Jump to content
The Education Forum

Wecht trial ends


Recommended Posts

Not the way I would have done it. I think he needed to testify. This could easily backfire. Jurors think people who don't take the stand are hiding something. Sure they SAY they can be fair and understand the defendant's right not to testify, but this is crap. THey all WANT to hear from the accused. So I think it was a risky call on their parts. His atty. had better do one heck of a closing.!

Dawn

____________

Wecht defense rests case, calls no witnesses

Closing arguments set for Monday in fraud trial against former coroner

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

By Jonathan D. Silver, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

The biggest question of Dr. Cyril H. Wecht's federal fraud trial --

whether the verbose and volatile former Allegheny County coroner would

take the stand in his own defense -- was answered yesterday in

surprising and brief fashion.

After the prosecution announced it had rested its case following 44

witnesses, hundreds of exhibits and 22 days of testimony, lead defense

attorney Jerry McDevitt quietly stood up and said he was resting as

well.

No defense witnesses (there were 84 on the list). No more testimony.

And no climactic showdown between Dr. Wecht and the prosecutors who

have spent two years stitching together the case against him.

"I thought it was a very smart move," said Stanton Levenson, a

Pittsburgh criminal defense lawyer for 41 years.

"I think that puts them in the position to argue that the case the

government presented was very weak and required no response on the part

of the defense, that Dr. Wecht entered a plea of not guilty, and that's

sufficient."

Carl Tobias, a University of Richmond law professor, echoed that

sentiment, but said there was a flip side.

"It also happens sometimes when you're afraid to put the defendant on

the stand," Mr. Tobias said. "I think it's a fairly bold move because

you're trusting that you made the right call and you've properly read

the jury and they're leaning in your favor."

Mr. McDevitt and his partner, Mark Rush, declined comment on their

announcement, as did Dr. Wecht.

"I look forward to closing," was all Mr. McDevitt would say as he left

the courtroom.

Those closing arguments are scheduled for Monday morning. U.S. District

Court Judge Arthur J. Schwab has given each side 90 minutes to make

their final pitch to jurors.

It is not unheard of in criminal cases for defendants not to take the

stand or even for defense attorneys to not call any witnesses, though

such moves might raise the eyebrows of some jurors.

More witnesses means more chances for prosecutors to cross-examine. And

whether to put the defendant on is a double-edged sword.

"The jury could say, 'If he really didn't do this, why didn't he get on

the witness stand and tell us that,'" said Mr. Levenson, who makes a

practice of trying to keep his clients from testifying.

But, he added, that's better than putting the defendant on and having

the jury say, "I didn't like him or I didn't believe him."

And with a defendant like Dr. Wecht -- intelligent but sarcastic,

genial to some but caustic to others -- some might think the smartest

move would be to keep him from going toe-to-toe with prosecutors.

Throughout the trial, Judge Schwab has instructed witnesses to give

"teaspoon" answers to "teaspoon" questions, meaning witnesses should

not go off on tangents but should stick narrowly to the question. Dr.

Wecht is known for giving gallon-sized answers.

Dr. Wecht is charged with 41 offenses involving wire fraud, mail fraud,

and theft from an organization receiving federal funds, namely

Allegheny County.

Prosecutors allege that while Dr. Wecht was the coroner, he used county

resources -- including his staff, fax machines, phone lines, vehicles

and even unclaimed bodies -- to benefit his private multimillion-dollar

autopsy and consultation business, Cyril H. Wecht and Pathology

Associates.

They also claim he schemed to defraud his private clients by inflating

airfares for which he was reimbursed, fabricated invoices for limousine

rides he never took and billed clients for mileage expenses while he

used a county car and never passed the money on to county coffers.

Prosecutors allege that Dr. Wecht carried out several of those schemes

by using fax transmissions or sending invoices through the U.S. mail.

Should the Wecht defense team have called witnesses to try to address

every alleged instance of a crime? Not necessarily.

"There's not much point in trying to rebut every individual instance if

you're arguing to the jury that what the prosecution has shown has not

demonstrated an overall pattern of abuse," said Duquesne University law

professor Bruce Ledewitz, a friend of Dr. Wecht's for 24 years.

"They're not going to convict on a federal charge because the guy took

home paper clips."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Not the way I would have done it. I think he needed to testify. This could easily backfire. Jurors think people who don't take the stand are hiding something. Sure they SAY they can be fair and understand the defendant's right not to testify, but this is crap. THey all WANT to hear from the accused. So I think it was a risky call on their parts. His atty. had better do one heck of a closing.!

Dawn

____________

Wecht defense rests case, calls no witnesses

Closing arguments set for Monday in fraud trial against former coroner

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

By Jonathan D. Silver, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

The biggest question of Dr. Cyril H. Wecht's federal fraud trial --

whether the verbose and volatile former Allegheny County coroner would

take the stand in his own defense -- was answered yesterday in

surprising and brief fashion.

After the prosecution announced it had rested its case following 44

witnesses, hundreds of exhibits and 22 days of testimony, lead defense

attorney Jerry McDevitt quietly stood up and said he was resting as

well.

No defense witnesses (there were 84 on the list). No more testimony.

And no climactic showdown between Dr. Wecht and the prosecutors who

have spent two years stitching together the case against him.

"I thought it was a very smart move," said Stanton Levenson, a

Pittsburgh criminal defense lawyer for 41 years.

"I think that puts them in the position to argue that the case the

government presented was very weak and required no response on the part

of the defense, that Dr. Wecht entered a plea of not guilty, and that's

sufficient."

Carl Tobias, a University of Richmond law professor, echoed that

sentiment, but said there was a flip side.

"It also happens sometimes when you're afraid to put the defendant on

the stand," Mr. Tobias said. "I think it's a fairly bold move because

you're trusting that you made the right call and you've properly read

the jury and they're leaning in your favor."

Mr. McDevitt and his partner, Mark Rush, declined comment on their

announcement, as did Dr. Wecht.

"I look forward to closing," was all Mr. McDevitt would say as he left

the courtroom.

Those closing arguments are scheduled for Monday morning. U.S. District

Court Judge Arthur J. Schwab has given each side 90 minutes to make

their final pitch to jurors.

It is not unheard of in criminal cases for defendants not to take the

stand or even for defense attorneys to not call any witnesses, though

such moves might raise the eyebrows of some jurors.

