Investigators: Thomas' phone, DNA linked to scene

Mar. 15—SOMERSET, Pa. — Prosecutors rested their case Tuesday against suspended Somerset County District Attorney Jeffrey Thomas after state police investigators said they linked his cellphone and DNA to the crime scene.

And a day earlier, a prominent psychologist with decades of experience counseling sex abuse victims offered testimony to debunk what she called "myths" about how long it often takes sex abuse victims to report crimes committed against them.

Two state Office of Attorney General prosecutors wrapped up their five-day presentation in time to give defense attorneys a chance to begin making their case, which included calling on Thomas' wife, Amy, who is expected to continue her testimony Wednesday.

DNA evidence

One forensic analyst testified Tuesday that a sample found on Jeffrey Thomas' accuser's waistband matched his DNA.

But no traces were verified on a water bong the woman said Thomas used moments prior to the alleged assault, state police Bureau of Forensic Services investigator Breanna Brown told defense attorneys under cross-examination.

Brown, who said she has analyzed approximately 1,500 specimens as a state police investigator, said she found DNA traces from both Thomas and the woman on a sample from inside the waistband of her shorts.

The Windber woman who reported the alleged crime to police in 2021, previously testified this week that the shorts were pulled down to her ankles while she was being assaulted.

She also testified that she showered in the shorts after she was assaulted while she was in a traumatized state.

Brown said there's a likelihood more DNA could have been washed away.

Regarding the water bong — a black plastic smoking pipe — she said evidence of three separate DNA "contributors," or individuals, was found, but there wasn't enough DNA present to meet state police standards necessary to compare it with Thomas' DNA.

One of those contributors was determined to be the woman, who has testified she smokes "habitually" for medical purposes.

"So there was no evidence from Jeff Thomas on the bong, correct?" defense attorney Eric Jackson Lurie asked Brown.

"Yes," she responded.

Lurie and fellow defense attorney Ryan Tutera have pointed to a lack of evidence to connect Thomas to testimony about him using marijuana that night as an indication the accuser's broader claims are inaccurate.

A urine test also did not show Thomas had evidence of cannabis in his system.

Retired state police Cpl. Matthew Auker, who led the 2021 investigation, said the sexual assault — not marijuana — was the focus of their case.

And he told Chief Deputy Attorney General Patrick Schulte there was no way to tell whether Thomas inhaled the substance the woman testified she watched him "smoke" that night.

Phones analyzed

Thomas Klawinski, a computer forensics examiner for the state police, said he extracted data from two of Thomas' phones, as well as his accuser's, to analyze.

That included text messages and other communications introduced as evidence, as well as separate data he was able to load into an FBI mapping program to show Thomas' whereabouts on Sept. 18 and 19, 2021.

It showed Thomas took the phone to the area around the woman's home before 12:30 a.m. and that the phone had a more than 30-minute period of inactivity that fits within the window of time in which prosecutors said the crime occurred.

The data also showed Thomas' phone traveled from the home around 1 a.m. and was taken to his parents' home, Klawinski said.

Lurie asked the investigator if he was also able to find evidence of Snapchat messages, referring to an application that deletes messages after they are read by the recipient.

Klawinski said authorities filed a "preservation letter" directing the social media company to save any of that information dating back a week prior to the alleged incident, as well as documents to obtain any information.

But Snapchat responds in every case that they "don't store" or "save" anything long enough to retrieve messages from prior time periods — and their answer was the same in the Thomas case, he said.

Snapchat users, such as Thomas and the woman, would have had the opportunity to save their own messages by adjusting their application settings or copying the images, Klawinski said.

Victims expert

On Monday, friends of Thomas' accuser testified about "awkward" visits to the woman's home by Thomas in the months prior to the assault, saying he was not invited.

One one occasion, the woman stopped him at the door to prevent him from walking in, one testified.

Thomas' attorneys asked them why they didn't contact police — particularly during the two days after the sexual assault allegedly occurred.

Two of the friends responded the woman indicated she was not ready or had it under control.

Thomas' accuser, a Windber mother of one child, testified over the past week that Thomas' role as chief law enforcement officer in her home county was among the reasons she didn't contact authorities sooner about her concerns or the assault.

Licensed psychologist Veronique Valliere testified that despite "myths," there's no set timeline for how quickly victims of sexual assault react to and report crimes against them.

"A lot of times, we think victims should act a certain way," Valliere said, adding that factors around the incident often create obstacles to reporting it. And most times, that includes waiting — "even years" — to turn to police, she added.

