Share This Page

Two drug ring suspects used Facebook to threaten witnesses, prosecutors say

| Tuesday, July 23, 2013, 5:45 p.m.

Two people connected to a prescription drug ring that repeatedly broke into a Beaver County pharmacy used Facebook to threaten two of the witnesses in the case, prosecutors say.

A federal grand jury on July 16 charged Natalie Moskorisin, 23, of Ambridge and Wesley Weaver, 23, of Robinson with witness intimidation. The indictment was unsealed Tuesday.

The pair used David Best's Facebook account to send two messages containing a racist phrase and the words, “Bang Bang” to the witnesses, prosecutors say.

Federal agents arrested Best, 27, of Robinson on May 31 and charged him with masterminding and participating in at least two of three thefts in which thieves cut holes through the walls of adjoining businesses to gain access to drugs in the Med-Fast Pharmacy in the Northern Lights Shopping Center in Baden.

Best and six others are charged in a separate July 16 indictment of operating an oxycodone and Opana ring in Allegheny and Beaver counties between December 2011 and May 2013. The counts include drug, gun and burglary charges.

The other defendants include Matthew Moody, 24, of Baden, Jade Gagianas, 28, of Freedom, Katie Adams, 27, of Ambridge, Andrew Brown, 23, of Eighty Four, Ryan Raithel, 33, of McCandless and Carlos Martinez, 26, of Ambridge.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.