More witnesses means more chances for prosecutors to cross-examine. And

whether to put the defendant on is a double-edged sword.

"The jury could say, 'If he really didn't do this, why didn't he get on

the witness stand and tell us that,'" said Mr. Levenson, who makes a

practice of trying to keep his clients from testifying.

But, he added, that's better than putting the defendant on and having

the jury say, "I didn't like him or I didn't believe him."

And with a defendant like Dr. Wecht -- intelligent but sarcastic,

genial to some but caustic to others -- some might think the smartest

move would be to keep him from going toe-to-toe with prosecutors.

Throughout the trial, Judge Schwab has instructed witnesses to give

"teaspoon" answers to "teaspoon" questions, meaning witnesses should

not go off on tangents but should stick narrowly to the question. Dr.

Wecht is known for giving gallon-sized answers.

Dr. Wecht is charged with 41 offenses involving wire fraud, mail fraud,

and theft from an organization receiving federal funds, namely

Allegheny County.

Prosecutors allege that while Dr. Wecht was the coroner, he used county

resources -- including his staff, fax machines, phone lines, vehicles

and even unclaimed bodies -- to benefit his private multimillion-dollar

autopsy and consultation business, Cyril H. Wecht and Pathology

Associates.

They also claim he schemed to defraud his private clients by inflating

airfares for which he was reimbursed, fabricated invoices for limousine

rides he never took and billed clients for mileage expenses while he

used a county car and never passed the money on to county coffers.

Prosecutors allege that Dr. Wecht carried out several of those schemes

by using fax transmissions or sending invoices through the U.S. mail.

Should the Wecht defense team have called witnesses to try to address

every alleged instance of a crime? Not necessarily.

"There's not much point in trying to rebut every individual instance if

you're arguing to the jury that what the prosecution has shown has not

demonstrated an overall pattern of abuse," said Duquesne University law

professor Bruce Ledewitz, a friend of Dr. Wecht's for 24 years.

"They're not going to convict on a federal charge because the guy took

home paper clips."

Everyone here seems to want Wecht to be innocent because his "one of us". Fact is from what Ive seen of the evidence the guys as guilty as hell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not the way I would have done it. I think he needed to testify. This could easily backfire. Jurors think people who don't take the stand are hiding something. Sure they SAY they can be fair and understand the defendant's right not to testify, but this is crap. THey all WANT to hear from the accused. So I think it was a risky call on their parts. His atty. had better do one heck of a closing.!

Dawn

____________

Wecht defense rests case, calls no witnesses

Closing arguments set for Monday in fraud trial against former coroner

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

By Jonathan D. Silver, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

The biggest question of Dr. Cyril H. Wecht's federal fraud trial --

whether the verbose and volatile former Allegheny County coroner would

take the stand in his own defense -- was answered yesterday in

surprising and brief fashion.

After the prosecution announced it had rested its case following 44

witnesses, hundreds of exhibits and 22 days of testimony, lead defense

attorney Jerry McDevitt quietly stood up and said he was resting as

well.

No defense witnesses (there were 84 on the list). No more testimony.

And no climactic showdown between Dr. Wecht and the prosecutors who

have spent two years stitching together the case against him.

"I thought it was a very smart move," said Stanton Levenson, a

Pittsburgh criminal defense lawyer for 41 years.

"I think that puts them in the position to argue that the case the

government presented was very weak and required no response on the part

of the defense, that Dr. Wecht entered a plea of not guilty, and that's

sufficient."

Carl Tobias, a University of Richmond law professor, echoed that

sentiment, but said there was a flip side.

"It also happens sometimes when you're afraid to put the defendant on

the stand," Mr. Tobias said. "I think it's a fairly bold move because

you're trusting that you made the right call and you've properly read

the jury and they're leaning in your favor."

Mr. McDevitt and his partner, Mark Rush, declined comment on their

announcement, as did Dr. Wecht.

"I look forward to closing," was all Mr. McDevitt would say as he left

the courtroom.

Those closing arguments are scheduled for Monday morning. U.S. District

Court Judge Arthur J. Schwab has given each side 90 minutes to make

their final pitch to jurors.

It is not unheard of in criminal cases for defendants not to take the

stand or even for defense attorneys to not call any witnesses, though

such moves might raise the eyebrows of some jurors.

More witnesses means more chances for prosecutors to cross-examine. And

whether to put the defendant on is a double-edged sword.

"The jury could say, 'If he really didn't do this, why didn't he get on

the witness stand and tell us that,'" said Mr. Levenson, who makes a

practice of trying to keep his clients from testifying.

But, he added, that's better than putting the defendant on and having

the jury say, "I didn't like him or I didn't believe him."

And with a defendant like Dr. Wecht -- intelligent but sarcastic,

genial to some but caustic to others -- some might think the smartest

move would be to keep him from going toe-to-toe with prosecutors.

Throughout the trial, Judge Schwab has instructed witnesses to give

"teaspoon" answers to "teaspoon" questions, meaning witnesses should

not go off on tangents but should stick narrowly to the question. Dr.

Wecht is known for giving gallon-sized answers.

Dr. Wecht is charged with 41 offenses involving wire fraud, mail fraud,

and theft from an organization receiving federal funds, namely

Allegheny County.

Prosecutors allege that while Dr. Wecht was the coroner, he used county

resources -- including his staff, fax machines, phone lines, vehicles

and even unclaimed bodies -- to benefit his private multimillion-dollar

autopsy and consultation business, Cyril H. Wecht and Pathology

Associates.

They also claim he schemed to defraud his private clients by inflating

airfares for which he was reimbursed, fabricated invoices for limousine

rides he never took and billed clients for mileage expenses while he

used a county car and never passed the money on to county coffers.

Prosecutors allege that Dr. Wecht carried out several of those schemes

by using fax transmissions or sending invoices through the U.S. mail.

Should the Wecht defense team have called witnesses to try to address

every alleged instance of a crime? Not necessarily.

"There's not much point in trying to rebut every individual instance if

you're arguing to the jury that what the prosecution has shown has not

demonstrated an overall pattern of abuse," said Duquesne University law

professor Bruce Ledewitz, a friend of Dr. Wecht's for 24 years.

