Day 21: Bob Mayo Blogs The Cyril Wecht Trial In PittsburghPOSTED: 9:30 am EST March 6,
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 21 - March 6, 2008 - 8:30 a.m. update Judge Arthur Schwab to the jury: "Good to have you back... By my count this is day 21, the 6th week of trial... We'll probably conclude the government's case sometime next week."-"As to any motions anyone wants to deal with thereafter," he suggests they deal with that over weekend.-The judge says they're probably 90 to 95% of the way through the government's case.-Schwab tells jury "The cookies for today are ginger snaps, my favorite. I even brought some extras for the attorneys today."-He reminds the jury to keep "a very open mind" until they see all the evidence. "Don't make up your minds until you see all evidence."----Assistant U.S. Attorney Jim Wilson resumes questioning of Joe Dominick, the former chief deputy coroner who is testifying under a grant of immunity.Q: Where you aware of Deputy Coroner John Smith being given a "comp time" award for giving the defendant's daughter a ride to the airport during off hours? A: "I don't recall that particular instance, but it wouldn't surprise me."----Directs Dominick to the portion of the state statute dealing with "anatomical gifts." It says the coroner may order the removal of parts of a decedent's body in accordance with state law.----Now, more questioning by defense attorney Jerry McDevitt.Asks if the government ever did a leak investigation to determine who was responsible for the leak that lead to the newspaper story that the witness was the subject of a grand jury investigation. Dominick says no, not to his knowledge. McDevitt notes prosecutor Wilson's suggestion in his questioning yesterday that Wecht's former attorney David Armstrong was the source of the leak.McDevitt goes to the newspaper article. Notes that the article suggests that FBI agents believe that Dominick lied to them. McDevitt tries to ask about FBI Agent Brad Orsini, but the government objects. The defense attorney notes that in the article Armstrong directly confirms on the record that Wecht's son David was subpoenaed. The defense attorney notes that Armstrong is directly referenced as the on the record source for other matters. He also notes that Armstrong is not quoted as the source for the information that Dominick was the subject of the investigation. The article's source for that information is not cited.Now they move on to a letter from Dominick's attorney in response to the "target letter" the witness received from the FBI. Dominick says he was quite surprised by the target letter because he says he had been told by authorities that they considered him to be very cooperative.----You were asked a series of questions about your conversation with Miss Whitehouse. Under your understanding of the law, she didn't have standing for the disposition of that body? That's correct. Q: But is she wanted to take custody she would have been able to? A: Yes, but that was not the case.---- Do you recall the prosecutor asking whether Ms. Takacs' body was the first to go to Carlow? Dominick says agrees with McDevitt that it was first on the list. Did you take the prosecutor's question as suggesting it was an open issue. McDevitt notes in his questions the government prosecutors and FBI agents have had three years to gather evidence, and that they've not shown any records that bodies had gone from the Coroner's office to Carlow University earlier than that. Were you shown summaries prepared by the government of when bodies were removed from Carlow? Objection by government, sustained by the judge. McDevitt attempts to show government documents previously allowed as prosecution evidence. The government objects and the judge sustains.Do you know as you sit there whether Mr. Strimlan, working with FBI agents, reconstructed the stories of the bodies going to Carlow? Objection. Sustained.Would you agree that the government ought to be able to prove, other than by innuendo....? Objection. Sustained.-- 9:01 AM More questioning by prosecutor Wilson.Do you recall sir, an incident in and around May of 2005 when a grand witness returned to the coroner's office and found at her desk what she believed to be a threatening note? During the above question, Jerry McDevitt objects, but Wilson continues and finishes the sentence. McDevitt says "that's a violation of a court order". Wilson says it is not because "I am not introducing the note into evidence." McDevitt asks for a sidebar, something the judge rarely grants in this trial. This time the judge says, "Certainly." They're conferring out of earshot now.9:04 am Sidebar Wecht Day 21 - March 6, 2008 - 9:09 a.m. update 9:09 AM The sidebar ends.Judge: Mr. Wilson, you may continue.Wilson: Mr. Dominick, please listen carefully to my question. Are you aware that a woman named Nicholette Romanello (sp?) testified before the grand jury on this matter? A: Doesn't know if she testified.Q: Do you know if she was away from work and came back and found what she perceived as a threatening note on her desk when she came back? Dominick confirms that's the case.Wilson: Did you believe you knew whose handwriting it was? Dominick: Similar to someone I did know. Wilson: Who? Dominick: The Solicitor to the coroner, Tim Uhrich. Q: Did you conduct an investigation to determine who wrote the note to Ms. Romanello (sp?) ? he says he did an inquiry, but did not document it. Q: Did you call the FBI and say one of our employees was intimidated about her testimony to the grand jury? Dominick says he eventually gave it to the FBI, did not volunteer it. Wilson: Is it true that a former coroner's employee filed a grievance over her firing, saying you had intimidated her about her cooperation with the FBI? Dominick says he doesn't recall that.