Deprecated: mb_convert_encoding(): Handling HTML entities via mbstring is deprecated; use htmlspecialchars, htmlentities, or mb_encode_numericentity/mb_decode_numericentity instead in /var/www/html/wp-content/plugins/super-cool-ad-inserter/inc/scaip-shortcode-inserter.php on line 37
Why did U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan indict former Allegheny County Coroner Cyril Wecht? Was it because, as former Pennsylvania governor and U.S. Attorney General Dick Thornburgh implies, she was trying to indict Democrats to curry favor with her former boss, Alberto Gonzales? Was it because, as the Grant Street rumor mill will have you believe, Allegheny County District Attorney Steve Zappala was angry that Cyril wouldn’t stop meddling in murder investigations by conducting official coroner inquiries?
This rumor would have you believe that Steve walked into Mary Beth’s office and said, “I’m sick of this guy but I don’t want to look petty, so why don’t you do the dirty work?” And she was all like, “An indicted Democrat on a silver platter? You rock, dude.” Or some much more formal dialogue approximating that.
What was the real reason Mary Beth indicted the good Dr. Wecht? Beats me. But I do think the case is a gigantic waste of time.
When he was serving as coroner, Wecht had a public and a private medical practice; he’s now accused of using his public staff and resources for private gain. The charges include theft of services, mail fraud and wire fraud. It’s also alleged he made a deal with Carlow University, telling the school he’d give it cadavers for medical students to work on, if they’d give him lab space. And he’s accused of using a taxpayer-funded fax machine to fax items for his private business. The democracy is crumbling!
As one prominent local legal eagle put it, “We’ve got people trying to blow up buildings. We’re going to nail Dr. Wecht for misusing a fax machine.”
On Oct. 23, Thornburgh was called before the House Judiciary Committee, currently run by Democrats, investigating allegations that Gonzales went a bit Gonzo and instructed his minions to hit the opposition party, and hit it hard. I believe Thornburgh’s spin that Mary Beth is grasping at straws.
Mind you, Thornburgh is a member of Wecht’s defense team. So you can argue that his testimony was more than a bit self-serving for everyone involved. The Democrats got to highlight charges that Gonzo was playing politics with the Justice Department, while Thornburgh got to air the claims of Wecht’s defense team in a high-profile venue.
But Thornburgh is 75 years old, with a distinguished track record and little left to prove. And I believe he is shooting straight when he refers to the charges against Wecht as “nickel-and-dime transgressions” which Buchanan wants “to be converted into federal felony charges.”
“How many people would go to jail for using a government fax machine for personal use?” asks WQED legal analyst Heather Heidelbaugh, herself a Republican activist. She acknowledges it may appear self-serving for Thornburgh to defend Wecht before a congressional committee. On the other hand, she says that as a defense attorney in the case, privy to all the pertinent facts, and as a former U.S. attorney general, Thornburgh’s testimony deserves attention. “Who else could go before the Congress, have the facts, and be listened to?”
Democrats touted a study by a communications professor from the University of Missouri, which showed that under the Bush administration, 80 percent of the prosecutions of elected officials have targeted Democrats. “The numbers don’t lie,” said professor Donald Shields. “There is political bias.”
No shit, Sherlock. Everybody fires U.S. attorneys when there’s a new president. Only the Bushies fire them mid-course, because some of the people they put into place weren’t going after enough Democrats.
Buchanan went after Allegheny County Sheriff Pete DeFazio for pressuring employees to buy fund-raising tickets. That was a legitimate case. But she also went after former Mayor Tom Murphy for allegedly bribing firefighters with a new contract in exchange for the union endorsement. She didn’t have dick. And she didn’t get a conviction, just some weasely agreement in which Murphy promised never to be a bad boy again.
That indicates to me a propensity for grasping at straws. The fax-machine crime of the century would be a further indication. But then, I’ve never gotten over the ludicrous prosecution of Tommy Chong for Internet bong sales. It’s become a stale joke: Mary Beth’s having a party — and we’re all indicted.
This article appears in Nov 1-7, 2007.
Dear Mr. McIntire,
Thank you for being willing to say what others are only thinking. Personally, I do not believe Ms. Buchanan targeted Dr. Wecht for political purposes. In my humble opinion, I feel Ms. Buchanan targeted Dr. Wecht for the headlines and publicity it would grant her. In the past, Ms. Buchanan haas taken on similar cases that lack real substance. You mentioned the Tommy Chong case.
I would also point you over to the Dr. Bernard L. Rottschaefer case. In this federal lawsuit (which many have called an illegal and unethical witch hunt) Ms. Buchanan utilized her position to slander Dr. Rottschaefer in the media through claiming a sex for drugs arrangement was happening in the good doctor’s office. Then in the court appeal proceedings, Ms. Buchanan argued sex had nothing to do with the verdict and Dr. Rottschaefer was guilty for prescribing medications for no legitimate medical reason. This claim of no legitimate reason rested on the testimony of five individuals who claimed they did not have the ailments Dr. Rottschaefer claimed he was treating.
Since the criminal trial, evidence surfaced that all five patients lied under oath in the court of law. Contrary to the accusations of the prosecution, it appears all five patients were still being treated (by other physicians) for the ailments they claimed did not exist during the time of Dr. Rottschaefer’s trial. The major difference in the treatment plans is that the new physicians were upping the dosages of the alleged illegal medications.
Now of course this evidence would have been beneficial to the defense, yet for some reason it never reached them. The patients obviously did not release the medical records due to the impact at the trial and for some reason neither the prosecution or investigators came across this information in their investigative process. I’m sure there is no other explanation such as the potential that Ms. Buchanan’s staff deliberately mislead the court and withheld evidence from the defense team, but then I think of this additional point.
The fact that all five patient witnesses were coerced and bribe with plea deals from Ms. Buchanan’s office. Two individuals were given probation for multiple drug sales after Dr. Rottschaefer’s trial. These two patients were also released from state jail due to their testimony and the orders signed by Ms. Buchanan. On the witness stand, these individuals said that there were no deals with the prosecution’s office or the prosecutor in Dr. Rottschaefer’s case. After trial though, private correspondences surfaced that detailed there were deals in place executed by the Assistant US Attorney assigned to Dr. Rottschaefer’s case.
Oh, and guess what, these individuals are still breaking the law today, but for some reason, Ms. Buchanan’s office has chosen not to revoke their probation agreements. Fishy eh??
As for the other individuals, one was not prosecuted for attempted vehicular manslaughter and operating a drug ring. Another was granted a pass on murder. Yes, that’s right her actions resulted in someone else’s death, but the feds chose not to prosecute.
All in all, the case now appears to stink. Just another example of Mary Mary running after headlines prior to getting a handle around the facts. To bad, it appears Mary Beth Buchanan utilized the public resources at her command to frame an innocent individual. Wonder if this is a more appropriate case for review of misuse of public resources? Guess we will never know since Mary Beth will probably never recuse herself from the case and grant an impartial review.