"They're not going to convict on a federal charge because the guy took

home paper clips."

Everyone here seems to want Wecht to be innocent because his "one of us". Fact is from what Ive seen of the evidence the guys as guilty as hell.

A Deo et Rege

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not the way I would have done it. I think he needed to testify. This could easily backfire. Jurors think people who don't take the stand are hiding something. Sure they SAY they can be fair and understand the defendant's right not to testify, but this is crap. THey all WANT to hear from the accused. So I think it was a risky call on their parts. His atty. had better do one heck of a closing.!

Dawn

____________

Wecht defense rests case, calls no witnesses

Closing arguments set for Monday in fraud trial against former coroner

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

By Jonathan D. Silver, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

The biggest question of Dr. Cyril H. Wecht's federal fraud trial --

whether the verbose and volatile former Allegheny County coroner would

take the stand in his own defense -- was answered yesterday in

surprising and brief fashion.

After the prosecution announced it had rested its case following 44

witnesses, hundreds of exhibits and 22 days of testimony, lead defense

attorney Jerry McDevitt quietly stood up and said he was resting as

well.

No defense witnesses (there were 84 on the list). No more testimony.

And no climactic showdown between Dr. Wecht and the prosecutors who

have spent two years stitching together the case against him.

"I thought it was a very smart move," said Stanton Levenson, a

Pittsburgh criminal defense lawyer for 41 years.

"I think that puts them in the position to argue that the case the

government presented was very weak and required no response on the part

of the defense, that Dr. Wecht entered a plea of not guilty, and that's

sufficient."

Carl Tobias, a University of Richmond law professor, echoed that

sentiment, but said there was a flip side.

"It also happens sometimes when you're afraid to put the defendant on

the stand," Mr. Tobias said. "I think it's a fairly bold move because

you're trusting that you made the right call and you've properly read

the jury and they're leaning in your favor."

Mr. McDevitt and his partner, Mark Rush, declined comment on their

announcement, as did Dr. Wecht.

"I look forward to closing," was all Mr. McDevitt would say as he left

the courtroom.

Those closing arguments are scheduled for Monday morning. U.S. District

Court Judge Arthur J. Schwab has given each side 90 minutes to make

their final pitch to jurors.

It is not unheard of in criminal cases for defendants not to take the

stand or even for defense attorneys to not call any witnesses, though

such moves might raise the eyebrows of some jurors.

More witnesses means more chances for prosecutors to cross-examine. And

whether to put the defendant on is a double-edged sword.

"The jury could say, 'If he really didn't do this, why didn't he get on

the witness stand and tell us that,'" said Mr. Levenson, who makes a

practice of trying to keep his clients from testifying.

But, he added, that's better than putting the defendant on and having

the jury say, "I didn't like him or I didn't believe him."

And with a defendant like Dr. Wecht -- intelligent but sarcastic,

genial to some but caustic to others -- some might think the smartest

move would be to keep him from going toe-to-toe with prosecutors.

Throughout the trial, Judge Schwab has instructed witnesses to give

"teaspoon" answers to "teaspoon" questions, meaning witnesses should

not go off on tangents but should stick narrowly to the question. Dr.

Wecht is known for giving gallon-sized answers.

Dr. Wecht is charged with 41 offenses involving wire fraud, mail fraud,

and theft from an organization receiving federal funds, namely

Allegheny County.

Prosecutors allege that while Dr. Wecht was the coroner, he used county

resources -- including his staff, fax machines, phone lines, vehicles

and even unclaimed bodies -- to benefit his private multimillion-dollar

autopsy and consultation business, Cyril H. Wecht and Pathology

Associates.

They also claim he schemed to defraud his private clients by inflating

airfares for which he was reimbursed, fabricated invoices for limousine

rides he never took and billed clients for mileage expenses while he

used a county car and never passed the money on to county coffers.

Prosecutors allege that Dr. Wecht carried out several of those schemes

by using fax transmissions or sending invoices through the U.S. mail.

Should the Wecht defense team have called witnesses to try to address

every alleged instance of a crime? Not necessarily.

"There's not much point in trying to rebut every individual instance if

you're arguing to the jury that what the prosecution has shown has not

demonstrated an overall pattern of abuse," said Duquesne University law

professor Bruce Ledewitz, a friend of Dr. Wecht's for 24 years.

"They're not going to convict on a federal charge because the guy took

home paper clips."

Everyone here seems to want Wecht to be innocent because his "one of us". Fact is from what Ive seen of the evidence the guys as guilty as hell.

A Deo et Rege

Thank you Healy, but I am neither God nor King....just plain Denis, or Pointing to you.

Edited by Denis Pointing
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not the way I would have done it. I think he needed to testify. This could easily backfire. Jurors think people who don't take the stand are hiding something. Sure they SAY they can be fair and understand the defendant's right not to testify, but this is crap. THey all WANT to hear from the accused. So I think it was a risky call on their parts. His atty. had better do one heck of a closing.!

Dawn

____________

Wecht defense rests case, calls no witnesses

Closing arguments set for Monday in fraud trial against former coroner

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

By Jonathan D. Silver, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

The biggest question of Dr. Cyril H. Wecht's federal fraud trial --

whether the verbose and volatile former Allegheny County coroner would

take the stand in his own defense -- was answered yesterday in

surprising and brief fashion.

After the prosecution announced it had rested its case following 44

witnesses, hundreds of exhibits and 22 days of testimony, lead defense

attorney Jerry McDevitt quietly stood up and said he was resting as

well.

No defense witnesses (there were 84 on the list). No more testimony.

And no climactic showdown between Dr. Wecht and the prosecutors who

have spent two years stitching together the case against him.

"I thought it was a very smart move," said Stanton Levenson, a

Pittsburgh criminal defense lawyer for 41 years.

"I think that puts them in the position to argue that the case the

government presented was very weak and required no response on the part

of the defense, that Dr. Wecht entered a plea of not guilty, and that's

sufficient."

Carl Tobias, a University of Richmond law professor, echoed that

sentiment, but said there was a flip side.

"It also happens sometimes when you're afraid to put the defendant on

the stand," Mr. Tobias said. "I think it's a fairly bold move because

you're trusting that you made the right call and you've properly read

the jury and they're leaning in your favor."

