Members of the House of Representatives debate a bill on health care reform. Watch It Now

U.S. House: Health Care Debate [Also: Read The Story | In Depth]

Day 22: Bob Mayo Blogs The Cyril Wecht Trial In Pittsburgh

POSTED: 10:18 am EDT March 10, 2008
UPDATED: 4:04 pm EDT March 10, 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 22 - March 10, 2008 - 8:30 a.m. update

Sister Grace Ann Geibel is back on the witness stand, being cross-examined by Wecht defense attorney Jerry McDevitt. He's reviewing with her various correspondence with Dr. Wecht and others concerning the establishment of the forensic science / autopsy technician training academic program.

---
Now on the screen, a January 18, 2005 letter from Wecht to Sister Geibel. It notes that during a luncheon with Carlow faculty, the subject came up of establishing some kind of contractual agreement between Carlow and Wecht. Geibel says at that at the time of this letter, she was preparing for her retirement and the transition to a successor for her.

McDevitt: eventually a document was drafted....? Geibel: "That's right".

Defense document now on the screen, dated March 23, 2005. It's a cover letter for a draft of the agreement. It says it's Carlow's desire to "have you forever associated with our autopsy program and to have access to an (until your hundredth year) access to our science facilities".

Next document: letter dated Mary 20, 2005. It's the cover letter for the memorandum of understanding. The agreement itself is co-signed by Geibel and Wecht. McDevitt notes that it's nearly two years after the initial discussion, and that it was drafted by Carlow's legal counsel.

The agreement says: "Carlow desires...to permit Wecht to continue to use Carlow's Gross Anatomy Laboratory"... "for the purpose of private autopsies."

McDevitt notes that there's no mention of any condition based on the use of cadavers from the coroner's office. Geibel: "no, there is not."

The agreement does not provide for any pay to Wecht for participating in the Carlow educational program. Geibel: "he never asked for any."

McDevitt: Prior to these charges you were not interviewed by any representative of the FBI? no I was not. ..by any member of the prosecution team? "No I was not."
No attempt by them...to interview...? Geibel: "No there was not."
McDevitt says how she found out about the charges? "I came to know about it by seeing it on television. I believe it was on CNN. I was in Florida at the time." She says it seemed like it was on throughout the day.
It was given widespread publicity? A: "Absolutely. It was on all day", and it was referencing Carlow College.
What was your reaction when you heard it? "I was just shocked. I thought 'what could this mean?' I began to question whether I could have lived that life back there."
"What basis could there be for such an allegation. This was absolutely false, for one reason."
"There was an invitation and securing of the lab for Dr. Wecht from the outset."
"That was my reaction, it was shock, then I settled down and said I have to think about this."
McDevitt: Do you recall the first representative of the government who attempted to speak to you about this? Objection.
Did you have the opportunity to speak with the U.S. attorney herself about these charges? Objection.
Did you tell the U.S. Attorney that these charges were false? Geibel says "Yes, I did", as the government objects. Move to strike. Granted.

Her testimony establishes that months later there was a meeting with government: Mr. Stallings, Mr. Brad Orsini from the FBI.

Defense attorney McDevitt: did you observe anyone from the government making notes of your conversation. I did not.

McDevitt asks if she was ever shown any FBI 302 forms -- those are FBI records of the content of interviews conducted by agents.
Did you answer every question they asked that day. I think so.
Did you tell them you never made an agreement with Dr. Wecht that he would have lab space for free cadavers. I'm quite sure that I did.
Did you tell them this was an academic program that was a fulfillment of your dream. She says she did.
McDevitt: before this trial began, you told Mr. Stallings and FBI agent Orsini there was no deal as discussed in this case? Yes, I did.

9:04 AM Cross-examination by Assistant U.S. Attorney Steve Stallings.

You testified that it was "reprehensible" that you did not get the opportunity to go through these documents? Yes.
This morning you asked "what would be the basis" for bringing these charges.
Stallings brings up document: minutes from June 20, 2003 Carlow board meeting.
Next Stalling shows copy of her remarks at the announcement of the program from September 5, 2003.
Asks if she was aware of the government subpoenaing documents from Carlow from April of 2005? She says she recalls her secretary telling her that kind of activity was under way.
Stalling shows her government exhibit 2002, page one. It's a letter from her legal counsel to Stallings, cc:ed to her. It's a response to the subpoena.
Stallings asks if Geibel's handwritten notes in preparing for her announcement of the program were produced to the government. They were not. He also asks about other materials presented as defense exhibits during cross-examination. They apparently were not.
Document introduced by Stallings speaks of the use of bodies of "indigent". It also says students will meet an adequate amount of time built into the course to perform an autopsy".
There's also a reference of cost of transportation.
Stallings questions whether these documents were produced in response to the initial subpoena. Apparently they were not.