====9:14 AM McDevitt questions again.Q; You had nothing to do with this note? A: No. Had nothing to do with it? Total surprise that it was there. Dr. Wecht had nothing to do with it? No knowledge of Dr. Wecht having anything to do with it. You told about the note? Did. Never told anyone to destroy the note? No. So as far as any suggestion you had anything to do with this note is just another false allegation against you? Yes.9:16 AM Dominick's testimony ends.9:24 AM I'm now back in the courtroom. I left to ask Dominick if he would be willing to talk on camera. He declined.9:28 AM Witness Barbara W. Whitehouse, questioned by prosecutor Steve Stallings.She lives in Elk County, was related to Amy Gray. Says she was her aunt... Gray was the illegitimate daughter of her sister. You were her blood, natural aunt? Correct.Her first contact was when her niece was days old, wrapped in a pink blanket, handed her to an attorney... Objection by defense on relevance. Sustained.Lost contact for 5 or 6 years. Ran into adoptive mother. Was allowed to meet with her occasionally. Doesn't think Amy knew at that time she was her aunt. Amy contacted her years later. It was a very friendly relationship. Amy had some problems in her life, including mental illness. Lost touch around nine years ago. Found out Amy was incarcerated. Time passed, not in contact. Learned of her death in obituary over the wire. Says she is a reporter in Elk County and saw it at her newspaper. Asked for time off. Upset. Called personal care home where she died. Called coroner's office, was referred to a Mr. Dominick. Asked coroner's office if they had her niece's body, what would happen if not claimed. Says answer "was not acceptable", so she said she would claim the body.What were you troubled by? The fact she wound be sent out for a "mass" cremation and but in "mass" grave.Did they ask if you had a funeral home lined up? She says she did and the funeral home (Meehan-Shilk) contacted the coroner's office. The remains are still at the funeral home, awaiting burial.Did anyone notify you that your niece's remains were sent to Carlow University for a student autopsy... get any notice? No I did not. Did you ever give your consent to the of the use of the body for any educational autopsy? "No I didn't give permission... I don't believe in desecration of the body." Says she wouldn't have given it. She feels a person should give their own permission for their own remains to be used. She's not sure she believes in it.Defense attorney Mark Rush cross-examines.You didn't learn from the personal care home? Niece never provided contact information? No. Didn't know she was there? No. She didn't notify her. Did the coroner's office tell you that you could claim the body? Yes. You did not claim the body? That's not correct. Back and forth, confirms the funeral home received the ashes, not the body. Rush asks if she knew or asked if there was an autopsy. Isn't that what a coroner's office does? Says she doesn't know. You made no inquiry? No I did not. Why would I ask a question like that? Ultimately the funeral home claimed the remains (ashes)? Still at the funeral home, not buried yet? Will be this year. Any contact with Dr. Cyril Wecht? No. No contact. Allegheny County paid for the cremation? That's correct, but there's a reason for that. Did the funeral home explain to you how the law works as far as unclaimed bodies? He said there are 30 days to claim the body. Rush establishes that the mortician, not her, had the conversation with the coroner's office about the cremation. Not buried yet? No. Did the FBI tell her to wait? No. Did they tell you anything about Carlow University? That it's a Catholic university? She says she learned on her own. That it's run by the Sisters of Mercy? No. Asks if she's aware of the educational autopsy program. Not aware of details. Says funeral home is across the street from her home; "they're friends of mine."Redirect by Stallings.What was the reason...? A: "Mr. Dominick told ..." Objection. Hearsay. The witness says "that's not hearsay." There's laughter. The judge tells the witness that ruling on that is his job.Says mortician told county that she doesn't have much money. Mortician was told the county would take care of the cremation, they were just glad to have someone claim the body.Did you love her? I loved her. She was a part of me, a part of my sister, a part of my family. Goes on to describe niece's mental illness and life problems.Asks why she waited until this case to bury her niece. Answers that she wants her to rest in peace.9:52 AM Testimony of this witness ends.New witness sworn in:Eugene Ogrodnick (Sp?) President and CEO of Pittsburgh Institute of Mortuary Science (PIMS). Says PIMS work in embalming bodies from the coroner's office dates back to the 1930s.Tell members of jury what embalming is. The preparation of the human body by injecting of chemicals to temporarily preserve the remains for the funeral process. Moved into current location in 1989. At that time remains started being brought to the school for their students to perform autopsies. PIMS did not charge the county. It got experience for the students.