Mr. McDevitt and his partner, Mark Rush, declined comment on their

announcement, as did Dr. Wecht.

"I look forward to closing," was all Mr. McDevitt would say as he left

the courtroom.

Those closing arguments are scheduled for Monday morning. U.S. District

Court Judge Arthur J. Schwab has given each side 90 minutes to make

their final pitch to jurors.

It is not unheard of in criminal cases for defendants not to take the

stand or even for defense attorneys to not call any witnesses, though

such moves might raise the eyebrows of some jurors.

More witnesses means more chances for prosecutors to cross-examine. And

whether to put the defendant on is a double-edged sword.

"The jury could say, 'If he really didn't do this, why didn't he get on

the witness stand and tell us that,'" said Mr. Levenson, who makes a

practice of trying to keep his clients from testifying.

But, he added, that's better than putting the defendant on and having

the jury say, "I didn't like him or I didn't believe him."

And with a defendant like Dr. Wecht -- intelligent but sarcastic,

genial to some but caustic to others -- some might think the smartest

move would be to keep him from going toe-to-toe with prosecutors.

Throughout the trial, Judge Schwab has instructed witnesses to give

"teaspoon" answers to "teaspoon" questions, meaning witnesses should

not go off on tangents but should stick narrowly to the question. Dr.

Wecht is known for giving gallon-sized answers.

Dr. Wecht is charged with 41 offenses involving wire fraud, mail fraud,

and theft from an organization receiving federal funds, namely

Allegheny County.

Prosecutors allege that while Dr. Wecht was the coroner, he used county

resources -- including his staff, fax machines, phone lines, vehicles

and even unclaimed bodies -- to benefit his private multimillion-dollar

autopsy and consultation business, Cyril H. Wecht and Pathology

Associates.

They also claim he schemed to defraud his private clients by inflating

airfares for which he was reimbursed, fabricated invoices for limousine

rides he never took and billed clients for mileage expenses while he

used a county car and never passed the money on to county coffers.

Prosecutors allege that Dr. Wecht carried out several of those schemes

by using fax transmissions or sending invoices through the U.S. mail.

Should the Wecht defense team have called witnesses to try to address

every alleged instance of a crime? Not necessarily.

"There's not much point in trying to rebut every individual instance if

you're arguing to the jury that what the prosecution has shown has not

demonstrated an overall pattern of abuse," said Duquesne University law

professor Bruce Ledewitz, a friend of Dr. Wecht's for 24 years.

"They're not going to convict on a federal charge because the guy took

home paper clips."

Everyone here seems to want Wecht to be innocent because his "one of us". Fact is from what Ive seen of the evidence the guys as guilty as hell.

Guilty as hell of what? Using a civil servant secrtary for private work?

The trial cost more than what he is accused of using.

Did Denis Pointing actually follow the trial?

Fact is, if that's the governent's case, they didn't have one.

But I guess that's for the jury to determine and not Denis Pointing or Bill Kelly.

Bill Kelly

Edited by William Kelly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not the way I would have done it. I think he needed to testify. This could easily backfire. Jurors think people who don't take the stand are hiding something. Sure they SAY they can be fair and understand the defendant's right not to testify, but this is crap. THey all WANT to hear from the accused. So I think it was a risky call on their parts. His atty. had better do one heck of a closing.!

Dawn

____________

Wecht defense rests case, calls no witnesses

Closing arguments set for Monday in fraud trial against former coroner

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

By Jonathan D. Silver, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

The biggest question of Dr. Cyril H. Wecht's federal fraud trial --

whether the verbose and volatile former Allegheny County coroner would

take the stand in his own defense -- was answered yesterday in

surprising and brief fashion.

After the prosecution announced it had rested its case following 44

witnesses, hundreds of exhibits and 22 days of testimony, lead defense

attorney Jerry McDevitt quietly stood up and said he was resting as

well.

No defense witnesses (there were 84 on the list). No more testimony.

And no climactic showdown between Dr. Wecht and the prosecutors who

have spent two years stitching together the case against him.

"I thought it was a very smart move," said Stanton Levenson, a

Pittsburgh criminal defense lawyer for 41 years.

"I think that puts them in the position to argue that the case the

government presented was very weak and required no response on the part

of the defense, that Dr. Wecht entered a plea of not guilty, and that's

sufficient."

Carl Tobias, a University of Richmond law professor, echoed that

sentiment, but said there was a flip side.

"It also happens sometimes when you're afraid to put the defendant on

the stand," Mr. Tobias said. "I think it's a fairly bold move because

you're trusting that you made the right call and you've properly read

the jury and they're leaning in your favor."

Mr. McDevitt and his partner, Mark Rush, declined comment on their

announcement, as did Dr. Wecht.

"I look forward to closing," was all Mr. McDevitt would say as he left

the courtroom.

Those closing arguments are scheduled for Monday morning. U.S. District

Court Judge Arthur J. Schwab has given each side 90 minutes to make

their final pitch to jurors.

It is not unheard of in criminal cases for defendants not to take the

stand or even for defense attorneys to not call any witnesses, though

such moves might raise the eyebrows of some jurors.

More witnesses means more chances for prosecutors to cross-examine. And

whether to put the defendant on is a double-edged sword.

"The jury could say, 'If he really didn't do this, why didn't he get on

the witness stand and tell us that,'" said Mr. Levenson, who makes a

practice of trying to keep his clients from testifying.

But, he added, that's better than putting the defendant on and having

the jury say, "I didn't like him or I didn't believe him."

And with a defendant like Dr. Wecht -- intelligent but sarcastic,

genial to some but caustic to others -- some might think the smartest

move would be to keep him from going toe-to-toe with prosecutors.

Throughout the trial, Judge Schwab has instructed witnesses to give

"teaspoon" answers to "teaspoon" questions, meaning witnesses should

not go off on tangents but should stick narrowly to the question. Dr.

Wecht is known for giving gallon-sized answers.

Dr. Wecht is charged with 41 offenses involving wire fraud, mail fraud,

and theft from an organization receiving federal funds, namely

Allegheny County.

Prosecutors allege that while Dr. Wecht was the coroner, he used county

resources -- including his staff, fax machines, phone lines, vehicles

and even unclaimed bodies -- to benefit his private multimillion-dollar

autopsy and consultation business, Cyril H. Wecht and Pathology

Associates.

