government has offered us only one, from the initial interview in 2005? A: Wouldn't surprise me.Did they ever say they thought you were not telling the truth? A: Recalls their saying he was very cooperative.Says he subsequently testified before the grand jury. Q: They sent a letter later saying they were investigating whether you obstructed the grand jury investigation? A: came up in his discussions with Mr. Wilson.McDevitt shows him letter that tells Dominick that Dominick was the "subject" of a grand jury investigation. The letter alleges that Dominick and Wecht engaged in a pattern of conduct designed to obstruct their investigation.Dominick says that quite the opposite -- that he and Wecht were told by their attorneys to fully cooperate.McDevitt: do you recall there being a leak to the media that you were now a target of an investigation. Objection.Do you recall there being an article in the newspaper with your face on it saying you were a target of an investigation. He says he got a call from a TV reporter at home quite late asking what it felt like to be a target of an investigation.You first heard that after you went in and gave truthful information to every question asked? A: It was around that particular time.McDevitt asks to show witness a defense exhibit, a newspaper article. Dominick says he recalls seeing it. Is this the article that made you aware you were a target? Doesn't recall if it was this article or a call from a TV reporter.Dominick: "It was a quite devastating time in my life. Very negative to my personal career. My children were subjected to people yelling at them' your dad's going to jail'". professionals he worked with saw it and asked him a litany of questions he was subjected to.Post-Gazette article by Dennis Roddy says that federal prosecutors have targeted the top aide of Wecht in an ongoing probe, despite an earlier grant of immunity he is now "a subject" for potential prosecution. Dominick he was told by federal authorities numerous times that it was not them.To this day, do you know why the government targeted you? No, sir. In all your hours of meetings? No, sir.Q: at the time that article came out, were you under consideration for any kind of job? Confirms he had applied for a position at UPMC -- head of emergency at St Margaret's.At that time that article was very hurtful to me professionally.Immunity itself carries a certain stigma doesn't it; it makes it sound like you did something? Yes, it does.In my mind, I didn't commit any crime, federal state, or local.Upon advice of his attorney it was the best step to take. It caused me significant amounts of money, even though I was not accused of any crime.Says he saw what happened with Martha Stewart, thought it was the best thing to do to protect myself.McDevitt shows an exhibit: Dominick's immunity agreement, including an application to the court for a full immunity agreement. Signed by a judge on January 6, 2006.Q: How did it come to pass, the gap between the newspaper article and when you got immunity -- what happened in between? A: I don't recall. Did the government say they'd rather have an agreement to help prosecute Dr. Wecht than to prosecute you. Believes that's correct.Q: So you go from being a man who felt he didn't do anything wrong, to being told he was a target, to signing an immunity agreement? Agrees that it carries a stigma.McDevitt: by virtue of the grand of immunity, you would no longer have your right to remain silent, that constitutional right is gone? That's correct.Asks if there was a prep session before his grand jury testimony that day.Dominick believes there was.So there had been able opportunity for the government to know what you were going to say. That's correct.Were there any questions that were surprises? Dominick says they had all been reviewed beforehand.You don't have a right to have your lawyer with you? That's correct. He could ask to step out to speak with his attorney, which he didn't do.Do you recall Mr. Stallings asking during the grand jury testimony whether bodies were frequently transported to Carlow in 2003?He does.Your testimony was Jan 6, 2006, two weeks before Dr. Wecht was indicted?Corrected.Q: Recall this morning that we went through all the persons, the earliest date a body went to Carlow was Sept, *2004*? A: Correct.So, if you were asked whether bodies were frequently being transported in 2003, they either didn't know the facts or they were trying to mislead you?Objection.Do you recall being asked this question: "Beginning in 2003, were unclaimed bodies transported frequently to Carlow for autopsies. " His answer to grand jury: There were bodies being transported at that time.McDevitt attempts to repeat earlier question. Government objects? Sustained. Reason? Relevance.McDevitt has Dominick silently read a seven-page portion of his grand jury appearance. Wecht Day 20 - March 5, 2008 - 11:19 a.m. update Dominick confirms there was no grand jury testimony from him claiming that Wecht said anything about bodies going to Carlow prior to the announcement of the agreement between Wecht and the school to establish an educational program there.