Lack of physical evidence could hinder doctor's prosecution, attorneys say
Pittsburgh police quoted 10 unnamed witnesses in laying out their evidence linking UPMC Dr. Robert J. Ferrante to the cyanide poisoning death of his wife, Dr. Autumn Klein.
Attorneys who are not involved in the case noted that none of those witnesses says he or she actually saw a crime occur.
“It's an absolutely, totally circumstantial case,” said Patrick Thomassey, who has defended clients in some of Allegheny County's highest-profile murder cases. “I'm not so sure that the case gets to a jury.”
The police affidavit includes descriptions of Ferrante's behavior and his purchase of cyanide.
“So what? That doesn't say he did anything,” Thomassey responded. “A jury is going to be very reluctant to convict a person of that stature.”
Defense attorney Frank Walker noted that prosecutors sometimes hold back evidence at this stage and might have more.
“With what I've heard, I'd attack the lack of physical evidence,” he said.
Walker said Ferrante's defense strategy likely will focus on trying to determine the identity of the witnesses.
“Who are they? Do they themselves have any motive?” he said. “In these husband-wife cases, the surviving spouse is always the first suspect.”
Thomassey said the defense should play up Ferrante's position in the community, his education and intelligence.
“Is a guy who's this successful going to stoop this low and be this dumb to ruin his life and career over something like this?” Thomassey asked. “It's baffling. There's so many easier ways to have someone killed.
“It does not sound like a strong case.”
David Conti is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-388-5802 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
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 â 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.