They also claim he schemed to defraud his private clients by inflating

airfares for which he was reimbursed, fabricated invoices for limousine

rides he never took and billed clients for mileage expenses while he

used a county car and never passed the money on to county coffers.

Prosecutors allege that Dr. Wecht carried out several of those schemes

by using fax transmissions or sending invoices through the U.S. mail.

Should the Wecht defense team have called witnesses to try to address

every alleged instance of a crime? Not necessarily.

"There's not much point in trying to rebut every individual instance if

you're arguing to the jury that what the prosecution has shown has not

demonstrated an overall pattern of abuse," said Duquesne University law

professor Bruce Ledewitz, a friend of Dr. Wecht's for 24 years.

"They're not going to convict on a federal charge because the guy took

home paper clips."

Everyone here seems to want Wecht to be innocent because his "one of us". Fact is from what Ive seen of the evidence the guys as guilty as hell.

A Deo et Rege

Thank you Healy, but I am neither God nor King....just plain Denis, or Pointing to you.

finally... something correct!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not the way I would have done it. I think he needed to testify. This could easily backfire. Jurors think people who don't take the stand are hiding something. Sure they SAY they can be fair and understand the defendant's right not to testify, but this is crap. THey all WANT to hear from the accused. So I think it was a risky call on their parts. His atty. had better do one heck of a closing.!

Dawn

____________

Wecht defense rests case, calls no witnesses

Closing arguments set for Monday in fraud trial against former coroner

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

By Jonathan D. Silver, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

The biggest question of Dr. Cyril H. Wecht's federal fraud trial --

whether the verbose and volatile former Allegheny County coroner would

take the stand in his own defense -- was answered yesterday in

surprising and brief fashion.

After the prosecution announced it had rested its case following 44

witnesses, hundreds of exhibits and 22 days of testimony, lead defense

attorney Jerry McDevitt quietly stood up and said he was resting as

well.

No defense witnesses (there were 84 on the list). No more testimony.

And no climactic showdown between Dr. Wecht and the prosecutors who

have spent two years stitching together the case against him.

"I thought it was a very smart move," said Stanton Levenson, a

Pittsburgh criminal defense lawyer for 41 years.

"I think that puts them in the position to argue that the case the

government presented was very weak and required no response on the part

of the defense, that Dr. Wecht entered a plea of not guilty, and that's

sufficient."

Carl Tobias, a University of Richmond law professor, echoed that

sentiment, but said there was a flip side.

"It also happens sometimes when you're afraid to put the defendant on

the stand," Mr. Tobias said. "I think it's a fairly bold move because

you're trusting that you made the right call and you've properly read

the jury and they're leaning in your favor."

Mr. McDevitt and his partner, Mark Rush, declined comment on their

announcement, as did Dr. Wecht.

"I look forward to closing," was all Mr. McDevitt would say as he left

the courtroom.

Those closing arguments are scheduled for Monday morning. U.S. District

Court Judge Arthur J. Schwab has given each side 90 minutes to make

their final pitch to jurors.

It is not unheard of in criminal cases for defendants not to take the

stand or even for defense attorneys to not call any witnesses, though

such moves might raise the eyebrows of some jurors.

More witnesses means more chances for prosecutors to cross-examine. And

whether to put the defendant on is a double-edged sword.

"The jury could say, 'If he really didn't do this, why didn't he get on

the witness stand and tell us that,'" said Mr. Levenson, who makes a

practice of trying to keep his clients from testifying.

But, he added, that's better than putting the defendant on and having

the jury say, "I didn't like him or I didn't believe him."

And with a defendant like Dr. Wecht -- intelligent but sarcastic,

genial to some but caustic to others -- some might think the smartest

move would be to keep him from going toe-to-toe with prosecutors.

Throughout the trial, Judge Schwab has instructed witnesses to give

"teaspoon" answers to "teaspoon" questions, meaning witnesses should

not go off on tangents but should stick narrowly to the question. Dr.

Wecht is known for giving gallon-sized answers.

Dr. Wecht is charged with 41 offenses involving wire fraud, mail fraud,

and theft from an organization receiving federal funds, namely

Allegheny County.

Prosecutors allege that while Dr. Wecht was the coroner, he used county

resources -- including his staff, fax machines, phone lines, vehicles

and even unclaimed bodies -- to benefit his private multimillion-dollar

autopsy and consultation business, Cyril H. Wecht and Pathology

Associates.

They also claim he schemed to defraud his private clients by inflating

airfares for which he was reimbursed, fabricated invoices for limousine

rides he never took and billed clients for mileage expenses while he

used a county car and never passed the money on to county coffers.

Prosecutors allege that Dr. Wecht carried out several of those schemes

by using fax transmissions or sending invoices through the U.S. mail.

Should the Wecht defense team have called witnesses to try to address

every alleged instance of a crime? Not necessarily.

"There's not much point in trying to rebut every individual instance if

you're arguing to the jury that what the prosecution has shown has not

demonstrated an overall pattern of abuse," said Duquesne University law

professor Bruce Ledewitz, a friend of Dr. Wecht's for 24 years.

"They're not going to convict on a federal charge because the guy took

home paper clips."

Everyone here seems to want Wecht to be innocent because his "one of us". Fact is from what Ive seen of the evidence the guys as guilty as hell.

A Deo et Rege

Thank you Healy, but I am neither God nor King....just plain Denis, or Pointing to you.

finally... something correct!

Sit down Healy, it'll be your turn soon to get something correct...maybe!! LOL :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will not enter the conundrum regarding Cyril Wecht's presumed guilt or innocence, but I will state that there have been hundred's of cases in United States history as this one .......

Points to ponder; even if a guilty verdict was to be announced, there have been more than a couple of legal cases in the history of American legal jurisprudence, in which the motivation for indicting a person later to be proved innocent was nothing more than revenge and silencing an unwelcome voice..........

In the meantime........It would seem to be in the realm of fact that in the interim period before the trial commenced and today, that CNN and other major news outlets broadcast information regarding high profile criminal cases in which Cyril was interviewed and his knowledge of forensics was, as always carefully weighed by those same media outlets; that is not Standard Operating Procedure for a white-collar professional in which the scuttlebutt going around is that he is guilty of a crime.