Now shows her a 9-15-2004 Carlow purchase order. It refers to removal of autopsy cases from the Allegheny County coroner's office to Carlow -- 10 to 12 cases. $75 a unit to $900.

Now Stallings goes back to an earlier government exhibit, which refers to budgetary considerations for transportation of $75 each. She acknowledges they would be apparently be bodies.

Stallings: these documents all refer to the transportation of bodies from the coroner's office to Carlow, would you agree? Yes.
He also notes they were apparently not provided to the government in response to its initial subpoena.

Next document: notes "Things to be done" from 2004. It listed "contract with Carlow & Wecht regarding bodies and facilities". She acknowledges it was not provided in response to the subpoena in April of 2005.

Stallings shows her government exhibit 20002, page two. It asks for "All records relating to Cyril H. Wecht, including without limitation contracts, formation documents, by laws, financial statements..,.bills, invoices... from January 1, 1997 to April 2005."

Left Carlow in June 2005. Asks if she's familiar with government efforts to get additional documents and what Carlow did produce in 2006. She is not aware.

Stallings now shows a "Draft #1" of the contract between Carlow and Wecht, which has handwritten notations on it. Section 3, Contributions, says Carlow agrees to contribute one autopsy lab. There are question marks and blank spaces, indicating it was a draft. Item B lists Supplies: "Chemicals, bodies". Stallings establishes this was not provided to the government in response to the earlier subpoena.

A draft from 3/17/05 initially notes Wecht serves as coroner. Stallings notes a later version refers to him in his private capacity.

Stallings: you made clear this morning you never discussed an exchange of bodies for cadavers? She says that's correct.

Stallings shows an addendum to the agreement from September 27, 2005, after she left Carlow.

This version - section 4, Contributions. Carlow agrees to contribute the premises and use of the lab.
"The primary instruction mode will be autopsies provided by Wecht Pathology"... "augmented by additional cadavers procured by Wecht Pathology".
You are aware that cadavers were coming to Carlow even as you were president? She answers she wasn't aware of the details. She says she invited Wecht to bring his private practice, and she had then and still has now "every confidence" that he would have followed appropriate procedures.
Stallings: and you would have relied on Dr. Wecht? Geibel: that's correct.

9:40 AM Testimony is continuing.

Wecht Day 22 - March 10, 2008 - 9:40 a.m. update

Stallings shows checks and invoices for transportation of bodies. He asks if they were included in response to the initial subpoena. They were not.

Stallings notes that it appears Carlow was paying for transportation of bodies from at least the fall of 2004.

Stallings asks what she did to make your her response to the subpoena was complete. She says she relied on her staff and legal counsel Charles Gibbons to determine the material that was most appropriate.

You are clear that you never had a discussion with the defendant about exchanging bodies for lab space. Would you agree to me that bodies were being sent from the coroner's office to Carlow and back again on a frequent basis? Yes.
That Dr. Wecht was the one responsible for obtaining those cadavers? Yes.

---
Stallings asks if the documents showing the transportation don't pre-date the subpoena of April 2005? Yes.
That the defendant was allowed to use the lab as early as 2003 and he didn't pay for the lab space? Yes.
Did he tell you that prior to that he was paying PIMS for lab space? She wasn't aware.
That he would have to pay PIMS $60,000 a year to continue to use PIMS? No.
Did she believe that the autopsies did for outlying counties were a public service? She indicates that it seems reasonable to assume that might be the case.
Did he tell you that he earned at least a thousand dollars for each of those autopsies he performed for the surrounding counties? She believes she knew that.
Did he tell his business earned as much as $400,000 a year from autopsies alone.. tell you how valuable it would be for him to have use of Carlow's space? She doesn't recall that.
Can you tell us what records, if any, Carlow kept that Lillian Takacs had consented to having her body used for educational purposes? No.
That Takacs family consented...? No, but says she's confident any appropriate measures would have been taken.
Stallings now lists others whose bodies were autopsied and asks about consent in those cases. She says the same answer would apply.

