Defense calls on pathologist, neighbor in effort to raise doubt in Thomas assault case

Mar. 16—SOMERSET, Pa. — Defense attorneys for suspended Somerset County District Attorney Jeffrey Thomas raised questions in court Wednesday about his accuser's story.

A prominent forensic pathologist offered supporting testimony, too, saying he didn't see evidence of the facial bruising or neck injuries state police reported.

It was part of a day in court that saw jurors view Pennsylvania State Police interviews with the woman recorded days after the alleged 2021 attack — and statements from a Windber neighbor who said she didn't hear anything unusual from the woman's apartment that night.

Wecht: No evidence

Longtime forensic pathologist Dr. Cyril Wecht, who spent decades in the role for Allegheny County, addressed jurors in court via the web-conferencing application Zoom after reviewing photos, police reports and medical records submitted by Thomas' defense team.

Just like a prosecution expert who spoke Monday, he was paid for his testimony — in Wecht's case, $5,000 to review the case and approximately $3,000 for conferences and testimony, he estimated in court.

Wecht, who said he has performed 21,000 autopsies to determine the cause and manner of deaths and assisted or reviewed another 45,000 during his career, said he noticed a "slight discoloration" alongside the woman's left eye.

But he said it didn't appear to match an injury sustained by someone who was punched in the face and, based on the photos he reviewed, he saw no evidence of injuries to her neck, chest or breasts.

"(The eye injury) could be from a passing finger" or something else without significant force, he said, noting that he would expect to see more obvious injuries from a man of Thomas' build.

Senior Deputy Attorney General Tomm Mutschler asked Wecht where he was basing the point of impact on that strike to make his determination, suggesting he had a different opinion.

He also noted Wecht did not interview the woman, see her injuries firsthand — or ever professionally examine any living person's injuries in his profession.

The 92-year-old pathologist acknowledged that, too. But he took issue with the notion he wasn't qualified to render an expert opinion on bruises, saying "bruising is our specialty" in his field.

'Blew it off'

Earlier Wednesday, a neighbor who lives on the opposite side of their duplex testified she didn't hear anything the night of the alleged attack.

Christina Silpa said it wasn't unusual to hear sounds from the woman and her child next door.

But she said she was likely sleeping around midnight the morning of Sept. 19 and didn't hear anything unusual.

She said the woman told her she was attacked the next day, but she "kinda blew it off" because she didn't notice injuries on her.

Under cross-examination, Senior Deputy Attorney General Patrick Schulte suggested Silpa changed her story.

Schulte said he visited Silpa after the assault investigation began, and Silpa told him she wasn't even sure if she was home that night.

Silpa said she didn't recall speaking to Schulte at any point in her home.

"I was wearing a black jacket ... I was in your living room," Schulte said, raising his voice.

"You're telling me you don't remember seeing me before?"

Silpa repeated that she didn't recall before the repetitive conversation was stopped by a defense objection.

Interview video screened

State police filed eight sex-related criminal charges against Thomas on Sept 22, 2021, accusing him of strangling, striking and sexually assaulting the woman in her apartment.

Defense attorneys Ryan Tutera and Eric Jackson Lurie have focused part of their time raising questions about the extent of those injuries.

At the defense' request, jurors watched an excerpt of the woman's recorded 2021 interviews with state police, where she testified Thomas likely meant to "slap" her when he hit her in the nose.

The woman later described Thomas using a closed hand, and the videos — later showed in their entirety — also revealed more emotional moments — with the woman at one point crying as she described her top being stripped off and parts of her body being "bitten."

During one point in the courtroom, Thomas leaned forward with his glasses removed, lowered his head and wiped his eyes in court, while jurors' eyes were fixed on the television screen.

Wife speaks; testimony debated

Thomas' wife, Amy, was in court for a second day Wednesday and testified about more concerns she had about the woman prior to September 2021.

She said she used her husband's Snapchat log-in information to download data that indicated they exchanged several hundred texts or images over a six-week period in 2020, a point she confronted them about concerns they were having a relationship and was assured otherwise.

Amy Thomas acknowledged the raw data didn't show the contents of the texts or images — or dismiss the possibility those images might have been related to a vehicle purchase Thomas spoke with the woman about.

A day earlier, Thomas' wife separately testified to viewing multiple images of the woman wearing a Somerset County Bureau of Investigation hat, which the latter admitted in court Thomas dropped off at her dealership.

Another image, according to Amy Thomas, was provocative and almost nude, while a separate message referenced "sex," she said. The accuser has testified she has never sent Thomas "dirty" photographs.

Amy Thomas said she had no proof of the images because she deleted them from his phone after viewing them in 2021.

At several points, prosecutors sought to raise doubt about her testimony.

They noted Amy Thomas' statements about being suspicious of the woman conflicted with an interview given to police in September 2021, where she said she suspected two different women of having affairs with her husband.

Separately, court-appointed Cambria County Senior Judge Timothy Creany also instructed jurors that they could consider certain statements Tuesday by Amy Thomas when they evaluate her credibility.

Amy Thomas testified she slept with Jeffrey Thomas in Windber in the hours after the alleged assault timeframe and said she went to Pittsburgh with him for a night the day prior — acts that she didn't acknowledge were bond violations.

A week prior to the alleged 2021 assault, Amy Thomas was charged by Windber police in a domestic incident involving Thomas.

On the witness stand Tuesday, she testified the pair had been spending time apart for other reasons that week.

After she described the bond as temporary, saying her husband hoped to drop the charges, Mutschler fired back.

"Because you are the wife of the district attorney, do you get special privileges to ignore a court order ... ?" he asked.

After being directed to respond, Thomas said she did not.

Defense attorneys suggested they could rest their case Thursday.

But before the trial's sixth day of court ended, Tutera said he was still discussing with Jeff Thomas about his Fifth Amendment rights.

Attorneys have previously suggested in court Thomas would testify, but he has no obligation whatsoever to do so.

The U.S. Constitution protects the accused from providing testimony that could incriminate them — and jurors are instructed in U.S. courts that a decision against taking the witness stand must not be used against them.

Two friends of Thomas did offer support in court.

One of them, Stoystown councilman and United Methodist pastor Richard Alan Pearson Jr., said he met Thomas when both were campaigning and that his "law-and-order stance" excited his congregation.

Another, Windber resident Michael Steele, said he has known Thomas' family for decades and that he helped guide Thomas to the military years ago — before Thomas pursued his legal career.

He said the Windber community was proud of Thomas for "what he was doing" prosecuting drug dealers.

Thomas has been accused of smoking marijuana in his accuser's residence the night of their alleged encounter, although a urine test administered three days later did not indicate the presence of the drug, state police have testified.

Thomas does not face any drug charges in the case.

But character witnesses — in this case, Pearson and Steele — are permitted by law to offer opinions about a defendant's reputation in their community on a defendant's behalf.