One would have to be very naive to think his current legal problem has nothing to do with Dr Wecht's "controversial" position regarding his forensic's analysis of the JFK Assassination, and subsequently, that the government has no personal feeling towards the accused, and this latter aspect outside of the case, so to speak, may even extend beyond the Justice Department; the image of Cyril standing in a dark alley discussing the sale of body parts seems to be the picture that his detractors wish to associate with him.

The JFK Assassination and it's decades long trail of ruined lives of those who went against the grain was, and still is, the biggest single agenda driven topic in mainstream media, and that my friends is the big picture, if you disagree regarding the view expressed maybe you are right, but taking the step of not calling Wecht to the stand, may not be seen after the verdict to be as risky as it seems now.......

We may be reading in the future......

......If that was the case against Cyril Wecht, then "they" didn't have a case.

and that would be truly ironic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pointing, just one more person to ignore here. Ya, guilty as hell for using too many paperclips. Let's give him the needle.

Dawn

I didn't expect that response from you Dawn. As someone I've always liked and respected, I'm really surprised you could react so harshly towards a fellow member merely for holding a differant opinion than yourself. IMO, anyone not looking at the case thru rose colored spectacles can see that there's a lot more going on than "using too many paperclips" but that's only my opinion and I may well be proved wrong. Whats more importaint, at least to me, is your attitude towards me for expressing it. Its a real eye opener Dawn. I dont mind admitting I'm genuenly disappointed. So be it, and so much for free speech, which you and other members are forever advocating here. Guess that only appliers if that free speech mirrors your own. Denis...or as you seem to address me now, Pointing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pointing, just one more person to ignore here. Ya, guilty as hell for using too many paperclips. Let's give him the needle.

Dawn

I didn't expect that response from you Dawn. As someone I've always liked and respected, I'm really surprised you could react so harshly towards a fellow member merely for holding a differant opinion than yourself. IMO, anyone not looking at the case thru rose colored spectacles can see that there's a lot more going on than "using too many paperclips" but that's only my opinion and I may well be proved wrong. Whats more importaint, at least to me, is your attitude towards me for expressing it. Its a real eye opener Dawn. I dont mind admitting I'm genuenly disappointed. So be it, and so much for free speech, which you and other members are forever advocating here. Guess that only appliers if that free speech mirrors your own. Denis...or as you seem to address me now, Pointing.

From your comment about him being guilty it appeared as if you have been followong this trial? No? Yes? So, if you have and you say that he guilty, then I agree with Peter, I'd sure not want you on my jury. That's my view. But I am getting reports ON the trial from a fellow researcher In Lancaster (Jerry Policoff) so I see how absurd, vandictive and downright frightening this is. I did not mean to be harsh to you. Also it's hard to truly judge the evidence without being there. That said the articles I have read have all been bs. THis prosecution is politically motivated and they are trying to destroy the life of a great man. If you can't (won't ) see that then .....you're right to your opinion, just as I am right to mine. They are arguing over pennies here.

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pointing, just one more person to ignore here. Ya, guilty as hell for using too many paperclips. Let's give him the needle.

Dawn

I didn't expect that response from you Dawn. As someone I've always liked and respected, I'm really surprised you could react so harshly towards a fellow member merely for holding a differant opinion than yourself. IMO, anyone not looking at the case thru rose colored spectacles can see that there's a lot more going on than "using too many paperclips" but that's only my opinion and I may well be proved wrong. Whats more importaint, at least to me, is your attitude towards me for expressing it. Its a real eye opener Dawn. I dont mind admitting I'm genuenly disappointed. So be it, and so much for free speech, which you and other members are forever advocating here. Guess that only appliers if that free speech mirrors your own. Denis...or as you seem to address me now, Pointing.

From your comment about him being guilty it appeared as if you have been followong this trial? No? Yes? So, if you have and you say that he guilty, then I agree with Peter, I'd sure not want you on my jury. That's my view. But I am getting reports ON the trial from a fellow researcher In Lancaster (Jerry Policoff) so I see how absurd, vandictive and downright frightening this is. I did not mean to be harsh to you. Also it's hard to truly judge the evidence without being there. That said the articles I have read have all been bs. THis prosecution is politically motivated and they are trying to destroy the life of a great man. If you can't (won't ) see that then .....you're right to your opinion, just as I am right to mine. They are arguing over pennies here.

Dawn

You may well be right in everything you say Dawn, you are definitely 100% correct in saying you have a right to state an opinion, as do I. What I found unnessarily hurtful, and out of character, was the remark: "Pointing, just one more person to ignore here". To suggest I should be ignored because my opinion differs from your own is unwarranted Dawn. And reminiscent of our mutual "friend" Bevilaqua. Denis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pointing, just one more person to ignore here. Ya, guilty as hell for using too many paperclips. Let's give him the needle.

Dawn

I didn't expect that response from you Dawn. As someone I've always liked and respected, I'm really surprised you could react so harshly towards a fellow member merely for holding a differant opinion than yourself. IMO, anyone not looking at the case thru rose colored spectacles can see that there's a lot more going on than "using too many paperclips" but that's only my opinion and I may well be proved wrong. Whats more importaint, at least to me, is your attitude towards me for expressing it. Its a real eye opener Dawn. I dont mind admitting I'm genuenly disappointed. So be it, and so much for free speech, which you and other members are forever advocating here. Guess that only appliers if that free speech mirrors your own. Denis...or as you seem to address me now, Pointing.

From your comment about him being guilty it appeared as if you have been followong this trial? No? Yes? So, if you have and you say that he guilty, then I agree with Peter, I'd sure not want you on my jury. That's my view. But I am getting reports ON the trial from a fellow researcher In Lancaster (Jerry Policoff) so I see how absurd, vandictive and downright frightening this is. I did not mean to be harsh to you. Also it's hard to truly judge the evidence without being there. That said the articles I have read have all been bs. THis prosecution is politically motivated and they are trying to destroy the life of a great man. If you can't (won't ) see that then .....you're right to your opinion, just as I am right to mine. They are arguing over pennies here.

Dawn

You may well be right in everything you say Dawn, you are definitely 100% correct in saying you have a right to state an opinion, as do I. What I found unnessarily hurtful, and out of character, was the remark: "Pointing, just one more person to ignore here". To suggest I should be ignored because my opinion differs from your own is unwarranted Dawn. And reminiscent of our mutual "friend" Bevilaqua. Denis.

