OK, it was standard stuff. Wecht was there with one of his lawyers: I didn't commit any crimes, my lawyers' creds are vast and impressive, I'm innocent, hurt, and look forward to the trial, etc. A couple of talking heads...Mark Geragos, puke that he is. But if you find that boring...then we always have the swampsters to entertain, right? hehehe Here is what jams had to say about Wecht's indictment last month...and I don't need to point out the HYPOCRISY...of PUBLICLY LYNCHING WECHT WITHOUT A TRAIL...NO INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY HERE! :floor: No problem convicting Wecht in the court of public opinion at the swamp, is there? Hey, even HoraceShills can start lies about sex abuse of corpses...well, the Shills/Salisbury is OBSESSED with sex abuse, isn't he? Wonder if the Krebbies will be posting like mad about how Wecht was in California in 1970 and part of John Ramsey's money-laundering child sex ring? Oh, they HATE anyone who doesn't drink the coolaide, don't they?
How right you are KoldKase. I feel that a lot of this crap with Wecht is political. Only Democrat in Pennsylvania. About the only one anyway. I have a feeling Dr. Wecht does not take crap from anyone and has made a few enemies along the way. Personally, the guy is professional and easy to work with as far as I can say. Hard working and a good guy all around.
After all these years, KK, when will you ever learn that the great laws of the USA ONLY apply to the Ramseys.? Every other citizen is fair game, especially those who speak ill of the Ramseys. In those cases, public opinion at the BB is the only one that really counts! I think the Kool-aid is nowhere near strong enough there!
Look, they hate Cyril Wecht with a passion because he had the unmitigated audacity to speak out against the Ramseys, based on his years of experience, not to mention his credentials as an expert in forensic science. I always get tickled when a layperson pretends to know so much more than the experts. Is there one expert in this case that the Double BBers (sounds like a bra size) haven't tried to discredit? I guess they are all experts on that forum, hahahaha. Wecht's charges are politically motivated, I have no doubt. It's the sic the IRS on the enemy trick - any piddly charge one can come up with to try to discredit someone will do. When they can show me that Wecht falsified an autopsy report or lied about a case, then I will believe he did something wrong. What he is alleged to have done, if true, doesn't amount to a hill of beans, and I doubt many politicians could take much poking and prodding into their own use of public servants and public-owned equipment without having the same kinds of charges brought against them. In fact, I know it - it happens all the time. The only ones I've seen who think Wecht is a criminal are the totally biased dumbducks at the swamp. What else would one expect from a Rambot?
Could be that the leader of the BB isn't as commanding a presence nor is she as convincing as Jim Jones either to get her followers to partake. Why her second in command went from the BB to the B...Hmmm...a bit of lost faith there.
Looks like he may be guilty of some unintentional sloppy bookkeeping maybe. I mean, it almost sounds like that's admitted. His attorney said he was willing to have it checked out and pay any debts.
Yeah, what's WEIRD is this trading unclaimed bodies for lab space charge. Medical schools have ALWAYS used unclaimed and donated bodies for training of students. What do they want? Practice on LIVE SUBJECTS? Or just go into your first surgery with no experience? Good luck, patient! And if it's an autopsy, criminals would be happy to know that all mistakes made are compliments of ROOKIES who've never had any hands on work before an official autopsy. But the prosecutor made it sound like Wecht was illegally taking unclaimed bodies from the morgue and trading them for school lab space FOR HIS OWN PRIVATE BUSINESS USE. If so, if that's illegal, then Wecht will have to answer for it. I don't know how that might be separated from Wecht training future MEs, who would be gaining from his vast experience, at any rate. My guess is it's a fuzzy line that has been crossed many times by many in professional forensics. I'm going to leave it to the prosecutor to prove, because I really don't know the laws involved. Those "bodies for space" charges, BTW, are only alleged to have taken place from 2003 until 2005. Wecht said he hasn't done an autopsy in that lab during that time at the school, I believe I remember. (I probably should double check with the transcript, so if I'm wrong, please tell me and thanks.) But let me say this: if nobody claimed those bodies, and they were used for the greater good of society and then given a "proper burial," I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. We all benefit from just such scientific research every day of our lives. Maybe if Dr. Meyer had better training long ago, he would have been able to do a better autopsy himself. Like taking skin samples of the bruising on JonBenet, which would have proven conclusively if she'd been stun gunned or not. Seems important now, doesn't it?
You are quite correct JC. It is an admission : A very strange “defense†to go on national tv, admit guilt and simultaneously seek a plea bargain. Oh, well, Wecht will have grounds for appeal: incompetent representation.
From what I read it was unintentional if it was done. Unlike some itsybitsy skanky businesses. Wecht continues to have a good reputation, yes?
Intentional or unintentional, consciously premeditated or careless disregard is a moot point. Infraction of the law is the issue. Going by the terms and tones in the transcript, lawyer and Wecht, infraction is admitted. That which is admitted tends to convince of infractions not admitted. In other words, Wecht is in deep do do and poorly represented. (And I do mean poorly! Thornburgh is a real dunce.) As for reputation, that depends on who you ask. Personally, until I see a reputation consistently evidenced, the reputation of an “expert†doesn’t mean a thing to me. For instance, I watched on tv the renowned Henry Lee testify for the defense in a murder trial. He testified that the wounds could have come from a fall down the stars as the Defendant claimed. Given the number and nature of the wounds per location and type, Dr. Lee’s testimony was totally absurd. The jury saw it this way as well. They wisely disregarded Lee’s nonsense and convicted the murderous turkey. Reputation? Lee showed by this testimony that he is an incompetent boob, or else is for sale. Either way, the description of Lee is untrustworthy, hence, unreliable. Trust is the sine qua non in “expert testimony.†When that is gone, there is nothing but guess which any layperson can do. As far as I’m concerned, Lee blew it big time. In my book, unreliable is his reputation. Wecht? Wecht, like many other “experts†revolving around the Ramsey case seems to hold the idea that expert in one area makes him expert in all areas; hence, interjected fallacy rather than investigate into areas he didn’t understand. His idea that JonBenet’s death was an accident during a “sex game†is nonsense. If Wecht pretends knowledge here, how am I to trust what he says elsewhere about other areas of the case? I don’t. I know there are many who are Wecht fans, but never in my life have I let personal preference and\popularity keep me from voicing the truth as I see it. I’m too dammed old to start now. The way I see it in this case is that Wecht by his failure to investigate with consequent ignorance and pretense served the cause of the Ramseys while many believe otherwise. What really burns me is that he had the name and fame to get attention on the evidence, but took off on some cockamamie sex game theory instead of investigating and understanding the truth about the “garrote scene.†No way will anyone every convince a jury of a sex game gone awry. On the other hand, laying out a case for accident and coverup would be a cakewalk. Wecht’s “expetise†is just one more barrier to the truth.