---- PIMS had a relationship with Cyril H. Wecht? Yes. At February 2001 PIMS board meeting, private relationship with Wecht was discussed. Showing witness a copy of PIMS board meeting minutes.A: It would have been that he was using our embalming facility for his private practice. In Feb. 2001 was still awaiting a contract. Started using it around beginning of Feb. 2001. Do you recall the defendant proposing a larger relationship with PIMS, to establish a training program at PIMS? Shows witness' letter responding to Wecht. In response to questions, witness says PIMS installed equipment to accommodate Wecht, scales, grinder, and other equipment normally found in an autopsy room.10:10 AM Testimony is continuing. Wecht Day 21 - March 6, 2008 - 10:10 a.m. update Witness says he was expecting a detailed outline or proposed curriculum from Wecht.Stallings shows an several page outline from Wecht to PIMS.In August of 2001, was there another board meeting? Yes. Stallings shows the minutes, highlights paragraph that says Wecht's proposal included a request of a reduction of rent to be paid by Wecht. There was other information they will still awaiting from Wecht, including a contract.Stallings: What did Wecht pay for rent? A: $1,000 a month. In answer to questions, witness indicates they wanted Wecht there, that his presence would be a value to his institution.Shows witness other documents. Witness indicates PIMS felt it needed insurance in connection with Wecht's work there. Requested log be kept of private autopsy work being done at PIMS.10:19 AM Judge says they will recess until 10:40. Reminds the attorneys that he has cookies for them.10:39 AM Testimony by Ogrodnik continues.Stallings introduces more documents: pages from logs of Wecht private autopsies done at PIMS. Logs ran from 2001 through April of 2003. Last entry shown: April 25, 2003.Do you call when the defendant stopped using PIMS to do private autopsies?A: it would have been around that time.Now shows note from PIMS board meeting from Feb, 2002. It notes their concern that there was still no documentation of insurance by Wecht and still no contract. They had an attorney write a letter to Wecht. In answer to question, Ogrodnik says there was discussion of charging Wecht closer to market rate for his use of PIMS facilities--a $150 per body charge.The PIMS board minutes note that PIMS relationship with the coroner's office might be interrupted by issues with Wecht. PIMS got about 60 bodies a year from the coroner's office for embalming.Stallings shows letters Ogrodnik got from Wecht. They're being displayed to the witness but not the jury. They apparently involve what Stallings describes as accusations by Wecht against a woman apparently with PIMS.Wecht's defense attorney Mark Rush has a continuing objection to the relevance of these documents.Now a January 28, 2003 letter from Wecht to Ogrodnik. Discusses rent, academic training program. Wecht complains that he's heard talk that Ogrodnik has been telling board members that he's not been paying lease, and that it's not true.Wecht asks that cease and desist from making allegations against him that are patently false and harmful to his reputation.Now shows that earlier letter from Wecht to attorney and PIMS board Kathy Ryan about statements she allegedly made at PIMS board meeting to the effect that Wecht cannot be trusted.Another letter from Wecht asks for the minutes from a PIMS board meeting, which contain comments by Ryan.Next: we're seeing a letter from Ogrodnik to Wecht complaining that they'venot received back a signed contract back from him or documentation that he's obtained the insurance PIMS wants.The letter notifies Wecht that PIMS now intends to charge him $200 per private autopsy case.Wecht refused to accept PIMS' $200 fee plan.11:11 AM Cross-examination of Ogrodnik by Mark Rush.Establishes that at the time he didn't know about the relationship Wecht later formed with Carlow University.Ogrodnik testifies that Wecht never attempted to use the unclaimed cadavers to offset his rent at PIMS, did he? No. Wecht's proposal was that a *teaching program* would offset his rent.11:13 AM I'm leaving the Wecht trial courtroom for now. I've been reassigned to cover the closing arguments in the Ellerbe case. As I left the courtroom, I saw Carlow University President Grace Ann Geibel seated outside the courtroom, apparently waiting to testify. Wecht Day 21 - March 6, 2008 - 1:32 p.m. update (Note: I'm back for just a bit at the Wecht trial. My responsibility for this afternoon is to monitor the deliberations of the jury in the Ellerbe case. I've come straight back to this courtroom to observe some of Sister Geibel's testimony. I was not present for the direct examination by the prosecution. Defense attorney Jerry McDevitt is about to begin his cross-examination of the witness.)Sister Grace Ann Geibel is back on the stand. She's the now-retired president of Carlow University, which was formerly Carlow College.McDevitt: "Did you at any time make an agreement with Dr. Cyril Wecht to exchange lab space for cadavers from the Allegheny County Morgue?" Sister Geibel: "Never."McDevitt: "Did you ever offer to exchange lab space for cadavers from the Allegheny County Morgue?" Sister Geibel: "No, I did not."McDevitt: "Did he ever offer to exchange lab space for cadavers from the Allegheny County Morgue?" Sister Geibel: "No, he did not."McDevitt: "Did you ever enter into an agreement with Dr. Wecht to exchange lab space for cadavers from the Allegheny County Morgue?" Sister Geibel: "No."McDevitt: "Did you ever once discuss exchanging lab space for cadavers from the Allegheny County Morgue?" Sister Geibel: "No."McDevitt: "That subject was never discussed between you and Dr. Wecht?" Sister Geibel: "Never."McDevitt: "You have told every official of the government who asked you that such a deal was never made?" Sister Geibel: "That's correct."--- Sister Geibel is testifying that she took final vows in 1961, including poverty, chastity, service of poor, sick, uneducated.McDevitt: Is respect for the dead part of how you live your life? Sister Geibel: I would hope so.She was president of Carlow for 17 years. Now retired.One-third of the Carlow board is made up of members of her religious order.---- McDevitt: "The person who initiated the discussion with Dr. Wecht was you?" Sister Geibel: "Yes, it was."1:51 PM. (Note: I'm going to have to leave the Wecht courtroom to return to monitoring the Ellerbe jury.) 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
|
| ||||||||
   |
| |||||||