Stallings: assume for me that a woman named Charlotte Keegel wrote down in a letter what she wanted to happen with her body in the case of her death. Over defense objections, Stallings reads the letter, which says "please definitely do not make me a donor of any of my organs."
Stallings: "Would you agree that sending the body for autopsy of this body would not show respect for the dead?" Defense objects, questions whether there will be any evidence offered that Wecht or anyone involved knew of the letter. Judge allows the question. Geibel: I do not know how to respond to that. I don't know the nature of the transaction, if this information was known. If it was known and deliberately contradicted, I would assume that it would not show respect. But there are so many unknowns floating in the air here, and so many hypotheticals, it's really untenable.

Now Stallings asks about another individual ... similar objections are overruled by judge.

Stallings asks again if Carlow relied on the defendant to make sure all obligations were met. Geibel: yes.

10:03 Re-cross questioning by McDevitt.

Did you rely on your lawyer to respond to the subpoena? Yes.
Would you agree that you supplied about a half-inch of documents in response to the subpoena? Yes.
So whatever documents were given to the document, they've had since April, 2005? That's correct.
So Carlow responded to the government with these documents within 12 days? Yes.
There's nothing requesting any thing about livery (body transportation) records, is there? Geibel: No, there isn't.

McDevitt shows through his questioning that various documents she provided in April 2005 do mention private autopsies. He's apparently attempting to show Carlow and Geibel were not trying to hide these reference. He also uses her to show that information about the formation of the program, including news articles were provided. McDevitt asks her if it wasn't enough for them to be able to ask her about the allegation later brought in the indictment, which she says they did not do. She agrees.

10:21 AM Judge says they're breaking until 10:40 AM

Wecht Day 22 - March 10, 2008 - 10:43 a.m. update

McDevitt shows Sister Geibel documents that were provided to the government in response to the April 2005 subpoena. He is attempting to show that the documents provided in response to the subpoena showed her continuing involvement with Wecht in developing the program at Carlow.
He shows a February 2004 letter from her to Wecht that mentions that Wecht would be performing autopsies.
McDevitt: nothing's being hidden from them in April 2005, is there? No.
You didn't give instructions to your counsel to obstruct the investigation, did you? No, I didn't.
With each document, McDevitt points out an element and asks if anyone from the government asked her any questions based on the document that related to the body-trading allegation. She answers that they did not.
McDevitt: They had full access to these documents and to anybody that they wanted to find the truth out, is that correct? Yes.

McDevitt asks a series of questions attempting to get into evidence who first used the description trading cadavers for lab space. The government objects and the judge sustains the prosecution's objections. It's apparent that he's attempting to show it was U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan did so.

McDevitt asks if it's misleading to show the letter from a person whose body was autopsied when there's no indication Wecht ever saw the letter. Geibel says that it is.

Q: By September of 2006 when they eventually met with you, you told them there was nothing whatsoever in the agreement to trade bodies for lab space? That's correct.

Dr. Wecht's still at Carlow isn't he? Still teaching students? Yes he is.
If bodies aren't coming there Carlow doesn't care because they got what they bargained for? She says that's correct, the expertise of Dr. Wecht.

11:01 AM Stallings takes another turn at questioning the witness.

Would you agree that the second production of documents by Carlow was much more extensive than the first? She agrees.
Do you have any personal knowledge of who the government interviewed and the documents it reviewed prior to bringing this indictment? She does not.

One week prior to the response to the subpoena, did you agree to become a signatory of a letter soliciting funds for the Wecht Legal Defense Fund? She acknowledges that she was.

11:07 AM McDevitt gets another turn at questioning the witness.

Do believe it's expensive for someone to defend themselves against a legal onslaught like this? She's sure it is.
Do you think that Dr. Wecht --like anyone else in this country who feels that they're wrongly accused -- has a right to counsel to defend themselves? A: Absolutely.

McDevitt reads from the Wecht indictment, then begins to ask a question. The judge has him give her the indictment to read silently.

----
Was Wecht referred to in news coverage as a body trader and body snatcher? Yes, he was. McDevitt asks about how damaging those descriptions are, and Geibel agrees.

There was no arrangement between you and Dr. Wecht to ship cadavers in exchange for lab space? She says there was not.

11:16 AM Geibel's testimony ends.

(Note: I left the courtroom for a time to interview Sister Geibel outside the federal courthouse building.)

11:30 AM Current witness is Crystal Gabrich, dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at Carlow. She says that Monique Shoemaker, was associate dean of math and natural sciences at Carlow until May 2007. Prosecutor Stallings shows her a document indicating that students were given the opportunity to observe 25 autopsies and each student did observe at least 10. Prepared by Joe Mancuso in Spring of 2004.