Denis,

I didn't ignore you. I asked if you actually paid attention to the trial, and read the transcripts and daily reporter's blog at the Pittsburgh paper's web site?

If you did, then you're opinion carries more weight, as you learned what the jurors and judge learned and could form an opinion based on the evidence.

If you just read web postings about the trial, then your opinion is just an opinion.

We shall soon see which way justice will go.

Bill Kelly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Long Wecht trial heads to jury

Question comes down to honest mistakes or fraud

Sunday, March 16, 2008

By Jonathan D. Silver, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Whether jurors view Dr. Cyril H. Wecht as a brilliant crusader who made

honest mistakes while toiling for the greater good or a corrupt schemer

who shamelessly took advantage of his public office could come down to

a final blaze of lawyerly oratory tomorrow.

After enduring 22 days of testimony in the fraud trial of Allegheny

County's former coroner, the jury will have to sift through a mountain

of evidence to determine whether Dr. Wecht is guilty of breaking

federal law.

But before they're sent to contemplate a verdict, the jurors' final

impressions of Dr. Wecht will be framed by two hours of closing

arguments by each side -- the ultimate opportunity for attorneys to

spin the evidence their way.

"Given that's the last thing they hear, it couldn't be more important,"

said University

of Pittsburgh law professor David A. Harris. "It's like when you spill

a jigsaw puzzle out on a table. The closing gives the lawyers a chance

to bring it all together and to show the jury how it fits."

All the while, the man whose fate hangs in the balance, whose

remarkable and relentless career has spanned decades and continents,

can do the only thing he's done every day for the past seven weeks: Sit

back in a Downtown courtroom and listen.

During the trial, the 76-year-old Dr. Wecht has quietly watched

prosecutors parade former employees, private clients, his corporate

accountant and even his two trusted one-time secretaries before the

jury.

More than one witness hauled in to testify on behalf of the government,

including Sister Grace Ann Geibel, the former president of Carlow,

clearly supported Dr. Wecht. Some witnesses who testified to alleged

wrongdoing -- such as deputy coroners describing personal errands they

were told to run -- even conceded they liked the forensic pathologist

and learned from him.

In contrast to his public persona, which brims with opinions and an

English major's vocabulary, Dr. Wecht's demeanor in the courtroom has

been quiet and reserved. He occasionally chatted with spectators during

breaks or joked with reporters, but by and large, his defining

characteristic in court has been silence.

In this case, Cyril Wecht, M.D., J.D. an accomplished expert witness

paid to talk to juries, had to let others do the talking for him.

Tomorrow will be a day for talking like no other, presumably by lead

defense attorney Jerry McDevitt.

"It's often where a juror will have the 'a-ha moment,' " Drexel

University law professor Brian J. Foley said of the closing argument.

Both sides are expected to circle back to their opening statements in

hammering their points home to jurors one last time and packaging the

information in a coherent way to support their theory of the case.

"There's no better person than McDevitt," Pittsburgh defense attorney

Mark A. Sindler said. "He's a very accomplished trial lawyer. You have

to have a theme throughout the trial. The theme obviously comes to the

jury in the opening statement. You hopefully can carry that theme

throughout the case. If you're true to your promise ... now it has to

be brought full circle in your closing arguments."

While Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen S. Stallings told jurors that the

case against Dr. Wecht is "simple" and boils down to him using county

resources for private gain, Mr. McDevitt wrote the case off to "routine

billing errors" for "petty amounts" by a man so busy helping put

murderers in jail that he merely asked for a hand from his staff to

accomplish all his myriad tasks.

Mr. Stallings and his colleague, Assistant U.S. Attorney James R.

Wilson, employed a document-heavy strategy, displaying hundreds of

pages of invoices, calendar entries, telephone logs, policies and

correspondence.

A mountain of paper

Unlike trials involving violent crime, white-collar cases have a

different focus, noted Robert Ridge, a Pittsburgh defense lawyer and

former U.S. Justice Department trial attorney.

"The question in a street-crime case is always, who did it," Mr. Ridge

said. "In a white-collar case, rarely is there a question of who did it

because there's so much paper in the case. The question in a

white-collar case is, is this a crime?"

Another question is pertinent. Could the onslaught of documentary

evidence over the course of seven weeks harm the prosecution?

"The slower a case comes in there's always more confusion. The more

paper you put out, the more you create a fertile field for confusion,

and confusion usually works for the benefit of the defense. But who

knows?" said Butler attorney Alexander H. Lindsay Jr., a former federal

prosecutor. Juries, he added, are "totally unpredictable."

Dr. Wecht and his team made a tactical decision to not call any

witnesses, gambling that the strength of their cross-examinations of

the prosecution's 44 witnesses and a proclaimed weakness in the

government's case would be enough to sway jurors to a not-guilty

verdict.

For each of the allegations, the defense had an answer, leaving jurors

the task of wrestling with how to interpret the evidence.

It is clear, for instance, that Dr. Wecht knew his secretary was

billing private clients for limousine rides he never took. She

explained it away on the witness stand by saying he told her the $80 to

$90 charges covered incidentals.

Dr. Wecht definitely struck a deal with Carlow to provide cadavers for

a student autopsy program, and he did indeed receive free lab space.

But Sister Geibel, who created the program, said no discussion ever

took place about unclaimed bodies from the county morgue or no quid pro

quo was involved.

Dr. Wecht routinely approved billing private clients for airfare that

was more than he paid. But his secretaries said they routinely

pre-billed clients, never reconciled the bills with Dr. Wecht's credit

card statements and sometimes undercharged.

"The defense is going to try to put the government's effort on trial.

They're going to say that this guy is out there trying to do the public

good ... every day, and he's one of the great things about Pittsburgh.

What could they assemble against him except a bunch of little things?"

Mr. Harris said.

"And then they will try to pick each one apart, to atomize the case and

show it's nothing but a bunch of little, picky technicalities and

inconsequential errors that anybody could make, especially a very busy

person like Dr. Wecht."

Indeed, that's the theory Mr. McDevitt put forth in his opening

statement.