--- McDevitt says he now wants to focus in on the two-week period after Dominick's grand jury testimony and before the indictment. This was during the transition phase from the elected coroner system and the appointed medical examiner system? Yes. Q: One of the issues caused by the new M.E. system was whether the 2nd class county code governing the coroner applied to the medical examiner. Objections by prosecution, which are sustained.McDevitt requests government exhibit 194.79. It came up during the testimony of County Manager Flynn.Dominick says he recognizes it but had no involvement in creating it. It's a letter, says McDevitt, "purportedly" from Dr. Wecht to the county solicitor. It was sent two weeks before Wecht's indictment. January 18, 2006. Dominick says it was typed by his own assistant.McDevitt attempts to ask questions about the circumstances of the letter being sent. He appears to There are a series of objections by the prosecution and sustained by the judge. They say that while the document was used with another witness it's not relevant to this witness. McDevitt indicates that he's trying to address matters raised by the prosecution, suggesting there was a search for a contract between the coroner's office and Carlow and that one could not be found.McDevitt asks if the county solicitor turned around and sent the letter described above to agent Orsini.Asks if Dominick if there were other conversations between the coroner's solicitor and the county solicitor whether over the existence of an agreement between the coroner's office and Carlow.Do you recall being requested by prosecutor Stallings to send him a draft of a document concerning whether there was an agreement between Carlow and the coroner's office? Yes. His request was that we provide any and all documents related to agreements between Carlow College and the coroner's office.--- More government objections to McDevitt's line of questioning. McDevitt expresses frustration, saying he's trying to address issues raised by the prosecution.--- McDevitt asks to offer a proffer as to the relevancy. The judge tells him to do it in writing tonight. The defense attorney asks if he can do it at sidebar and the judge refuses. The judge says he'll bring the witness back for McDevitt, if needed. McDevitt complains that it interrupts the entire flow of the cross-examination.In answer to McDevitt's questions, Dominick says he knows nothing about Dr. Wecht's private business practices.McDevitt attempts to ask questions about FBI Agent Orsini's history. The prosecution objects and the judge sustains.McDevitt moves on to "Wecht details" personal matters taken care of for Wecht by the staff of the coroner's office. Dominick says the bulk of them trips to and from the airport, mail runs, drop offs at Wecht's private office, and -- originally -- trips to Duquesne.After some legal jostling, they stipulate that trips to Duquesne for Wecht Institute are not a part of Wecht details.McDevitt asks if that doesn't eliminate a large number of "so called Wecht details."McDevitt says using previous testimony we're talking about three trips to the airport per month? Yes sir. McDevitt asks how many may have been for official business. Dominick doesn't know. Witness says Dr. Wecht always drove the car himself to or from the destination. The car came back for use by the county? yes. He called you on coroner's business while driving? Yes. He would call the office and dictate to Eileen Young? Yes.--- McDevitt ask about whether Wecht's appearances on national TV via a downtown Pittsburgh studio added to the national prestige of the coroner's office. Q: Do you think a case could be made sir, that man is the greatest forensic pathologist who ever lived? Dominick answers that he's certainly in the top 10.Asks about Dominick's testimony that Wecht's private employees Florence Johnson and Joe Mancuso had card access through security doors. Asks if he considered them security risks who might be terrorists or who would blow up the building. Dominick says that thought never entered his mind.-- You indicated there was an instance where you asked Dr. Wecht about Wecht details. Dominick says it was about the frequency of the trips to the Wecht private offices. He says that Wecht allayed his concerns.McDevitt is now trying ask questions about whether former coroner Joshua Perper had a private practice. The government objects on the basis of relevance. The judge sustained the objections.--- McDevitt is now asking a series of questions concerning the performance audit of the coroner's office by the county controller. Dominick indicates that the coroner's office cooperated with the audit, welcoming it "with open arms." He notes that the audit raised no issues concerning the histology lab.12:22 PM Judge calls for lunch break until 1:30 PM. Wecht Day 20 - March 5, 2008 - 1:34 p.m. update Judge Schwab is back on the bench, Dominick is retaking the witness stand.McDevitt shows a document. It's a letter to Wecht, the initial letter from the county controller's office on the performance audit. It's dated October 22, 2004. During the entirety of this audit, there was no suggestion of any staffing problem in the histology office was there? Dominick: No. They had access to the deputy coroners? Yes. They weren't denied access to anyone. They could bring in anyone that they'd want to talk