Wecht Day 22 - March 10, 2008 - 11:36 a.m. update

Stallings is showing the witness various documents relating to payments for the moving of bodies in connection with the autopsy program at Carlow.

---

11:48 AM Asks her about a meeting about the forensic program in September 10, 2004. It was to familiarize her with the program. They look at the handwritten notes on the agenda for the meeting: May 2004.

----

12 Noon: They continue going over documents that include her handwritten notes from her meeting in which she was her familiarizing herself with the autopsy program. Under "Question" there's a notation "contract with Wecht for bodies." She says there was not a contract at the time of that meeting.

----

Shows her a document from a course description:

It says The Allegheny County Coroner's office will allow indigent corpses or storage cases to be transported to Carlow for use in this course."

Says she wasn't familiar with the details.

----

While looking at the draft of an agreement with handwritten notations, Gabrich says she regrets the use of the word "bodies," indicating that she now feels it wasn't the appropriate word to use. She says she had come to her position from a communications background. Stallings tells her that no one is suggesting that the use of the word "bodies" is in any way inappropriate.

----

Now we're again looking at the draft, which says the following:

Section 3, Contributions, says Carlow agrees to contribute one autopsy lab. Item B lists Supplies: "Chemicals, bodies".

----

12:27 Judge says they will now break for lunch until 1:30 PM.

Wecht Day 22 - March 10, 2008 - 1:31 p.m. update

Testimony continues. Stallings is reviewing documents with the witness. The documents include a draft of the Carlow and Wecht. One has a notation from her that asks why was the memorandum between Carlow University and Cyril H. Wecht and not Wecht Pathology.

One draft says that "the primary instruction mode will use bodies provided by Wecht Pathology Associates, augmented by additional cadavers procured by Wecht Pathology Associates Group."

----

Stallings is continuing to walk the witness through various draft versions of an addendum to the agreement with Wecht Pathology.

Now we're on someone's notes from an October 21, 2005 meeting at which she, Wecht, and others were present. There are signatures on the version of the memorandum dated October 21, 2005. This one says Carlow agrees to contribute the premises and use of the lab and that... "the primary instruction mode will use bodies provided by Wecht Pathology Associates, augmented by additional cadavers procured by Wecht Pathology Associates Group."

2:02 PM Cross examination by defense attorney Mark Rush of Chrystal Gabrich, dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at Carlow. Rush asks and she agrees there was no discussion of Wecht providing cadavers in exchange for lab space... not suggestion he would be in violation of this agreement if he did not provide cadavers. Gabrich says that there was nothing like that.
Rush: it says the primary instruction mode was autopsies provided by Wecht Pathology. Did you understand that to be from private autopsies done for outlying counties? That's correct.
Rush establishes that the unclaimed cadavers from the coroner's office were not to be the primary source.

Rush asks about her meeting with the government. She says she can confirm that in her September 2006 meeting (after Wecht was indicted) that Stallings and Agent Orsini were present. They asked about the addendum.
Did they ask there was a condition for Wecht to continue to provide cadavers in order to have lab space? She says they did not.
If they had asked you, would you have told them that access to the lab space had nothing to do with him providing cadavers? That's correct.
Rush asks if the government was taking notes during her meeting. She says everyone was taking notes but her.
Establishes that she's never seen any FBI 302 forms documenting what she told the government.
One of her answers indicates that her attorney may have made a recording of that meeting. (Note: that could be a noteworthy development. It will be interesting to see if the defense seeks to obtain a copy of that recording.)

2:16 PM Stallings resumes his questioning.
Would you agree with me it would not be possible for students to perform an autopsy in a homicide case? A: I'm not aware.
Shows a document: a course description saying the course requirement of a student performing an autopsy. A: She says she's not aware.

Stalling asks if two attorneys for Carlow were present at that meeting. Stalling asks if she said she saw a record of that meeting. He asks: no one was recording that meeting, were they? She indicates not; it appears she saw a record (a written record?) prepared by her attorneys.

2:22 PM New witness: Chief Walter Lyons, City of Greensburg Police Department in Westmoreland County. Prosecutor Jim Wilson asks him if his police department keeps records of parking tickets. He says it does.
Wilson shows a document: April 8, 2003 parking enforcement record of an expired parking meter. Time issued : 11:36 AM. Badge number and name of meter personnel, Jance Carroll. Notation: over-parked meter. Location: West Pittsburgh Street. Fine: $6. It is marked underpaid -- the amount is $3. The area for "responsible party" is blank. It would be the name, address, etc., of the party to whom the vehicle is registered.