Humanizing the coroner

The defense team worked hard to tell jurors how brilliant Dr. Wecht is,

how important his talents are as an expert witness to help lock up

criminals, how he does volunteer work, how he took time to dictate

letters to students. Mr. McDevitt's partner, Mark Rush, even referred

to Dr. Wecht at times as "this brain."

Mr. McDevitt and Mr. Rush tried to humanize Dr. Wecht, joking with

witnesses about his sweet tooth and how anytime he was in a car with

someone, he would drive. On the first day of trial, Mr. McDevitt

described Dr. Wecht's "relentless work ethic" and claimed he is "the

best bargain Allegheny County ever had."

A key point that will be up to jurors to decide is perhaps the most

important: whether Dr. Wecht, whatever he did, meant to defraud anyone.

One side says yes, the other no.

"The defendant deceitfully defrauded people in order to put money in

his pocket at other people's expense," Mr. Stallings told jurors in his

opening statement.

"He is innocent of having criminal intent of any of the acts [Mr.

Stallings] just told you," Mr. McDevitt said.

U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Schwab will tell the jury that if they

believe Dr. Wecht acted in good faith, it is a "complete defense," at

least on the counts of wire and mail fraud encompassing theft of honest

services.

What the attorneys say during their closing arguments will no doubt

influence deliberations about Dr. Wecht's intentions.

"You must give your jurors the ammunition to use in the jury room," Mr.

Lindsay said. "You must anticipate there are jurors who are against

you, who are going to argue the position of the other side, and you

must therefore give your jurors what to say when this issue comes up."

INSIDE THE WECHT CASE

Sunday, March 16, 2008

The government has charged Dr. Cyril H. Wecht with 41 offenses: theft of

honest services through mail and wire fraud; mail and wire fraud; and theft

from an organization receiving federal funds.

Prosecutors allege that Dr. Wecht used public resources while Allegheny

County coroner to enrich himself. They also accuse him of using faxes and

mailings to defraud private clients.

Below are some of the components of the alleged schemes, the government's

case and the defense's argument.

CADAVERS

Scheme: Dr. Wecht sent Allegheny County cadavers to Carlow University for

student autopsies in violation of state law. Under the agreement, he

received free lab space for his private practice.

Prosecution: Dr. Wecht did not have authority to conduct autopsies when the

cause and manner of death were not in question. He struck a private contract

with Carlow but used bodies at the coroner's office -- "wards"

of the county, in one official's words -- to fulfill his obligation while

enjoying rent-free space.

Defense: Carlow's former president, who made the deal with Dr. Wecht,

testified that no body-trading agreement was ever made or discussed and said

she was "beside herself" to learn of the charges.

LIMOUSINES

Scheme: Dr. Wecht bilked private clients by billing them for $80 and $90

round-trip limousine rides he never took.

Prosecution: Dr. Wecht drove himself to the airport and coroner's office

employees would drive his county car back to Pittsburgh.

Secretaries used fake receipts and disguised their handwriting to make it

look like both portions of a round-trip invoice were filled out on different

days when, in fact, they were completed at the same time.

Defense: Dr. Wecht's former top administrative assistant at the coroner's

office testified that she and her predecessor were responsible for the

disguised handwriting and that Dr. Wecht had no idea of what they were

doing. She said he explained that the limousine fee covered various

"incidental" expenses incurred while traveling.

AIRFARE

Scheme: Dr. Wecht regularly overcharged and sent private clients bills

for airfare.

Prosecution: The bills were sent on invoices from a defunct travel

agency that included a stamp that said "paid" and initials. The agency

did not issue the invoices and had nothing to do with their use.

Defense: Dr. Wecht's secretaries, who handled the billing, would

routinely send clients invoices based on quotes of plane ticket prices

and did not reconcile bills with the actual expenses. Some plane

tickets were charged for the right amount or less.

WECHT DETAILS

Scheme: Coroner's office employees would daily be asked to run any

number of personal errands for Dr. Wecht.

Prosecution: Numerous witness testified about the errands and some said

they feared retaliation if they disobeyed. Deputy coroner John J. Smith

said Dr. Wecht paid him $2 for one detail.

Defense: Lead defense attorney Jerry McDevitt characterized the errands

as "favors." The government stipulated that errands run to the Cyril H.

Wecht Institute of Forensic Science and Law at Duquesne University were

not part of the scheme, and former Chief Deputy Coroner Joseph Dominick

said that would drastically reduce the number of Wecht details.

PRIVATE WORK

Scheme:Dr. Wecht operated a "substantial" portion of his private

business, Cyril H. Wecht and Pathology Associates using county

resources.

Prosecution: County secretaries testified to handling bookkeeping,

billing, correspondence and client intake for Dr. Wecht while at the

coroner's office during the workday. They used county fax machines and

computer equipment to help Dr. Wecht earn tens of thousands of dollars.

"Defendant is not innocent of theft of honest services because one of

the interstate wire transmissions sent in furtherance of the scheme

didn't take long or cost much to send," the government wrote in a

filing.

Defense: Dr. Wecht's secretaries always completed their county duties.

One, Eileen Young, testified that she worked nights and weekends,

bought her own stamps and paper, and used a computer provided by Dr.

Wecht. The faxes sent cost the county $3.96.

.AOLWebSuite .AOLPicturesFullSizeLink { height: 1px; width: 1px; overflow: hidden; }

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The same prosecutorial misconduct behind Wecht [read politicial] is behind Spitzer and MANY others. The Judge in Wecht's case is a right-wing one and has refused this to be entered into the proceedings - to my mind very unfairly...but what else is new in American Jurisprudence these days. I don't want to divert the thread, but look here at the Bush Judicial in yet another attack. Hardly a person on earth if closely watched can't be found to do something in private that is a minor picadillo...but hardly a real crime....and to not go after the REAL criminals is telling!

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=120673

I know Cryil and have been in his office and seen him work. He works like a fiend - hard. This nation has lost all perspective, balance and sense of fairness. Let's clean-up the real criminals in the Beltway and in the Judicial Prosecutors Offices. We'll get around to the petty crimes much after. All of the persecutions are political....

Absolutely. Read the Plast article posted by Nathaniel on the Political Conspiracies section of this forum: Spitzer HIt + 200Billion Dollar Bank Bailout. Read it and weap. (And ask why would this man put himself in this situation? Another Gary Hart!)

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...