with? Yes. Did any of the auditors give any indication they were denied access to anything they wanted? No. No indication they were denied access to anyone they wanted to speak with? Dominick says there was no indication to him. Did anything in the audit indicate that cadavers were being send to Carlow improperly? No.Moves on to discuss George Hollis' departure from the coroner's office.Did you have any idea when you wrote it that Dr. Hollis was doing private work for Dr. Wecht. Says he did not. Did you have any knowledge about Mr. Strimlan finding a note on your desk that Mr. Hollis was quitting? Doesn't recall. Do know of any reason Mr. Strimlan would be looking on your desk? No. Did you ever give Mr. Strimlan to run a t-shirt business out of the coroner's office. Dominick says he did not, was aware of it and didn't see any harm in it. Do you recall when you first learned that George Hollis was doing private slide work at the coroner's office. Dominick doesn't remember a specific date... Jan/Feb/March 2005. Prior to that, what was your understanding of where Mr. Hollis was preparing the slides? Hollis told him it was at The Western School.Talks about meeting when he found out... with Wecht, Hollis, him, Wecht's private attorney. Hollis admitted it that day. Q: Prior to that meeting, did he ever tell you he prepared slides at the coroner's office? No. He told you it was at western school? Yes. Dominick says he was quite taken aback by Hollis's revelations and concluded that Hollis had previously been lying to him. Within a day or two of the meeting did George Hollis resign? A: It was a short time afterward. Do you know whether Mr. Hollis is currently under a cooperation agreement with the government, and has pleaded guilty to crimes? Read it in the newspapers.McDevitt tries to ask Dominick about the reputation for truthfulness of a deputy coroner who testified for the prosecution. The government objected and the judge sustained the objection.In answer to question, Dominick says he's proud of his work at the coroner's office and has great respect for Dr. Wecht. Says the past years have been rocky, but he wouldn't trade the experience.2:06 PM Prosecution about to begin re-direct.Prosecutor Jim Wilson: do you know if bodies went to Carlow prior to that of Lilian Takacs? Doesn't know. Acknowledges in answer to question that he doesn't know how many if any may have gone there during that time.Wilson asks what he told Amy Gray's relative about what would happen to Gray's body if it was unclaimed. Told her it would be cremated at county expense. Doesn't recall telling Gray's aunt about any possibility it would be used in the Carlow autopsy program.Is there any Allegheny County record that would have been available for you to tell Ms. Gray's aunt whether or not the body was taken to Carlow for an autopsy? Dominick: not that I'm aware of.Do you remember being asked questions about a decedent named Charlotte Kegel? Yes.--- Wilson shows Dominick a copy of a response to his "target letter" from his attorney to the U.S. Attorney's office. Do you know whether your attorney had a conversation with Mr. Wecht's attorney at that time, David Armstrong. Do you recall that the newspaper article you were upset about contained a quote from your attorney, Mr. Deluca, confirming the existence of a target letter? A: I do recall seeing that. Wilson: do you recall the same article about the target quoting Mr. Armstrong? Dominick reviews the article and says that clearly Armstrong is. Has it not always been the position of this office that it was Mr. Armstrong that leaked your target letter to the news media? Defense objects. Judge sustains.Wilson: in expressing your concern that you had been identified in the news media as a target of the grand jury, you laid that before this office? Correct. Wilson: suffice it to say when you asked your questions we gave you a response. Dominick: I got multiple responses to multiple inquiries.--- Do you recall testifying in the grand jury and being asked if they kept a log book for histology? He doesn't recall, and Wilson directs him to the transcript of his grand jury testimony. In his grand jury testimony, Dominick said yes.Did you advise the county's auditors that Eileen Young was doing private work for the defendant at the coroner's office on a daily basis? Defense objects, judge sustains.--- 3:03 PM Now looking at a death certificate for Gretta Brown, whose body was transported to Carlow College. Her death certificate has a box checked indicating that an autopsy was performed. She died on Nov. 2, 2005. Wilson asks if this was the first death certificate to be filled out for Brown. Dominick says if it were a second, replacement certificate it would have to be marked as such. Wilson shows an earlier version of a death certificate that said no autopsy was performed.3:11 PM: Judge recesses for the day. Back tomorrow at 8:30 AM for Day 21 of the Wecht trial. Copyright 2008 by ThePittsburghChannel. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. | Special Coverage
Blogs
------------------- Detailed testimony from the trial: ------------------- Video Blogs
 Fake Travel Invoices Wecht Video Blog: Private Client Prospects WTAE-TV Pittsburgh on Facebook
|
| ||||||||
   |
| |||||||