Now Wilson shows a page from Wecht's calendar as prepared by his secretary. The date is Tuesday, April 8, 10:30 AM. the indication is that Wecht was testifying in Westmoreland County Court on behalf of the district attorney there.

Now, we're back at a ticket document.. this appears to be for a different date. The time is 10:14 AM on that date. On this ticket, the County of Allegheny is listed as the responsible party. Once again it matches a mention in Wecht's calendar for testimony on behalf of the Westmoreland County DA at the courthouse there. One again, there appears to be an underpayment on a ticket for an overparked (expired) meter.

Now we're on a third ticket from September 10, 2003. Similar circumstances. Wilson shows a letter from Dr. Cyril Wecht concerning the ticket. It's directed to the meter patrol person (by number). Wecht write about being "subpoenaed to testify in a homicide case by the Westmoreland County district attorney." The witness says he checked with the DA's office and found out that Wecht was testifying in a private capacity and not as Allegheny County Coroner.

Next document: a letter from Chief Lyons back to Wecht: "your letter... was not one I would have expected from someone of your stature and position" and that he will expect Wecht's payment in the amount of $6.

The prosecutor asks if the area in question is one in which there's a lot of activity and a lot of tickets issued. He answers that is correct.
Wilson: Were you trying to be a smart guy when you sent Dr. Wecht this ticket, sir? No.

Now we move on to another ticket, issued October 6th, and another entry from Wecht's calendar indicating a Westmoreland County court appearance.

2:40 Cross-examination by defense attorney Mark Rush. He asks the chief he he agrees the prosecution showed by its evidence that Wecht clearly regularly went to Westmoreland County to testify in homicide cases. Chief Lyons agrees.
Rush says that they didn't show the checks showing payment. Asks if it's difficult to go out and put quarters in the meter when you're testifying in a homicide case. The chief agrees.

2:44 PM His testimony ends.

2:45 PM Next witness: Cora Stallworth. Rush asks the judge to note the defense's continuing objection to the relevance of this witness.
Were you acquainted with a woman named Gretta Brown. She was. They were friends.
Contact curing the latter months of Brown's life? They talked over the phone. Learned from a relative of Brown that Brown's body was in the Allegheny County morgue.
Asks if Miss Brown ever told her what she wanted done with her remains. Answers no. Says she found out from someone else. Says she then told coroner's office that she "wanted to buy Ms. Brown, please do not cremate her." She says she called them more than once and reminded them. She made arrangements with Jones Funeral Home to have the body buried.
Wilson asks if they ever advised her Ms. Brown's body be used in a student autopsy program. She says she was not. He established again that she said the body should not be cremated.

2:58 PM Cross-examination by defense attorney Mark Rush.
Established that coroner's office told her she'd have to wait 30 days until they see if any family member claimed the body. None did.
Q: They didn't cremate your friend, did they ma'am? No.

----

Her testimony ends. The judge asks the jury if they are willing to hear one more witness or to go home. They agree to hear one more witness.

3:00 PM Witness Mark Rohosky is sworn in to testify. Was married to Michelle Rohosky. After a year of marriage they she developed schizophrenia. She was hospitalized until she died in September of 2005. He tried to terminate the marriage but was unable to do so. He was notified of her death. Coroner's office said she had died of lung cancer and the body was there. Told that if they could not afford a funeral, they would put him in touch with the Saint Vincent DePaul Society would handle the funeral and burial. Ultimately that did not happen.

Was he notified.... did he give permission for... her body to be used for student autopsy? He answers no to both questions.
Witness says Michelle had suffered all her life and he wanted her laid to rest in peace. Says he "didn't feel there should be any kind of medical experiments after she was gone."

3:10 PM Jerry McDevitt, defense attorney.
What year were you married? A: (pause) 1980.
Did you have to think about it? Yes.
When was the last time you lived together as man and wife? 2008.
When did she die? He can name month but not date. More than 25 years after they stopped living together.
Did you even know where your wife was when she died? He answers no. Acknowledges he did not.
McDevitt continues to question the witness over what was involved in the coroner's office attempting to reach him.
In a sometimes testy back-and-forth, McDevitt establishes that the witness had a fiancee at the time he was notified of his wife's death.

3:20 PM Court recesses for the day.