"Having a known perpetrator complicates things even more," she said, noting that a family member or acquaintance often has more "influence" over a sexual assault victim — even more so if it's someone in a powerful position.

Valliere, of Allentown, was not hired to review and testify about the specifics of the case against Thomas. Instead, she was qualified as a victim response expert who has counseled thousands of victims and perpetrators and has written books on the topic.

During a career of more than 20 years, she has testified in cases across the U.S., including Bill Cosby's 2017 sexual assault trial in Montgomery County.

Valliere used examples of cases involving politicians, priests and public figures, such as former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky, to describe how people in "powerful" positions have used their influence to discourage people from sharing their stories.

"In those cases ... people may be afraid to step forward," she said.

'Healing process'

Thomas' defense team pointed out that Valliere did not review the woman's allegations to offer her testimony, saying she was speaking only in "general terms." Lurie noted that the well-known psychologist was paid $1,700 to offer her expertise.

But Valliere said her decades of experience in the field have shown that "there's no one way to respond to trauma" and that, almost every time, men or women who speak out about being assaulted are telling the truth.

Thomas' accuser, who said she met Thomas through her job at a car dealership, spent parts of four straight days on the witness stand recalling her actions before, during and after the alleged assault. She showed disdain for Thomas and frustration — even fiery responses — toward his defense attorneys' methodical questions.

Valliere told prosecutors that anger is often "an overriding emotion" displayed by assault victims, and given that many often blame themselves or try to pretend the assault never happened, "anger is what we want victims to (exhibit)," she said.

"We want them to get to the point where they hate their perpetrator," she said, describing it as a healthy emotion in the healing process.

'Angry' about 'texts'

Defense attorneys have suggested the woman may have had other feelings about Thomas.

They called on Thomas' wife, Amy Thomas, who said she started becoming suspicious about the pair after spotting a text message exchange in June or July of 2020.

Amy Thomas said she asked both about it. After thinking the issue was behind her, a comment by the woman when Amy and Jeffrey Thomas were picking up their SUV from getting serviced prompted her to peek into his cellphone for signs of ongoing communication, she added.

She said she found found multiple images of the woman wearing a Somerset County Bureau of Investigation hat, which the latter admitted in court that 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.

During cross-examination, Amy Thomas said she did not have proof of the images, saying she deleted them from Thomas' phone and confronted him again.

She said their relationship was already in a bad place at the time. Amy Thomas testified their relationship became strained months earlier after housework and child care fell on Jeffrey Thomas because Amy Thomas had been spending her weekends in Pittsburgh with her mother, who was dying of the neurological disease amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).

She said she went into a bout of depression after her mother's death and resisted the idea of couple's counseling.

They also lived separately at times, which is when Jeffrey Thomas started suggesting he wanted to see other people.

She said Jeffrey Thomas' accuser told her there was "nothing you can do" to stop her from seeing her husband — a conversation Thomas' accuser has denied occurred.

Amy Thomas said she placed a tracker on her husband's truck and monitored his phone.

"I felt something else was going on," she said.

During cross-examination, Senior Deputy Attorney General Tomm Mutschler noted that Amy Thomas tracked her husband to the restaurant where he was being secretly recorded speaking with his accuser.

And after Thomas' wife set his eyes on the woman, it wasn't who she expected, Mutschler said.

Amy Thomas acknowledged she told police in an interview that day the woman wasn't on her "radar" in terms of women she expected her husband was having an affair with.

Mutschler asked if she suspected two other women — one a former county court employee — and she responded that was accurate.

Amy Thomas also gave some testimony about the night of the alleged sexual assault, saying she spent the night with her husband after he came home a bit after 1 a.m. Sept 19, 2021.

That testimony caused prosecutors to bring up a court order in place at the time that prevented the Thomas couple from having contact with one another — a matter stemming from a reported domestic incident a week earlier.

Debate from both sides' attorneys prompted Cambria County Senior Judge Timothy Creany to adjourn the trial for the evening to listen to argument.

Prosecutors argued that Amy Thomas' testimony showed that she's willing to disregard laws she's supposed to obey and that her explanation about why she wasn't spending time with her husband earlier in the week wasn't truthful.

Defense attorneys viewed it differently, saying the incident was "prejudicial."

Tutera said the court should instruct the jury about the case's background in simple terms — as he did a day earlier about a friend of the accuser currently charged with scamming truck companies in an unrelated case — and move on.

Creany said he will consider the arguments and make a decision Wednesday.